Overture
(Pt. 1)
Yesterday morning, I awoke thinking about the various occupations people may take up to dedicate themselves to eradicating poverty or, put another way, to rectifying the inequality systematically produced by our social system.
Participation in nonprofit organizations thrusts one into the field of action in a challenging position that may remunerate poorly monetarily but permits some flexibility, and, interestingly, may teach the member about the conditions of whatever kind of poverty that the member might discover. In such a commitment there is a kind of consistency of personal principle and lifestyle that other efforts may lack. This consistency has periodically interested, confounded and challenged me in my own personal struggles, forcing me to question and reflect on my own reasons for living and how I've attempted to do so in a socially concerned, principled and even personally tolerable way. It is hard, simply put, to maintain fidelity to such beliefs in a world in which only relatively few possess disproportionate influence over social conditions and where it is often profitable for people to bend, break, or ignore there own principles in the pursuit of profit. But there are opportunities subvert or change these relationships, and this is the power of education, which I return to later, but first I need to clarify a few things.
Does pursuing profit equate to reproducing inequality? Does advancing the mission of an organization that pursues profit actually and immediately translate into reproducing inequality? Many would disagree with me here. For-profit institutions are designed to maximize the pursuit of profit at the expense of other considerations. Or, put another way, they prioritize this mission and make others instrumental to or a part of it (even the provision of services is really only a liminal step.
An apologist might observe that profit-pursuit only ensures that there is a lack of waste in a process, that it is being carried out with due concern for the efficient use of resources, which itself hardly a problematic goal.
But efficiency, in my opinion, always requires some kind of adjudicating standard; that is, a process is efficient with regard to some kind criteria for efficiency. In most cases, this efficiency relates to the proper use of monetary resources, which is a legitimate and advisable consideration in most cases. But, in the case of a governmental process, for example, that which is most efficient is not always that which provides people the greatest opportunity to voice their opinions or to participate completely, which is itself at issue. Representing oneself is just as important if not more so the political process as anything else. This is but one of an assortment of concerns that could be put to arguments of efficiency.
Even then, I'm less concerned with the pursuit of profit itself than I am with what it creates or results in. Enterprises focused on the pursuit of profit intend to annihilate uncertainty itself because uncertainty is part and parcel to the most efficient use of resources: it lacks a plan, may move or change, is contentious and requires the reconciliation of many many views (at least in the case of H. Arendt's work). Which is also why I defend it. Arendt identifies the significance of protecting uncertainty, of giving space for its expression because it relates to the profoundly political aspects of being human and resolving difference. This, to me, is so much more important than the efficient use of resources to which it often takes a back seat.
I take issue also with how for-profit institutions are themselves managed. Operated hierarchically, such institutions defend their structure and function by recourse to a military model of command and order which is seen to be efficient, as it is seen to maintain efficiency, avoid duplication of roles and centralize obligations of responsibility on a single person or point. But, in the process, difference is marginalized and rooted out. The various opinions that people have are disregarded in the favor of their ability to do work. As Arendt might say: their ability to do work is preferred to that of their ability to act in speech and deed. But this is how modern corporations function, and it is a tragedy that we've stifled so many, and that so often vocalizing views is grounds for expulsion or firing. This is not how a democracy should function, nor how it should be managed or operated. Work should not supersede the capacity of each individual to speak for themselves and take positions on the world.
...
No comments:
Post a Comment