In this blog I’m trying to cover some complex issues in simpler ways. When I mention the stakeholder issue, it is important to recognize that when it come to this planet we are ALL stakeholders because every environmental ‘insult’ will eventually affect everyone and everything on the planet. Trying to parse out one group from another is somewhat actually ridiculous. Whether we live adjacent to each other or half a planet away, we are all community to one degree or another. When businesses talk about shareholders, they are talking about the specific investors in that business. And as I have mentioned before, the ethics that guide businesses are very simple – businesses are obligated to maximize profit for shareholders and investors. It’s not that they all become immoral people but most do seem blind to the what the military call collateral damage of their highly focused actions in the pursuit of profit. Besides business people having this focus, I look at the various governmental policies that promote business as the savior of humanity. As a researcher studying beliefs and worldviews, I was always curious as to why business people – at least in the larger businesses supported by traded stocks and shares – seem willing to harm the environment and people to satisfy their shareholders requirements for maximum return on investments.
Obviously, there is a core belief that money is somehow the base of all progress and even happiness. There is plenty of research to show that this is blatantly false. But the mythology persists anyway. Since most worldviews hinge on the kind of mythology that were a part of one’s conditioning, I have looked at what myths drive the common worldviews about profit and standard of living. While highly simplified here, I consider two stories (conditioning narratives) that seem prevalent to what I am discussing here. The middle part of the story is similar in each with just the narrative of the beginning and the end being different for use in this post.
The first is one that begins with humans as hunter, gatherer, and foragers, enjoying the lifestyle of egalitarianism and individual autonomy for many millennia. For one reason or another some groups developed agriculture and lived in settled communities. This progressed in to a hierarchical system of city states that fought and expanded to become empires. In most cases these empires were controllingly hierarchical, even feudal (Definition: A social system in which the nobility held lands from the Crown or emperor in exchange for military service, and vassals were in turn tenants of the nobles, while the peasants or serfs) were obliged to live on their lord’s land and give him homage, labor, and a share of their income/food in exchange for military protection). The industrial revolution created a new hierarchy where business became the new kind of feudalism with people beholden to employers for money used to purchase food and goods for everyday living. This was the start of exploitive and predatory capitalism. The rich got richer on the backs of the masses and did all they could to keep the masses subdued. While workers managed to get governmental regulations for the worker, and workers formed bargaining cooperatives (e.g. unions) the bosses by and large were, and are, insensitive to the everyday problems of workers struggling under oppressive conditions. Environmental problems rage across the planet and quality of life suffers despite the increase of global monetary wealth, from which only the few at the top of the hierarchy seem to really benefit.
The second story changes the narrative slightly but note how these differences paint a different picture of expectations and outcomes. Hunter, gatherer, and foragers suffered miserable lives on the edge of starvation always moving to find enough resources to survive, with permanent conflict for resources as a daily reality. Then some ingenious groups found that growing their own food gave them more security and allowed their populations to grow proportionally. They developed civilized city states and then empires as they gained cultural and social advantages over the barbaric hordes. During the dark ages while civilization succumbed to barbarism, feudal societies developed where the masses suffered at the hands of elites. Then came the age of enlightenment and the birth of free market capitalism with its spread of law, property rights, and reward for innovations. People were liberated form the yoke of feudalism and centralized governments. The unrestrained free market has allowed the masses to increase their standard of living beyond any historic expectations and to live in an age where progress can be perpetually expected and enjoyed.
In the first story, hunter, gatherer, foragers lived high quality lives with abundance everywhere. In the second, they lived almost the opposite. While the city state and empires for story one were exploitive and violent, in story two they allowed civilization to flourish. The dark ages were negative for both, but in story two capitalism became the liberating savior of the masses, but in story one it merely created the ongoing exploitation of the masses, despite the rise in standard of living.
Most business and political leaders obviously would subscribe to story two and find lots of rational justifications for their faith in capitalism. Those feeling as though the economic and political system is against them, in the main would subscribe to story one and long for an egalitarian utopia of some kind. Now overlay the start of story two onto story one and you have a third story where the past was never good and that any good now must be because of capitalism even if it is exploitive. Do you see how a story can cause one to accept problems merely because there seems no alternative to the story one accepts. The narratives we create and the stories we tell ourselves define us. This is true personally and especially true socio-culturally. It’s not really us versus them, or good versus evil although there are some evil elites out there, it more about the stories we tell ourselves – in short, our conditioning. And conditioning is not simply dualisitic thinking. It is a complex narrative we live, but acknowledging how we behave and react is how our narrative programs condition us. Change the story and/or the historical narrative and you change yourself – victim or change agent – the choice is yours.
“We live in a narrative culture. It’s through stories that we shape meaning.” Maureen Freely. This quote goes on to say that the most powerful story wins, but I don’t agree with that part. Stories are powerful, but we have to know how and where the stories are derived within the culture and sometimes the loudest voice shouting out its cultural story too often wins. We have to critically dissect our stories to find the truth and then speak our truth regardless of the fearful background noise trying to drown us out.
To Be Continued………….
0 Comments