The twin towers of democracy – individual political liberty and self-interested market economics took root in the 18th and 19th centuries. The market democracies rise from the works authored by Thomas Jefferson and Adam Smith in 1776. That year The Declaration of Independence and The Wealth of Nations launched humanity on a journey toward “I’s” and “we’s” who could fulfill the best in our natures.
That path is now gravely threatened. An extreme individualism equating happiness with “value” alone now trumps choices and policies made in markets of all kinds, political and otherwise. “Value” and “I” can never migrate back into a sustainable blend with values” and “we must think differently about the real “we’s” of our lives – especially our organizations – and purposefully blend “value” and “values” in those “we’s.”
It is to be noted here that people use the words “value” and “values” in different ways. On the one hand, the singular “value” arises in conversations about economics, finance, business, and markets. Value connotes a pointed estimation of current or anticipated worth not distant from monetary equivalence. On the other hand, the plural term ”values” crops up when people talk about beliefs and behaviors regarding how human beings do or do not get along with one another and with gods, spirits, and nature. “Values” is a noun, but a noun concerned with attitude and action. Values are sorted into several categories: social values, political values, family and religious values, and environmental values. Unlike value, talk of values ignores money. There is a deep, backward and forward-looking quality to values. If value makes us wealthy, values make us human.
Billions of people on the planet continue to live and to share fates because of places. But, not us. What we share with others fates, ideas, roles, relationships depends more on the purposes we bring to markets, networks, and organizations than the places in which we reside. We share fates with other people in the form of friends, family, and organizations, not places. The split between value and values is a corollary of is” who have spun out of orbit from was.” Those of us who live in markets, networks, nations, and organizations no longer belong to base traditional was.” Therefore, we must learn to think differently about “we” in this age of “me.”
In our placeless world, our dominant shared role in relation to government is consumer, not citizen. Citizenship becomes no more than a nostalgically shared idea. We experience the self-governance historically linked to the role of citizen in organizations, not places. If we find the meaning of community, we do so in organizations and among friends, not places. We can vote. But voting is a single thread of democracy. In the absence of accompanying political and social values, voting is a specialized currency for consumption in political markets.
In worlds where people share ideas, roles, resources, purposes, and fates because of places, shared paths weave into the larger was” of town and neighborhood, city, and state. Place blends religious, ethnic, national, political, and other values to forge “thick we’s.” In a world of purposes, the inescapable shared fates necessary to “thick we’s” occur among friends and families, and in organizations. Our cares and animosities arise in them. We know that Germany and France were mortal enemies many times in the olden days. But we do not expect them to go to war ever again. In a world of purposes, we do not hate people in the “thick we’s” of other organizations.
Large societies are unsustainable without organizations or midlevel formations. If organizations disappear, societies Destabilize until new ones emerge. De Tocqueville, for example, considered towns and associations vital to 19th century American democracy. The immense Soviet Union was also just that — a union of midlevel social formations called soviets. However, midlevel social formations grounded in place have at amazed in the last 30 years. Structures that once made sense local government, neighborhood, and community – destabilized. This instability will persist until we recognize that organizations, not collectivities of is,” are the thick was” in which we share fates with others. Organizations are the midlevel social formations in a world of purposes.
Organizations are “thick we’s” in which individuals must balance self-interest with the common good. It is in organizations, not in places, that we most meaningfully share fates with other people beyond friends and family.
Organizations compete in markets and networks. Organizations must link their common good to the greater good of the planet. For example, in organizations, employees and volunteers must take responsibility for blending value and values in the good things they provide to others. To ignore or abuse that burden is to fail to lead a good life in our new world of purposes.
This ethical imperative is inescapable. We understand that the common good of our organizations must incorporate concerns ranging from work/family balance to customer satisfaction to investment returns. The common good of organizations demands that we weave together hierarchical and democratic social and political values. This is promising because strong, predictable shared values practiced in organizations are the values shared among friends and families in markets, networks, nations, and the world.
People who experience robust democracy in organizations are more likely to respect dissent, free speech, consent, participation, and responsibility. They are less likely to violate the liberty and freedoms of others. Neither value nor values can be ignored in organizations. Again, organizations must link their common good to the greater good of the planet. In a world of purposes, this is what organizations do – this is what they are for. Organizations are the solutions to restore “thick we’s,” where value and values as well as “I’s” and “we’s” can migrate. Organizations decide the fate of the twin towers of democracy.
-Notes-
World of places : Any world in which the power of place forges strong shared values. In a world of places place-based social formations. Such as towns or villages, are “thick we’s.”
World of purposes : A world in which place has lost its power to blend and shape strong shared values. A world of purposes has six social formations: markets networks, nations organizations, friends and family.
Thick we’s: People who inescapably share fates with one another “Thick we’s” inevitably must balance self-interest with their common good. They must implement their common good together because they share fates.
Thin we’s : People who have similar interests but do not share fates with one another. “Thin we’s” have no need to implement a common good together.
コメントを残す