04 Feb 2010
Sample Essay: Spiritual And Selfless Values In Economic Thinking
“From a spiritual point of view, it cannot be true that the work of the CEOs of some companies is worth a thousand times that of some other of their employees, just as it cannot be true that because you can get people to work full time for minimum wage they are justly compensated.”
(Gregory F.A. Pierce, co-founder, Business Executives for Social Justice 2001).
Recent events, particularly in Europe and the US, have shocked ordinary citizens out of their illusion that unrestrained wealth and unregulated markets function to their ultimate benefit, and to the general benefit of mankind. It appears that the near-collapse of Wall Street, though not unprecedented, has resulted in a new way of looking at economies, a new desire for equity in the marketplace, the ongoing development of a new template for an ethical economic system in which values other than simple greed rule. But this disillusionment is not new. There have been many long centuries of discontent between the haves and have-nots, and many illustrious philosophers and thinkers have considered the problem and have generated solutions. It is only now, it seems, when every global economy is interconnected and one fault trembles them all, that a genuine and true awakening seems imminent. This paper will discuss these historical notes, trace economic thought as it is today, and generate a plausible argument for sustainable ethical business practice.
In “The Quackery of Equality,” Lawrence Reed takes issue with those who would advocate for a policy in which economic equality is a base: “People obsessed with economic equality, or “egalitarianism,” do strange things. They become envious of others. They divide society into two piles: villains and victims. They spend far more time dragging someone else down than they do pulling themselves up. They’re not fun to be around. And if they make it to public office, they can do real harm. Then they not only call the cops, they are the cops.” (2000). The article further suggests that people must necessarily give up their freedom if they wish to be equal, economically speaking. This is a faulty argument of the first rank, yet arguments like this have been a justification for decades for manipulating financial markets, public policy which encourages unrestrained wealth, legislation which favors the rich and penalizes the poor, and for a public attitude in which progress is seen as a widening divide in which the middle class disappears. And it likely would have continued to be a driving force in world economic thought and legislative mandate had the speculative bubble not burst. We are now seeing the results of Reed’s argument.
There have been historical cautions, but few heeded such. Wealth is a powerful aphrodisiac, and to some an addiction. Recent American history is full of such reminders: Milken, the junk-bond king; Madoff, the ponzi schemer who cost tens of thousands of people their savings and their futures; the auto executives who flew in private jets to a Washington hearing in which their very greed was being questioned; the Merrill-Lynch executive who ordered a 1.2 million dollar restoration to his office at a time when the financial giant was collapsing; political figures like John McCain, who insisted in the billowing dust of ruin that there was nothing wrong with the economy, and Sarah Palin, who chidingly called Barack Obama a “wealth-spreader” when he had the temerity and foresight to suggest that continuing inequality was no longer an option. Robert Mugabe has brought his country to the brink of disaster, financially and politically, by concentrating that country’s wealth into the hands of a few, and destroying the prospects of any who would oppose him. The world is littered with such stories.
Aristotle, Plato, Plutarch, Lucretius, Francis Bacon, Erasmus, de Tocqueville–the list goes on and on[1]–have each expressed the dangers of inequality in economic thought and practice. Mahatma Gandhi spoke of the dangers of economic inequality: “The contrast between the rich and the poor today is a painful sight. The poor villagers are exploited by…their own countrymen-the city-dwellers. They produce the food and go hungry. They produce milk and their children have to go without it. It is disgraceful. Everyone must have a balanced diet, a decent house to live in, and facilities for the education of one’s children and adequate medical relief…(Gandhi, 31-3-1946, p. 63). Or Gabriel Thompson, as quoted in The Nation: “On the East Side of Manhattan,” Thompson writes, “two very distinct classes of New Yorkers cross paths every day: the working poor (undocumented immigrants and citizens alike), who cook, deliver, secure and protect–for little money and no benefits–and the titans of finance, hedge-fund executives and heads of private-equity firms, who stare at numbers on screens while moving other people’s money in and out of stocks and commodities or buying and selling companies, and whose wealth is expanding so quickly they have difficulty figuring out what to do with it.” (2008). All of it sounds familiar, and rings too true in the economic milieu which has been laid bare by a deep recession unlike anything since the Great Depression of the thirties.
Buddhist ethics (Ornatowski 1996), Christian ethics (Harkness 1957), Marxian economic theory (Marx 1849), economists such as Smith (1776) and Keynes (1936), all speak of economic equality[2], in varying terms in their varying social situations, but all reach the same conclusion: there is no true freedom where there is no equality. This is the fatal error in Reed’s quotation above, and it is the fatal error in modern-day economic thinking, a thinking that has nearly brought ruin to the economies of the world.
Now we know. Now we are learning the harsh truth thatinequality in any human endeavor hurts us all, in ways that are deep and have lasting effects. There are ancient hurts still not healed in the Middle East, in Ireland, in Native America, in India and Pakistan, South Africa, South America–hurt runs deep and is not easily assuaged. In every case, there is an economic quality to the hurt. American jobs are outsourced to Asian countries where wages are so minimal that one must work an inordinate number of hours to simply survive. Sixteen-hour workdays are common in developing countries; street beggars are rampant in places like Istanbul and Cairo and Mumbai. Palestinians fight for their survival every day of their lives, losing precious ground as Israeli settlements encroach. Venezuelan hillsides just outside the capital city of Caracas are littered with cardboard homes and shanty dwellings as Hugo Chavez counts his oil monies and dictates his poisoned brand of economics to the rest of South America. Now we know, and as we are poised on the abyss of selfish and greedy economic policies that favor a few and disregard the rest, we see the truth of what has occurred while we waved the bankers and finance moguls through in a twisted American dream that left us with a global nightmare.
It is a time for change. The old ways, embraced by a conservative ideology that is out of touch and left too many to suffer the consequences, have had their day. It is time for change. Grassroots organizations by the hundreds offer solutions. The “good-old-boy” networks are as bankrupt as the rest of us. There has to be a return to the sense of morality there once was in business practice. “Whatever its source — religion, conscience, custom or code — it meant that there are certain things you don’t do because they are not done. You don’t reward yourself when customers, clients or shareholders or employees are suffering losses. You don’t pay yourself out of all proportion to what you pay others. You don’t take advantage of your position just because you can. You are guided, even if no one is watching, by a sense of what is responsible and right. Without that internalized code of honor and trust, no institution can be sustained in the long run.” (Sacks 2009). There has to be, in business in general, a sense of fairness in the marketplace and in the business itself. No one can regulate this; for all of them there has to be a commitment to an ethical mindset that is at the heart of the business plan.
There are companies emerging who understand this responsibility and act on it. It is a kind of conscious capitalism that takes the values of the community in which the business is located into account. For example, Wainwright Bank of Boston has changed its way of doing business and is discovering success it never had before: “Wainwright’s DNA is so deeply encoded with the commitment to social justice, you almost forget it’s a bank, with more than $760 million in assets, that offers commercial loans, home mortgages, lines of credit and private banking. It might also slip your mind that Wainwright makes money, a lot of money and at an impressive rate: Net income in 2004 hit $6.4 million, up from $4.7 million in 2003. Earnings per share rose from 55 cents in 2001 to 94 cents in 2004….And guess what? Community investing is the best-performing sector of Wainwright’s lending portfolio. The default rate? About zero percent.”(Aburdene 2006). There are other stories, other instances of a return to spiritual practice in business that are equally impressive. Daryl and Estraletta Green, who present workshops across the country for spiritual growth in employees, write about the growing need for employee fulfillment in the workplace. They offer four suggestions for employees who need and expect to have a deeper and more fulfilling purpose-driven life in the workplace.
Vision. Develop an overall purpose for your life.
Priority. Identify your top five priorities.
Purposeful Living. Find a worthy cause.
Ideal Job. Discover your ideal job, consisting of your interest, talents/s.
Green goes on to conclude: “With the impending retirement of the baby boomer generation drawing near, organizations that neglect the needs of their employees will find themselves in an unfavorable position for future hiring.”(2006).
In 2006, the Spiritual Capital Research Program based at the Metanexus Institute on Religion and Science called for research proposals which would address spiritual capital, which is how “trust, behavioral norms and religion can profoundly shape economic, political and social developments.” (Sargeant 2006). There were more than 560 applicants for grants of $150,000 each, from which 43 were chosen. The list was then narrowed to 10 who would develop research projects which were peer reviewed, to be published in academic journals. The ten finalists awarded grants were:
¨Peter Berger, Boston University: “Spiritual Capital in Developing Societies”
¨Wendy Cadge, Bowdoin College: “Comparing Spiritual and Other Forms of Social Capital: Lessons from the Immigrant Experience”
¨Robert Dowd, University of Notre Dame: “Religiosity and Political Culture: Christians, Muslims and Spiritual Capital in Sub-Saharan Africa”
¨Daniel Hungerman, University of Notre Dame: “Religious Capital and Public Policy in the 20th Century”
¨Sriya Iyer, University of Cambridge: “Innovation and the Resilience of Religion”
¨Michael Kremer, Harvard University: “The Impact of the Hajj”
¨John Levi Martin, University of Wisconsin-Madison: “Structures of Social and Spiritual Capital in Religious and Nonreligious Groups”
¨Gary Richardson, University of California, Irvine: “A Pious and Profitable Mystery: Guilds, Purgatory, Reformation, the Multiplication of Religious Denominations, and the Evolution of Industrial Society in Late-Medieval and Early Modern England”
¨David Sikkink, University of Notre Dame: “The Dynamics of Spiritual Capital in US Congregations”
¨Fenggang Yang, Purdue University: “Faith and Trust in the Emerging Market Economy in China” (ibid.).
This is astonishing. Historically, religion and economics were regarded as mutually exclusive fields of study, each bearing little resemblance to the other. Now we have studies, serious academic studies which purposefully equate one with the other. And it makes perfect sense: human beings, who drive capital markets and generate the economies, are also spiritual beings who have a stake in global and domestic economies and the successes these derive. For the first time, there is a focus on such things as religious capital and public policy, social and spiritual capital in religious and nonreligious groups, innovation and religion, spiritual and social capital in emerging societies. The old republican norms of low taxes and a strong military are obsolete. The democratic norms of high taxes and funding for social programs, though more deeply reflecting a spiritual ideal, are being reconfigured. Worldwide, there is indignation with tyrannies which support the status quo.
The publication of such volumes as Emotional Intelligence and Working With Emotional Intelligence, both by Daniel Goleman, has opened the field to the discovery and rediscovery of personal attributes which used to be commonly considered but have fallen away as corporate workplaces became larger and more impersonal. Goleman identifies and describes personal categories which people use to develop workplace competencies such as self-confidence, achievement, service, persuasiveness and initiative.[3] According to Bissonnette, “Goleman found that 67% of the abilities needed for effective performance were EI competencies, and that IQ accounts for only about 25% of job success. Hallmarks of emotionally savvy managers are things like being able to accurately assess one’s strengths and weaknesses, develop trust and get buy-in from others on projects, think before taking action, and other characteristics commonly associated with seasoned and effective leaders.” (2006). No emphasis on financial skill, degree preparation, who one knows in the business hierarchy, no mention of perks and other rewards, financial compensation–it is all irrelevant. What matters most in the workplace is an ability to get along well with others, sensitivity to the needs of others, a willingness to engage in the ‘people’ parts of work. Bissonnette continues: “It’s easy to relegate emotional intelligence to the “nice to have” or “someday” pile since early steps up the corporate ladder are often predicated on hard skills, like technical acumen and track record. However, the inherent difficulty of not seeing ourselves as others do can become a real career liability. Fully 40% of new executives fail within their first 18 months on the job, and “insensitivity to others” is ranked the number one reason for executive derailment. A poor relationship with a supervisor is consistently sited as the top reason that people leave their jobs.” (ibid.).
There is a sense in which all of this seems remarkable. For the past several generations, barring the occasional economic hiccup, Europeans and Americans in particular have seemed content to live their dreams under the false security of a ‘promised’ endless economic progress. That the progress ‘promised’ was devoid of any semblance of humanity, or of any spiritual consequence, just didn’t matter. We shoved our homeless away so we wouldn’t see them; we bought the homes we couldn’t afford, drove the cars that were killing the natural world, which is our spiritual responsibility, winked and nodded when our freedoms were being curtailed, listened to the lunacies of Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell and James Dobson and Oral Roberts, who equated spirituality with republican economic blindness and greed. We quite happily forgot the lessons that Gandhi taught us, forgot the warnings we heard from Adam Smith and John Maynard Keynes, ignored the truth that we are spiritual beings with a deep and significant spiritual heritage who have a need to decide ethically what is best, and not have it decided for us. We forgot and ignored to our peril, both individually and collectively. Until our economies nearly collapsed around us, we did not see.
Going forward, we know what must change. We must be allowed–encouraged–to exercise our spiritual needs in the world’s marketplaces. We must ourselves encourage and support businesses which liberate and feed the poor, which employ reasonable people and train them to think in entrepreneurial ways. We must expect and demand a return to common human values like honesty, fairness and communication. We must use common sense and common decency in all of our business dealings. We must never forget that we are all people and that we all really want the same things: a place to live, enough money to raise a family, and a job in which we take pride and pleasure.
We have reached the crossroad and have decisions to make. Shall we return to the inequitable past, with all of the burned-out carcasses in its wake? Shall we simply wait and see what happens next, and hope that the business leaders and bankers and brokers and politicians were only kidding? Or shall the ground of humanity swell with indignation and demand accountability from those who for too long wielded power to our diminishment as spiritual and decent persons? It is time, at the speed of business, to reclaim what is rightfully ours–a world that works, that recognizes our humanity and embraces it, that genuinely cares about the people who drive its economies. There is a historical precedent for it, and a new millenium in which to nurture it and make it grow.
Appendix A
Ornatowski, G. K. (1996). “Continuity and Change in the Economic Ethics of Buddhism:
Evidence From the History of Buddhism in India, China and Japan. “The economic ethics of Theravaada Buddhism, especially attitudes toward wealth, poverty, charity, and labor cannot be understood without understanding something about Buddhist soteriologies (i.e., theories of how a person achieves enlightenment). The earliest Buddhist soteriology was summarized in the Four Noble Truths: (1) suffering exists; (2) the cause of suffering is craving (attachment); (3) there is a way out of this suffering; and (4) this way is the Eightfold Path. This Eightfold Path consisted of three types of activity: (1) moral conduct; (2) mental discipline; and (3) wisdom. Moral conduct in turn included three of the eight components of the Path: (a) right conduct; (b) right speech; and (c) right livelihood, each of which involved various prescriptions for behavior, attitudes, and mental dispositions.”
Harkness, G. (1957). “Christian Ethics.” Yet it is not this exercise of power by individuals that is the most serious aspect of current society. Widespread though it is, where it can be isolated, challenged, and changed, there is the possibility of a creative use of economic power. It is corporate social sin, by great groups of persons against great groups of persons, that causes the most serious evil consequences and is hardest to reckon with. Persons are involved, as both sinners and victims, or it would not be sin. Unemployment, for example, is more than an inevitable, tragic fate; it is caused by circumstances for which human beings are morally responsible. When a worldwide depression occurs, as in the early 1930′s, many millions of persons are made to suffer acutely, and economists can give some reasons for its occurrence. But this is not to say that guilt can be precisely allocated. In less widespread but deeply disrupting conflicts, as in a clash between a giant corporation and a giant labor union, the fault is seldom all on one side; and while some persons are more responsible than others, it is seldom possible with justice to pin the responsibility wholly upon particular individuals.”
Marx, Karl. (1849). “Wage, Labor and Capital.” A house may be large or small; as long as the neighboring houses are likewise small, it satisfies all social requirement for a residence. But let there arise next to the little house a palace, and the little house shrinks to a hut. The little house now makes it clear that its inmate has no social position at all to maintain, or but a very insignificant one; and however high it may shoot up in the course of civilization, if the neighboring palace rises in equal or even in greater measure, the occupant of the relatively little house will always find himself more uncomfortable, more dissatisfied, more cramped within his four walls.”
Plutarch: “An imbalance between rich and poor is the oldest and most fatal ailment of all republics.”
Plato (427-347 B.C.): The Republic. “Any city, however small, is in fact divided into two, one the city of the poor, the other of the rich; these are at war with one another.”
Keynes, John Maynard (1936): “The outstanding faults of the economic society in which we live are its failure to provide for full employment and its arbitrary and inequitable distribution of wealth and incomes.”
Bacon, Francis. (1561-1626): “Money is like muck, not good except that it be spread.”
Erasmus (Dutch scholar, 1465-1536): “The prince should try to prevent too great an inequality of wealth.”
De Tocqueville, Alexis (1831): Democracy in America. “Amongst the novel objects that attracted my attention during my stay in the United States, nothing struck me more forcibly than the general equality of conditions.”
Smith, Adam. (1776). Wealth of Nations. “All for ourselves and nothing for other people seems, in every age of the world, to have been the vile maxim of the masters of mankind.”
Reference List
Aburdene, P. (2006). “From Megatrends 2010: The Rise of Conscious Capitalism.” in
<http://www.workplacespirituality.info/articles.html>
Bissonnette, B. (2006). “Self Awareness Can Be More Important than IQ or Experience in Business Success.” <http://www.workplacespirituality.info/Self-Awareness.html>
De Tocqueville, Alexis (1831): Democracy in America. New York: Bantam Classics. 2000.
Gandhi, Harijan 11 (August 17, 1947). <http://www.mkgandhi-sarvodaya.org/momgandhi/chap55.htm>
Goleman, D. (1995). Emotional Intelligence. New York: Bantam Press.
Green, D. and Green, E. (2006). “America’s Employees Cry Out For Spirituality after 9/11.” <http://www.workplacespirituality.info/article1026.html>
Harkness, G. (1957). “Christian Ethics: Chapter 8: The Ethics of Economic Life.” <http://www.religion-online.org/showchapter.asp?title=802&C=1083>
Keynes, J.M. (1936). The General Theory of Employment, Interest and Money. Hamburg, Germany: Management Laboratory Press. 2009.
Marx, K. (1849). “Wage, Labor and Capital.”
Ornatowski, G.K. (1996). “Continuity and Change in the Economic Ethics of Buddhism:
Evidence From the History of Buddhism in India, China and Japan. <http://www.appropriate-economics.org/materials/ethicsofbuddhism.html>
Pierce, G.F.A (2001). Business Executives for Social Justice. <http://www.demos.org/inequality/quotes.cfm>
Pizzigati, Lardner and Kinney. “Quotes.” <http://www.demos.org/inequality/quotes.cfm>
Plato (427-347 B.C.): The Republic. Jowett, B, trans. <http://classics.mit.edu/Plato/republic.html>
Reed, L.W. (2000). “The Quackery of Equality.” Mackinac Center for Public Policy. <http://www.mackinac.org/article.aspx?ID=3138>
Sacks, J. (2009). “Economics Needs Ethics.” <http://www.aish.com/societyWork/work/Economics_Needs_Ethics.asp>
Sargeant, K. (2006). Quoted in “Research on Spiritual Capital.” PRNewswire story. <http://www.workplacespirituality.info/article1026.html>
Smith, A. (1776). Wealth of Nations. Modern Library Classics. 2000.
Thompson, G. (June 11, 2008). “Meet the Wealth Gap.” The Nation. <http://www.thenation.com/doc/20080630/thompson/print>
[1] Quoted in Pizzigati, Lardner and Kinney. “Quotes.” See Appendix A for full quotes. <http://www.demos.org/inequality/quotes.cfm>
[2] See Appendix A for individual quotes.
[3] Bissonnette, B. (2006). “Self Awareness Can Be More Important than IQ or Experience in Business Success.” <http://www.workplacespirituality.info/Self-Awareness.html>