I found Lebron's discussion of historically evolved power very interesting, especially how institutions can come to display bad character. Lebron writes that "while hierarchy is often taken in a pejorative sense, it is not intrinsically offensive" (56.) I find this confusing considering the discussion of hierarchies that follows. Lebron argues that hierarchies are essentially just an order of accountability of people in relation to one another to achieve a common goal. Where things go wrong is when the employee-boss relationship moves beyond just accountability, and the employee begins to be defined on the terms of his boss and, an employee's "value to the corporation is no longer measured by [his/her] role and performance but by arbitrary norms articulated by those with more or less overwhelming power" (56.) Because the employee's values becomes defined by arbitrary norms, they begin to be treated as means to the end of the corporation. This sounds very similar to Marx's arguments, especially when Lebron mentions the power of narratives in justifying 'group ascendency'. Those in power have control over the public narrative, and can using the narrative can "assign themselves positive social value while portraying others as justifiably possessing lower standing" (57.) This progression of hierarchies evolving into domination and subordination seems almost inevitable to me, so I wonder how Lebron can argue that hierarchies are not intrinsically offensive. The readings on human nature from Hobbes is particularly relevant here; the hierarchical structure seems to inherently promote a survival of the fittest mentality in which success is valued more than virtues such as equality or fairness. The reading made me wonder what a hierarchical structure that does not become dominating would look like? Is this even possible? In America, and I assume in most countries, private and public sectors are organized hierarchically, and we have justified this structure because of its efficiency and productive power, and because of positive feedback, "profit becomes an end for action as well as the means" (58.) Is there a way to structure institutions or corporations to strive for something other than profit? The past few readings make it seem to me that in many ways, capitalism is inherently opposed to equality, yet many of the authors we read want to work within the system we have.
Hi Devon!
ReplyDeleteI also thought it was particularly interesting for Lebron to characterize hierarchies as “not intrinsically offensive” (56). I would definitely agree that due to their efficiency and productiveness, hierarchies are valued. Although we recognize that these structures perpetuate systems of domination and subordination, we continue to accept these systems and are reluctant to challenge the norm. Positive feedback enables us to tolerate the corporation’s indecent behavior. We examined the morality issues behind corporations in a 2003 documentary called, The Corporation, in my corporate finance class. In the modern capitalist era, a corporation is characterized as a legal person and thus, has the same rights as a person. For instance, a corporation can sue and buy and sell property. However, unlike an actual person, the corporation is not considered a moral being because their main concern is the bottom line, profit. As evidenced in numerous case studies (i.e. Monsanto and its controversial bovine growth hormone and Nike and manufacturing its products in sweatshops), corporations have shown a continual indifference towards their workers, animals, and the environment. Because “profit becomes an end for action as well as the means,” corporations entirely disregard morality and exhibit a lack of integrity in the pursuit of profit (58). The exclusive focus on profit creates the development of bad institutional character. To answer your question, if there is a way to structure corporations to strive for something other than profit, while I do believe that there is a possibility, I think it would be difficult to restructure corporations to primarily value something other than profit because these institutions are characterized as “path dependent” (58). Corporations have been accustomed to only care about their shareholders. Therefore, if we could compel corporations to be concerned about other entities than their shareholders, I think we would be a step closer towards breaking the cycle of positive feedback and paving the way for corporations to redirect their course.
Your discussion leads me to question if corporations, or institutions in general, conduct a “double-life” (138). When Lebron extends Corey Brettschenider’s argument, which states that a democratic society cannot solely depend on a collective affirmation of rights, to advance the concept of public reason, he draws on a feminist example to illustrate how an exclusive reliance on an affirmation of rights in a democratic society permits the emergence and tolerance of implicit bias. For instance, a father who does not explicitly abuse his wife or daughter, but rarely makes dinner or raises the children engages in an implicit gendered bias. Lebron states that the father leads a distinctively “double-life” since there is a discrepancy between the principles he affirms in public and his personal beliefs (138). While an individual is entitled to maintain their personal beliefs, which can possibly differ from public reason, public reason compels citizens to “transforming these beliefs to make them consistent with public reason’s demand for equality” (138). Thus, public reason not only holds a person to a higher standard in determining the appropriate behavior in a public space, but raises the level of accountability. Since corporations currently have a minimal level of accountability, I wonder if there is a way to hold institutions to the same account of public reason.
Tierra,
DeleteYou're definitely right to point out that corporations have historically often failed to respect human rights and the limits of acceptable working conditions and so on, but I disagree with you when you argue that we should get corporations to care about something other than their shareholders.
It is not the role of private individuals, or collections of private individuals and their interests, to take care of society. We have a government for this, and it should be armed with powerful coercive tools so it can structure society appropriately. However, your logic is implicitly shifting the responsibility of government onto corporations. This poses an enormous collective action problem, which is the reason we resort to government in the first place.
Additionally, a key function of liberal society (at least to me) is to be open to different people and their differing views of the world and what constitutes good. The system as a whole should be structured in order to align people and ensure fairness, but you and I need to maintain our individual prerogative to do whatever we want, so long as it does not harm each other. Requiring corporations to act in the social benefit violates this.
Going back to my earlier point, it is the job of governments to regulate corporations in order to ensure they act responsibly. Once the rules have been set however, we shouldn't hold corporations to some artificial standard of good--which almost certainly constitutes nothing more than marketing spiel anyway.