It's interesting that many of the most damaging "actions," in a collective or group-associated sense, of large, powerful organizations exhibit many of the characteristics of the actions of children. One sees this in many of the publicized cases of "corporate malfeasance" or whatever, in which the large-scale, social dynamics of the corporate entity allow for the corporation, as a whole, to "take whatever it wants" or to satisfy its every desire, so to speak, no matter what the cost to shareholders or to the workers in the corporation. One also sees this sort of subjective dynamic in some of the more heavy-handed "government-associated actions," including the use of torture or in various military actions. The notion that the members of a governmental organization have the right to decide to take what they want to take (such as in the case of the involuntary servitude that characterized the drafting/conscription of US citizens into military "service") is interesting in the sense that the underlying mindset that leads to this "taking" of things is, at its core, very infantile. It's as if the collective organization has decided to throw a temper tantrum and to decide to remove itself from the reach of people who might make rational arguments to protest the collective action. It's very easy to dismiss this as being a "tyranny of the majority" or a little, unavoidable side effect of democracy, given that democracies are "imperfect" systems, etc. In my view, however, the situation becomes troubling when the members or large-scale dynamics of an organization are capable of allowing for a profound degree of unresponsiveness to exist, with regard to some group of people whom the organization is interacting with, and usually this profound degree of unresponsiveness and contempt exists in the context of tremendous discrepancies in "power."
Although it seems to be the magnitudes and extents of the discrepancies in power, among individuals and large or powerful organizations, that determine the extent to which the organization can begin to allow for terrible things to result from its actions or lack thereof, one can also make the argument that an organization that tries to control too much can create a too-complex web of dysfunctional interactions and communications and thereby become less powerful than the organization otherwise would be. For example, if a board of governors or "commanders" of a corporation begin micromanaging everything and making arbitrary decisions that alienate people, the commanders will soon foster the development, in the minds of even those employees they have not intended to alienate, of a large number of negative associations with the workers in the corporation. One reason that negative reinforcement is highly ineffective, in general, as a means to accomplish anything, is that living beings are set up to aggressively avoid interactions or experiences that are profoundly negative and antagonistic. One can say, for awhile, that one has important goals or plans in mind for the corporation and that anyone who threatens the accomplishment of those goals or plans should be fired or disciplined, etc. And, although this may be effective for awhile, the constant threat of irrational and unfair forms of discipline tends to create an atmosphere of extreme distrust and fear, and people are unlikely to work effectively on behalf of an autocratic or dictatorial set of "leaders." In a related vein, there is the fact that the setting of lots of "standards" and rigid "rules" of conduct, with one's employees or the like, tends to put artificial constraints on the resourcefulness of the employees or on the capacity of any one employee to think creatively. When one has to constantly worry about breaking rules and losing one's job or whatever, for example, one is unlikely to feel that one can safely think in a flexible manner when one is faced with an atypical situation. From the standpoint of a "leader" of a rule-ridden organization, the degree of success or lack thereof can only be a function of the extents to which employees have followed the rules and set the rigidly-defined plans in motion. Of course, one will never know of the "flowers" of innovation that might have flowered in the minds of one's employees, had one simply not put the micromanagement of the lives of the employees into the hands of an autocratic "board" of "officials" or whatever.
I'm not sure what else I can say about this, but it's disturbing to me to see the profoundly-fatalistic and nihilistic attitudes that pervade the discussions of large-scale "social dynamics" in corporations or governments. It's very easy to throw around a few terms and dismiss the argument that has been made, for example, that the military draft is/was a form of involuntary servitude (with reference to the thirteenth amendment of the US constitution) or that a de facto form of involuntary servitude can exist in situations that are characterized by an extreme and "ingrained" or intractable discrepancy in power, among individuals and an organization that is dominating the individuals. But anyway, I can't really think of anything else to say, at the moment.
Although it seems to be the magnitudes and extents of the discrepancies in power, among individuals and large or powerful organizations, that determine the extent to which the organization can begin to allow for terrible things to result from its actions or lack thereof, one can also make the argument that an organization that tries to control too much can create a too-complex web of dysfunctional interactions and communications and thereby become less powerful than the organization otherwise would be. For example, if a board of governors or "commanders" of a corporation begin micromanaging everything and making arbitrary decisions that alienate people, the commanders will soon foster the development, in the minds of even those employees they have not intended to alienate, of a large number of negative associations with the workers in the corporation. One reason that negative reinforcement is highly ineffective, in general, as a means to accomplish anything, is that living beings are set up to aggressively avoid interactions or experiences that are profoundly negative and antagonistic. One can say, for awhile, that one has important goals or plans in mind for the corporation and that anyone who threatens the accomplishment of those goals or plans should be fired or disciplined, etc. And, although this may be effective for awhile, the constant threat of irrational and unfair forms of discipline tends to create an atmosphere of extreme distrust and fear, and people are unlikely to work effectively on behalf of an autocratic or dictatorial set of "leaders." In a related vein, there is the fact that the setting of lots of "standards" and rigid "rules" of conduct, with one's employees or the like, tends to put artificial constraints on the resourcefulness of the employees or on the capacity of any one employee to think creatively. When one has to constantly worry about breaking rules and losing one's job or whatever, for example, one is unlikely to feel that one can safely think in a flexible manner when one is faced with an atypical situation. From the standpoint of a "leader" of a rule-ridden organization, the degree of success or lack thereof can only be a function of the extents to which employees have followed the rules and set the rigidly-defined plans in motion. Of course, one will never know of the "flowers" of innovation that might have flowered in the minds of one's employees, had one simply not put the micromanagement of the lives of the employees into the hands of an autocratic "board" of "officials" or whatever.
I'm not sure what else I can say about this, but it's disturbing to me to see the profoundly-fatalistic and nihilistic attitudes that pervade the discussions of large-scale "social dynamics" in corporations or governments. It's very easy to throw around a few terms and dismiss the argument that has been made, for example, that the military draft is/was a form of involuntary servitude (with reference to the thirteenth amendment of the US constitution) or that a de facto form of involuntary servitude can exist in situations that are characterized by an extreme and "ingrained" or intractable discrepancy in power, among individuals and an organization that is dominating the individuals. But anyway, I can't really think of anything else to say, at the moment.
No comments:
Post a Comment