tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-58963199203827215412024-03-26T21:57:46.989-07:00The Worden Report - CultureDr. Wordenhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02867414605883311000noreply@blogger.comBlogger214125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5896319920382721541.post-7076365831596451812024-01-08T20:59:00.000-08:002024-01-08T20:59:40.932-08:00On the Birth of Corporate Social Responsibilty in 1869<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt; text-align: justify;"><span style="color: black; font-size: large;">Referring to the speculation in gold that was engineered by Jay Gould and others in 1869 to enrich themselves and the Erie Railroad, Henry Adams (1838-1918), a grandson of John Quincy Adams and great grandson of John Adams, wrote at the time:</span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt; text-align: justify;"><span style="color: black; font-size: large;">“For the first time since the creation of these enormous corporate bodies, one of them has shown its power for mischief, and has proved itself able to override and trample on law, custom, decency, and every restraint known to society, without scruple, and as yet without check. The belief is common in America that the day is at hand when corporations far greater than the Erie [Railroad] — swaying power such as has never in the world’s history been trusted in the hands of mere private citizens<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>. . . — will ultimately succeed in directing government itself. Under the American form of society, there is now no authority capable of effective resistance.” (1)</span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;"><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: large;">Gould had wanted the price of gold to rise not only because he had bought some to sell at a higher price, but also because as a stockholder of the Erie, he would benefit from the railroad transporting more wheat from the Midwest to the east coast for export. A higher price in gold meant a lower dollar. Wheat being based in dollars, a lower dollar meant more exports. The strategy was essentially to devalue the dollar, which Gould assured President Grant would be in the national interest economically. As the price of gold rose to $165 in 1869, Grant, fearing a bubble, pulled the plug by having the Treasury sell $4million in gold.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The collapse in the gold market triggered a drop in the stock-market. Even if it might have been in the short term interest of the speculators and railroads, the manufactured bubble was not in the national interest after all. Gould’s bribes of administration officials had been in vain.</span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></div><span style="color: black; font-size: large;"><div style="text-align: justify;">Henry Adams saw the imprint of corporate power eviscerating both societal norms and democracy in the scandal. <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>In other words, <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">the new-found corporate power eventuated in the birth of the need for corporate social responsibility amid capitalism eclipsing democracy</i>. In academic terms, corporate social responsibility and (corporate) business & government, although discrete fields, were both first publicly recognized in 1869.</div></span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;"><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: large;">The corporate power occasioning Adam’s recognition was a novelty at the time, according to Brands, because the large corporation had only come into being as the railroads incorporated in the 1850s. Looking back after the Civil War, Henry Adams observed, "The last ten years had given to the great mechanical energies — coal, iron, steam — a distinct superiority in power over the old industrial elements -- agriculture, handwork, and learning." (2) The power of steam in particular translated into large, publicly-held, corporations first in the railroad industry.</span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></div><span style="color: black; font-size: large;"><div style="text-align: justify;">On account of their size and scope, and the associated equity capital requirements given the risk faced by lenders, the railroads were the first large American corporations to be publicly traded. The diffusion of ownership — a consequence of the large capital demands — led to a separation of ownership from control and to a new ownership interest: that of the short-term-oriented speculator. A short-seller, for example, seeks lower corporate earnings in the future, while a long-term investor hopes for higher dividends, and thus profits. Managers can exploit this difference in order to pursue their interests in the name of the corporation at the expense of societal norms and democratic governance.</div></span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt; text-align: justify;"><span style="color: black; font-size: large;">Undergirding the managerial basis in <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">skill</i>, the railroads were the first companies to develop the methods of corporate administration. For example, there were supervisors over supervisors—in other words, multilayered organizational charts. Furthermore, dovetailing with the need for safety and efficiency (given the competition), the railroads developed precise management of their operations, including the development of standards for measuring performance. In short, the railroads were the first to develop a cadre of managers specialized in administration in the particular industry. (3)</span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;"><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: large;">Regarding the private power based on technique (i.e., <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">managerial power</i>), Henry Adams announced in 1869 that there was no authority, whether in society or government, capable of resisting it. The normative call for corporate social responsibility and the political call for a resurgence of democracy amid the encroaching capitalism were born. In other words, with great power came a recognition of<em> a need for</em> great responsibility. The corporate social responsibility movement began as precisely this recognition even as the modern large corporation was in its second decade.</span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></div><span style="color: black; font-size: large;"><div style="text-align: justify;"><em>Punctum Saliens</em>, the large corporate type of commercial organization itself is inherently powerful relative to societal norms and even potential governmental or regulatory restraints. That is to say, the invention of the large corporation may have been inherently problematic, essentially involving systemic risk to the republic itself on account of the private power of the managements. To paraphrase Nietzsche, power cannot be but powerful. To unleash an inherently powerful feeding machine and expect it not to eat the grass is naive, if not patently irresponsible. To expect the managements of extremely wealthy corporations to be willingly socially responsible when their economizing and power-aggrandizing nature is to run through such non-constraints is simply ideological, if not fanciful. Fundamentally, the problem with corporate management is its inherent proclivity to bristle at any external constraint. It is the underlying maximizing egoism that is innately antithetical to the limiting natures of government regulation and corporate social responsibility.</div></span><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">Endnotes:</div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;"><span style="text-indent: -0.25in;">1. Henry Adams, “The New York Gold Conspiracy,” in Charles F. Adams, Jr. and Henry Adams, </span><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal; text-indent: -0.25in;">Chapters of Erie</i><span style="text-indent: -0.25in;"> (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1956), pp. 135-36.</span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;"><span style="text-indent: -0.25in;">2. Henry Adams, </span><i style="text-indent: -0.25in;">The Education of Henry Adams </i><span style="text-indent: -0.25in;">(1907; Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1961), p. 238.</span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;"><span style="text-indent: -0.25in;">3. H. W. Brands, </span><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal; text-indent: -0.25in;">American Colossus: The Triumph of Capitalism 1865-1900 </i><span style="text-indent: -0.25in;">(New York: Doubleday, 2010), pp. 22-23.</span></div></div>Dr. Wordenhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02867414605883311000noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5896319920382721541.post-22936393162330255712023-12-06T13:41:00.000-08:002023-12-08T08:12:48.355-08:00Time Magazine’s Person of the Year: Taylor Swift<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: large;"><i>Time </i>magazine named the
singer Taylor Swift as its person of the year for 2023. Such a force of nature
were her stadium-filled concerts during that summer that they triggered economic
booms in the respective host cities. In Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, for example,
hotel rooms went for as much as $2,500 downtown on the night of the concert. In terms
of American culture, the analogy of gravity waves may fit. During an interview
for television at her home (or one of her homes), Swift’s savvy business acumen
was very evident; her marketing prowess was extraordinary. She even re-released
her own songs, resulting in a huge financial windfall for what are really the
same songs merely re-sung. It is not as if she had grown a new voice. Swift
personifies American culture, whose “movers and shakers” seem “happy go lucky”
on stage yet, behind the scenes, they tend to be lazar-focused on the business
end. In short, considerable distance may exist between the societal image and
the private business practitioner, and the ethical element can get lost in the
shuffle and excitement.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: large;">To be sure, economics was evident
in the “Swiftie” phenomenon during the summer of 2023. According to <i>Time</i>,
Swift “achieved a kind of nuclear fusion: shooting art and commerce together to
release an energy of historic force.”<span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span style="mso-special-character: footnote;"><!--[if !supportFootnotes]--><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span face="Calibri, sans-serif" style="line-height: 107%;">[1]</span></span><!--[endif]--></span></span> Her Eras concert tour "brought in a whopping $1.04 billion with 4.35 million tickets sold across 60 tour dates."[2] Not just any singer can make such a haul and even trigger municipal economic booms and saturate the media’s
attention worldwide simply by going on tour. Also, the magazine is clear that such
a gargantuan amount of money brought in is not “something we often chalk up to
the alignments of planets and fates,” for “giving too much credit to the stars
ignores [Swift’s] skill and her power.”<span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span style="mso-special-character: footnote;"><!--[if !supportFootnotes]--><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span face="Calibri, sans-serif" style="line-height: 107%;">[3]</span></span><!--[endif]--></span></span>
In particular, her intense and sustained focus on every conceivable way, such
as by re-recording existing songs and bundling them (admittedly with some songs
from her vault) into albums in their own right, attending to merchandise and actively
using the media for free publicity, to increase revenue leveraged, or made use
of, her tremendous market power that was unrivaled; she dominated the airwaves
during the summer of 2023. The “Taylor’s Version” albums provide us with an
interesting case study wherein hype, money, and ethics are all in the mix. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: large;">According to <i>Time</i>, “Swift
began releasing re-recordings of her back catalog in 2021 in an effort to
reclaim her original music, after her initial label Big Machine Records sold
her masters to Scooter Braun’s Ithaca Holdings in 2019. ‘Now Scooter has
stripped me of my life’s work, that I wasn’t given an opportunity to buy,’
Swift wrote. . . . ‘Essentially, my musical legacy is about to lie in the hands
of someone who tried to dismantle it.’”<span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span style="mso-special-character: footnote;"><!--[if !supportFootnotes]--><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span face="Calibri, sans-serif" style="line-height: 107%;">[4]</span></span><!--[endif]--></span></span>
I don’t doubt the authenticity of her emotive motivation here. In the
vernacular, she was pissed. <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Even so, if
she had signed a contract with Big Machine Records giving it the unilateral
right to sell the masters of her songs, and the purchaser has the legal right of
use, then she had no legal or ethical claim to preempt the sale or be sold the
masters outright. Of course, if labels write heavily unfair contracts
essentially reflecting the commercial interests of the labels, taking advantage
of the lack of bargaining power of new signers, ethical critique is fair game. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: large;">By its very nature, a contract is
a coming together of (at least) <i>two </i>interests, with consideration
(money) given by one party to the other. A residential lease, for instance,
should reflect both interests. It should not restrict use of premises to be narrowed
down to reflect only how the property owner would use the space or would like
the space to be used. A property owner might prefer a “no guest” policy, but
such as “policy”—the very word being presumptuous—violates reasonable use of
premises. Furthermore, the property owner’s personal religious or moral
lifestyle, for instance, should not bind the counterparty as long as the
property itself is not damaged. “I don’t believe in eating meat, so you <i>are
not allowed to </i>use the kitchen of your apartment to cook meat,” for instance,
is presumptuous and dogmatic. More to the point, such a clause would violate or
nullify the fact that in receiving rent, the property owner is selling the use
of the space (as long as the property is not damaged). The mantra, “<i>It’s my
house</i>,” taken as an absolute, is circumscribed when <i>use </i>is being
sold for consideration (i.e., rent). Having it both ways is selfish and
childish. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: large;">Whether or not Taylor Swift
originally signed a one-sided contract is beyond my ability to investigate, given
the information that I have. Her fans did not know either, and so, because of her
emotional claim and her “star power,” her ethical cause resonated. Even so, it
can be asked whether it is ethical to have hyped “Taylor’s Version” albums to
the extent that buyers were willing to pay the full price of an album even if
they had most of the songs already. To be sure, the “Taylor’s Versions”
included “vault tracks”—songs not on the original albums. She also updated some
lyrics. Even so, it can be asked whether the additional work justifies a full
price of a new album. It can also be asked whether customers having receipts
for the original albums, such as <i>Fearless</i>, should have been able to buy Taylor’s
version at a discount. I submit that such a discount would be reasonable, given
both the amount of additional work on Taylor’s part and the substance of the
product (i.e., the extent to which it differs from the originals). A few songs
from the vault and some new lyrics do not render the albums commensurate with
albums filled with previously unreleased songs. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: large;">If Swift’s motivation was indeed
to gain <i>control </i>of her songs, she should have agreed to a discount. <i>Fearless</i>
(<i>Taylor’s Version</i>)<i> </i>had the biggest debut for any album in 2021,
with 722.7 million on-demand streams in the U.S. that year.<span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span style="mso-special-character: footnote;"><!--[if !supportFootnotes]--><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span face="Calibri, sans-serif" style="line-height: 107%;">[5]</span></span><!--[endif]--></span></span>
Surely at least <i>some </i>of those customers already possessed the original album.
Of course, the irrational exuberance that would cause such a customer to buy
the same songs again can also be criticized, but many of her customers were
teenagers and thus easily taken in even by orchestrated hype of good feeling
seemingly aloft from the earthly taint of business strategizing. My point is
that it is no accident that Taylor Swift made <i>a lot </i>of money essentially
recycling songs ready for re-singing. She was not merely trying to regain
control over her work. I submit that she was acting as a business woman, and a
darn good one at that. <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Her true identity—her
driving <i>financial </i>ambition—was practically hidden under the blinding
glitter of the “nuclear fusion” that<i> Time </i>magazine describes. My point
is that the resulting sonic boom was orchestrated to coordinate and max out
both the hype and the revenue. Behind the moral cause, <i>behind the curtains, </i>Swift’s
financial acumen could be said to be a subterranean force of nature. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: large;">Such a force tends to be
obscured, obfuscated, or, more often, <i>intentionally </i>hidden in the
American entertainment industry. Similarly, elected representatives in Congress
or the White House keep both their fowl tongues and their raw desire for power
far away from the reach of microphones and cameras. In short, the sheer
difference between private personas, including agendas, motivations, and even
personalities, and the public images on the societal stage is astounding.
Especially in politics in a representative democracy, this differential is a
real problem that goes beyond the financial harm to young “Swifties” who have
been subtly manipulated into buying (mostly recycled) songs at full price.</span></p><div style="mso-element: endnote-list;">
<hr align="left" size="1" width="33%" />
<!--[endif]-->
<div id="edn1" style="mso-element: endnote;">
<div>1. Jordan Valinsky, “<a href="https://www.cnn.com/2023/12/06/media/taylor-swift-time-person-of-the-year/index.html"><span style="color: #783f04;">Taylor
Swift Named Time’s ‘Person of the Year</span></a>,” CNN.com, December 6, 2023.<br />2. Maria Sherman, "<a href="https://apnews.com/article/taylor-swift-eras-tour-billion-dollar-record-52945111233438b1f2166aa19eee365f"><span style="color: #783f04;">Taylor Swift's Eras Tour Is the First Tour to Gross Over $1 Billion, Pollster Says</span></a>," APNews.com, December 8, 2023.</div><div>3. Valinsky, “<a href="https://www.cnn.com/2023/12/06/media/taylor-swift-time-person-of-the-year/index.html"><span style="color: #783f04;">Taylor Swift Named Time’s ‘Person of the Year</span></a>.”<br />4. Mariah Espada, “<a href="https://time.com/6292599/taylor-swift-speak-now-rerecord-project/"><span style="color: #783f04;">Taylor
Swift Is Halfway Through Her Rerecording Project. It’s Paid Off Big Time</span></a>,” <i>Time</i>,
July 6, 2023.<br />5. Ibid.</div><p class="MsoEndnoteText"><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div id="edn2" style="mso-element: endnote;">
<p class="MsoEndnoteText"><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div id="edn3" style="mso-element: endnote;">
<p class="MsoEndnoteText"><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div id="edn4" style="mso-element: endnote;">
<p class="MsoEndnoteText"><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</div><br /><p></p>Dr. Wordenhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02867414605883311000noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5896319920382721541.post-34533431423711325532023-09-30T15:34:00.004-07:002024-01-19T09:09:00.170-08:00Exposing Yale’s Sordid Side: “The Inner Ring” by C. S. Lewis<p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: large;">C. S. Lewis aptly describes in one published lecture the nature of a very human game, which is really about how soft power, which is often buttressed by institutional position, works in any human organization. To use Nietzsche’s expression (which Lewis would have hardly appreciated), the dynamics of an inner ring is human, all too human, and thus hardly an extractible part of the human condition. Yet it is much more salient, and arguably even dysfunctional, in just some organizations, especially those that have an elite reputation such as Yale, whose essence, we shall investigate here, might be exclusion even <i>within </i>the university community, such that some vulnerable members are told they are not really members (but that their donations are welcome).</span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: large;">In my essay, “<a href="https://thewordenreport-highered.blogspot.com/2023/09/yales-original-sin.html"><span style="color: #783f04;">Yale’s
Original Sin</span></a>,” I describe Yale’s culture of inner-exclusion operating <i>within </i>the
university, wherein some insiders are relegated by inner-insiders as outsiders.
During my stay as an alumnus doing research for a book I was writing, I was
astonished to read emails from non-academic employees in which they bluntly stated
that I was not a “member of the Yale community” because I was an alum. Unfortunately, and quite tellingly, those explicit
statements were just the tip of the iceberg. Much more common, in more sense
than one ironically, were the intentional subtle hints given by some faculty,
faculty-administrators, and even non-academic employees that I was not worth
their time whether in replying to an email message or in conversation. This extended to the faculty culture being averse to allowing alumni (and other scholars, as a courtasy) to audit courses and to that of clerical employees not recognizing alumni in residence for a term as members of the Yale community. This self-serving, arrogant, and deeply mistaken attitude and belief applied in a counter-productive way to charging alumni in residence $4 more than students, faculty, and the non-academic employees themselves, for lunch at the university lunch hall known as Commons. A common mentality to be sure. </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: large;">In his lecture entitled, “The
Inner Ring,” C. S. Lewis describes the ubiquitous phenomenon that he calls the inner
ring of an organization. “I can assure you,” he tells his audience, “that in
whatever hospital, inn of court, diocese, school, business, or college you
arrive . . . , you will find the Rings—what Tolstoy calls the second or
unwritten systems.” In <i>War and Peace</i>, Tolstoy alludes to such an
informal yet firmly hierarchical or concentric system: “(S)ide by side with the
system of discipline and subordination which were laid down in the Army
Regulations, there existed a different and more real system—the system which
compelled a tightly laced general with a purple face to wait respectfully for
his turn while a mere captain like Prince Andrey chatted with a mere second
lieutenant like Boris.” The general is not royalty, and so he deferred to the prince
even though the latter was of a lower rank. The general was thus an outsider in
the immediate context of the prince’s conversation even though he is very much
an insider among military brass. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: large;">We mere humans revile being relegated
as outsiders; we very much want to be insiders. This is C. S. Lewis’ main
point. “My main purpose in this address is simply to convince you that this
desire is one of the great permanent mainsprings of human action.”
Specifically, he means here “the desire to be inside the local Ring and the
terror of being left outside.” This desire and fear can be distinguished from
the desire for personal gain and the fear of going homeless out of financial
ruin. “And you will be drawn in, if you are drawn in, not by desire for gain or
ease, but simply because at that moment, when the cup was so near your lips,
you cannot bear to be thrust back again into the cold outer world. It would be
so terrible to see the other man’s face—that genial, confidential, delightfully
sophisticated face—turn suddenly cold and contemptuous, to know that you had
been tried for the Inner Ring and rejected.” In other words, wanting to feel oneself
as an insider and to avoid feeling like an outsider are desires that do not
necessarily line up with, or reduce to, the desire for political or economic
gain.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: large;">As with any desire, the desire to
be an insider cannot be permanently satiated once achieved. C.S. Lewis wrote, “As long as you are
governed by that desire you will never get what you want. You are trying to
peel an onion: if you succeed there will be nothing left. . . . Once the first
novelty is worn off, the members of this circle will be no more interesting
than your old friends.” Or perhaps a ring within that ring will emerge, and you
will have a new impediment to feeling like an insider. Even if that is
achieved, you would still suffer from the fear that you could become an
outsider, for the grounds from relegating you are informal in this secondary
system and thus secretive and hardly subject to the moral principle of
fairness. C. S. Lewis goes so far as to declare, “Until you conquer the fear of
being an outsider, an outsider you will remain.”<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: large;">The combination of secrecy and
informality in an inner ring, or circle, renders unfairness from personal like
and dislike especially likely. An official hierarchy, in contrast, operates
ideally on the basic of merit, with avenues for appeals. Money in the form of
bribes and political power can less ideally come into play in formal
hierarchies. So too can friendships. But these more informal means of promotion
and demotion are more the currency of inclusion and exclusion in informal
hierarchies, such as C. S. Lewis describes. To be rejected for lack of merit
is, I submit, easier to take than by unfair means or reasons. The latter is
evinced when the decision-makers are hidden from view and thus appeals to them
cannot be made. This passage from C. S. Lewis describes the subtle mechanics of
an inner ring very well:<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: large;">“You are never formally and
explicitly admitted by anyone. You discover gradually, in almost indefinable
ways, that it exists and that you are outside it; and then later, perhaps, that
you are inside it. . . . It is not easy, even at a given moment, to say who is
inside and who is outside. Some people are obviously in and some are obviously
out, but there are always several on the borderline. . . . There are no formal
admissions or expulsions. People think they are in it after they have in fact
been pushed out of it, or before they have been allowed in: this provides great
amusement for those who are really inside. It has no fixed name.” <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: large;">The subtle messages in the rude behavior from Yale
faculty, academic administrators, non-academic employees, and even some students
that I describe above and in “Yale’s Original Sin” are the means by which ill-favored Yalies gradually discover that they have already been rendered <i>outsiders</i>. That the realization of having been excluded
can occur gradually opens up the outsider to embarrassment, for the insiders
relish watching as if the person with a blindfold on is stumbling over
furniture. The behavior could be regarded superficially as mere rudeness, so it
can be difficult if one is on the receiving end to detect that one is being
handed one’s hat on the way out. A person may just stand there, holding one’s
hat, wondering why a person just felt the need to deliver the hat even if the other
person intended to send the message, <i>you are no longer welcome here but I
can’t kick you out of the building</i>. This is precisely the message that
people in Yale’s inner rings (and there are more than one) want to send. Bottom
line: such people refuse to tolerate even the very presence of a person they
don’t like. This includes a person who holds a contrary opinion. The motive, in
other words, goes beyond wanting to make sophomoric statements of superiority; the
intention is <i>also</i> meant to convey to others that they are outsiders. Whereas
gorillas establish superiority and push certain individuals out by physical
means, our species is not so forthright and honest (or brave). <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: large;">In the movie <i>Contact</i>
(1997), Haddon, a millionaire, says to Ellie, a young astrophysicist who wants
to be chosen to go on a space mission, “The powers that be have been very busy
lately, falling over themselves to position themselves for the game of the
millennium. Maybe I can help deal you back in.” By this he is referring to
being dealt cards in a card game. Ellie takes the hint and replies, “I didn’t
realize that I was out,” to which Haddon says, “Maybe not out, but certainly
being handed your hat.”<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Ellie has no
idea that even her boss, in jockeying for position to be chosen as the
astronaut, has been working to see to it that Ellie is eliminated from
consideration by the inner ring of which the boss is an insider but Ellie is
not. She has no access to that circle of power-elites, so she doesn’t even know
that she needs to promote or defend herself, or even appeal. From outside the
inner ring, its workings are shrouded with mystery, for outsiders are not privy
to the phone calls and other conversations that take place within. As C.S.
Lewis wrote, “There are no formal admissions or expulsions. People think they
are in it after they have in fact been pushed out of it, or before they have
been allowed in: this provides great amusement for those who are really inside.
It has no fixed name.” Ellie’s boss gets pleasure from dealing her out,
especially because this is being done without her knowledge. C. S. Lewis wrote,
“It is not easy, even at a given moment, to say who is inside and who is
outside. Some people are obviously in and some are obviously out, but there are
always several on the borderline.”</span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: large;">Interesting, C. S. Lewis must have known that the
question of whether the phenomenon of the inner ring, even manifesting in a
seminary, is evil was being asked. If, as I strongly suspect, exclusionary
comments and actions are deliberately done at least in part to emotionally hurt
other people, even just out of dislike, the question of whether such insiders
are <i>de facto </i>evil is relevant. C. S Lewis focuses his answer at the level
of the ring, but with implications for its inhabitants. <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>“I am not going to say that the existence of
Inner Rings is an Evil. It is certainly unavoidable. There must be confidential
discussions: and it is not only a bad thing, it is (in itself) a good thing,
that personal friendship should grow up between those who work together.” But
this is just one side of the coin, or ring. Lewis admits that the “genuine
Inner Ring exists for exclusion. There’d be no fun if there were no outsiders.
The invisible line would have no meaning unless most people were on the wrong
side of it. Exclusion is no accident; it is the essence.” These last two sentences
may aptly describe the dark side of Yale. This is not to say that the essence
of Yale is exclusively exclusion, for that would imply that no other source of
worth, in this case, academic, exists in the organization. Even so, exclusion
is an excessive, or hypertrophic instinctual urge in many people there,
especially in those who work there.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: large;"><span>Lewis claims that the anguish in being reckoned as an outsider is a strong human motivating force in wanting to be counted as insiders. But if a group, or its inner ring, is filled with rude, petty elitists, wouldn't a normal person feel some solace and even self-esteem in being an outsider? I suppose whether this is one's own choice or that of the "members" of a ring makes a difference here. Nevertheless, </span><span>Nietzsche wrote that the
healthy should not visit the sick in hospital lest the healthy catch something.
In Christianity, Paul warns about hanging out with fools. Depending on the group,
a person might very well relish being an outsider, even if not by choice. Some rings have bad odors. </span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: large;">A question posed by C. S. Lewis seems relevant: “I must not ask
whether you have derived actual pleasure from the loneliness and humiliation of
the outsiders after you, yourself were in: whether you have talked to fellow
members of the Ring in the presence of outsiders simply in order that the
outsiders might envy; whether the means whereby, in your days of probation, you
propitiated the Inner Ring, were always wholly admirable. I will ask only one
question—and it is, of course, a rhetorical question which expects no answer. In
the whole of your life as you now remember it, has the desire to be on the
right side of that invisible line ever prompted you to any act or word on
which, in the cold small hours of a wakeful night, you can look back with
satisfaction? If so, your case is more fortunate than most.” From this, I
surmise that Lewis reckoned that such people are bad, and even malicious, but
not evil, because what he was describing was human nature itself. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: large;">In Augustine’s theology, we are
all subject to original sin. Proverbially, we are all sons and daughters of
Adam and Eve. Evil, it seems to me, cannot simply be human nature itself, but,
rather, an extreme in enjoying human suffering. But even this definition is problematic,
for sociopathy is a psychological illness rather than a religious phenomenon.
Evil is a distinctly religious term. I think the problem is psychological where
exclusion is allowed to fill in a void to become the essence of an organization.
Taken to the extreme, exclusion as substance or the <i>raison d’etre</i> of an
organization and thus being its very essence snuffs out other possible substances
and thus must ultimately collapse. Relatedly, M. Scott Peck writes in <i>People
of the Lie </i>that it is a sense of inner emptiness that lies at the core of
malignant narcissism. Perhaps that is responsible for the dysfunctional organizational culture of inner-exclusion from within that has plagued Yale.</span></p><p></p>Dr. Wordenhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02867414605883311000noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5896319920382721541.post-60258947248982104522023-08-17T10:49:00.001-07:002023-08-19T08:04:12.052-07:00Walmart: Encroaching on Employees' Private Lives<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: large;">In 2023, Walmart relaxed its
policy requiring anyone applying for a job at the company to get a drug test,
including for marijuana, which at the time was legal in several U.S. member
states. Once hired, however, employees were still subject to random testing. An
employee in a member state in which the drug is legal could be fired even if
the person is never affected by the drug while working. I contend that the practice is unfair, unethical, and an over-reach in terms of the nature of a labor contract. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: large;">The ethical principle of fairness
is violated because both marijuana and alcohol can impair the brain and yet the
company only tests for one even where both drugs are legal. An argument can be
made that the alcoholic personality is less than suitable, and yet taking
marijuana outside of work (with no impact during work hours) is reason enough
for an employee to be fired. Whereas alcohol can inducive hostility and even
aggression, marijuana has a calming drug—something that could actually help
busy cashiers. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: large;">Besides being unfair, the policy
of even random tests for marijuana is invasive, beyond the legitimate scope of
an employer’s reach—assuming that the employee using marijuana is never “high”
at work. In selling one’s labor, an employee does not agree to a company’s
management being able to control the employee’s legal activities outside of
work if those activities do not affect the employee’s work. Sam Walton, the
founder of Walmart, was against marijuana; for him to impose his ideological
opposition on others where the drug is legal was over-reaching and impious; he
was not a god. An argument can also be made that it is none of the company’s
business, literally and figuratively, whether an employee uses the drug where
it is illegal, again as long as the employee is not “high” at work. Law
enforcement is the job of police, not a company’s managers. Of course, if an employee
is convicted of a crime, an employer may not permit convicted employees to
continue. In the case of Walmart, it hires people who have criminal records,
which shows just how nonsensical the policy of random testing for marijuana is
(especially as more and more U.S. member states legalize recreational use of
the drug). In terms of a contract between an employer and an employee, an
employer who presumes to dictate an employee’s recreational activities imposes
a cost on employees that is not offset by the monetary compensation.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: large;">Imagine what would happen if a
labor union <i>informed </i>a company’s management that an abrasive supervisor must
be subject to drug and alcohol tests and fired for any positive results, or
else the employees would strike. Suppose too that the supervisor does indeed
have a problem with alcohol, but is not under its influence while at work.
Still the union insists that the company fire that person. Suddenly, the
company’s management would object with a mighty roar, <i>How dare employees
tell us what we cannot do on our days off! The nerve! </i>Well, it goes both
ways, folks. The attitude is the same: the unethical vice of invasiveness (in
peoples’ personal, not work-related lives) is noxious and may even point to a
toxic organizational culture. <br style="mso-special-character: line-break;" />
<!--[if !supportLineBreakNewLine]--><br style="mso-special-character: line-break;" />
<!--[endif]--><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: large;">See: <a href="https://www.amazon.com/Wal-Mart-Bad-Management-as-Unethical-ebook/dp/B00W2VYRVS/ref=sr_1_1?keywords=walmart+skip+worden&qid=1692293981&s=music&sr=1-1">Walmart:
<i>Bad Management as Unethical</i></a><o:p></o:p></span></p><br /><p></p>Dr. Wordenhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02867414605883311000noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5896319920382721541.post-79616880003580797052023-08-16T13:53:00.002-07:002023-08-21T08:49:05.245-07:00Getting the Seasons Wrong: Purblind Meteorologists<p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: large;">You may think you know the answer
to the question, “When is the autumn season?” But do you? <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Watching the weather section of local news on
television or the internet, you could be excused for getting the beginning date
wrong because it is the meteorologist who has misled you. In itself, getting
the exact day right is not a big deal; it is not as if the temperature can be
expected to take a nose-dive on the first day of fall. The astonishing thing is
that so many meteorologists either knowingly or out of ignorance present the
astronomical beginning of the “autumn” quarter of the Earth’s orbit as the meteorological
start of fall, for the two are different yet admittedly related. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: large;">“According to The Old Farmer’s Almanac,
meteorological seasons are based on the temperature cycle in a calendar year.”<span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span style="mso-special-character: footnote;"><!--[if !supportFootnotes]--><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span style="line-height: 107%;">[1]</span></span><!--[endif]--></span></span>
The first month of a given season tends resemble the preceding season and the
last month anticipates the upcoming season. A season comes is fully its own in
its second month. Each season lasts three months. “Meteorological fall begins on
September 1” in the Northern Hemisphere and ends “exactly 90 days later, on
November 30. Winter then gets its three months. Growing up in a northern
Midwestern (U.S.) state, I just assumed that snowy March was part of winter. It
sure felt like that. Only later, while living in the Southwest, did I realize
that temperatures do start to go up in March. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: large;">Distinct but having an impact on
meteorological seasons, the astronomical seasons are “based on the position of Earth
in relation to the sun’s position.”<span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span style="mso-special-character: footnote;"><!--[if !supportFootnotes]--><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span style="line-height: 107%;">[2]</span></span><!--[endif]--></span></span>
There are such seasons because of the tilt of the Earth in relation to the sun.
On the summer solstice—the <i>astronomical </i>beginning of “summer”—the sun’s perpendicular
rays get the farthest north; the Northern Hemisphere tilts toward the sun. The Southern
Hemisphere is closest on the winter solstice—the <i>astronomical </i>beginning
of “winter.” Again, while growing up in the northern Midwest, I <i>knew </i>that
meteorological winter could not possibly start well into December just before Christmas,
for winter cold was well ensconced by that time. The meteorological start of
winter, on December 1st, is much more accurate in terms of temperature. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: large;">It is odd, therefore, that the start
dates of the astronomical seasons are “more commonly celebrated” even to mark
changes in weather.<span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span style="mso-special-character: footnote;"><!--[if !supportFootnotes]--><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span style="line-height: 107%;">[3]</span></span><!--[endif]--></span></span> A
weather site or television broadcast using the astronomical start-date is inherently
misleading, as the implication is incorrect. Even though Accuweather.com states,
“Astronomical autumn officially arrives on Saturday, Sept. 23 at 2:50 a.m. EDT,
a few weeks after the arrival of meteorological fall,” the presentation of the
two starts by a weather organization may be confusing, especially as the
paragraph continues with: “Regardless of which date you celebrate the start of
autumn, . . .”<span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span style="mso-special-character: footnote;"><!--[if !supportFootnotes]--><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span style="line-height: 107%;">[4]</span></span><!--[endif]--></span></span> In
an article on the fall <i>weather </i>forecast, two start-dates for that
seasons are given. <o:p></o:p></span><span style="font-family: times; font-size: x-large;">At least Accuweather.com distinguishes the astronomical from the meteorological. Local meteorologists use the astronomical dates on charts of weekly weather forecasts. </span></p><p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"></p><p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh1eGJk_yyWOMKtot1znI3WfU9NqL_KdikS_FLMF-IwHEvY2KL2TmuBQfPNDQJEJxJIdNTWjvRJs4SkCycZrfmyNrxFupLy0aJdh205q-vaO4cR7yy9sj4NdG2I8SIVpa-gEkDdS5FlLM2-nu5E4StJJ_T3nS4iYZk4TGnc2RXav4eyz0BsqI0TbX9-G9k/s300/False%20Autumn%20weather%20seasons.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="168" data-original-width="300" height="168" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh1eGJk_yyWOMKtot1znI3WfU9NqL_KdikS_FLMF-IwHEvY2KL2TmuBQfPNDQJEJxJIdNTWjvRJs4SkCycZrfmyNrxFupLy0aJdh205q-vaO4cR7yy9sj4NdG2I8SIVpa-gEkDdS5FlLM2-nu5E4StJJ_T3nS4iYZk4TGnc2RXav4eyz0BsqI0TbX9-G9k/s1600/False%20Autumn%20weather%20seasons.jpg" width="300" /></a></div><p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEia0F_mHjnnK1jVU9ClnYm31nJaagUliThV9p76ci-m027UBQa6M0lW5hbm-dvLvvB6SxRTMbX4yA3JZXDMlWqwPGZNuGmAN1t23TFpTkiy-Mz6BlPnznWZn5YWaOYLzUZH_KIUdSBw7qrUXS83lHBmPG_ZtXsntcQuHKCd0AOWmp0Ja7OWOQbuBePy7m8/s300/weather%20seasons%20meteorology%20astronomy.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="168" data-original-width="300" height="168" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEia0F_mHjnnK1jVU9ClnYm31nJaagUliThV9p76ci-m027UBQa6M0lW5hbm-dvLvvB6SxRTMbX4yA3JZXDMlWqwPGZNuGmAN1t23TFpTkiy-Mz6BlPnznWZn5YWaOYLzUZH_KIUdSBw7qrUXS83lHBmPG_ZtXsntcQuHKCd0AOWmp0Ja7OWOQbuBePy7m8/s1600/weather%20seasons%20meteorology%20astronomy.jpg" width="300" /></a></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">On this <i>weather </i>chart, the Thursday (September 22nd) is labeled as "Fall." </div><p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: large;">This is
definitely misleading—or is it the case that local weather personalities do not
realize their mistakes? At the very least, the television meteorologists astonishingly
do not realize that they are giving false information—that they are misleading
the public. It is absurd, at least in the northern tier of U.S. member states
to say that summer does not begin until June 21<sup>st</sup> and that winter
does not begin until a few days before Christmas. To stick with something that is
so obviously absurd <i>and </i>incorrect when meteorologists should know better
is precisely the cognitive phenomenon that I want to highlight here. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: large;">Perhaps the culprit is cognitive dissidence:
the brain holding two contradictory thoughts at the same time. <i>I know this
date is astronomical AND I am using it on a weather forecast AND I know that
the meteorological date is different. </i>This weakness or vulnerability of the
human brain may mean that there are others. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: large;">Regarding religious and political
ideological <i>beliefs</i>, the brain may be susceptible to “short-circuiting”
an internal check that would otherwise keep the brain from conflating <i>belief
</i>with <i>knowledge</i>. A person once told me that Michele Obama is really a
man. I disagreed. The person replied, “That’s just your opinion; I have the
facts.” I said that I did not want to discuss politics. “It’s not political,”
she replied. My claim to the contrary was, again, “just an opinion.” I was
stunned at such ignorance that couldn’t be wrong. <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Next, she wrote a nonsensical “deep state”
political coded message on an index card. That her brain would not entertain
the possibility that it could be in error is precisely the vulnerability that I
contend plagues the brain as it ventures into political and religious domains
of cognitions. In short, I suggest that a healthy human brain has more
cognitive weaknesses than merely being subjective, and that society is overwhelmingly
oblivious to them. </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<div style="mso-element: endnote-list;"><!--[if !supportEndnotes]--><br clear="all" />
<hr align="left" size="1" width="33%" />
<!--[endif]-->
<div id="edn1" style="mso-element: endnote;">
<div style="text-align: left;"><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span style="mso-special-character: footnote;"><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span style="font-family: "Calibri",sans-serif; font-size: 10.0pt; line-height: 107%; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-bidi; mso-fareast-font-family: Calibri; mso-fareast-language: EN-US; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;">[1]</span></span><!--[endif]--></span></span>
Amaya McDonald, “When and How to Watch the Perseid Meteor Shower,” CNN.com, August
11, 2023.<br /><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span style="mso-special-character: footnote;"><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span style="font-family: "Calibri",sans-serif; font-size: 10.0pt; line-height: 107%; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-bidi; mso-fareast-font-family: Calibri; mso-fareast-language: EN-US; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;">[2]</span></span><!--[endif]--></span></span>
Ibid.<br /><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span style="mso-special-character: footnote;"><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span style="font-family: "Calibri",sans-serif; font-size: 10.0pt; line-height: 107%; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-bidi; mso-fareast-font-family: Calibri; mso-fareast-language: EN-US; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;">[3]</span></span><!--[endif]--></span></span> Ibid.<br /><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span style="mso-special-character: footnote;"><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span style="font-family: "Calibri",sans-serif; font-size: 10.0pt; line-height: 107%; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-bidi; mso-fareast-font-family: Calibri; mso-fareast-language: EN-US; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;">[4]</span></span><!--[endif]--></span></span>
Brian Lada, “<a href="https://www.accuweather.com/en/weather-forecasts/accuweathers-2023-us-fall-forecast/1562599"><span style="color: #783f04;">AccuWeather’s
2023 US Fall Forecast</span></a>,” Accuweather.com, July 26, 2023.</div><p class="MsoEndnoteText"><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div id="edn2" style="mso-element: endnote;">
<p class="MsoEndnoteText"><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div id="edn3" style="mso-element: endnote;">
<p class="MsoEndnoteText"><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div id="edn4" style="mso-element: endnote;">
<p class="MsoEndnoteText"><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</div><br /><p></p>Dr. Wordenhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02867414605883311000noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5896319920382721541.post-57929394492708142832023-07-04T12:48:00.004-07:002023-07-11T14:01:53.487-07:00On the Decadence of American Journalism: Journalists as Celebrities<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: large;">I submit that when a conveyer of
the news becomes the story, something is wrong; in typing this sentence
initially, I did not include <i>I submit that</i>. To state my thesis statement
as if it were a fact of reason (Kant’s phrase) seemed to me rather heavy-handed
(i.e., arrogant). Similarly, when some Americans <i>insisted </i>after the U.S.
presidential that Don Trump had won as if the asseveration were a fact of
reason, I could sense aggressiveness along with the presumptuousness in
treating one’s own opinion as a declaration of fact, especially if the actual
fact—Joe Biden being sworn into the office—was otherwise. Opinion is one thing;
fact is another. When a person misconstrues one’s opinion with fact, something
is wrong. I believe this happens so often that it may be due to a problem
innate in the human brain. Religious folks would not have to reach far to point
out that in the story of Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden, the sin of pride manifests
in wanting to be omniscient; eating of that proverbial apple of the knowledge
of good and evil ushers in original sin. A person perceiving one’s own opinion
as fact, or even as important as fact, implicitly regards oneself as God. A
journalist who interlards one’s role in conveying the news with one’s own
commentary, and an editor who then makes that commentary the point of a story both
treat a means (i.e., the conveyer of news) as an end (i.e., the news itself). I
contend that at least by 2023, American journalism had fallen into this hole
with impunity, which involved a lack of industry self-regulation and individual
self-discipline. <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: large;">On July 4, 2023, <i>The
Huffington Post </i>ran a story, “CNN Journalist Responds to Brazen Trump
Campaign Claim with Disbelief.” The story begins with the following statement: “CNN’s
Phil Mattingly on Monday couldn’t quite believe a Trump campaign response to a
Washington Post question about the former president’s efforts to overturn the
2020 election result.”<span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span style="mso-special-character: footnote;"><!--[if !supportFootnotes]--><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span style="line-height: 107%;">[1]</span></span><!--[endif]--></span></span>
Why should it matter whether a journalist can’t quite believe a statement made
by a person being interviewed? CNN also ran the story, "Anderson Cooper Is Dumbfounded by Ron DeSantis' Bad Polling Excuse." The news network reported that the "CNN anchor was confused by the 2024 Republican presidential candidate's reason for falling behind Donald Trump." Why should it matter that the journalist was confused? Maybe he was not the brightest lightbulb. The network's message was obviously that DeSantis was to blame for the journalist's confusion, so the intent was to bias the viewers and readers against the presidential candidate. The inclusion of the word, <i>excuse</i>, in the story's title indicates the tenor of the bias in the "news" story. </span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: large;">Is it ethical for a journalist to sway or bias the reactions
of viewers or readers? <i>Euronews</i>, a E.U. rather than a U.S. news network,
explicitly espouses impartiality so viewers can form their own opinions unimpeded
by that of a journalist. That network even has a feature in which video is
shown of events going on around the world, such as a political protest, with “No
Comment” showing at the end. What a contrast to the American news media!</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: large;">CNN’s obsession with the visible
reactions of one of its news anchors, Anderson Cooper, to political statements
even of people being interviewed illustrates my thesis. From his “news” show,
Anderson Cooper 360, the network posted a video on CNN.com entitled “<span style="color: #783f04;">Watch
Cooper’s Reaction to What Sondland Told Trump</span>.” His reaction was visibly
nothing spectacular. </span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: center;"></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgf5XnseP-hDeec83Vvx7IWaEroUEkRBENZbWupTBuRYRDQVO8fETj2mxFjrGnqIfC8GmKdFm0tQfIW4tXl0mDIMy86PQ06vhdccCtQE_YpCJItVkwyU9sqHOHWP3hKFTTDUTw05VsxnysKRq6juPqP-cYVgGlmjozcqWaZwOjlsy6sWkMzVSbDh8S4gGc/s1366/Screenshot%20(44).png" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="768" data-original-width="1366" height="180" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgf5XnseP-hDeec83Vvx7IWaEroUEkRBENZbWupTBuRYRDQVO8fETj2mxFjrGnqIfC8GmKdFm0tQfIW4tXl0mDIMy86PQ06vhdccCtQE_YpCJItVkwyU9sqHOHWP3hKFTTDUTw05VsxnysKRq6juPqP-cYVgGlmjozcqWaZwOjlsy6sWkMzVSbDh8S4gGc/s320/Screenshot%20(44).png" width="320" /></a></div><p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: large;">Another video had the title, “<a href="https://www.cnn.com/videos/politics/2022/01/08/ted-cruz-tucker-carlson-january-6-kth-ac360-vpx.cnn"><span style="color: #783f04;">See
Anderson Cooper’s Reaction to Ted Cruz ‘Groveling’ on Fox</span></a>.” Again, the
reaction was hardly noteworthy. </span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: center;"></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiltE1N4TRv3VO8Y-52uJ4uR8W11YegSZkG7wLi43xgwyPMTUs8Sv1IQmJqHcjnGld-VgVkoa9msq2X2QCcGRD9MJZ--DkO_DnNrjfuLgkObLi_iupASy4YI1U-g0Y0C3KVvIHn2UVmy16wxunkafo_gPbVK4Sg2pYGMIaSEheRdvI1c-ZMowOulG-gohE/s1366/Screenshot%20(45).png" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="768" data-original-width="1366" height="180" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiltE1N4TRv3VO8Y-52uJ4uR8W11YegSZkG7wLi43xgwyPMTUs8Sv1IQmJqHcjnGld-VgVkoa9msq2X2QCcGRD9MJZ--DkO_DnNrjfuLgkObLi_iupASy4YI1U-g0Y0C3KVvIHn2UVmy16wxunkafo_gPbVK4Sg2pYGMIaSEheRdvI1c-ZMowOulG-gohE/s320/Screenshot%20(45).png" width="320" /></a></div><p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: large;">Nevertheless, his show on the <i>new network</i>
all about the anchor, as the very name of the show makes explicit. CNN’s CEO
must have thought that the anchor’s reactions would make good promotional
material for the network. Strangely, a magazine’s editor even thought that
Anderson Cooper’s reactions were of value apart from promotional purposes. <i>People
</i>posted a story online about the CNN anchor’s reactions in a New Year’s Eve
broadcast from Times Square in New York City. The story, “<a href="https://people.com/tv/anderson-cooper-reaction-taking-shots-new-years-eve-andy-cohen/"><span style="color: #783f04;">Anderson
Cooper Was All of Us with His Hilarious Reactions as He Took Shots to Bid 2020
Farewell</span></a>,” featured the <i>celebrity’s</i> reaction to drinking a shot of
alcohol on live television. After he and the other host drank a shot, “Cooper
pursed his lips and coughed in seemingly slight discomfort, though he otherwise
held it together.”<span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span style="mso-special-character: footnote;"><!--[if !supportFootnotes]--><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span style="line-height: 107%;">[2]</span></span><!--[endif]--></span></span>
Hilarious. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: large;">It may be that Anderson Cooper’s
minute reactions were such important fodder for publications because the anchor’s
mother, Gloria Vanderbilt, was an heiress of an illustrious (and very rich)
American family. She was a businesswoman, fashion designer, socialite, and
writer in her own right. Interestingly, she had offered at the age of 85 to
carry a baby for her gay son. That in itself was more newsworthy than any of
her son’s muted political reactions on air. Of course, when Anderson Cooper had
come out as gay on air, that too was deemed to be newsworthy in spite the
journalistic standard that the sexual orientation (or race, gender, or
political ideology) of a conveyer of news shouldn’t have an impact on the
presentation of the news.</span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: large;"><span style="font-family: times; text-align: left;">When a journalist becomes the story, especially in
expressing a </span><i style="font-family: times; text-align: left;">personal opinion</i><span style="font-family: times; text-align: left;">, news itself (and journalism) becomes
obfuscated, diluted, and even toxic from the standpoint of the role of an
electorate in a democracy. The societal justification in giving journalists an
outsized mouthpiece in public discourse is predicated on their </span><i style="font-family: times; text-align: left;">function </i><span style="font-family: times; text-align: left;">in
</span><i style="font-family: times; text-align: left;">conveying </i><span style="font-family: times; text-align: left;">the news. This does not extend to molding public opinion and
being the news themselves. In a culture in which reality-shows spawn celebrities,
perhaps it is only natural that </span><i style="font-family: times; text-align: left;">anyone </i><span style="font-family: times; text-align: left;">on television could be made into
one even for displaying muted visible reactions.</span></span></p><div style="mso-element: endnote-list;"><!--[if !supportEndnotes]--><br clear="all" />
<hr align="left" size="1" width="33%" />
<!--[endif]-->
<div id="edn1" style="mso-element: endnote;">
<p class="MsoEndnoteText"><span face="Calibri, sans-serif"><span style="font-size: 13.3333px;">1.</span></span> Lee Moran, “<a href="https://www.huffpost.com/entry/donald-trump-claim-cnn-phil-mattingly_n_64a3b5d5e4b028e64732d306"><span style="color: #783f04;">CNN
Journalist Responds to Brazen Trump Campaign Claim with Disbelief</span></a>,” <i>The
Huffington Post</i>, July 4, 2023.<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div id="edn2" style="mso-element: endnote;">
<p class="MsoEndnoteText"><span face="Calibri, sans-serif"><span style="font-size: 13.3333px;">2.</span></span> Jen
Juneau, “<span style="color: #783f04;"><a href="https://people.com/tv/anderson-cooper-reaction-taking-shots-new-years-eve-andy-cohen/"><span style="color: #783f04;">Anderson
Cooper Was All of Us with His Hilarious Reactions as He Took Shots to Bid 2020
Farewell</span></a>,</span>” <i>People</i>, January 1, 2021.</p></div></div><p></p>Dr. Wordenhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02867414605883311000noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5896319920382721541.post-83854041949069913672023-06-14T13:47:00.007-07:002023-07-19T12:43:08.677-07:00Starbucks: A Racist Company Against Racism<p style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: large;">In June, 2023, Starbucks had to face a unanimous jury decision in favor of a regional manager whom Starbucks' upper management had fired because she had resisted the company's racist policy of punishing innocent Caucasian managers for good public relations, which the CEO felt was needed and appropriate after a store manager had <i>legitimately</i> called the police on two Black people in a Starbucks restaurant who presumed the right not only to sit in a restaurant without ordering anything (before Starbucks allowed this), but also to ignore the authority of the store's manager. Starbucks cowered to the unjust negative publicity, and thus showed a lack of leadership, and went on to act unethically in wanting to show the world that the company can go after Caucasian employees. This racism is ironic, for several years earlier, Starbucks' CEO had ordered employees at the store level to discuss racism with customers. Interestingly, the anti-racist ideology being preached was partial, and thus contained a blind spot wherein racism such as the company's upper management would exhibit is acceptable. </span></p><p style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: large;"><span style="font-family: times;">As the CEO of Starbucks, Howard Schultz had
employees promote his political ideology on two social issues: gay marriage and
race. Regarding the latter, he ordered employees, whom he artfully called </span><i style="font-family: times;">partners</i><span style="font-family: times;">,
to write race messages on cups so customers would unknowingly enable employees
to impart Schultz’s position on the issue by raising the topic. I assume that
the employees could not begin such conversations. I have argued elsewhere that Schultz’s
use of the employees for such a purpose was not only extrinsic to making coffee
as per the employees’ job descriptions, but also unethical.</span><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span style="line-height: 107%;">[1]</span></span></span><span style="font-family: times;">
I</span><span style="font-family: times;">n terms of corporate governance alone, the shareholders, as the owners of the
company, should have decided whether to have their company used to promote
partisan positions on social issues. In 2023, Target and Budweiser would learn
of the perils in wandering off the knitting to get political on social issues.
In terms of jurisprudence, the “right” of a company, a legal entity, to have free
speech is dubious, as abstract entities, even if legally recognized as such,
are not human beings. Rather, the “free speech” claimed by companies is really
that of the human beings who work for the companies. Using an abstract entity
that itself cannot speak to gain additional publicity for one’s ideological
views is unfair because the vaulted or amplified speakers are not so from a
democratic standpoint. In short, why should Howard Schultz have access to a
megaphone and employees to propagate his political ideology on social issues,
when you and I have no such means of self-amplification? Whether we agree or
disagree with the former CEO’s political ideology on race is not relevant to my
point. To be sure, that his employees were told to speak against racism is in
my opinion much better than had they been told to advocate racism against Black
people. That Starbucks would then engage in racism is that much harder to
understand, but perhaps the hypocrisy reflects a hidden negative aspect of
Schultz’s ideology on race. American society could benefit by having that
aspect uncovered; such a benefit vastly outweighs any benefit to business. Even
in a pro-business culture, a lower good should not be put over a higher one.
Aristotle refers to this error as misordered concupiscence.</span></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: large;">In June, 2023, a jury in New Jerse</span><span style="font-family: times; font-size: large;">y “found in favor of
former Starbucks regional director Shannon Phillips, who sued the company for
wrongfully firing her, claiming she was terminated for being White.”<span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><!--[if !supportFootnotes]--><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span style="line-height: 107%;">[2]</span></span><!--[endif]--></span>
The company’s position was that Phillis’ boss fired her because she had displayed
weak leadership. The use of such vague jargon as <i>leadership </i>for what is
actually management is itself problematic. Even if Phillips had “appeared
overwhelmed and lacked awareness of how critical the situation had become,” as
her boss presumably had written, does not constitute weak leadership, for she
was not in a leadership role<span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><!--[if !supportFootnotes]--><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span style="line-height: 107%;">[3]</span></span><!--[endif]--></span>;
instead, the company’s CEO should have got out in front of the issue and
provided a vision for the company.<span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><!--[if !supportFootnotes]--><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span style="line-height: 107%;">[4]</span></span><!--[endif]--></span>
If Schultz was the CEO at the time, the failure of his leadership would be
especially telling, considering his earlier foray into politics using the
company to promote his ideology. <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: large;">The triggering incident that had overwhelmed Phillips,
according to her boss, whom the CEO at the time must agree in retrospect failed
as a supervisor but presumably was not fired, involved two Black men who had
refused to leave a Starbucks store in 2018 even though they would not purchase
anything. They were thus not customers, and the incident occurred before the
company allowed non-purchasers to be in the stores. That the two Black men
refused to leave the company’s private property means they were trespassing, so
the store manager was on solid legal grounds in having the local police remove
the men from the store. Being Black, even if that race has been (and is)
subject to racism generally, does not give a person the right to trespass on
private property, and efforts to remove such trespassing is not racist, for <i>anyone
</i>trespassing would be legally subject to removal from the property. </span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: large;">I
contend that Howard Schultz’s notion of racial reconciliation suffers from the
weakness of being blind to the racial presumption displayed by the two Blacks. In
having employees talk about the need not to be racist to customers, Schultz was
assuming that racism is something that non-Blacks do to Blacks. Employees were
not told to suggest to Black customers that being Black does not give them
special exemptions from the law or in society. Schultz could have had employees
suggest to Black customers that jay-walking between intersections in a major
street even if cars are coming is not “a Black thing” that is justified because
the race in general has been subject to discrimination. Furthermore, the use of
the word, nigga, cannot be allowed only if the speaker is Black, for that would
be a racist position. For a Black person who uses the word to become hostile or
aggressive towards an Indian, Oriental, or Caucasian who also uses the word is
itself racist (and of course the hostility is unjustified unless the related
word <i>nigger </i>is used in a hostile manner). The U.S. Constitution does not
indicate that free speech depends or is limited by race; such a clause would be
prime facie racist. <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: large;">Phillips’ complaint, which the jury accepted unanimously, states
that following the arrest of the two Black men, Starbucks “took steps to punish
White employees who had not been involved in the arrests, but who worked in and
around the city of Philadelphia, in an effort to convince the community that it
had properly responded to the incident.”<span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><!--[if !supportFootnotes]--><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span style="line-height: 107%;">[5]</span></span><!--[endif]--></span>
Phillips was ordered “to place a White employee on administrative leave as part
of these efforts, due to alleged discriminatory conduct which Phillips said she
knew was inaccurate. After Phillips tried to defend the employee, the company
let her go.”<span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><!--[if !supportFootnotes]--><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span style="line-height: 107%;">[6]</span></span><!--[endif]--></span>
It does not sound like Phillips was overwhelmed; in fact, she was being
pro-active and ethical in defending an employee from an unjust punishment. The
implication is that the person who fired Phillips acted unethically.</span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: large;"><span style="font-family: times;">Moreover, in being willing to sacrifice Caucasian
employees </span><i style="font-family: times;">based on their race </i><span style="font-family: times;">for good public relations, the company’s
upper managers were being racist. An unseen implication is that those managers believed
that the public reaction against the company for having the two Black men
removed from the store in Philadelphia had some validity—that Black people
should not be treated like that or that Black people deserve special treatment
due to their race. But such a belief is itself racist. Schutz’s talking points
for his employees to discuss with customers on race did not include mention of
the racism in such beliefs. Moreover, he did not have the company’s employees
talk about racism </span><i style="font-family: times;">by </i><span style="font-family: times;">Black people stemming from resentment. Any ideology
is partial, rather than whole, and even claim of being against racism can fall
short. In going after Caucasian employees, including Phillips, Starbucks’ upper
managers fell short; the failure of leadership ultimate belongs to the CEO at the
time. At least at the time of the trial, Howard Schultz was the CEO.</span></span></p><div>
<hr align="left" size="1" width="33%" />
<!--[endif]-->
<div id="edn1">
<p class="MsoEndnoteText"><span face="Calibri, sans-serif"><span style="font-size: 13.3333px;">1.</span></span> Skip Worden, <i><a href="https://www.amazon.com/Bucking-Starbucks-Star-Skip-Worden-ebook/dp/B01LBLAACY/ref=sr_1_1?crid=B1MUEV11AWW&keywords=skip+worden+starbucks&qid=1686775111&sprefix=skip+worden+starbucks%2Caps%2C103&sr=8-1">Bucking
Starbucks’ Star</a></i>.<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div id="edn2">
<p class="MsoEndnoteText"><span face="Calibri, sans-serif"><span style="font-size: 13.3333px;">2.</span></span> Danielle Wiener-Bronner, “<a href="https://www.cnn.com/2023/06/14/business/starbucks-manager-racial-discrimination/index.html">Starbucks
Ordered to Pay $25.6 million to a Manager Who Says She Was Fired for Being
White</a>,” CNN.com, June 14, 2023.<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div id="edn3">
<p class="MsoEndnoteText"><span face="Calibri, sans-serif"><span style="font-size: 13.3333px;">3.</span></span> Ibid.<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div id="edn4">
<p class="MsoEndnoteText"><span face="Calibri, sans-serif"><span style="font-size: 13.3333px;">4. </span></span>Skip Worden, <i><a href="https://www.amazon.com/s?k=skip+worden+essence+of+leadership&ref=nb_sb_noss">The
Essence of Leadership</a></i>. <o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div id="edn5">
<p class="MsoEndnoteText"><span face="Calibri, sans-serif"><span style="font-size: 13.3333px;">5.</span></span> Danielle
Wiener-Bronner, “<a href="https://www.cnn.com/2023/06/14/business/starbucks-manager-racial-discrimination/index.html">Starbucks
Ordered to Pay $25.6 million to a Manager Who Says She Was Fired for Being
White</a>.<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div id="edn6">
<p class="MsoEndnoteText"><span face="Calibri, sans-serif"><span style="font-size: 13.3333px;">6.</span></span> Ibid.</p></div></div>Dr. Wordenhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02867414605883311000noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5896319920382721541.post-31250091436920604652023-06-10T13:36:00.002-07:002023-06-10T13:36:35.308-07:00Gay Pride and Evangelical Christianity<p style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: large;"><span style="font-family: times; text-align: justify;">Taylor Swift, an American singer and cultural icon in 2023, spoke “out against anti-queer legislation” during a concert in early June. “We can’t talk about Pride Month without talking about pain. There have been so many harmful pieces of legislation that have put [gay people] at risk. It’s painful for everyone. Every ally. Every loved one . . . ,” she said[1].</span><span style="font-family: times; text-align: justify;"> So much hurt. This motivated me to volunteer to carry a full-size gay flag in a gay Pride parade until the end of the route even though I am not gay. When I arrived in the morning, I thought the issue was political; by the time the parade began, religion had trumped the political. A small but vocal group of evangelical Christians and a larger group of young women wearing and carrying gay flags (in part to hide the Christians) were shouting at each other in utter futility of noise. What if people would use religion to dissolve the religious and political anger and even tension instead of stoking them? Both sides missed an opportunity.</span></span></p><p style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: large;">The full essay is at "<a href="https://thewordenreport-religion.blogspot.com/2023/06/gay-pride-and-evangelical-christianity.html"><span style="color: #783f04;">Gay Pride and Evangelical Christianity</span></a>."</span></p><div><hr align="left" size="1" width="33%" /><!--[endif]--><div id="edn1"><p class="MsoEndnoteText"><span face="Calibri, sans-serif"><span style="font-size: 13.3333px;">1.</span></span> Shruti Rajkumar, “<a href="https://www.huffpost.com/entry/taylor-swift-speech-lgbtq-eras-tour_n_647ba9e1e4b02325c5e11978"><span style="color: #783f04;">Taylor Swift Breaks Silence And Condemns Anti-LGBTQ Bills During Eras Tour</span></a>,” <i>The Huffington Post</i>, June 3, 2023.</p></div></div>Dr. Wordenhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02867414605883311000noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5896319920382721541.post-29895097951489201342023-05-18T13:08:00.004-07:002023-11-18T09:48:01.058-08:00Thanksgiving as a Day of Mourning: On the Instinctual Urge of Resentment<p style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: large;"><span>According to CNN’s website, the “sobering truth about the harvest feast that inspired Thanksgiving” is is the fact that colonists killed Indians. According to an</span><span> </span><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">analyst </i><span>at CNN, the American Indian Day of Mourning, established in 1970 for the fourth Thursday of November, turned Thanksgiving “into something more honest” than the Thanksgiving</span><span> </span><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">mythos</i><span> </span><span>of a peaceful feast in 1621 suggests.</span><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span style="mso-special-character: footnote;"><!--[if !supportFootnotes]--><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span face="Calibri, "sans-serif"" style="line-height: 27.6px;">[1]</span></span><!--[endif]--></span></span><span> </span><span>The drenching of self-serving ideology in CNN’s “analysis,” like heavy, overflowing gravy obscuring the sight and taste of the underlying mashed potatoes, is something less than honest.</span></span></p><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: large;">Historically, the feast in Massachusetts Bay Colony in 1621, exactly four hundred years before Thanksgiving in 2021, when I am writing this essay, was attended not only by the Pilgrims, but also the Wampanoag Indians. The two peoples were then in an alliance. CNN’s Tensley attempts to derail the value of cross-cultural feast by pointing out that <i>initially, </i>“the pious newcomers didn’t even invite the Wampanoags to the revelry.”<span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span face="Calibri, "sans-serif"" style="line-height: 27.6px;">[2]</span></span></span> The value in the fact that the Indians reveled with the Pilgrims in feasting is not nullified by the fact that the Pilgrims had changed their minds on sending out an invitation. Also, that the invitation served strategic interests in strengthening the alliance is no vice, for the alliance was based on ensuring survival in a changing world.</span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: large;"><br />Moreover, the Day of Mourning is itself partisan in that it tells only a partial truth—namely, that Pilgrims killed Indians in the colonial era of North America. Left unsaid is the equally valid point that Indians killed Pilgrims. That the small pox disease also led to the death of Indians was no fault of the Pilgrims, contrary to Tensley’s ideological resentment. Furthermore, that killing took place between Indian tribes and English colonies generally does not nullify the good that is in a shared feast even among allies. Mourning the loss of American Indians generally <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">as a replacement for </i>Thanksgiving obscures that good and in fact implies that the killings in a broader war nullifies the good that is even in an eventual invitation. It surely must not have been easy for either the Indians or the Pilgrims to sit down together for a feast given the more general prejudice then existing between the Indian tribes and English colonies.</span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: large;"><br />Of course, the point of the <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">national </i>Thanksgiving holiday established by President Lincoln in the nineteenth century—namely to give thanks to God—is of value in itself rather than being nullifiable by the hitherto conflict between the English colonies and Indian tribes in North America. </span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEice1JkRGc74l6WJrTQQmlVHBX_xKxKM1d4fS89tEHIA8cIaNnsu2gPVk9dxAhMXsPz4NZnaPsHmJSbMEUfaVcZ2r1N8d2OLnqheAv73rrxkPY-9e0p3yFvC5wgaZmT48Ru38kUFDaEKUw/s1100/NYC+Thanksgiving+Parade+CNN.jpg" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="619" data-original-width="1100" height="180" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEice1JkRGc74l6WJrTQQmlVHBX_xKxKM1d4fS89tEHIA8cIaNnsu2gPVk9dxAhMXsPz4NZnaPsHmJSbMEUfaVcZ2r1N8d2OLnqheAv73rrxkPY-9e0p3yFvC5wgaZmT48Ru38kUFDaEKUw/s320/NYC+Thanksgiving+Parade+CNN.jpg" width="320" /></a></div><div style="text-align: center;">The 2021 Thanksgiving Day parade in New York City. (Source: CNN) Surely such happiness does not deserve to be sullied by sordid resentment as a will to power.</div></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: large;">In short, the imposition of a day of mourning over Thanksgiving really misses the point. In actuality, the imposition is, in Nietzschean terms, an instinctual urge fueled by <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">resentement</i>. Nietzsche claims that more pleasure from power can be had by mastering such an intractable urge rather than letting it run wild. Such overcoming internally is the signature of strength—more so even than conquering enemies on a battlefield. Unfortunately, the weak are so oriented to their external enemies that even truth can suffer and giving thanks to God can be overlooked entirely. The weak are children of a lesser god. A god of projected <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">resentement</i>, which discredits the very notion of a benevolent deity. Like light from a distant star, Nietzsche writes, the news of the discrediting murder of the conception of a vengeful god of perfect goodness has not yet reached the murderers, whose hands are drenched with blood. To claim, <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">out, out damned spot! </i>yet not know the source of the blood must surely be a worrisome interim condition drenched with anxiety, which in turn can fuel an instinctual urge based in <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">resentement</i> of the strong—people willing and able to control even their most intractable instincts. <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span></span><hr size="1" style="text-align: left;" width="33%" /><span style="font-size: medium;"><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span style="mso-special-character: footnote;"><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span face="Calibri, "sans-serif"" style="line-height: 20.7px;">[1]</span></span><!--[endif]--></span></span> Brandon Tensley, “<a href="https://www.cnn.com/2021/11/25/us/national-day-of-mourning-race-deconstructed-newsletter/index.html"><span style="color: #783f04;">National Day of Mourning Turns Thanksgiving into Something More Honest</span></a>,” CNN.com, November 25, 2021 (accessed same day). CNN labels Tensley’s role as that of an analyst rather than an opinion-writer—the false attribution of fact belies the salience of the writer’s opinion-informed ideology.<br /><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span style="mso-special-character: footnote;"><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span face="Calibri, "sans-serif"" style="line-height: 20.7px;">[2]</span></span><!--[endif]--></span></span> Ibid. Tensley’s own hostile ideological resentment is evident in his labeling of the Pilgrims as <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">pious</i>—here connoting a presumption of superiority. The Indians no doubt also felt superior, as it is only natural for any people, including the Pilgrims and Indians, to favor one’s own culture over others if one’s ideology (i.e., values and beliefs) is in sync with one’s culture.</span></div><p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;"><o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;"><o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;"><o:p></o:p></p><p style="text-align: justify;"><br /></p>Dr. Wordenhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02867414605883311000noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5896319920382721541.post-23176186099562800122023-05-18T00:41:00.002-07:002023-05-21T21:44:03.509-07:00Undermining Progress: Power Enforcing Infallible Ignorance<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: large;">Bleeding to heal. The Earth is flat. Earth is at the center of the solar system. Zeus lives on Mount Olympus. The divine right of kings to act even as tyrants (e.g., Henry VIII of England). Hitler died in his bunker. Turning the heater on in a local bus kills coronavirus. These are things that were thought in their respective times to be uncontrovertibly true. In some of these cases, the power of the establishment was not subtle in enforcing them even when they should have been questioned. How presumptuous this finite, mortal species is! If ignorance on stilts is bliss, then why is it such in need of power? Subconsciously, the human mind must realize that its assumption of not being able to be wrong is flawed. We are subjective beings with instinctual urges—one of which manifests in the unquestioned assumption that what we know cannot be wrong, and furthermore that we are entitled to impose our “facts” on others. As the homo <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">sapiens </i>(i.e., wise) species, we are too sure, and too proud, concerning our knowledge and especially beliefs. We would like to have the certainty and objectivity that computers have, but we are subjective biological animals, not inert machines.<o:p></o:p></span></div><div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: large;"><br /></span></div><div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: large;">How much do we actually know? David Hume claimed that we do not really understand causation; we don’t get close enough to it to understand how one thing causes another thing. Worse still, we often take a positive correlation—that one thing is related to another (e.g., rain and seeing umbrellas)—as meaning that the one thing causes the other. Rain does not cause umbrellas; nor do umbrellas cause rain. Descartes was of a rare breed in that he was willing to critique his entire edifice of knowledge. With an open plain filled with the debris in front of him, he wrote that he could only be sure that he was thinking and therefore that he was existing. <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Cognito sum. </i>I think, therefore I am. That he went on to reconstruct the very same edifice may suggest that he was still too taken with his previous knowledge. At the very least, his rebuilt edifice cannot be reckoned as progress.<o:p></o:p></span></div><div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: large;">Generally speaking, pride/ego plus knowledge is a retardant to progress and a sycophant to the status quo. New ideas must break the glass in order to breath and circulate <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">even to reach peoples’ consciousness</i>. Well-established beliefs clutch at us even in the face of strong arguments and empirical evidence to the contrary.<o:p></o:p></span></div><div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: large;"><br /></span></div><div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: large;">Hikes and stake-outs on Mount Olympus could have demonstrated to the ancient Greeks that immortal giants did not live there. The Greeks who scaled the peak tended to say that they felt the gods there—that the gods were invisible, as if they were merely spirit. Such contorting and even pruning when necessary is not uncommon in cases in which religion over-reaches; the core of the religious belief itself <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">must </i>endure even in the face of contravening empirical evidence. Sadly, not much progress has been made on the mind-game in the domain of religion; the human mind itself may be susceptible, with denial protecting the mind from recognizing its own susceptibility.<o:p></o:p></span></div><div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: large;"><br /></span></div><div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: large;">By the time that the ancient Greek religion became extinct, people were willing to conclude that no such gods existed (or had existed), and the belief that they lived on Olympus was simply wrong. Few if any people, however, were then able to consider that their own <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">living </i>religion <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">could </i>be wrong too. It’s the other guy who is wrong; this time, the deity really does exist. The firmness with which this belief is held, as if it were knowledge, is a sign of excessive defensiveness, and thus of unconscious doubt. Perhaps the unconscious is more honest with itself than consciousness is with us.<o:p></o:p></span></div><div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: large;">How many Christians consider that perhaps people could be wrong that Jesus literally rose from the dead (i.e., historically, as an empirical, historical fact)? How many Jews consider that historical evidence is lacking to support the belief that Moses was a historical person? <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Josephus, an ancient Jewish historian who lived in the first century, wrote <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Antiquities</i>, which refers to a man named Jesus (albeit with probable later Christian parenthetical additions that a Jewish historian would not have accepted). To go from a man named Jesus to Jesus Christ involves a <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">religious</i> claim/belief that Jesus <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">is</i> divine. We have left the territory of historical accounts, which are in the past tense, to make use of faith narratives, which, as myths, can be in the present tense. For example, myths such as the Christian Passion story can be reenacted in ritual each year as if Jesus’ passion is once again to be felt. The religious experience is presently experienced, having been triggered by myth (religious story) and ritual (couched in drama).<i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><o:p></o:p></i></span></div><div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: large;"><br /></span></div><div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: large;">In short, in looking back at the ancient Greek religion, we dub the stories of Zeus and the other gods as myth. Yet we instinctively resist even the possibility that the ongoing religions could include myth, for it and historical writings are two different genres and we clutch at the added certainty that can be provided by historical accounts. Why is additional certainty believed to be so important? Religionists don’t want to even consider that their particular religious beliefs could be wrong or over-stretched. To be sure, a myth-writer (or orator) may reference historical events, but his point is not to convey the veracity of them. Rather, historical events may be used (and adapted) to make <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">religious </i>points. For example, the Gospels differ on when the Last Supper occurred relative to Passover because the writers wanted make different religious points. None of the writers of the faith narratives would have subordinated religious points to historical accuracy. Therefore, the added certainty is a mirage. Rather than essentially reclassifying religious <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">belief </i>as knowledge (empirical or through reasoning), matching religious belief with its own kind of confidence would be more in keeping with the domain, and thus with human experience therein.<o:p></o:p></span></div><div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: large;"><br /></span></div><div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: large;">Unfortunately, religion does not rest with the exogenous certainty; the inhabitants in the domain not only try to conquer (and thus control) each other; other domains are fair game too. Run through the circuits of a human brain, religion tends to be infused with pride such that the religious domain may have a propensity to encroach onto other domains, even assuming the prerogative to dominate them. How uncouth! Hence Christianity got into trouble when it tried to control science and claim history for itself. The assumption that religion should constrain scientific knowledge not only conflates two different categories, or domains, but also was ignorantly taken as infallibly true. Furthermore, a faith-belief could be taken as a historical fact, which in turn could be used to justify the belief. Such a closed, self-reinforcing cognitive loop is not easily broken open even to the scalpel of an inquisitive, self-questioning mind. How rare such minds have been and are even in the midst of robust technological progress and greater knowledge available to mankind.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><o:p></o:p></span></div><div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: large;">Christianity also got into trouble with itself, without realizing it, when it over-reached onto the military domain, which is not at all friendly to loving thy enemy. When the Roman Catholic popes became partisans in geo-political rivalries in Europe, the Church became closed in effect to its rivals </span><span style="font-family: times, "times new roman", serif; font-size: large;">and thus short-circuited its own mission—that is, the mission in the religious domain to save souls by leading people to Christ. We can count as progress the success of other domains in pushing religion back within the confines of its own turf. To presume to know the native fauna of another land better than the native plants on one’s own land, and then to presume to weed that land without sufficiently weeding one’s own is like arrogance on stilts; the toxic attitude of superiority should be underwater. Thus the high are made low, at least in theory.</span></div><div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: times, "times new roman", serif; font-size: large;"><br /></span></div><div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: large;">In surveying world religions, I see progress at the point when the extant religions (with the exception of Satanism) came to no longer believe that human sacrifice appeases deities. When Judaism and Christianity had gained enough traction in ancient Greco-Roman culture that religion itself was no longer just a matter of ritual, but also had moral content (e.g., the Ten Commandments, the Beatitudes), religion itself may have progressed. Why not more definite? Friedrich Nietzsche, a nineteenth-century European philosopher, argues that modern morality borne of weakness and foisted on the strong to make the latter voluntarily renounce acting on their strength. Meanwhile, the ascetic priests, who are weak (literally in being celibate) are free to unleash their urge to dominate by controlling their respective herds and in confronting the strong with, “Thall Shalt Not!” Even our surest knowledge of progress can afford to be questioned.<o:p></o:p></span></div><div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: large;"><br /></span></div><div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: large;">Unfortunately, once the Greco-Roman religion that was merely ritual to appease the gods and included human sacrifice was extinct, continued progress has faced a strong headwind from the still extant religions that were created roughly in the “second generation” (1800 BCE-650 CE). Even though the ancient cultures within which those religions formed are by the twenty-first century oceans of time from modern-day cultures, religious strictures grounded in the formative cultures die hard, if at all. These strictures are sustained at in part out of a fear that beginning the project of separating the divine from (human) culture would lead to anything goes (i.e., cafeteria-style religion). What if the divine in revelation is itself cultural reflected on high? Change itself faces an uphill battle even though the sheer difference between modern and ancient cultures suggests that changes are necessary in order that moderns are not to be held captive by the arbitrary limitations in long-ago cultures. This is particularly true in religious moralities. That Paul thought that women should not preach in Christian churches is not sufficient for churches today to be obligated to treat Paul’s opinion in his letters as if it were divine revelation. Even that Jesus’ disciples in the Gospels are men does not mean that Jesus sought to limit his disciples to men. Writings on Mary Magdalene discovered in the twentieth century support this point. Put another way, even mere opinions in ancient letters are held so firmly that human opinion is essentially divinized. As a writer, I am well aware that mistakes are in writings. Correcting for those errors, such as the Christian overlay on Josephus’ historical account on Jesus, has largely been inoperative when the human mind entertains religious belief (i.e., dogma).<o:p></o:p></span></div><div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: large;"><br /></span></div><div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: large;">My point is that the self-retarding mechanisms of the human mind can slow down progress and enclose us in ignorance that cannot be wrong. We tend to overrate both the freedom of progress from human nature and the knowledge and beliefs we have both individually and as a species. This is not to deny the existence of progress through history. Gladiators killing each other in stadiums has been replaced by football (both sports) fighting for a ball. A general increase in the value of human life has occurred in enough societies to suggest an upward trend for the wayward dictators to measure themselves against. Nietzsche aside, moral progress has also occurred, again in enough societies to demonstrate an upward trend. The incredible technological advances in the twentieth century can also be taken as progress because they have expanded human potential. For one thing, people could write beyond daylight, electric lights being brighter than candles. Just think how long candles were relied on, then all of a sudden, in the turn of a switch, the initially-feared new light was on and could spread. The danger, it seems to me, lies in the assumption that the biological fixity of our species becomes less of a hindrance as technology becomes even more advanced.<o:p></o:p></span></div><div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: large;"><br /></span></div><div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: large;">The coronavirus pandemic in 2020 hit the species even in spite of our technological advances, even in the field of medicine. Boris Johnson, the prime minister of the UK at the time, initially swore off precautions. The fact that he held high office did not prevent him from having to go into intensive care at a hospital. As far as a virus is concerned, we are not apart from Nature; rather, we are biological. Our minds, being corruptible in terms of knowledge and judgment, can limit what technology can do to stave off a pandemic.<o:p></o:p></span></div><div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: large;"><br /></span></div><div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: large;">For example, according to a local bus driver in Phoenix, Arizona, the bus company’s management was urging drivers to turn on the heat when the temperature outside was not prohibitive and close the windows (hence trapping the airborne virus) because “the heat kills the virus.” The closed windows meant that plenty of airborne virus could be expected to be trapped in the buses. Perhaps the treatment of bleeding would have healed the brain-sickness of managers. Unfortunately, they were able to use their authority to enforce their ignorance that could not be wrong. So could grocery-store managers there—in a state in which public education is ranked 49<sup>th</sup> out of the 50 States—who did not even notice that even their own employees were not keeping at a physical distance from each other and customers (who behaved as herd-animals incapable of altering a well-grooved habit even to protect themselves!). The improved knowledge available from medical experts didn’t matter. In fact, by the month of April, most customers and employees of grocery stores in Phoenix were wearing the surgical masks that the virus can easily pass through; such masks were to be used by the infected so they don’t spit on, and thus infect, the healthy. Of what value is progress in knowledge if a major metropolitan area in a developed country acts regardless? A meat manager at one grocery store there told me that one guy touched a number of meat packages after having gorged on some chocolate. The customer rebuffed the manager, saying, “My fingers going from my mouth to the packages won’t get anyone sick.” An uneducated opinion was presumptuously dismissing science. In this way and many others, the benefits of progress in human knowledge are held back by human nature—specifically, by ignorance that cannot be wrong, and even presumes to trump knowledge.<o:p></o:p></span></div><div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: large;"><br /></span></div><div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: large;">It is ironic that progress has been extolled even in times held back by the status quo. “We are in an age of greater transparency,” a person interviewed by the BBC said just after the British government tried to have it that the prime minister, Boris Johnson was hospitalized for tests and because he had symptoms. The lightness of this announcement is belied by the fact that he went to a hospital during his Queen’s speech. He surely would not have wanted to take away from the speech, and yet he was going in for tests, so why did he not wait until after the speech? Why the urgency if he was going in for tests? The implication that his hospitalization was not urgent was undone the next day by press reports that he was then in intensive care. So much for transparency, at least from the government. The primitive instinct for security surreptitiously stepped back from, and thus nullified at least in part, the contribution that technology had made on transparency in the press on government affairs.<o:p></o:p></span></div><div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: large;"><br /></span></div><div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: large;">Similarly, even though a French agent reported to the French intelligence service that he had recently seen Adolf Hitler and his wife attending an opera during one of its three performances in South America after World War II, the world, including the U.S. Government, stuck publically with the Soviets’ story that the couple had died and then been burned in Hitler’s bunker in April, 1945. Even after the Soviets tested the couple’s DNA and found that both people were women, the world and its governments continued with the story that Hitler and his wife had died in the bunker. That Hitler might have lived the rest of his life in South America, even conniving with his expert on dropping a nuclear bomb on New York City, apparently triggered the security instinct such that the progress in intelligence-gathering and analysis was for naught. The tyranny of the status quo against progress is subtle, yet more enduring than the rule of a tyrannical ruler.<o:p></o:p></span></div><div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: large;"><br /></span></div><div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: large;">Why was it insisted historically in Europe that the Earth is flat even without any evidence? The “scientific fact” was even defended by threats of death, but then it was more a matter of religious <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">belief</i> masquerading as fact. Why is the human mind so hesitant to say, “It’s a theory, but we really don’t know.” The pride of a mind is and the fear of uncertainty are human qualities rooted in the instinct of self-preservation. Pride is thought to beget power, which aids self-preservation. So too does having greater certainty of the environment. Such bloated pride can motivate a Christian king to become convinced that the divine right of kings justifies even tyranny that is hardly in line with Jesus’ teachings. Even Christian clerics intoxicated with their temporal power may suppose that burning a scientist for claiming that the Earth orbits the Sun rather than vice versa is in line with loving enemies. Being more in love with temporal power than with Jesus’ preachments is yet another example of the <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">religious </i>costs of trying to dominate in another domain.<o:p></o:p></span></div><div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: large;"><br /></span></div><div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: large;">Whether in religion, politics, or higher education, does cognitive difference really make someone an enemy, or is the human brain prone to overstepping, emotionally speaking, in applying emotion to cognitive differences? We humans are overwhelmingly utterly unaware of the games our minds play on us. We assume that we are in control of what we think, and that we use reason impeccably. Nietzsche claimed that the content of ideas is instinctual urges, and thus reasoning is a subjective tussle within loose strictures that may themselves be urges. How much do we really know even about ourselves? Yet we would not tolerate someone saying that what we are absolutely sure we know may yet be incorrect. We are so sure that we grasp for authority to enforce what we know on others who resist. Hence, if we were to go back in time and refuse to be bled, a physician may dismiss our claim that bleeding actually weakens rather than cures a person <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">and</i> use his authority as a physician to subject us to the treatment. The weak—in this case, the ignorant with power—think nothing of dominating the strong; in fact, the resentful enjoy it.</span></div>Dr. Wordenhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02867414605883311000noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5896319920382721541.post-16427671965392399342023-05-04T12:35:00.011-07:002023-05-04T14:28:26.213-07:00Bucking Starbucks’ Star<p style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: large;">Common sense would perhaps dictate that a company sporting a
managerial culture of pathological lying as the default way of dealing with
stakeholders must inevitably go under at some point. Kant’s categorical
imperative insists that mendacity is unethical, for it violates the
non-contradictory law of reason. What would the Prussian Kant say, however, to
the good Germans who lied to NAZI Jew-hunters about hiding the enemies of the
state? As laudable as such lies are, unsavory business managers seem
instinctually wired to take advantage of the slippery slope by ignoring the
rationale of avoiding extreme harm. What begins as a trickle can become a
deluge. Perhaps that is what happened at Starbucks.</span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: large;"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: large;">In late October, 2022, the director of the U.S. National
Labor Relations Board “accused Starbucks of threatening to withhold benefits
and wage increases from workers if they unionized; selectively enforcing work
policies against union supporters; disciplining or firing workers who were
activists; and failing to bargain in good faith.”<span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span style="mso-special-character: footnote;"><!--[if !supportFootnotes]--><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span style="line-height: 107%;">[1]</span></span><!--[endif]--></span></span>
Starbucks had closed a store in Ithaca, New York. The lack of good faith can be
seen in the Congressional testimony of Howard Schultz, Starbucks’ CEO, in 2023.
He sanctimoniously “admitted” that people he had spoken with could <i>erroneously
</i>infer intimidation. In other words, it’s on the other guy. Such toxic
pomposity easily belies a mere patina of portrayed honesty. <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: large;">NLRB officials claimed in 2022, The “company has repeatedly
broken the law by firing pro-union employees, cutting their hours and offering
pay hikes and other benefits to those who decline to unionize.”<span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span style="mso-special-character: footnote;"><!--[if !supportFootnotes]--><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span style="line-height: 107%;">[2]</span></span><!--[endif]--></span></span>
Least the company’s management’s denials of these claims be believed,
fast-forward to April, 2023, when it was revealed that the company had lied
that negative publicity and a related strike played no role in the company’s decision
to permanently close another store in Ithaca. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: large;">The story begins back in April, 2022, when Starbucks’ public-relations
firm notified its client that employees “went on strike due to repeated grease
trap spills that caused an unsafe environment and lack of action from management.”<span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span style="mso-special-character: footnote;"><!--[if !supportFootnotes]--><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span style="line-height: 107%;">[3]</span></span><!--[endif]--></span></span>
The lack of action regarding a known safety hazard at a store that the company had
written had the “strongest real estate trade position in this area” such that “any
relocation would be inferior” points to a single-minded and expedient orientation
to money.<span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span style="mso-special-character: footnote;"><!--[if !supportFootnotes]--><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span style="line-height: 107%;">[4]</span></span><!--[endif]--></span></span>
Such a mentality is ripe for pro-union votes. A managerial culture of mendacity
just adds fuel to the flames. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: large;">Andrew Trull, a company spokesman, claimed, “Media attention
had no bearing on our decision to close the store.”<span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span style="mso-special-character: footnote;"><!--[if !supportFootnotes]--><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span style="line-height: 107%;">[5]</span></span><!--[endif]--></span></span>
In an internal email, however, Denise Nelsen, senior vice president of U.S.
operations, wrote, “We have to solve these condition issues because we also
keep getting media on the store condition there.”<span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span style="mso-special-character: footnote;"><!--[if !supportFootnotes]--><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span style="line-height: 107%;">[6]</span></span><!--[endif]--></span></span>
A direct contradiction! In symbolic logic, A and not-A cannot both be true. A
barista at the store at the time said regarding the closing of the lucrative
store, “It was retaliation for the strike we went on because we were being
forced to work in unsafe conditions. They didn’t care [before]. They cared all
of a sudden now when we’re making national news.”<span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span style="mso-special-character: footnote;"><!--[if !supportFootnotes]--><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span style="line-height: 107%;">[7]</span></span><!--[endif]--></span></span>
Admittedly, negative publicity can hurt the bottom-line. I venture to say
nonetheless that the instinctual urge to retaliate, which Nietzsche claimed is
out of control in the weak who seek to dominate, trumps the otherwise-hegemonic
money-orientation in Starbucks’ managerial culture. The propensity to fabricate
rather than tell the truth serves both the power-aggrandizing and economizing
motives, especially when they are extreme urges out of control (i.e., not
mastered, or channeled by the individual). <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: large;">The culture of mendacity in Starbucks’ managerial cadre reaches
even the store-manager level. I know this from personal experience. At a
Starbucks’ store in April, 2023, a store manager pointed to the last remaining
seat. “It’s right below an air-duct that blows cold air.” I had been there in
January. “We can adjust that for you,” the manager lied. “I though the
temperature of stores is centrally controlled,” I countered. “Yes, it is; it
reduces our carbon footprint.” He gave no outward sign that he had just
contradicted himself, which can be construed as a lie on top of a lie. Perhaps
he was assuming that customers are idiots and would not be likely to put two
and two together. Well, I did, but I was polite enough not to tell him that I
knew that he had just lied to me. Instead, I went after the accuracy of his
claim that centralized control is environmentally friendly. “Well, I have lived
in Phoenix, Arizona, where your stores are generally known to feel like
refrigerators even when it is 116F degrees. I’d say that’s a pretty big
footprint, wouldn’t you?” He stood there silent, like an idiot. The dumb shoes
were on a different foot. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: large;">Meanwhile, employees of that store kept to their script—that
they like their store manager so they would not vote to unionize. When on one
occasion I overheard a shift-manager say that the company’s management had lied
about giving the employees an additional day off, he was silent when I asked
him if he still liked the management so much he would not vote to strike. He
pretended like I had not overheard him, which itself is a kind of a lie. Even
the employees, who are in no sense of the word “partners” as the company’s head
management pretends and publicizes, lie to customers. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: large;">Lastly, when I was living in Arizona, I went to a Starbucks
in area of Tempe north of the Salt River, which the city of Tempe lies is a
lake even though it looks like any other river. Six police employees on their
break on the 4<sup>th</sup> of July will wandering around the customer area
between tables. I approached a Starbucks employee to complain, as I was not
used to looking up from my laptop and seeing so many guns passing by at
close-range. She refused to act. Then when the group of guns were blocking the
counter where drinks are available, I reapproached her and she finally decided
to do something. She politely asked the police to hang out away from the bar.
She was met with bloated egos, one of which, with his back to the customer
area, kept turning his head to give us suspicious looks.</span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: large;"></span></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: large;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEgOcP_8aSsDMgNamLBaDsmo3fwZbtCZk86mzzCxB6XN5uedLiQYShcWKcymQ89swOwy1CRw6duvJ3AiBk11ZJ38F9xMI2zp-YL3rzqmkePhuj9xi_45NUfw13ScrbXQx_iXoYBm9pzsDp91TazHmSSa7fZoYmFy4b4UHKGM6VBIESK-OsSA6WxztQh1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img alt="" data-original-height="320" data-original-width="240" height="240" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEgOcP_8aSsDMgNamLBaDsmo3fwZbtCZk86mzzCxB6XN5uedLiQYShcWKcymQ89swOwy1CRw6duvJ3AiBk11ZJ38F9xMI2zp-YL3rzqmkePhuj9xi_45NUfw13ScrbXQx_iXoYBm9pzsDp91TazHmSSa7fZoYmFy4b4UHKGM6VBIESK-OsSA6WxztQh1" width="180" /></a></span></div><span style="font-family: times; font-size: large;"><br /><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: large;">My thought was: if the
guy feels such distrust for the public, perhaps he and his coworkers would feel
more comfortable spending their breaks somewhere more comfortable. Somewhere more out of the way rather than front and center. This would also
spare us, the taxpayers, from being subject to even the tacit intimidation of seeing bullet-proof vests and guns at such close range as we <i>enjoy </i>our coffee. No, I was not over-caffeinated, though maybe the police were, given all their pacing around the tables. Not that the police employees would have recognized their hyperactive state; after all, fish cannot see the water that they breathe, for they are always in it. I contend that such a blindness is conducive to literally and figuratively taking liberties, whether through intimidation or outright lashing out. </span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: large;"><br /></span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: large;">I do contend that liberty includes freedom of the innocent from intimidation. It can be quite difficult to perceive, yet unconsciously it is surely felt. Notice, for instance, the policeman intently looking at me as I took the picture shown here. Is taking a picture suspicious enough to warrant such rapt attention as a hunting dog might have upon seeing a rabbit? As the youth of today would say, <i>the guy needs to chill</i>. Not that I would have walked over to him after taking the photo and say, <i>Hey dude, just chill out a bit, huh?</i> <i>You're on your break. </i>He would have sternly dismissed such an accusation and turned on me (hence proving my point for me) even though it was, after all, a holiday. July 4th, Freedom from Intimidation Day in the U.S.A. By the twenty-first century, the British Red Coats had all but been forgotten, even, I suspect, in Boston Massachusetts. In Arizona, the Red Coats are homegrown.</span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: large;"><br /></span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="text-align: justify;">Fortunately for all concerned, the police huddle-formation soon broke up and
the disgruntled cops left the store. I discovered only days later that the head
of their local union had been broadcasting that Starbucks had demanded that the
police leave the store, which was a lie. The egos were two degrees of
separation from realizing that my complaint had some validity, and they felt
the need to retaliate against the company just for being asked to move out of
the way. Interestingly, the barista had refused to ask the police to stop
wandering through the tight-knit customer area yet decided to act when the
police were near her.</span></div></span><p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: large;">Laura Ingram of Fox News had decided that I must be a
criminal. For its part, Starbucks sent in a vice president, who directly or
indirectly told The New York Times that I must be “anxious” and that police of
any number whatsoever are welcome in any Starbucks store. Considering the
retaliation against employees, or “partners,” who have held strikes or sought
to unionize, it is interesting that the vice president capitulated to the local
police union—even scapegoating a customer in doing so. I wonder how many
customers trust the company and its management; any such trust would surely not
be deserved. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: large;">The esteemed Starbucks experience, which the company advertised
at the time, apparently includes being thrown under the bus (i.e., sacrificed)
for making a request that might upset the company’s cosy relationship with
fellow power-aggrandizers. Mendacious birds of prey often fly together, for
they understand each other, just as alcoholics and drug addicts do. Using people,
whether for retaliation or more money, violates Kant’s moral imperative that rational
beings (including us, even as we irrationally over-populate and, in doing so,
risk even our own extinction) treat other such beings not just as means, but
also as ends in themselves. Kant was insistent and adamant: Telling lies
violates this moral requirement of what it means ultimately to be human—to partake
in rational nature.</span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: large;">Furthermore, as Nietzsche emphasizes in his <i>Genealogy of Morals</i>, an unmastered and
excessive instinctual urge of resentment, especially of the strong, and indeed
of the ensuing retaliation too, is a mark of being weak. The strong are advised
to keep their distance from the new birds of prey. Hence, job-seekers should
avoid toxic managerial cultures if possible, and at the very least be on the
lookout for the telltale signs—the red flags. A pattern of telling lies is such
a flag, hence it is significant when a direct contradiction can be exposed. (Potential)
customers should take notice too, though the want of local alternatives can
make it difficult, practically speaking, to avoid the chain. Unfettered choices
require a competitive market, which as the activities of companies such as Standard
Oil, Walmart, and Facebook demonstrate, can be difficult to be maintained even
in a republic.</span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: large;">See the booklet: "<a href="https://www.amazon.com/s?k=skip+worden+bucking&ref=nb_sb_noss"><span style="color: #783f04;">Bucking Starbucks' Star</span></a>."</span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: large;">See the essay: "<a href="https://thewordenreport-governmentandmarkets.blogspot.com/2019/07/starbucks-apologizes-in-spite-of_7.html"><span style="color: #783f04;">Starbucks Capitulates to an Overzealous Police Union in Spite of In-Store Intimidation</span></a>."</span></p><div style="mso-element: endnote-list;"><!--[if !supportEndnotes]-->
<hr align="left" size="1" width="33%" />
<!--[endif]-->
<div id="edn1" style="text-align: left;">
<div style="text-align: left;"> 1. Dave Jamieson, “<a href="https://www.huffpost.com/entry/starbucks-ithaca-store-closed-union_n_631a197be4b0eac9f4d4c5cb"><span style="color: #783f04;">Starbucks
Broke Law By Closing Unionized Store In Ithaca, Labor Officials Say</span></a>,” <i>Huffington
Post</i>, November 1, 2022.<br /> 2. Ibid.<br /> 3. Dave Jamieson, “<a href="https://www.huffpost.com/entry/starbucks-ithaca-store-closure-retaliation_n_644c0ed1e4b011a819c785f9"><span style="color: #783f04;">A
Starbucks Closed Abruptly—And Its Workers Say It Was Retaliation</span></a>,” <i>The
Huffington Post</i>, April 29, 2023.<br />4.
Ibid.<br />5. Ibid.<br />6.
Ibid.<br />7. Ibid.</div><p class="MsoEndnoteText"><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div id="edn2" style="text-align: left;">
<p class="MsoEndnoteText"><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div id="edn3" style="text-align: left;">
<p class="MsoEndnoteText"><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div id="edn4" style="text-align: left;">
<p class="MsoEndnoteText"><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div id="edn5" style="text-align: left;">
<p class="MsoEndnoteText"><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div id="edn7" style="mso-element: endnote;"><p class="MsoEndnoteText"><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</div>Dr. Wordenhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02867414605883311000noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5896319920382721541.post-25297361874732212312022-02-20T14:42:00.000-08:002024-01-15T11:48:23.102-08:00On the Aristocracy of Wealth<div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: large;"><span style="color: black;">The rule of a few—aristocracy. The rule of the wealthy—plutocracy. Where the few, being valued above the many, are determined principally on account of wealth, the two forms of government fuse into the aristocracy of the moneyed interest. The cardinal virtue is the fundamental desire for more—otherwise known as greed. Justice is limited to peerage, or <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">amicitia</i> (friendship) based on having wealth. This sort of justice, which can be derived from Cicero, is antithetical to justice as <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">caritas seu benevolentia universalis </i>(love, that is, universal benevolence), which comes from Plato, Augustine, and Leibniz.</span></span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: large;"><span style="color: black;"><br /></span></span></div><div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: large;"><span style="color: black;">The "ardent glow of freedom gradually evaporates;—the charms of popular equality . . . insensibly decline;</span> <span style="color: black;">—the pleasures, the advantages derived from the new kind of government grow stale through use. Such declension in all these vigorous springs of actions necessarily produces a supineness. The altar of liberty is no longer watched with such attentive assiduity; —a new train of passions succeeds to the empire of the mind; —different objects of desire take place: —and, if the nation happens to enjoy a series of prosperity, voluptuousness, excessive fondness for riches, and luxury gain admission and establish themselves—these produce venality and corruption of every kind, which open a fatal avenue to bribery. Hence it follows, that in the midst of this general contagion a few men—or one—more powerful than all others, industriously endeavor to obtain all authority; and by means of great wealth—or embezzling the public money, —perhaps totally subvert the government, and erect a system of aristocratical or monarchic tyranny in its room. What ready means for this work of evil are numerous standing armies, and the disposition of the great revenue of the United States! . . . All nations pass this parokism of vice at some period or other; —and if at that dangerous juncture your government is not secure upon a solid foundation, and well guarded against the machinations of evil men, the liberties of this country will be lost—perhaps forever!"[1]</span></span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: large;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: large;"><span style="color: black;"><o:p> </o:p></span><span style="color: black;">A society wherein aristocracy is defined in terms of money can be likened to an old industrial city wherein the masses are boorish and the few are refined. The latter spend their spare time at the two or three country clubs in town. On July 4<sup>th</sup>, the masses have a motorcycle parade and fireworks downtown while the wealth-aristocrats enjoy golf and swimming followed by dinner in the dining room and then a separate fireworks show on the golf course. It is literally the tale of two cities—only one of which is gated, though some of the many can watch the clubs’ fireworks from <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">outside</i>.<o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: large;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: large;"><span style="color: black;"><o:p> </o:p></span><span style="color: black;">In an aristocratic plutocracy, business executives and the moneyed of the professional class (e.g., CPAs, physicians and lawyers, but not clerics and professors—the <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Brahmans </i>who have been uneasily professionalized but not as well compensated) are valued and thus they rule. In other words, the country clubs rule the strip malls. It is not only that money is allowed to buy political power; wealth is valued so much that is presumed to have the <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">right </i>to govern.<o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: large;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="color: black; font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: large;"> </span><span style="color: black;"><span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: large;">Although wealth is the defining difference in a society wherein aristocracy is a function of money, refinement itself tend to go with the <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">upper </i>classes; and yet for all the lubricating manners, the country club set is limited by its value on wealth. In other words, corruption can coexist with the superficial manners typically found on the putting green. True refinement, it turns out, comes not from wealth, but, rather, from being educated. Hence, the greatest difference in a society, it turns out, exists between the pedestrian mall and the scholar rather than between the poor and the rich. Even so, in a society wherein aristocracy is defined in terms of wealth, the distance between the rich and poor is exaggerated, which in turn is seen as justifying plutocracy. Once a society can be characterized as an aristocratic plutocracy, it may be that only a mass rebellion can bring back the demos in governance; for the propertied will only consolidate their rule, and their property, unless or until they are forced to relent.</span></span></div></div>
<div><br /></div><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<span>1. The Impartial Examiner, Essay (March 5, 1788), 5.14.15, in Herbert J. Storing, ed., <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><a href="https://www.amazon.com/Anti-Federalist-Writings-Opponents-Constitution/dp/0226775658"><span style="color: #783f04;">The Anti-Federalist</span></a></i> (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1985), pp. 290-91.</span></div>
Dr. Wordenhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02867414605883311000noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5896319920382721541.post-62779839331247055232021-08-05T15:34:00.000-07:002024-01-14T18:24:55.923-08:00A Professional Misnomer: Everyone Is a Self-Proclaimed Professional!<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: large;">Certainly by the turn of (and well
into) the twenty-first century, the term, "professional" had become
such a cherished word in the American lexicon that every American had decided
that he or she is one. Evincing the Lake Wobegon effect—the tendency of most
people to describe themselves or their abilities as above average—nearly
everyone is wont to say, “I am a professional.” On housing listings on
Craigslist, for example, people routinely use the word to signify that they are
not students. In fact, even some students characterize themselves as
professionals (though not as professional students!). Such <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">common</i> usage
belies the term's claim to having a specific meaning. Moreover, the tendency of
non-professions to deem themselves as professions nonetheless may evince one of
the downsides of democracy—namely, its proclivity to excess in terms of
self-entitlement. This is particularly likely to ensue from a citizenry that is
lacking in self-discipline, virtue and knowledge. <o:p></o:p></span></div><div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: large;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: large;">I contend that the self-appellation of
“professional” is in actuality an attempt at inclusion in what was hitherto
known as “the professional class.” Nietzsche’s thesis is relevant regarding the
instinct of certain herd animals to dominate as if they were strong—even though
they are in fact weak. <o:p></o:p></span></div><div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: large;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: large;">It is as though a manager at Walmart
imagines a concept of egalitarianism wherein he is akin to a lawyer or
surgeon—perhaps based on the fact that the manager distinguishes himself
somehow from his subordinate “employees.” Even in the midst of such
self-vaunting, a knowledge of store policies and years of practice in dealing
with customer complaints do not constitute an equivalent to the knowledge of
law or medicine required of a lawyer and physician, respectively. Nor is there
an obligation to the public such as in entailed in the practice of law or
medicine.<o:p></o:p></span></div><div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: large;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: large;">Technically, the term
"professional" applies to “the professions.” This does not
mean “any profession” in the sense of “any job category.” Because a
professional relies on years of study, albeit undergraduate (meaning only one
degree in a discipline/school of knowledge), in his or her <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">practice</i>, he or
she must be allowed significant autonomy. Hence the partnership arrangement,
wherein the self-discipline of peerage rather than a boss is relied on, is the
typical business form for law firms, CPA firms, and medical offices. Managers
in business are not professionals. This can be seen both from the standpoint of
the relative salience of a responsibility to the client/customer and of
judgment.<o:p></o:p></span></div><div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: large;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: large;">According to Relson (p. 750), “the
basic social role of the physician . . . is to be an agent and trustee for the
patient. Physicians are ethically bound to place the medical care needs of
their patients before their own financial interests – an obligation that
clearly sets the practice of medicine apart from business.” One could add a
lawyer's ethical obligation to act in the interest of the client and the CPA's
obligation to act in the interest of the public (people who rely on the
financial statements). In business by contrast, "buyer beware" is
often the default; a business practioner serves a customer for monetary gain.<o:p></o:p></span></div><div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: large;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: large;">Similarly, the judgment of a lawyer,
physician or CPA is not easily second-guessed by people outside of the
respective profession. Even in a hospital, a physician is not reviewed by a
manager who is not also a physician. In contrast, non-managerial board
directors commonly review the performance of managers.<o:p></o:p></span></div><div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: large;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: large;">Put another way, whereas one can
manage a business without having attended business school, I do not think any
of us would agree to be seen by a physician who had not graduated from a
medical school. Nor would a defendant in a criminal case be likely to chance a
conviction (and decades in prison) by hiring a lawyer who had not studied law.
Creditors and investors would think twice about the unqualified opinion of a
CPA firm whose auditors had not passed the CPA exam after years of study of
accounting. That a certified public accountant might also engage in
consulting, however, does not mean that consultants are thereby also
professionals. Even were consultants to devise a certifying exam, it would not
be as substantive or relied on as the lawyer bar exam, medical boards, and the
CPA exam.<o:p></o:p></span></div><div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: large;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: large;">According to John Boatright (2008),
the "work of most financial services providers does not meet the standard
criteria for a profession. Among the criteria for a profession which are
lacking in financial services are a high degree of organization and
self-regulation, a code of ethics, and a commitment to public service. These
criteria are possibly met by financial planners and insurance underwriters, but
not by brokers, bankers, traders . . ., who, in the strict sense of the term,
are not professionals." Financial planners and insurance underwriters come
up short, however, in terms of educational requirements. <o:p></o:p></span></div><div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: large;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: large;">According to Boatright (1992), a
professional’s stock in trade is a body of specialized knowledge that is the
basis for making judgments. Not only is the reliance placed on a professional’s
judgment relatively important; professionals are paid primarily for the value
of their knowledge that is the basis for their judgments. Accordingly, it is
difficult, if not impossible, anyone other than their peers to evaluate their
practice. In fact, Jean Van Houtte (p. 207) refers to professionals
as “individuals who practice their occupation autonomously.” Even another
surgeon is limited in being able to second-guess a colleague without being in
the operating room at the time. The salient element of judgment includes
discretion that is difficult for even colleagues to evaluate (though not
impossible); obvious lapses, for example, can easily be discerned by a
professional’s peers. <o:p></o:p></span></div><div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: large;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: large;">In short, the term
"professional" has a specific and limited meaning centered on the
responsibility-autonomy that is entailed when
specialized-knowledge-informed-judgment is salient in the practice of an
occupation. The term does not apply to anyone who does something for a living
(as opposed to being an avocation). If it did, then even prostitutes
and politicians would be professionals. The term “professional
politician” connotes ignorance, for which political office is not a job? It
is not like one can be governor of Alaska as a hobby. Also, neither
"mature" nor "responsible” is interchangeable with
“professional.” Nor does the term mean “acting impersonally or bureaucratically
rather than emotionally.” It is no accident that people not in one of the
professions use notably wide criteria.</span></div><div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: large;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: large;">Until the last few decades of the
twentieth century, the term "professional" did not suffer from such
lack of clarity. For example, Joe Flom, who was instrumental as a lawyer in the
hostle take-over bubble that began in the 1970s, claimed that his parents
wanted him to be a "professional." He wrote that for them, "being
a professional was a great thing. . . . That meant either a doctor or a
lawyer." This was the popular application: medicine or law--not a manager
or sales person, or even a CEO. Then a sort of inflation set in, and the value
associated with being a “professional” has diminished in proportion. The
presumption that simply getting hired or being mature on the job makes a person
a professional is odious and false. In fact, the over-reach itself evinces an
underlying sordid character. Ironically, such a person is in need of more
supervision, rather than warranting any sort of autonomy. </span><o:p></o:p></div>
<span style="color: black; font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: large;"><span style="color: black;">
</span></span>
<br />
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="color: black; font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: large;"><span style="color: black;"><span style="color: black;"><span style="color: black;"><br /></span></span></span></span></div>
<span style="color: black; font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: large;"><span style="color: black;">
</span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<span style="color: black;">Sources:</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<br />
<span style="color: black;">Jeff Madrick, <em>Age of Greed: The Triumph of Finance and the Decline of America, 1970 to the Present</em> (New York: Alfred A. Knoff, 2011).</span><br />
<br />
<span style="color: black;">John R. Boatright, “Conflict of Interest: An Agency Analysis.” Pp. 187-203 in <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Ethics and</i></span><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span>Agency Theory: An Introduction</i><span style="color: black;">, Norman E. Bowie and R. Edward Freeman, eds.</span><span style="color: black;"><span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span>(Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1992).</span><br />
<br />
<span style="color: black;">John R. Boatright, <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Ethics in Finance</i> (Oxford: Blackwell, 2008).</span><br />
<br />
Arnold S. Relman, “Dealing with Conflicts of Interest,” <i>New England Journal of Medicine</i> 313 (1985): 749-51.<br />
<br />
<span style="color: black;">Jean Van Houtte, “Research Report: Conflicts of Interest in Law Firms in Belgium,” <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Legal Ethics</i> 12 (part II): 207-28.</span><br />
<span style="color: black;"><br /></span>
<span style="color: black;">See also:</span><br />
<span style="color: black;"><br /></span>
<span>Skip Worden, <span style="color: #783f04;"><i><a href="https://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_noss?url=search-alias%3Daps&field-keywords=skip+worden+on+the+arrogance+of">On the Arrogance of False Entitlement: A Nietzschean Critique of Business Ethics and Management</a></i>.</span></span></div>
Dr. Wordenhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02867414605883311000noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5896319920382721541.post-34003681496564853632020-11-18T16:05:00.001-08:002020-11-18T16:05:43.972-08:00Hypocritical CSR during a Pandemic: O’Reilly Automotive, Inc.<div style="text-align: justify;"><div><span style="font-family: times; font-size: large;">In the retail sector, the
behavior of managers and their employees at the store level is particularly
relevant to customers. This relevance, I submit, outweighs the wider benefit of
a company’s corporate social responsibility (CSR) program if the behavior
contradicts either the CSR wording or actual programs. Besides the obvious bad
odor of hypocrisy that vitiates CSR claims, a company’s direct effects on its
customers (and employees) have implications in terms of responsibility. I
submit that these implications are more important than those of CSR programs
that are geared to societal problems because they are less central to a
business. In short, having a CSR program does not make up for irresponsible
policies or conduct toward customers (and employees). O’Reilly’s Automotive
serves as a good illustration.<br /> The company’s second CSR goal
in 2018 was to enhance “the health and wellbeing of communities engaging with”
the company.”<span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><!--[if !supportFootnotes]--><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span style="line-height: 115%;">[1]</span></span><!--[endif]--></span> The
company claimed that CSR is “embedded in” its business philosophy such that the
operations are not to “become an obstacle or a burden in the way of people’s
and the environment’s wellbeing.”<span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><!--[if !supportFootnotes]--><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span style="line-height: 115%;">[2]</span></span><!--[endif]--></span>
Regarding health, the company’s CSR program consisted of providing “nutritional
boosting” by producing and distributing health and hygiene products to “enhance
the wellbeing of its customers along with the various communities” with which
the company has engaged.<span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><!--[if !supportFootnotes]--><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span style="line-height: 115%;">[3]</span></span><!--[endif]--></span>
To the extent that such products are sold to customers, the CSR program is more
like an additional product line than from any sense of responsibility to help
reduce societal ills. In other words, the health CSR program was rather
self-serving.</span></div><div><span style="font-family: times; font-size: large;"><br /></span></div><div><div style="text-align: center;"><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgZm6S8e8SrnYWVVmEs_cAiJmWNoxhUziXPrlzCTsI1E_euGLmDuPtnJbpMm-cxILA_V0dKmO2LlnfGXBtq98hNaICmzvxCNNMK82j2-M6onQbc18_wK8swbh8yf05wMnefiIx2ZH5M91A/s2048/Oreilly+mask+sign.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="2048" data-original-width="1536" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgZm6S8e8SrnYWVVmEs_cAiJmWNoxhUziXPrlzCTsI1E_euGLmDuPtnJbpMm-cxILA_V0dKmO2LlnfGXBtq98hNaICmzvxCNNMK82j2-M6onQbc18_wK8swbh8yf05wMnefiIx2ZH5M91A/s320/Oreilly+mask+sign.jpg" /></a><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhktf8vKmsQfAJ1FUSFE3lyLFz_y3fIxJ-uWsJ1Hyhj5MxeCiDFK1fMp98m4eq8Nj2RUtsb0TrIMcr4BVPv5QUu8dmy6JjzFo2uZF53AHaEPMGZjPauBFeNuMt5ZPYD7ew7kV49OiUTC-k/s2048/Oreilly+counter+barriers.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="2048" data-original-width="1536" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhktf8vKmsQfAJ1FUSFE3lyLFz_y3fIxJ-uWsJ1Hyhj5MxeCiDFK1fMp98m4eq8Nj2RUtsb0TrIMcr4BVPv5QUu8dmy6JjzFo2uZF53AHaEPMGZjPauBFeNuMt5ZPYD7ew7kV49OiUTC-k/s320/Oreilly+counter+barriers.jpg" /></a></div><br /><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">In spite of the signage, two out of the three customers in the store were not wearing masks or maintaining physical distance from other people. No employee confronted the two customers. </div></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhbaGEUOKqta3tTWS1jHRlaA_et2iqKoXRu74lZAJvsX2ztCHsaHprDstVrmKKZjA71CIxapKGEMVoSds4RUhTtbE7NaVnMT7Hw1pS6G607bkIiSdUu86ehEJcOtXO2gJ78dsy6oBOP8nA/s2048/Oreilly+customer.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="2048" data-original-width="1536" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhbaGEUOKqta3tTWS1jHRlaA_et2iqKoXRu74lZAJvsX2ztCHsaHprDstVrmKKZjA71CIxapKGEMVoSds4RUhTtbE7NaVnMT7Hw1pS6G607bkIiSdUu86ehEJcOtXO2gJ78dsy6oBOP8nA/s320/Oreilly+customer.jpg" /></a></div><br /><span style="font-family: times; font-size: large;"> In just two years, the company’s
store-level operations had negligently become an obstacle or hindrance to the
health of employees and customers even as the company continued to tout its CSR
health goal. Even though stores had signs indicating that masks were required
due to the coronavirus pandemic, managers and/or employees in at least one
store were refusing to enforce that policy when customers came in without
wearing masks. Such customers could even ignore the barriers keeping customers
at a distance from the check-out counter. One employee told me that some
customers were even mistaking the barriers as an invitation to go <i>behind </i>the counter! I was just as
astonished, however, at the employees’ impotence when it came to enforcing the
mask <i>requirement</i>.<br />Perhaps just as the company’s
CSR program was self-serving (i.e., selling an unrelated product line), so too
was the company’s overriding dictum that the company’s mask policy should not
be permitted to get in the way of customers buying products. That is, I suspect
that the implicit priority was on the value of marginal revenue over the health
of customers and employees. This business calculus may not be surprising, yet
the refusal to enforce a salient (by signage) company policy is. To claim that
a requirement that is not to be enforced is nonetheless a requirement involves
not only cognitive problems, but also sheer weakness. Management includes both
making policies and enforcing them. The decision not to enforce one, such as in
telling employees not to accost customers who feel entitled to ignore the
signage of a requirement, can thus be regarded as ineffectual management even
if the goal is to maximize revenue. </span></div><p class="MsoNoSpacing"><o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNoSpacing"><o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNoSpacing"><o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNoSpacing"><o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNoSpacing">
</p><div>
<!--[endif]-->
<div id="edn1">
<p class="MsoEndnoteText"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;"><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><!--[if !supportFootnotes]--><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span style="line-height: 115%;">[1]</span></span><!--[endif]--></span> Matthew
Harvey, “<a href="https://www.essay48.com/5256-O-Reilly-Automotive-Inc-Corporate-Social-Responsibility"><span style="color: #783f04;">Corporate
Social Responsibility of O Reilly Automotive, Inc</span></a>.,” <i>Essay 48 </i>October 17, 2018 (accessed November 18, 2020).<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div id="edn2">
<p class="MsoEndnoteText"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;"><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><!--[if !supportFootnotes]--><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span style="line-height: 115%;">[2]</span></span><!--[endif]--></span>
Ibid.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div id="edn3">
<p class="MsoEndnoteText"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;"><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><!--[if !supportFootnotes]--><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span style="line-height: 115%;">[3]</span></span><!--[endif]--></span>
Ibid.</span><br /></p></div></div><div style="mso-element: endnote-list;"><div id="edn3" style="mso-element: endnote;">
</div>
</div><br /></div>Dr. Wordenhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02867414605883311000noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5896319920382721541.post-91223295641051086902020-10-21T17:23:00.003-07:002020-10-23T13:23:33.588-07:00On the Ethics of Business Donations and Saving Souls<p style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: large;">In the film, <i>Major Barbara </i>(1941), Barbara, a Major in the Salvation Army, has been raised with her sister and brother by their mother. She is legally separated or divorced from the father, Andrew Undershaft, who nonetheless finances the lavish lifestyle of his family. Even Barbara, the idealist Christian evangelical, lives on her father’s armaments wealth. Yet when she meets him after several years, she leaves the Salvation Army after Andrew and an alcohol producer donate large sums. Although Barbara recognizes that the Army in London needs the money, she believes that the Army has sold out because providing weapons of death and alcohol are sinful. “What price salvation, now?” a customer at the Army’s soup kitchen asks Barbara after she had taken off her Army pin and given it to her father. Barbara is not willing to continue with the Christian organization because in her mind it has sold out even though it admittedly needs the donations to survive. But has the Army sold out? Furthermore, does Barbara sold out in using her father's business to convert workers. Ironically, that may be more ethical than the Army's approach to saving souls. </span></p><p style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: large;">The full essay is at "<a href="https://thewordenreport-film.blogspot.com/2020/10/major-barbara.html"><span style="color: #783f04;">Major Barbara</span></a>."</span></p>Dr. Wordenhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02867414605883311000noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5896319920382721541.post-49779691437158560282020-06-09T16:55:00.001-07:002020-06-09T17:01:43.902-07:00Pope Francis: Religious and Secular Arguments for Governments Subordinating Markets to Social Norms<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: large;">The documentary, </span><i><span style="color: #783f04; font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: large;"><a href="https://www.imdb.com/title/tt6915100/">Pope Francis: A Man of His Word</a></span></i><span style="font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: large;"> (2018) chiefly lays out the pope’s critique of economic Man. The film begins with references to climate change too loosely linked to the global population figure of 8 million humans, 1 billion of whom are unnecessarily living in poverty. The viewer is left to fill in the gaps, such as that because as biological organisms we must consume and use energy, the hyperextended overpopulation of the species is the root cause of climate- and ecosystem-changing CO2 in the atmosphere and oceans. Arguably, the salvific Son of God or the means into the Kingdom of God enjoy pride of place in the gospels, but compassion for the poor as well as outcasts and the sick is indeed a message that Jesus stresses in the faith narratives. Rather than being a sign of sin, poverty, especially if voluntary, can permit the sort of humility that is much superior to the pride of the Pharisees. In the documentary, Jorge Bergoglio, who took the name Francis in becoming pope of the Roman Catholic Church in 2013, is a practical man who points to the sickness or temptation of greed that keeps humanity from riding itself of poverty, unnecessarily. Moreover, the hegemony of the market, with its culture of consumerism and commoditization, comes at the cost of the common good, which to Francis has a spiritual basis. Abstractly speaking, harmony, which inherently respects its own limitations, should have priority over greed and markets. Both of these can go to excess without enough built-in constraints as occurred before and during the financial crisis of 2008, with poverty plaguing humanity more rather than less as a result.</span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: large;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: large;">The full essay is at "<a href="https://thewordenreport-film.blogspot.com/2020/06/pope-francis-man-of-his-word.html"><span style="color: #783f04;">Pope Francis</span></a>."</span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: large;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhyboLsPujdQMFCgJEVJZZByze1q-7fSVGS6TOCo4qK0NoJk4h5zI8Uf0N3gtpGTSM9vBoM0AKDcTJ-bRqZmJulhkbBj0ARkbQt69HEh27X79JUK5OVizlie55C9bXEuoKYCuY6JuM6PvE/s1600/Pope+Francis+A+Man+of+His+Word.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="268" data-original-width="182" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhyboLsPujdQMFCgJEVJZZByze1q-7fSVGS6TOCo4qK0NoJk4h5zI8Uf0N3gtpGTSM9vBoM0AKDcTJ-bRqZmJulhkbBj0ARkbQt69HEh27X79JUK5OVizlie55C9bXEuoKYCuY6JuM6PvE/s1600/Pope+Francis+A+Man+of+His+Word.jpg" /></a></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: large;"><br /></span></div>
Dr. Wordenhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02867414605883311000noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5896319920382721541.post-3321816029003309052020-04-08T18:56:00.000-07:002023-11-18T15:03:58.161-08:00A Grocery Store Company Lobbies for Special Status during the Coronavirus Pandemic While Falling Short<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="tab-stops: 292.5pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="background-color: #999999; font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: large;"><span style="background-attachment: initial; background-clip: initial; background-image: initial; background-origin: initial; background-position: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-size: initial;">In early April, 2020, Albertsons Companies, which at
the time owned Safeway, ACME Markets, Jewel-Osco, Vons, Pavilions and
Albertsons grocery stores, joined with United Food and Commercial Workers
International Union (UFCW) to get American governments to designate the workers
as first responders. The joint statement reads in part, “The temporary
designation of first responder or emergency personnel status would help ensure
these incredible grocery workers access to priority testing, have access to
personal protection equipment, like masks and gloves, as well as other
workplace protections necessary to keep themselves and the customers they serve
safe and healthy.”</span><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span style="background-attachment: initial; background-clip: initial; background-image: initial; background-origin: initial; background-position: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-size: initial;"><span style="mso-special-character: footnote;"><!--[if !supportFootnotes]--><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span style="background-attachment: initial; background-clip: initial; background-image: initial; background-origin: initial; background-position: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-size: initial; line-height: 115%;">[1]</span></span><!--[endif]--></span></span></span><span style="background-attachment: initial; background-clip: initial; background-image: initial; background-origin: initial; background-position: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-size: initial;"> Although keeping grocery workers healthy was
important, the focus on testing and equipment can be viewed as problematic in
that the company’s management was falling short on more crucial safety
measures.</span></span><span style="background-color: #999999; font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: large;"><span style="background-attachment: initial; background-clip: initial; background-image: initial; background-origin: initial; background-position: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-size: initial;"><br /></span></span>
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhGC4YLY0lAMCMiK8OerZqZfxXn08Iyer0vu2uFCYS6YoGTH1-pP3wGYIstj5BjltHnYN7bWoTEYocBle9ke6rjuB_jBGQJz4SDwOswzl3K50hKXm42N43T9F3HIj98r7mIjARTCpM7-so/s1600/IMG_20190925_151535.jpg" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="480" data-original-width="720" height="213" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhGC4YLY0lAMCMiK8OerZqZfxXn08Iyer0vu2uFCYS6YoGTH1-pP3wGYIstj5BjltHnYN7bWoTEYocBle9ke6rjuB_jBGQJz4SDwOswzl3K50hKXm42N43T9F3HIj98r7mIjARTCpM7-so/s320/IMG_20190925_151535.jpg" width="320" /></a></div>
<span style="background-color: #999999; font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: large;"><span style="background-attachment: initial; background-clip: initial; background-image: initial; background-origin: initial; background-position: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-size: initial;"><br /></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="tab-stops: 292.5pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="background-color: #999999; font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: large;"><span style="background-attachment: initial; background-clip: initial; background-image: initial; background-origin: initial; background-position: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-size: initial;">If the masks being sought were merely surgical masks—and
in shopping in Safeway stores I saw many employees already wearing them—it is
important to remember that that type of mask (i.e., without a respirator) does </span><span style="background-attachment: initial; background-clip: initial; background-image: initial; background-origin: initial; background-position: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-size: initial;">not
keep the virus out; rather, the masks are designed to stop water droplets from
getting out so the risk of infection to other people nearby is reduced as such
droplets can carry virus. However, the virus can still go through and around a
mask even just by the person breathing. Stopping that would (hopefully
obviously) be worse than catching the disease.</span></span></div><div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="tab-stops: 292.5pt; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: times, times new roman, serif; font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<span style="background-color: #999999; font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: large;">I
suspect that the typical worker was not aware that the mask does nothing to
stop the wearer from getting infected; the purpose is more altruistic—namely,
reducing the risk that the wearer infects other people. Because </span><span style="background-color: #999999; font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: large;"> </span><span style="background-color: #999999; font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: large;">I did not see any Safeway workers going out of
their way to keep at a physical distance from customers even after more than a month, I don’t believe that the workers wore
masks for the good of the customers. Furthermore, I can say that Safeway’s management extending down to the store level was shirking the responsibility to keep customers as well as employees as safe as possible. </span></div><div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="tab-stops: 292.5pt; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: times, times new roman, serif; font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: large;"><span style="background-color: #999999;">Why would a store manager watch employees pay little heed to keeping a distance from customers when such distance was possible? Why would an employee not even "hug" the other side of a hallway while passing a customer? Perhaps the employees, being used to putting policies to customers, took offense when the roles were reversed, with customers even just reminding employees of the store policy (and government guideline). I suspect that the employees were reacting to the reversal in power. </span></span><span style="background-color: #999999; font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: large;">When I asked employees to keep a distance, I saw facial
expressions saying, in effect, </span><i style="background-color: #999999;"><span style="font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: large;">I don’t have to take orders
from you</span></i><i style="background-color: #999999; font-family: times, "times new roman", serif; font-size: x-large;">.</i><span style="background-color: #999999; font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: large;"> </span></div><div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="tab-stops: 292.5pt; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: times, times new roman, serif; font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<span style="background-color: #999999; font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: large;">Regarding the store managers, they were doubtlessly not used to being embarrassed by customers pointing to blatant employee noncompliance. Perhaps the managers were not used to confronting noncompliant customers; perhaps the managers were scared. Perhaps the managers were not comfortable taking an <i>active </i>role with employees and customers in the stores. Perhaps the managers were used to the weaker form, <i>passive management, </i>even when they knew that noncompliance was ubiquitous. Such a situation would require a <i>real </i>manager, rather than a person behind a curtain. <i> </i></span></div><div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="tab-stops: 292.5pt; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: times, times new roman, serif; font-size: large;"><i><br /></i></span>
<span style="background-color: #999999; font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: large;">One day in late March, I suggested to a store manager that he make an
announcement reminding employees as well as customers that maintaining a physical
distance was a store policy and government guideline. “Maybe I’ll have a store meeting on that,”
he replied. Lest this be thought to be a sign of bureaucracy, I submit that the discretion involved rendered the choice a sign of <i>weakness.</i> No announcement for the customers ensued even as employees were
clustering around customers at the cashier area where the manager was standing!
Focusing on masks and testing can be viewed as of much less importance. In
fact, the managerial judgment that prioritizes such a focus over keeping
employees and customers safe in the first place is severely faulty. </span></div><div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="tab-stops: 292.5pt; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: times, times new roman, serif; font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<span style="background-color: #999999; font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: large;">So too is the judgment of a store manager who refuses to intervene when a customer insults another customer for asking for some physical distance between them. In mid-April, I observed a store manager refuse to intervene to ask two people to observe physical distancing, as they had been violating it, and even to confront them when he heard them insulting another customer for having asked them to keep at a distance rather than pass close by. This was a case of disgustingly incompetent, impotent store management.</span></div><div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="tab-stops: 292.5pt; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: times, times new roman, serif; font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<span style="background-color: #999999; font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: large;">Meanwhile, store employees were walking closely by customers with impunity and even lie, "I'm trying" to offended customers. Actually trying would mean keeping to the other side of an aisle or hallway rather than walking down the center. <i>Real trying </i>would mean not walking directly at customers, expecting them to back away. During the first months of the pandemic, I did not see one employee pause, back up, or take even a slight detour so to maintain physical spacing. The presumption that the customers should move out of the way if they want to take precautions is so toxic that the supervising management can also be condemned; the attitude is <i>that </i>bad.</span></div><div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="tab-stops: 292.5pt; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: times, times new roman, serif; font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<span style="background-color: #999999; font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: large;">In incessantly interrupting and failing even to acknowledge that her subordinate had provided bad customer service, the manager over that department demonstrated the attitude to me in early April. </span><span style="background-color: #999999; font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: large;">I had asked the subordinate at the desk to call another store to ask whether it had toilet paper. “No I won’t call,” the subordinate had stubbornly replied, “because I know what they will say.” It was still early in the morning, and she had not contacted the other store yet that morning, so she told me she would call. She quickly went into the back office. When she came out of the small office only seconds later, she told me that she had had a conversation with the manager inside instead. In the conversation that lasted just a few seconds, the manager told her subordinate that all of the stores would get deliveries of the product that night. "But that doesn't mean that the other store is out of the product now, which is why I asked you to call," I replied. Because the employee didn't understand how she had not answered my question (which alone is telling), I asked to speak with the manager.</span></div><div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="tab-stops: 292.5pt; text-align: justify;"><span style="background-color: #999999; font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: large;"> </span><br />
<span style="background-color: #999999; font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: large;">The forthcoming conversation was even worse. After I stated that just because all the stores in the district would get shipments that night, we can't assume from this that the other store was out. Rather than attending to my point, the manager went into a monologue on how much of every other product impacted by the hoarding was doing in the store. </span></div><div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="tab-stops: 292.5pt; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: times, times new roman, serif; font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<span style="background-color: #999999; font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: large;">In retrospect, I would realize that the lack of concern for customers connected the bad customer service with the attitude of the management toward enforcing distance on the employees and reminding customers to keep a distance from each other. </span><span style="background-color: #999999; font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: large;">The failure or refusal to enforce physical distancing on employees demonstrates a lack of concern for not only them, but also the customers. So too does
not making sufficient store announcements to customers when most are not maintaining
physical distance from each other. Were physical distancing a priority of the store
managers, then getting more masks and tests would have been much less necessary. </span></div><div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="tab-stops: 292.5pt; text-align: justify;"><span style="background-color: #999999; font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: large;"> </span><span style="background-color: #999999; font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: large;"> </span><br />
<span style="background-color: #999999; font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: large;">Proper management of employees and genuine concern for
customers in real time (i.e., even stopping a noncomplying customer from lashing out at other customers who had asked for more physical space from that customer) </span><span style="background-color: #999999; font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: large;">would have done a lot more than lobbying for masks, which do not prevent
the employee-wearer from being infected, and tests after-the-fact. </span><span style="background-color: #999999; font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: large;">If the company’s management was really
concerned about employees, the distance policy would have been enforced. Lest the company's management tout corporate social responsibility programs in order to deflect attention from a lack of </span><a href="https://thewordenreport-businessandsociety.blogspot.com/2020/03/authentic-corporate-social.html"><span style="background-color: #999999; color: #783f04; font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: large;">genuine responsibility</span></a><span style="background-color: #999999; font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: large;"> for employees and customers, a peripheral program does not trump social responsibility directly in the line of business operations because the latter has more of an effect on customers and employees, who are more central to a business than are societal problems.</span></div><div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="tab-stops: 292.5pt; text-align: justify;"><span style="background-color: #999999; font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: large;"> </span></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="tab-stops: 292.5pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="background-color: #999999; font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: large;">I suspect that in
American politics too, enabled by the media, secondary issues gain focus even
at the expense of vital issues. Within an issue, symptoms or manifestations get
more attention than does removing the cause. Redressing the cause of an illness
is better than merely alleviating symptoms. As in the case of Albertsons
Companies, focusing on a peripheral rather than a more central matter can be
relatively easy and easier to problem-solve. Focusing on peripheral matters can
thus make companies and governments look better than they actually are. How a company
or government is actually falling short in more crucial ways is not transparent
when the organizational and societal focus is on what the company or government
is doing even to make up for its falling short. </span><br />
<span style="background-color: #999999; font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<span style="background-color: #999999; font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: large;">On Nietzsche's thought on weak management, see Skip Worden, <i><a href="https://www.amazon.com/s?k=worden+on+the+arrogance+of+false+entitlement&i=digital-text&ref=nb_sb_noss"><span style="color: #783f04;">On the Arrogance of False Entitlement: A Nietzshean Critique of Business Ethics and Management</span></a>.</i></span></div>
<div style="mso-element: endnote-list;">
<hr align="left" size="1" width="33%" />
<!--[endif]-->
<br />
<div id="edn1" style="mso-element: endnote;">
<div class="MsoEndnoteText">
<span style="background-color: #999999;"><span face=""calibri" , sans-serif"><span style="font-size: 13.3333px;">1.</span></span> Aine Cain and Hayley Peterson, “<a href="https://www.businessinsider.com/albertsons-ufcw-grocery-store-workers-first-responders-2020-4"><span style="color: #783f04;">A
Major Grocer Is Pushing to Classify Its Employees as First Responders, Giving
Them Priority for Testing and Protective Gear</span></a>,” Business Insider, April 7,
2020 (accessed April 8, 2020). </span><o:p></o:p></div>
</div>
</div>
Dr. Wordenhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02867414605883311000noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5896319920382721541.post-66958483413658686732020-04-08T17:11:00.001-07:002023-11-18T15:07:26.679-08:00Business & Society and Business Ethics: Two Distinct Fields of Business<div style="text-align: justify;">
<div class="MsoNoSpacing">
<span style="font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: large;">As a field of business, business and society (which
includes the topic of corporate social responsibility (CSR)) can be viewed as
falling within the rubric of the environment of business. Business and
government can as well. Indeed, the environment goes beyond stakeholders. Although
sometimes deemed as falling within this rubric, business ethics actually does
not, as it is internal to a business even as unethical policies and decisions
can impact stakeholders. In fact, business ethics and business and society are
two distinct fields, even though they share a common border and are often fused
as if they were one seamless country. <o:p></o:p></span></div><div class="MsoNoSpacing"><span style="font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: large;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing">
<span style="font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: large;">That some of the CSR literature applies ethical
principles to CSR does not mean that describing or analyzing differences
between the norms, values, and cultural attitudes and practices of a culture
and those of a business involves ethical reasoning from ethical principles. As
David Hume pointed out, you can’t get <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">should
</i>from <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">is</i>. Going from a current
state of affairs to what should be involves ethical reasoning. To obviate such
reasoning based on ethical principles and simply say that something that exists
should exist is to fall prey to the naturalistic fallacy. <o:p></o:p></span></div><div class="MsoNoSpacing"><span style="font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: large;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing">
<span style="font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: large;">So to claim that a corporation’s culture <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">should </i>be more in line with the society’s
overall culture requires more than describing the two cultures and how they
differ, as well as analyzing how the differences impact business as well as the
wider society and providing suggestions as to how a corporation can move closer
to societal norms, values, and mores. To go on to how things should be,
reasoning a priori from ethical principles is necessary. That is, once the
question of whether an extant, descriptive difference should exist is brought
up, the business field of business & society is left behind and the
philosophy field of ethics and the business field of business ethics are
entered. </span></div><div class="MsoNoSpacing"><span style="font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: large;"><br /></span></div><div class="MsoNoSpacing"><span style="font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: large;">Specifically, the philosophical field applies to ethical questions
that go beyond the business side of the equation, whereas business ethics
applies to whether a management or corporation <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">should </i>change to be more in line with societal norms, values,
and/or mores. This question lies beyond the field of business and society
because ethical principles rather than sociological, anthropological, or
management theory are necessary. </span><span style="font-family: times, "times new roman", serif; font-size: x-large;">Organizational and societal norms, values and mores fall within
the basic (not applied) disciplines and sociology and anthropology. </span><span style="font-family: times, "times new roman", serif; font-size: x-large;">Ethical principles and ethical reasoning fall
within philosophy. Sociology and anthropology are social sciences, whereas
philosophy is in the humanities. Treating the field of business and society as
if it were synonymous with business ethics conflates two social sciences with a
field in the humanities.</span></div><div class="MsoNoSpacing"><span style="font-family: times, "times new roman", serif; font-size: x-large;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing"><br /></div>
</div>
Dr. Wordenhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02867414605883311000noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5896319920382721541.post-40263927424279300172020-03-23T18:24:00.000-07:002023-11-18T15:24:38.658-08:00Authentic Corporate Social Responsibility during a Pandemic<div style="text-align: justify;">
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif;"><span style="font-size: large;">"We’re doing a lot of social distancing,” U.S. President Trump claimed during his press conference on Coronavirus on March 23, 2020. The day before, he had said he is proud of the American people for voluntarily taking precautions. March 21st, I had been in a Target store to buy some necessary items. No one was "social distancing," including employees. A more accurate, and better understood term would be </span><i><span style="font-size: large;">physical</span></i><span style="font-size: large;"> distancing, as it is more broadly applicable than socializing and the latter can be done at a distance, especially via telephone and the internet.[1] </span></span><span style="font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: large;">A day before, I had been in two grocery stores—two because one—a Safeway [Albertsons]—was missing so many hoarded items. I found no physical distancing at Safeway and Sprouts. The former was not that safe after all, and the latter's healthy-food was not being sold in a healthy way. </span><span style="font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: large;">It was as if the employees, customers, and managements were oblivious to the obvious risks, but the explanation may be more complex. I contend that it applies to corporate social responsibility too, for I also found that none of the store managers was making announcements or had signage to remind people to keep a distance from other people in the respective stores. On March 26, 2020, I again saw <a href="https://thewordenreport-businessandsociety.blogspot.com/2020/04/a-grocery-store-company-lobbies-for.html"><span style="color: #783f04;">no physical distancing</span></a> by employees and customers at a Safeway store; the store manager told me he would have a store meeting on the issue. In the meantime, not even periodic announcements would be made. This is known as erroneously applying status-quo management procedures in a state of emergency. Also, Safeway's store management had not acted proactively to ration products such as toilet paper and cleaning products that had been voraciously grabbed off the shelves by herd-exuberant customers in a panic mode. In short, I submit that the unique business conditions of the Coronavirus pandemic can be used to assess whether corporate social responsibility is real or merely a marketing tool.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjw9gzNGLqcYbYaVCNaAmdf0TQwVekN7Ec9kKVJGILED_VvVIqLw3YVnhqxdH7F3yKA2jZU9BtqXOZgsa5GN4P2ip3ABgYieFe5NW1LJBpTzeOfDfu6RvwogD_mrbXY4OGSdfVy602aTT0/s1600/IMG_20190925_151540.jpg" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="480" data-original-width="720" height="213" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjw9gzNGLqcYbYaVCNaAmdf0TQwVekN7Ec9kKVJGILED_VvVIqLw3YVnhqxdH7F3yKA2jZU9BtqXOZgsa5GN4P2ip3ABgYieFe5NW1LJBpTzeOfDfu6RvwogD_mrbXY4OGSdfVy602aTT0/s320/IMG_20190925_151540.jpg" width="320" /></a></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<span style="font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: medium;">(This is not the Safeway store where I found the deliquencies.) </span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: large;">I begin with the matters of relinquishing old habits and starting new ones, for both are important to being proactive both at the individual and store levels during a pandemic. Plato’s dictum, to know the good is to do the good, relies on the human proclivity to create and maintain habits. In other words, habitually doing the good, which presupposes knowing what the good is, plays a vital role in doing the good. It gets easier once a good habit has been established and practiced. We are indeed very habitual animals. We tend to take the same route to work, sit in the same seat where seating is open, and even eat the same foods at breakfast as if in a rut. S</span><span style="font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: large;">o Plato’s emphasis on habit is wise. If staying at home and keeping at a physical distance from other people are good habits during a pandemic, then the emphasis should be on establishing these habits and attending to them until the new habits become easy, even automatic. Unfortunately, this is easier said than done.</span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: large;"><br /></span></div>
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: large;">A good habit faces two hurdles. Firstly, contravening habits must be resisted. When the Coronavirus just getting started in the U.S., I literally had to pull back my arm so I would not shake someone’s hand. “I don’t think it’s a good idea to shake hands now,” I told the other person, who was stunned. My habit of shaking hands had become so ingrained in my mind that it sent my left arm out even though I had decided not to shake hands. Pulling my arm back felt so unnatural that actually doing it felt difficult, as if I were fighting against horizontal gravity; it was as if I had to drag my arm back.</span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: times, times new roman, serif; font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: large;">Furthermore, that the other person was stunned even though he knew the reason was reasonable stunned me. Why the apparent affront in the face of a pandemic already present locally? I suspect that the man’s reasoning was not controlling his passions (emotions). In <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">The Republic</i>, Plato writes that such a psyche is unjust. So too, by the way, is the polis (i.e., a political geographical area) that has passions unrestrained or checked by reason via individuals or a government. A government has a responsibility, for example, to see that the passions that would otherwise thwart reason’s conclusions do not. So, many governments were urging or ordering people to stay at home (i.e., self-quarantine) and maintain physical distance in public during the Coronavirus pandemic. That government, acting justly, had to contend with preexisting habits such as shaking hands and walking or standing at a close distance to other people. From the standpoint of those habits, the government’s position may have seemed unjust, perhaps as invasive or overreactions. In short, ongoing habits die hard.<o:p></o:p></span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: large;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: large;">The second hurdle that a good habit must overcome to be sustained is the person going beyond the decisions and actually engage the new behaviors enough such that they stick. It is one thing to decide to do something different, and quite another thing to change behavior. This goes beyond stopping previous habits, such as shaking hands and standing close to other people; new behaviors must be done enough to gain traction. Simply having made the decision to change is not enough. Yet implementing a new choice is difficult because the conduct is not aided by the force of habit until the conduct is done enough times to become habitual. Hence Plato’s dictum that doing something good enough for it to become a habit is important. This applies to corporate social responsibility at the managerial level (especially at the store level).<o:p></o:p></span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: large;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: large;">In the grocery stores (and the Target store) that I went to when<i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"> </i>it was reasonable to assume that most Arizonans would be aware of the need to keep a certain distance from others, I found that few if any people were engaged in the practice. Even if they had made the decisions to engage in the practice, which was in line with the core human motive of self-preservation, they had not resisted old, antithetical practices and put the new behaviors into practice enough for them to become habitual, and thus easier.<o:p></o:p></span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: large;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: large;">Rationally, a human being would tend to be motivated based on self-preservation to form new conducive habits. In other words, a law should not be necessary. Perhaps the force of old habits is powerful enough to eclipse even the motive for self-preservation, or maybe the problem lies in too many people not making even rather obvious connections between, say, staying at a distance and not catching the virus. Arizona was at the time 49th out of the 50 American States in primary and secondary education (i.e., before college). </span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: times, times new roman, serif; font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: large;">Corporate social responsibility could have bridged the gap, such as by a store manager making regular announcements that everyone in the store should maintain a certain physical distance from everyone else. I suggested this to the store manager on duty at Sprouts grocery store as I was leaving, but he demurred even though the chain was touting its social responsibility in providing healthy produce to customers. He looked at me as though I were from France. <i>C'est drole, n-est-pas? </i></span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: times, times new roman, serif; font-size: large;"><i><br /></i></span>
<span style="font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: large;">Perhaps that manager feared that some customers in the store would overreact out of fear and immediately leave the store, beginning an unprofitable stampede. The bad education system locally may also have been a factor, for he presumably could have made the announcement in a calming, friendly way. "Hey, thanks for shopping with us today. Just a reminder that the government recommends that we all keep a distance of at least ... from each other. Nothing to worry about; just a precaution." The informal, friendly tone, the use of "government" rather than "public health agencies," the use of "recommends" rather than "orders," the "nothing to worry about," and the sense that the manager and employees were included would likely have been sufficient to stifle any herd-animal stampede, even in Arizona. However, at the end of March, 2020, while I was in a Target store, a simple, "Please keep a distance of six feet between you and others" announcement played every half-hour and did not trigger any stampedes. Even then, neither Sprouts nor Safeway were making announcements in their respective stores even though from my visits I could see a lot of non-distancing, even by employees. </span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: large;"><br /></span></div>
</div>
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: large;">Perhaps the manager at the Sprouts store was so ingrained in old thinking habits that my suggestion did not even register such that he did not even make a decision. Both hurdles to beginning a new habit (i.e., making the announcement periodically) may have been too high for the man, yet it is curious that the company did not have a policy of making announcements as of the end of March.</span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: times, times new roman, serif; font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: large;">Similarly, the manager of the Safeway store was in a meeting-rut when on March 26th he told me he would have to have a store meeting in the future rather than make announcement to employees and customers alike to please keep a distance of 6 feet/1.8 meters in keeping with the government's recommendation of distancing. Ironically, when his employee charged with sanatizing the shelves had walked very close to me and I reminded him of the distancing, his response was essentially to blame me. "Just relax," he said twice (he was obviously not). Interestingly, although the cashiers had a new protective clear-plastic sheet separating them from customers, at least one young cashier couldn't hear the customers because of the screen so she would lean sideways to speak at close range without any barrier face to face at close range. More than one office meeting would be needed at that store.</span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: times, times new roman, serif; font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: large;">On a positive note, Sprouts's shelves were well stocked, whereas Safeway's were not. Safeway's managers may have been in too much of a mental and behavioral rut to catch the drasically increasing sales figures on items like toilet paper and ration them. Of course, the resistance to rationing may have been from the profit-motive, in which case we could conclude that the company's CSR programs paled in comparison to authentic corporate social responsibility within the business (i.e., closer to the core business functioning, or operative business model). </span><span style="font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: large;">Safeway managers may have discounted the point that rationing may even have an overall good financial effect as fewer customers face empty shelves and thus a bad experience.</span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: large;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: large;">I do contend that the store
managements had a social responsibility to see that their employees and
customers were as safe as possible from catching the illness while in the stores. It cannot be said that the managements were pro-active; even their reactivity was laggard or incomplete. Besides making simple announcements on distancing especially at the cashier area, responsibility extended to picking up on, and acting upon, abrupt trends in product sales in enough time </span><span style="font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: large;">to ration items even if rationing is not in the short-term financial
interest of the companies. The companies' respective charters undoubtedly give those companies the right to make food available to paying customers. With that right comes a responsibility that becomes particularly active not only when too many customers and employees are not keeping a distance, but also when some customers are hoarding a product to such an extent that the stores cannot provide that product to other customers in a reasonable period of time. </span><span style="font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: large;">Rather than pointing here to CSR programs whereby a company sponsors a baseball team or food bank, I am referring to authentic social responsibility, which lies in managers and employees taking responsibility in the conduct of business, directly with people rather than through an institutional program. In other words, the authentic sort tends to a bottom-up phenomenon, at least at first, though proactive companies can issue companywide policies that are consistent with the measures taken in some stores in a timely manner. I contend this sort of responsibility is most likely to be enacted in strong companies, whereas
the weak are too focused on entrails—too easily held back by preexisting
choices and habits to venture new choices and implement new policies. Perhaps this case study comes down to this: Why in the world would a store manager NOT make a store announcement after a customer recommends doing so because people, including employees, are not keeping a distance to each other? It is reasonable to expect that the manager would not only make an announcement, but also call his superior other store managers can do likewise. Perhaps the rare situation of a pandemic reveals that the typical mentality in retail management is excessively rigid, even if being so is not really being cautious after all, but impedes caution being actualized at the store level. </span><br />
<o:p></o:p></div>
<br />
<div style="text-align: justify;">
1<span style="font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif;">. "It is important for us all to realize that when they recommend 'social distancing' . . . what health experts are really promoting are practices that temporarily increase our <i>physical </i>distance from one another in order to slow the spread of the virus." Cecilia Menjivar, Jacob Foster, and Jennie Brand, "<a href="https://www.cnn.com/2020/03/21/opinions/physical-distancing-menjivar-foster-brand/?hpt=ob_blogfooterold"><span style="color: #783f04;">Don't call it 'social distancing</span></a>'," CNN.com, March 21, 2020 (accessed April 4, 2020). </span></div>
Dr. Wordenhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02867414605883311000noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5896319920382721541.post-47263465899589159292020-02-11T13:16:00.000-08:002020-02-11T13:27:40.576-08:00On the Social Psychology of Rising Credit-Card Debt: A Reflection of American Society?<div style="text-align: justify;">
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: large; text-align: start;">It is perhaps too easy to point to </span><i style="font-family: times, "times new roman", serif;"><span style="font-size: large;">economic</span></i><i style="font-family: times, "times new roman", serif; font-size: x-large; text-align: start;"> </i><span style="font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: large; text-align: start;">reasons for an increase in debt within a society. The Wall Street Journal reported during the first quarter of 2020 that credit-card debt in the U.S. “rose to a record in the final quarter of 2019 as Americans spent aggressively amid a strong economy and job market, and the proportion of people seriously behind on their payments increased.”</span><span class="MsoEndnoteReference" style="font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: large; text-align: start;"><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span style="line-height: 27.6px;">[1]</span></span></span><span style="font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: large; text-align: start;"> The record $930 billion, according to the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, was “well above the previous peak seen before the 2008 financial crisis.”</span><span class="MsoEndnoteReference" style="font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: large; text-align: start;"><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span style="line-height: 27.6px;">[2]</span></span></span><span style="font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: large; text-align: start;"> After critiquing the economic explanation, I will suggest that a social-psychological mentality or attitude may be behind not only the rising debt, but also other disappointing manifestations in the contemporaneous American society more broadly speaking.</span></div>
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: large;">The U.S. economy between 2001 and
the third quarter of 2007 had been “weaker, overall, than its performance in
the equivalent years of the 1990s.”</span><span class="MsoEndnoteReference" style="font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: large;"><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span style="line-height: 115%;">[3]</span></span></span><span style="font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: large;">
So if spending aggressively (a rather strange expression) amid a strong economy
and job market in 2019 led to the record in credit-card debt, why was the debt
level higher in the 2001-2007 period than during the 1990s? Furthermore, why
wouldn’t a </span><i style="font-family: times, "times new roman", serif;"><span style="font-size: large;">weaker</span></i><i style="font-family: times, "times new roman", serif; font-size: x-large;"> </i><span style="font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: large;">economy result in
more buying on credit and a jump particularly in serious credit delinquencies? In
actuality, the fourth quarter of 2019 saw only moderate growth of 2.1 percent,
a full percentage point below the comparable figure from the year’s first
quarter. The softening of domestic consumer spending and the low unemployment
rate of 3.5% should result in more credit-card debt being paid off rather than added.
Going on economic factors alone takes on the look of a twisted pretzel.</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: large;">I submit that a creeping pathological
mentality in the some segments of American society, or perhaps outside of
society, may be another, steadier trending factor. Specifically an attitude
toward money and personal responsibility may have been spreading during the
2010s among the working poor. I cannot offer any empirical evidence, so my
theorizing can only be considered as an initial sketch. Even so, the rough
sketches of the attitude itself can be revealing with respect to personal
responsibility and other people.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: large;">The attitude, which I have
observed on number of occasions, includes the decision not to utilize
self-discipline in the face of instant-gratification, which in turn may be felt
as coming all-at-once as if overwhelming once a paycheck is received. Self-discipline
may simply be dismissed as if it were an exogenous bad odor. In actuality, that
odor comes from the attitude itself. The ensuing behavior is to spend too much
of the paycheck without concern for money that will be needed before the next
paycheck arrives (not to mention any concern to put some money aside in case of
unemployment or an emergency). <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: large;">In 2019, I listened more to the
jobless poor who received government checks. I found that in many cases, they most
or almost all of a check all at once. In many cases, they would turn to selling
drugs and going to food-banks (and selling food stamps) to have money well into
the month. That the mentality in spending virtually all of a check can point to
an underlying mental illness suggests just how problematic the underlying mentality
is. In retrospect, the consequent increase in serious delinquencies of
credit-card debt can be viewed as a symptom rather than as the problem. Another
“red flag” concerning the seriousness of the mentality occurred to me when I
realized that the non-working poor are so very poor they are the most
vulnerable financially, and a significant number, at least from my
observations, displayed such flawed judgment in spending recklessly, as if they
could offer no resistance to the instinct for immediate gratification. The
mentality may thus be oblivious to external context and even the internal
context of the mentality’s own bad judgment. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: large;">Regarding the working poor, people
who display a failure of judgment concerning how much credit-card debt to add
or have <i>given the amount of the pay</i> may
also 1) have an implicit assumption that money is rightly for free (the extreme
being conducive to theft), 2) believe that society owes them so they can
rightly assume debt without any intent to pay it back, and 3) feel little or no
responsibility to people they don’t know, including the owners of the
credit-card companies and others. This extremely narcissistic attitude is
entirely comfortable in violating Kant’s ethical notion of the Kingdom of Ends,
by which other people are to be treated not only as a person’s means, but also
as ends in themselves. Accumulating credit-card debt as if the companies’
concerns were of no significance turns the rational beings running and owning
the companies into mere means to the person’s flawed decision that such money
is and should be free, without obligation on the person’s part. If the
counterparty is hurt, it is easily dismissible as “not my concern.” The
mentality is thus not conformable to society and its implicit social contract.</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: large;">I submit that the impact of the sordid mentality
is evinced in not only the taking on of credit-card debt either recklessly or
without any intention of repaying it, but also the increase in prison
populations and drug use, and the general declining trend of civility toward
strangers in public. In other words, the records in credit-card debt may be a
few data points that together with other data may suggest the underlying
mentality whose baleful manifestations running through American society are
broader than generally thought.</span></div>
<div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<!--[if !supportEndnotes]-->
<br />
<hr align="left" size="1" width="33%" />
<!--[endif]-->
<br />
<div id="edn1">
<div class="MsoEndnoteText">
<span style="font-family: "calibri" , sans-serif; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: 13.3333px;">1.</span></span><span style="text-align: justify;"> Yuka Hayashi, “</span><a href="https://www.wsj.com/articles/credit-card-debt-in-u-s-rises-to-record-930-billion-11581442140?mod=hp_lista_pos4" style="text-align: justify;"><span style="color: #783f04;">Credit-Card
Debt in U.S. Rises to Record $930 Billion</span></a><span style="text-align: justify;">,” </span><i style="text-align: justify;">The Wall Street Journal, </i><span style="text-align: justify;">February 11, 2020.</span></div>
</div>
</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
</div>
<div style="mso-element: endnote-list;">
<div id="edn1" style="mso-element: endnote;">
<div class="MsoEndnoteText">
<o:p></o:p></div>
</div>
<div id="edn2" style="mso-element: endnote;">
<div class="MsoEndnoteText">
<span style="font-family: "calibri" , sans-serif;"><span style="font-size: 13.3333px;">2.</span></span> Ibid.<o:p></o:p></div>
</div>
<div id="edn3" style="mso-element: endnote;">
<div class="MsoEndnoteText">
<span style="font-family: "calibri" , sans-serif;"><span style="font-size: 13.3333px;">3.</span></span> Aviva Aron-Dine, Richard Kogan, and Chad Stone, “<a href="https://www.cbpp.org/research/how-robust-was-the-2001-2007-economic-expansion"><span style="color: #783f04;">How
Robust Was the 2001-2007 Economic Expansion?</span></a>,” Center on Budget and Policy
Priorities, August 29, 2008. (accessed February 11, 2020)<o:p></o:p></div>
</div>
</div>
<br />Dr. Wordenhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02867414605883311000noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5896319920382721541.post-29407265122952165272020-02-04T16:54:00.000-08:002023-11-18T15:51:10.807-08:00Tension between Wall Street and Main Street: A Case beyond the Reach of Corporate Social Responsibility<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN" style="font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: large; mso-ansi-language: EN;">In October 2011, Gerald Seib wrote that political and economic pressures in the wake of <a href="https://www.amazon.com/Essays-Financial-Crisis-Systemic-Stupidity/dp/B077H3CV91/ref=sr_1_1?keywords=skip+worden+essays+on+the+financial+crisis&qid=1580864228&sr=8-1"><span style="color: #783f04;">the financial crisis</span></a> were “pushing business leaders into the public cross hairs.”[1] I submit that the very existence of the largest American banks was becoming an issue. In such a case in which a gulf between business and society is so fundamental or deep, corporate social responsibility programs do not suffice and may even backfire. While it is normal for the norms and values of a business sector to differ from those of the wider whole (i.e., society), it is uncommon for a rupture to be so deep that corporate marketing and CSR are not sufficient business responses. I submit that in such cases and where corporations have a lot of power over government officials, CEOs extend their toolset to government to fill in the trench. The "Occupy Wall Street" protests is a case in point. </span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: times, times new roman, serif; font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<span lang="EN" style="font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: large; mso-ansi-language: EN;">From the corporate standpoint, the time was ripe for the field of business and society, whose topics include corporate social responsibility, corporate citizenship, and stakeholder management. The fundamental matter to be “managed,” or assuaged, in that field of business concerns divergent norms as well as values between the individual corporations or the business sector and the wider society. Tension is not always or invariably present, but the fact that a corporation and even the business sector is a part of a wider whole (i.e., a society) suggests that the respective interests, perspectives, norms, and values are likely to differ. Generally speaking, the interests of a part are not identical to the interests of the whole of which the part is a subunit or part. </span><span style="font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: large;">An externality such as from dumping chemicals in a river or polluting the air means that a company's interest, norms, and values can differ from those of a society. </span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: times, times new roman, serif; font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: large;">Self-interest can obviously affect norms and values. A powerful corporation's executives and board may believe that the company's power over members of the U.S. Congress is normal and right because such dominance is in the corporation's financial interest. Meanwhile, voters may feel that such a distended dominance by the moneyed interest harms democracy and is thus a norm that should not exist. </span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: times, times new roman, serif; font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: large;">According to Seib, societal populists and corporate executives were not on the same page in 2011. In as much as the executives were utilizing corporate social responsibility to </span><span style="font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: large;">create the <i>impression</i> that the corporate norms and values being espoused were in line with societal norms and values, the field of business and society may not have been equipped to deal with divergent talking points that are grounded in antipodal, or antithetical, social realities. In short, corporate social responsibility as marketing or "window-dressing" can be detected as fake, thereby increasing the rift rather than reducing it. Indeed, it can be said that the topic began as an ideal to bridge the gap between corporations and societies only to end up in marketing.[2]</span><span style="font-size: large;"><span style="font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif;"> </span><span style="font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif;">Foisting the illusion of convergent corporate and societal values can backfire by illuminating boardrooms as places where only a narrow perspective of short-term profit pervades.</span></span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: times, times new roman, serif; font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: large;">In the context of </span><span lang="EN" style="font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: large;">the “Occupy Wall Street” protests spreading across the U.S. during the Fall of 2011, Seib pointed to the existence of “a radical disconnect between the picture populist critics paint from the outside, and the one business leaders describe from inside.”[3] </span><span style="font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: large;">This disconnect had gone back to September 2008, when bankers viewed the collapse of the housing market (and those of related financial products, such as CDOs) as a result of over-reaching, dishonest and languid mortgage borrowers. </span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: times, times new roman, serif; font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<span lang="EN" style="font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: large;">Meanwhile, the wider society saw greedy and fraudulent mortgage originators and investment bankers behind the adjustable-arm steep mortgages and the "crap" bonds that were based on those risky mortgages. This disconnect infuriated the general public, especially because contrition would not come from Wall Street. </span><span style="font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: large;">Greed refuses any constraint, including even acknowledging even some responsibility. </span><span style="font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: large;">Banks would engage in mass foreclosures without a hint of guilt for having misled people into going for oversized houses. The mortgage producers at Countrywide and other companies conveniently made the bad assumption that a few years of mortgage payments would enable the mortgage borrowers to shift from step-wise increasing-rate to fixed 20-year mortgages so as to avoid the higher interest payments. This flawed assumption was no doubt helped out by the fact that more mortgages would be sold, and thus higher bonues received. The interest of the economy, not to mention society as a whole, was of lesser concern. Hence the clash in norms and values between the part and the whole. </span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: large;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN" style="font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: large; mso-ansi-language: EN;">In the populist protests, the crowd also saw American companies with enough profit and cash to create jobs domestically yet without the will to do so. In the first decade of the twenty-first century, American corporations had cut their work forces in the U.S. by nearly 3 million, while increasing employment abroad by almost 2.5 million. In the fall of 2011, Standard & Poor predicted corporate earnings growth of 13.5% for the third quarter, which, according to Seib, suggested “to Wall Street protesters that companies were hoarding profits without creating work.”[3] Saving money by moving factories "off shore" fits the business value of efficiency, and even the maxim in trade that goods should be produced where doing so is cheapest (e.g., where the goods are most plentiful). The cost of such a norm of and value on going abroad is externalized to the host country, which is left with the impaired social contract between a large corporation and the society.</span><span style="font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: large;"> </span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: times, times new roman, serif; font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: large;">Generally speaking, a government says, in effect, to a company: We'll let you incorporate and even expand into multinational corporations but we expect you to provide jobs in addition to benefiting your customers with goods and services. This</span><span style="font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: large;"> version of the social contract that includes the obligation to provide as many jobs as possible (i.e., while still allowing for a reasonable profit, and thus dividends) is controversial, however, because CEOs could retort that providing goods and services that reduce suffering and increase happiness is sufficient. From a utilitarian standpoint, therefore, such CEO's could even claim an ethical justification. Such a justification would likely merely be marketing to craw back some of the lost reputational capital, a long-term intangible asset. </span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: times, times new roman, serif; font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<span lang="EN" style="font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: large; mso-ansi-language: EN;">According to Seib, </span><span style="font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: large;">business leaders cited more practical factors that more easily fit into the traditional business calculus. From the business perspective, third-quarter expectations were less than expected. The managers pointed to the benefits of an artificially weak dollar that had already strengthened at the expense of exports. More broadly, businesses were looking at weak consumer demand and increasing costs with government regulations, which make augmenting the domestic work force more costly. Seib juxtaposes this business view of a hostile business environment with the societal view that looked angrily at unpatriotic and greedy corporate chieftains. </span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: times, times new roman, serif; font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: large;">I submit that when a divide is so gaping, depating the factors in the business environment doesn't fit. Corporate social responsibility programs, such as having employees volunteer at soup kitchens, are not restorative. Firstly, the benefit from such programs would not come close to the original costs borne by society from the reckless and even fraudulent banking practices. Secondly, the people hurt from those practices are not necessarily helped by a program. This is especially true if the "restorative" program in oriented to another society problem, such a disease. Thirdly, corporations benefit from the good public relations from a CSR program. An angry populist is not likely to be pleased that one of the selfish, reckless banks is actually benefiting as it makes contrition. Fourthly, the gap between the business sector (or an industry, but not likely an individual company) and a society can be so deep enough that capitalism itself is severely questioned at large. Filling in such a deep trench goes beyond what CSR can do; a bulldozer rather than some shovels are needed in such cases. I contend that the "Occupy Wall Street" protests that took place three years after the financial crisis deepened or perhaps only exposed such a trench. I suspect this is why the U.S. Government, which was refusing to hold mortgage producers and investment bankers criminally accountable for the fraud--protecting the powerful financial sector--took an active role in stopping the protests. To have the very legitimacy of corporate America, or even just the banking sector, even questioned in such a public way was likely too much for a government whose elected officials could receive unlimited campaign contributions. </span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN" style="mso-ansi-language: EN;">1. Gerald F. Seib, “<a href="http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204450804576622914266244804.html"><span style="color: #783f04;">Populist Anger Over Economy Carries Risks for Big Business</span></a>,” <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">The Wall Street Journal</i>, October 11, 2011. <o:p></o:p></span>More generally, see Skip Worden,<span style="color: #783f04;"> <i><span style="color: #783f04;"><a href="https://www.amazon.com/Essays-Financial-Crisis-Systemic-Stupidity/dp/B077H3CV91/ref=sr_1_1?keywords=skip+worden+essays+on+the+financial+crisis&qid=1580864228&sr=8-1"><span style="color: #783f04;">Essays on the Financial Crisis</span></a>.</span></i></span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN" style="mso-ansi-language: EN;">2. William C. Frederick, my doctoral professor in the field of Business & Society, came to this conclusion, as did I. When upon retirement from teaching he turned to the application of the natural sciences to economizing and power-aggrandizement in relation to societal "ecologizing" forces, and then to management, I truly became one of his students (for twenty years). I gave a conference paper, for example, on how a company could be run on ecologizing rather than profit-maximizing principles. The field of Business & Society is indeed wider and more abstract than the CSR topic. </span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN" style="mso-ansi-language: EN;">3. </span>Seib, “<span style="color: #783f04;"><a href="http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204450804576622914266244804.html"><span style="color: #783f04;">Populist Anger Over Economy Carries Risks for Big Business</span></a>.</span>”</div>
</div>
Dr. Wordenhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02867414605883311000noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5896319920382721541.post-33869517901538856012020-02-03T14:20:00.000-08:002023-11-19T10:04:15.456-08:00CSR and Corporate Governance Reform: An Opporunity for BlackRock as an Activist Shareholder<div style="text-align: justify;">
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: large;">In 2019, BlackRock’s management and board publically fired
two executives in the Hong Kong office for breaching company rules on dating
subordinates. The firings demonstrated to employees that the company would
enforce its employee policies and sent the message that employees would be “free
to point out problems in the workplace.”<span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span style="mso-special-character: footnote;"><!--[if !supportFootnotes]--><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span style="line-height: 115%;">[1]</span></span><!--[endif]--></span></span>
This would not be so extraordinarily significant but for the fact that
BlackRock is the “world’s largest money manager with $7.4 trillion under
management,” which enables the company, through the funds it runs, to be “one
of the five largest shareholders in nearly every corporation in the S&P
500.”<span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span style="mso-special-character: footnote;"><!--[if !supportFootnotes]--><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span style="line-height: 115%;">[2]</span></span><!--[endif]--></span></span>
So BlackRock “can cast votes and pressure boardrooms to effect change.”<span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span style="mso-special-character: footnote;"><!--[if !supportFootnotes]--><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span style="line-height: 115%;">[3]</span></span><!--[endif]--></span></span>
The company would be hypocritical in using its power as a major stockholder to
get managements to have and enforce good workplace policies if the company were
not doing so itself. From the standpoint of self-regulatory capitalism in
society, BlackRock could make a significant contribution far beyond improving
workplace policies.<o:p></o:p></span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: large;"><br /></span></div>
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: large;">In January 2020, BlackRock’s management announced that it “would
take a tougher stance against corporations that aren’t providing a full
accounting of environmental risks.”<span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span style="mso-special-character: footnote;"><!--[if !supportFootnotes]--><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span style="line-height: 115%;">[4]</span></span><!--[endif]--></span></span>
This was “part of a slew of moves by the investment giant to show it is doing
more to address investment challenges posed by climate change.”<span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span style="mso-special-character: footnote;"><!--[if !supportFootnotes]--><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span style="line-height: 115%;">[5]</span></span><!--[endif]--></span></span>
BlackRock CEO Laurence Fink wrote, “The evidence on climate risk is compelling
investors to reassess core assumptions about modern finance.”<span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span style="mso-special-character: footnote;"><!--[if !supportFootnotes]--><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span style="line-height: 115%;">[6]</span></span><!--[endif]--></span></span>
The long-term viability of companies is a salient variable in recalculations. <o:p></o:p></span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: large;"><br /></span></div>
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: large;">As much as issue-specific stockholder activism narrows the
gap between the values and priorities held by business and society, the matter
of corporate governance is also important. In particular, companies whose
managements control their respective boards of directors suffer from a deficit of
accountability in their governance system. Board members could be influenced on
issue-specific stockholder activism and yet a CEO could ignore any pressure
from members if he or she controls the board, whose functions include holding
the CEO accountable. BlackRock had the power as of 2020 to pressure boards to
break up the conflict of interest when a CEO is also the chair of the board of
directors at a company. Because of BlackRock’s reach in overseeing so many
companies, corporate governance could effectively get a remake such that
greater accountability would be part of the governance systems. Because outside
directors would theoretically have more sway over a company’s management, wider
issue-specific stockholder activism could have greater resonance with
management. The gap between corporate and societal values and norms could thus
be narrowed. Indeed, the capitalist system within a society would be more
self-regulated in terms of corporate governance. <o:p></o:p></span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: large;"><br /></span></div>
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: large;">In short, BlackRock could improve the business sector
significantly beyond responding to particular issues. Perhaps business itself
is vulnerable to missing the big picture at the scale of governance systems,
and thus opportunities to improve them. Even though the focus on quarterly
earnings and, moreover, on profit-seeking may play a role, I submit that even
CEOs do not typically cast a wide enough eye such that governance systems (not
only in business, but also government!) are entirely in view as systems.
Focusing on particular stockholder issues is closer to the focus on
profitability, and thus primary.</span></div>
</div>
<div style="mso-element: endnote-list;">
<hr align="left" size="1" width="33%" />
<!--[endif]-->
<br />
<div id="edn1" style="mso-element: endnote;">
<div class="MsoEndnoteText">
<span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span style="mso-special-character: footnote;"><!--[if !supportFootnotes]--><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span face=""calibri" , "sans-serif"" style="font-size: 10pt; line-height: 115%;">[1]</span></span><!--[endif]--></span></span>
Dawn Lim, Steven Russolillo, and Jing Yang, “<a href="https://www.wsj.com/articles/at-blackrock-public-firings-overseas-probe-send-message-about-office-misbehavior-11580725801?mod=hp_lead_pos4"><span style="color: #783f04;">At
BlackRock, Public Firings, Overseas Probe Send Message About Office Misbehavior</span></a>,”
<i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">The Wall Street Journal</i>, February 3,
2020.<o:p></o:p></div>
</div>
<div id="edn2" style="mso-element: endnote;">
<div class="MsoEndnoteText">
<span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span style="mso-special-character: footnote;"><!--[if !supportFootnotes]--><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span face=""calibri" , "sans-serif"" style="font-size: 10pt; line-height: 115%;">[2]</span></span><!--[endif]--></span></span>
Ibid.<o:p></o:p></div>
</div>
<div id="edn3" style="mso-element: endnote;">
<div class="MsoEndnoteText">
<span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span style="mso-special-character: footnote;"><!--[if !supportFootnotes]--><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span face=""calibri" , "sans-serif"" style="font-size: 10pt; line-height: 115%;">[3]</span></span><!--[endif]--></span></span>
Ibid.<o:p></o:p></div>
</div>
<div id="edn4" style="mso-element: endnote;">
<div class="MsoEndnoteText">
<span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span style="mso-special-character: footnote;"><!--[if !supportFootnotes]--><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span face=""calibri" , "sans-serif"" style="font-size: 10pt; line-height: 115%;">[4]</span></span><!--[endif]--></span></span>
Dawn Lim and Julie Steinberg, “<a href="https://www.wsj.com/articles/blackrock-shakes-up-sustainable-investing-business-following-criticism-11579000873?mod=article_inline"><span style="color: #783f04;">BlackRock
to Hold Companies and Itself to Higher Standards on Climate Risk</span></a>,” <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">The Wall Street Journal</i>, January 14,
2020.<o:p></o:p></div>
</div>
<div id="edn5" style="mso-element: endnote;">
<div class="MsoEndnoteText">
<span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span style="mso-special-character: footnote;"><!--[if !supportFootnotes]--><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span face=""calibri" , "sans-serif"" style="font-size: 10pt; line-height: 115%;">[5]</span></span><!--[endif]--></span></span>
Ibid.<o:p></o:p></div>
</div>
<div id="edn6" style="mso-element: endnote;">
<div class="MsoEndnoteText">
<span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span style="mso-special-character: footnote;"><!--[if !supportFootnotes]--><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span face=""calibri" , "sans-serif"" style="font-size: 10pt; line-height: 115%;">[6]</span></span><!--[endif]--></span></span>
Ibid.<o:p></o:p></div>
</div>
</div>
<br />Dr. Wordenhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02867414605883311000noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5896319920382721541.post-7138664491942926212019-12-02T17:07:00.000-08:002023-11-19T10:19:08.548-08:00Corporate Social Responsibility or Increased Market-Share: The Case of Juul Labs on Youth Vaping<div style="text-align: justify;">
</div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: large;">If the beneficial consequences
for a society or the world are what <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">externally
</i>validate corporations being socially responsible, does it really matter
whether or not such benefits serve as the validators <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">within </i>the corporations? In other words, how much does the motive
matter if stuff is getting done such that society is benefitting? To be sure,
the motive can influence how much is getting done and for how long, but if the
societal results are the same, would the nature of the motive really matter? I
lay to the side the perfectly valid point that providing goods and services of
value to customers benefits a society because consumers are, after all, a part
of society. The interesting cases tend to be those in which profits can be
expected to be negatively impacted from a socially responsible policy or
program. Of course, a corporate management may <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">announce</i> the expectation of reduced revenue even as the management
has carefully calculated how acting responsibly will be likely to be a
profit-oriented strategy in the long term (including the related enhancement of
reputational capital from <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">appearing </i>to
have been self-sacrificial. The case of Juul Labs, Inc., the vaping industry
leader in 2019 with a market share of 64 percent, shows just how difficult it
is to get to corporate motives, even though the beneficial consequences to a
society are arguably more important. <o:p></o:p></span></div><div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: large;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: large;">In 2019, Juul “voluntarily
pulled its sweet, fruity and mint-flavored refill pods from the U.S. market.”<span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span style="mso-special-character: footnote;"><!--[if !supportFootnotes]--><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span style="line-height: 115%;">[1]</span></span><!--[endif]--></span></span>
The company’s CEO pointed out in a meeting at the White House that flavors can
help adult cigarette smokers switch to a less harmful alternative, so the
company “would defer to the science-based approach of the Food and Drug
Administration.”<span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span style="mso-special-character: footnote;"><!--[if !supportFootnotes]--><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span style="line-height: 115%;">[2]</span></span><!--[endif]--></span></span>
President Trump had announced his intention to ban all flavors except that of
tobacco. In refusing to follow Juul’s lead, NJOY and Reynolds American, Inc.,
makers of the second and third most popular vapers, kept selling all of their
respective flavors, including those especially popular with teenagers. <o:p></o:p></span></div><div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: large;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: large;">Joseph Fragnito, a manager at
Reynolds, said at the meeting, “We believe we can market flavors responsibly.”<span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span style="mso-special-character: footnote;"><!--[if !supportFootnotes]--><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span style="line-height: 115%;">[3]</span></span><!--[endif]--></span></span>
At that meeting, President Trump, fearful of banned flavors being sold on the
street and thus unsafe, was coming to the same stance. So had Juul gone too far
in having taking kid flavors off the shelves if even those flavors could be
marketed responsibly? In other words, had Juul lost revenue when the company
could have changed how it marketed the inflammatory flavors? On the other hand,
can flavors so attractive to teenagers be marketed in such a way that teenagers
do not vape? In such a case, <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">responsibly
market </i>may be an oxymoron, especially given that NJOY and Reynolds
supported raising the minimum vaping age to 21. U.S. Sen. Mitt Romney, also at
the White House meeting, supported Juul’s ban on certain flavors. “Putting out
cotton-candy flavor and what is it, unicorn poop flavor?,” he said in reference
to Juul’s competitors. “Look, this is kid product,” he added. “We have to put
the kids first.”<span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span style="mso-special-character: footnote;"><!--[if !supportFootnotes]--><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span style="line-height: 115%;">[4]</span></span><!--[endif]--></span></span> Therefore,
I submit that Juul applied responsibility better in banning such “kid product”
than NJOY and Reynolds did in applying the concept to marketing the kid
flavors. <o:p></o:p></span></div><div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: large;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: large;">This does not, however,
absolve Juul with respect to its motive. At the White House meeting, the
company’s rivals claimed that Juul’s management had voluntarily pulled its
flavored products because it could sit out and wait for authorization from the
Federal Drug Administration (FDA) as smaller companies went out of business.
Then Juul would be able to come back with even more market share. Juul’s CEO
countered that the company had banned its flavored products to address the
problem of youth use. Whether or not the company’s socially responsible action
was ultimately designed to increase market share or reduce the youth use of
vaping—that is, to increase profits in the long-term or reduce teen vapers—the
question is: Does this make any difference if the benefit to society in terms
of less youth vaping is the same? I contend that the difference is ethical in
nature, except from a consequentialist standpoint. In other words, an ethical
basis exists—that of consequentialism—that essentially treats the question of
motive as a non-issue. <o:p></o:p></span></div><div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: large;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: large;">Of course, if the societal
benefits differ according to motive, the motive would matter even from a consequentialist
ethical basis. If the motive of Juul’s management was to increase market share
rather than see fewer kids vaping, then should the market-share strategy become
compromised or fail, the societal benefits could be expected to be less than
had the company’s management been intending to reduce youth vaping, which in
turn could be expected to result in less government intrusion and greater
reputational capital. <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><o:p></o:p></span></div><div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: large;"><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"><br /></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: large;">Regarding the market-share
strategy, could not young Juul customers simply start buying the sweet flavors
from the other companies? Although they would have to justify their flavors to
the FDA, the president was inclined to allow the flavors to be sold because
otherwise kids might get them on the street. Would not Juul eventually go back
to competing in those flavors? The other companies would not have gone out of
business because the FDA would have approved the flavors. Juul’s management had
pulled its flavors when President Trump was inclined to ban them industrywide.
The changed politics, likely influenced by industry pressure (and perhaps
campaign contributions), may have taken the wind out of the market-share
motive, in which case the societal benefit would be less than had the motive
been that of reducing youth vaping.</span></div><div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: large;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: large;">In conclusion, motive can matter even from a
consequentialist standpoint because the amount of benefit to society can
differ. In cases in which such benefits are the same even if the motive is one
thing or another, the motive does not matter from a consequentalist standpoint.
Even so, we want to think it does, ethically speaking. We want to assume that a
management acting in a socially responsible way values doing so, rather than
merely using social responsibility to earn more profit even in the long term.
The field of business and society looks at the degree of fit between societal
and company values, norms, or policies (as the corporate values may not matter),
whereas business ethics delves into the ethical basis of a management’s motive.
For example, is it enough that society benefits? Shouldn’t a company’s
management <i>want </i>that consequence even
if it comes with some financial loss (or opportunity cost)? These two fields
are typically conflated at this point of contact. To say that Juul’s motive was
in line with societal values is not to say what the motive should be. More than
description is needed to get to normativity: the matter of <i>should</i>. We want to believe that Juul’s motive was <i>the right one</i>, but this is an ethical
point that may not be relevant from a consequentialist standpoint. In terms of
the degree of fit between corporate policies and societal values, the extent to
which a society benefits is the litmus test.</span></div>
<div style="mso-element: endnote-list;">
<!--[if !supportEndnotes]--><br clear="all" />
<hr align="left" size="1" width="33%" />
<!--[endif]-->
<div id="edn1" style="mso-element: endnote;">
<div class="MsoEndnoteText">
<span face="Calibri, sans-serif"><span style="font-size: 13.3333px;">1.</span></span> Jennifer Maloney and Alex Leary, “Trump Warns of Dangers in Banning Vape
Flavors,” <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">The Wall Street Journal</i>,
November 22, 2019. <o:p></o:p></div>
</div>
<div id="edn2" style="mso-element: endnote;">
<div class="MsoEndnoteText">
<span face="Calibri, sans-serif"><span style="font-size: 13.3333px;">2.</span></span> Ibid.<o:p></o:p></div>
</div>
<div id="edn3" style="mso-element: endnote;">
<div class="MsoEndnoteText">
<span face="Calibri, sans-serif"><span style="font-size: 13.3333px;">3.</span></span> Ibid.<o:p></o:p></div>
</div>
<div id="edn4" style="mso-element: endnote;">
<div class="MsoEndnoteText" style="tab-stops: 103.5pt;">
<span face="Calibri, sans-serif"><span style="font-size: 13.3333px;">4.</span></span> Ibid.<o:p></o:p></div>
</div>
</div>
<br />Dr. Wordenhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02867414605883311000noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5896319920382721541.post-19969635214883016292019-11-20T19:35:00.000-08:002023-11-19T10:34:48.992-08:00Managing Externalities in Business: Heliogen’s Breakthrough in Combatting Climate Change<div style="text-align: justify;">
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: large;">A company’s values and norms can
resonate to some extent with their societal counterparts by the company providing
goods and services of value to customers resulting in a reduction of their
suffering or increase in their happiness. Providing a net-value (the value to
the customer less the price) to people can resonate with societal values and norms
that esteem happiness and frown on suffering from want. Indeed, a utilitarian
ethic can apply to the provision of as much value as possible in the form of
goods and services that reduce the suffering or increase the happiness of as
many people as possible. Legitimate wealth can “result from having provided a
significant amount of value to a significant number of people.”<span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span style="mso-special-character: footnote;"><!--[if !supportFootnotes]--><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span style="line-height: 115%;">[1]</span></span><!--[endif]--></span></span>
Even fortunes, according to this ethic, are justified by the provision of “a
very unusual form of value to a very unusual number of people.”<span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span style="mso-special-character: footnote;"><!--[if !supportFootnotes]--><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span style="line-height: 115%;">[2]</span></span><!--[endif]--></span></span>
Utilitarianism is popularly known from the expression, the greatest good to the
greatest number (i.e., of people). Of course, an ethic justifies what <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">should be</i>, whereas the extent to which a
company’s values and norms approach those of society is a <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">descriptive</i> matter. Describing the degree of fit is not to say that
a company’s values and norms <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">should </i>(i.e.,
normatively) have that degree of fit, or even more. Ethical reasoning would be
needed to supply the normative contention; such reasoning involves
argumentation that the extant societal values and norms <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">should be held </i>generally speaking and specifically by companies.
The fact that the values and norms of many German companies in the NAZI era
resonated with societal values and norms is not to say that the managements <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">should have </i>sought to fit organizational
values and norms with NAZI values and norms. The field of business & society,
which is oriented to the degree of fit that exists descriptively between a
company (or the business sector) and a society (or internationally-held values
and norms), is thus distinct from business ethics, which is oriented to
providing ethical justification for what managers and companies <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">should do</i>. With regard to the former
field, companies can orient themselves even closer to societal values and norms
than by providing value to customers and even taking other stakeholder
interests into account by being primarily oriented to taking on a serious
societal or global problem. In terms of business ethics, such an orientation
can be said to be one that a company should have because an unusual number of
people (even beyond customers and other stakeholders) could receive an unusual
amount of value. Climate-change is such a problem, and Heliogen’s breakthrough
exemplifies such an extraordinary mission.<o:p></o:p></span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: large;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: large;">Generally speaking, a mission
that is primarily geared to solving a serious societal (or global) problem goes
beyond providing value to customers and even taking into account the interests
of other stakeholders. In such a mission, a society or even the species itself is
the main recipient of the extraordinary value even though customers receive value
too. Whereas the traditional business model is geared to profiting by selling
value to customers, a company’s mission that is dominated by providing
extraordinary value to a society or to humanity worldwide views profiting from
sales to customers as a means. An opportunity cost thus exists in such a
mission due to the profit forgone from customers due to the orientation being
foremost to the macro problem. <o:p></o:p></span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: large;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: large;">Even though spending capital to
solve a macro problem is not the same as paying externalized costs of the
problem, an opportunity cost can arise if the net present value of the profits
in the long-term is less than the R&D spending up-front. Even if the
mission fits within the traditional business model (i.e., the net present value
is more rather than less), the risk taken on because the substantial R&D
outlays are not met with immediate profits can be said to be an opportunity
cost in pursuing an intractable societal or global problem by coming up with a
breakthrough. The opportunity cost can be viewed as paying such that future
externalized costs of the problem will not occur. Of course, if a company
solves the entire problem, rather than merely reducing that which has been
making and would otherwise make the problem worse, most or all of the current externalized
costs may disappear and thus not need to be paid. Such a company has in effect
taken upon itself the relevant externalities (i.e., covering those costs
otherwise left to society). <o:p></o:p></span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: large;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: large;">By externality, I mean a cost
that under the traditional business model is borne by society (or humanity)
rather than by a company or the business sector. For example, as of 2020, companies
had not had to pay even a fraction of the costs of climate change even though
the business sector had contributed to the problem by polluting. The default
stance under the traditional profit model is typically defensive; a less common
proactive stance is to reduce the company’s contribution of the problem, such
as airlines did in using more efficient engines. An even less common stance is
to be primarily oriented to reducing the contributions from other sources and
even to solving the macro problem itself. As argued above, just the risk taken
on can put this stance beyond the traditional business model. Such a stance, in
being oriented beyond customers and even other stakeholders to focus on a
societal problem, fits under another paradigm. This is not to say that it is
based on corporate social responsibility, for a company does not have a
responsibility to orient itself to reducing or solving a societal problem
except as may happen as a result of providing value to customers. Indeed, a
company’s founding investors and management may <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">want </i>to tackle a societal problem, rather than feeling <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">obligated</i>. In the case of climate
change, the likely downside for the species already known in 2019 could be
enough of a motivation even if the founding investors and management do not
feel responsible for the problem. <o:p></o:p></span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: large;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: large;">Even though a responsibility may
not pertain, the organizational values and norms of a company oriented to
minimizing or solving a societal problem stand a good chance of approaching
their societal counterparts—closer than from merely satisfying customers and
even other stakeholders. That is to say, beyond stakeholder management, externalities
management can be said to be oriented to societal (or macro) level problems. Such
management had been rare, at least by 2020, because few companies had been principally
oriented to societal or global problems without simply relegating them to a
corporate social responsibility program as if out of a sense of responsibility.
Whereas the literature on stakeholder management and CSR had been around for
decades by 2020, not much was written on externalities management that subordinates
profit-seeking to reducing or solving a societal problem. </span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: large;"><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: large;">Management geared to
externalities can be problematic, especially for publically-traded companies,
whose managements are bound by fiduciary duty to look primarily at the
short-term returns to stockholders. This duty is firmly grounded in property
rights. Can such managements afford to put solving societal problems as
foremost? Heavy R&D spending upfront with (admittedly healthy) profits only
if and after a breakthrough has been invented and implemented by customers is
not the typical way of attracting and retaining equity capital. Language in the
charters would have to specify the primary purpose of the company as meaning
that expedited profiting would be excluded or subordinated to reducing or
solving a particular societal problem. A company’s default purpose is
admittedly to make a profit, but property-rights give the owners (i.e., the
stockholders) the right to set another purpose in place of the default, in
which case investors have no reason to be upset when the purpose is pursued
even at the expense of quarterly earnings and dividends. <o:p></o:p></span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: large;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: large;">By 2020, climate change had
emerged as a major problem facing humanity with dire consequences being
predicted to occur in decades rather than centuries. Heliogen, a start-up
funded in part by Bill Gates, the founder of Microsoft, and at least one other
billionaire, commenced as such a company oriented to inventing a product that,
when sold to industrial customers, would significantly reduce carbon emissions
and thus hopefully stave off the worst of the dire consequences. That is,
Heliogen put its capital toward discovering a breakthrough that would reduce
future externalizable costs even though the company’s high R&D costs would
not be met with profits for some time. With a focus on achieving a breakthrough
that would be of significant value to the world even beyond stakeholders, the
company’s management must have known that profits would be long-term-oriented, rather
than relatively short-term profits from incremental values sold to customers.<o:p></o:p></span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: large;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: large;">The secretive clean-energy
company announced in November 2019 that artificial intelligence and a field of
mirrors could be used together to significantly reduce greenhouse emissions by
industry. The invention could generate extreme heat above 1,000 degrees
Celsius—a temperature that is about a quarter of that which is on the surface
of the Sun. “The breakthrough means that, for the first time, concentrated
solar energy can be used to create the extreme heat required to make cement,
steel, glass and other industrial processes. In other words, carbon-free
sunlight can replace fossil fuels in a heavy carbon-emitting corner of the
economy that has been untouched by the clean energy revolution.”<span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span style="mso-special-character: footnote;"><!--[if !supportFootnotes]--><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span style="line-height: 115%;">[3]</span></span><!--[endif]--></span></span>
These industries were “responsible for more than a fifth of global emissions,
according to the EPA.”<span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span style="mso-special-character: footnote;"><!--[if !supportFootnotes]--><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span style="line-height: 115%;">[4]</span></span><!--[endif]--></span></span>
Accordingly, Soon-Shiong, who sat at the time on the Heliogen board, said, “The
potential to humankind is enormous<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>. . .
The potential to business is unfathomable.”<span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span style="mso-special-character: footnote;"><!--[if !supportFootnotes]--><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span style="line-height: 115%;">[5]</span></span><!--[endif]--></span></span>
<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Indeed, the company’s mission was of
such scope, rather than merely to finding a better way to make cement and
steel, that a breakthrough could result. Externalities management is geared to
making an enormous contribution to humanity. Even having an unfathomable
potential to other industries can be viewed as lying within the purview of such
management, as distinct from stakeholder management. Of course, this is not to
say that something of value would or could not be sold to customers for a profit,
but the emphasis lying elsewhere makes both Heliogen and externalities
management distinct. <o:p></o:p></span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: large;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: large;">Such a mission as does not
prioritize the traditional business model can be attractive to investors who
have already made their fortunes by prioritizing that model and have gone on to
worry about problems facing humanity not currently being adequately addressed
by business and government. Heliogen provided a way for Bill Gates and at least
one other billionaire to put their wealth to use on a global problem that could
even render the species itself extinct. Start-up companies can be vehicles for
rich former titans to turn their attention to such serious problems with a
feeling not of responsibility, but, rather, of satisfaction from having saved
the species. In other words, having been satisfied by playing within the
traditional business model, the aspirations of former titans can shift to the
societal or global level even if without having given up profiting completely.</span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: large;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: large;">In the early twentieth century, Andrew
Carnegie and John D. Rockefeller retired from business to turn to charities.
Among other things, Carnegie sponsored a library in Pittsburgh and Rockefeller
founded a university in Chicago. In fact, Rockefeller, through his foundation,
gave away roughly half of his fortune.<span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span style="mso-special-character: footnote;"><!--[if !supportFootnotes]--><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span style="line-height: 115%;">[6]</span></span><!--[endif]--></span></span>
Both men had been ruthless in business; whether their respective giving
afterward justified their business conduct (e.g., Carnegie against labor and
Rockefeller against competitors) is another question. Rockefeller went so far
as to view both his monopoly and charitable giving in Christian terms. In <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">God’s Gold</i>, I untangle whether
Rockefeller’s monopolistic tactics (i.e., his business ethic, or lack thereof)
can be justified by his religious mission in business and giving. For my
purposes here, it suffices to say that neither titan would have viewed his
respective company and charitable giving as being oriented to making a breakthrough
on a humungous global problem. Indeed, Rockefeller filtered requests for his
charitable giving by how efficient the money would be used; he was primarily
oriented to using his fortune to solve a hitherto intractable serious problem
facing mankind as Bill Gates was. Gate’s orientation was doubtless on keeping
climate change from being an existential threat to future generations.</span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: large;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: large;">Externalities management is admittedly not a
good fit for the vast majority of companies, which are oriented to maximizing
profits while minimizing risks, but not every company must be made to fit
within the traditional business model. A company can be formed and utilized in
a way that puts profit-making through the funnel of externalities management
geared to reducing or solving macro problems. Such a raison d’etre is distinct
from undertaking a social responsibility program or being motivated by a sense
of responsibility because such a company is not likely to be responsible for
the problem even if some of its investors, as former titans of industry, were
in their “other life.” The priority in such a company is that of reducing the
costs of, or solving outright, an intractable societal or global problem,
rather than self-blame or blaming others. This priority is why profit-seeking
is regarded as secondary.</span></div>
<div style="mso-element: endnote-list;">
<!--[if !supportEndnotes]--><br clear="all" />
<hr align="left" size="1" width="33%" />
<!--[endif]-->
<div id="edn1" style="mso-element: endnote;">
<div class="MsoEndnoteText" style="tab-stops: 103.5pt;">
<span face="Calibri, sans-serif"><span style="font-size: 13.3333px;">1.</span></span> Rod Burylo, <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">The Wealthy Buddhist:
Buddhist Ethics, Right Livelihood, and the Value of Money </i>(Nepean, Canada:
The Sumeru Press, 2018).<o:p></o:p></div>
</div>
<div id="edn2" style="mso-element: endnote;">
<div class="MsoEndnoteText">
<span face="Calibri, sans-serif"><span style="font-size: 13.3333px;">2.</span></span> Ibid.<o:p></o:p></div>
</div>
<div id="edn3" style="mso-element: endnote;">
<div class="MsoEndnoteText">
<span face="Calibri, sans-serif"><span style="font-size: 13.3333px;">3.</span></span> Matt Egan, “<a href="https://www.cnn.com/2019/11/19/business/heliogen-solar-energy-bill-gates/index.html"><span style="color: #783f04;">Secretive
Energy Startup Backed by Bill Gates Achieves Solar Breakthrough</span></a>,” CNN
Business, November 19, 2019.<o:p></o:p></div>
</div>
<div id="edn4" style="mso-element: endnote;">
<div class="MsoEndnoteText">
<span face="Calibri, sans-serif"><span style="font-size: 13.3333px;">4.</span></span> Ibid.<o:p></o:p></div>
</div>
<div id="edn5" style="mso-element: endnote;">
<div class="MsoEndnoteText">
<span face="Calibri, sans-serif"><span style="font-size: 13.3333px;">5.</span></span> Ibid.<o:p></o:p></div>
</div>
<div id="edn6" style="mso-element: endnote;">
<div class="MsoEndnoteText">
<span face="Calibri, sans-serif"><span style="font-size: 13.3333px;">6.</span></span> Skip Worden, <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><a href="https://www.amazon.com/Gods-Gold-Shifting-Christian-Profit-Seeking/dp/1541281403/ref=sr_1_1?keywords=skip+worden+god%27s+gold&qid=1574306421&sr=8-1"><span style="color: #783f04;">God’s
Gold: Shifting Sands of Christian Thought on Profit-Seeking and Wealth</span></a>, </i>available
at Amazon. <o:p></o:p></div>
</div>
</div>
<br />Dr. Wordenhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02867414605883311000noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5896319920382721541.post-30126956052363169962019-10-05T16:20:00.000-07:002023-11-19T11:16:41.497-08:00Goodwill Dismisses a Solid Societal Norm: A Mentality beyond Unethical Conduct<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: large;">When managers of a business or non-profit interact with a societal norm by openly rejecting any obligation to act in accord with the norm, the reaction from stakeholders can be utter disbelief. The refusal to act in accordance with the norm as it impacts the organization can be beyond bad management and even unethical conduct. The refusal to acknowledge a societal norm even as its impact on the business and stakeholders has been arranged by the business is beyond, though it can include, unethical conduct. Norms are not in themselves ethical, for as David Hume wrote, you can’t get an <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">ought </i>from an <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">is</i>; rational justification by ethical principles must be added before we can get to, “You ought to do X” from “X is the practice.” Yet ethical principles can be in norms, in which case we can say, “You ought to act in accordance with the norm because it is ethical.” In some cases, the norm-business relationship (i.e., Business and Society) can be more salient than an ethical principle in the norm itself. A managerial practice at Goodwill, a non-profit retailer based on donations for the poor, serves as a case in point.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: large;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi_K6Goua1QnT_UcwA6-q-x0tsajFWhYZ3pX3c6kUPsY0_jFAr77nGatlsV1-GChlbs7BN6e_t6oX3OXIUPNw4BP4DvtHOUtpB4Pwphj57OPb4b9TBDwFyEUiGGo13JayZmeBRQsR9hH4c/s1600/customer+line+at+goodwill.jpg" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="1600" data-original-width="1200" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi_K6Goua1QnT_UcwA6-q-x0tsajFWhYZ3pX3c6kUPsY0_jFAr77nGatlsV1-GChlbs7BN6e_t6oX3OXIUPNw4BP4DvtHOUtpB4Pwphj57OPb4b9TBDwFyEUiGGo13JayZmeBRQsR9hH4c/s320/customer+line+at+goodwill.jpg" width="240" /></a></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: large;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: large;">Goodwill stores have tags of several colors on the merchandise. During yellow tag week, merchandise with a yellow tag is half off. Every other Saturday, all of the colors are half off. By the time the doors open, customers have likely formed a long line out in front. Such lines can cover most of the front length of a store. On one such morning at one store, I saw a customer stand by the front doors opposite of the line just five minutes before the opening. I saw the store manager let that customer in </span><i style="font-family: Times, "Times New Roman", serif;"><span style="font-size: large;">second</span></i><span style="font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: large;">, even though it was obvious that she was not in line. Curious, I entered the store to interview that manager. He told me that his </span><i><span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: large;">responsibility</span></i><i style="font-family: Times, "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: x-large;"> </i><span style="font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: large;">is only to open the doors, not to determine that some people can come in and others cannot. His lapse would have been easily fixed not by telling the woman, who did not evidently think that store lines applied to her, that she could not enter the store, but, rather, that she would have to go to the back of the line. I asked the manager whether he believed that the line did not pertain to his store. “It is not on our property,” he answered. “We can’t say what people can do out there.” Observing my facial expression, he said he would make sure that customers come in first who are in line, and he even made an announcement lightly chastising “the individuals” who had not waited in line.</span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: large;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: large;">Nevertheless, later the same day, I returned to the store to interview two of the associate store managers, both of whom also touted the property point. “So if I come here just before 9am in two weeks, I don’t have to stand in line; I could go second or third?” I asked. “Yes,” one of the associate managers said, even as her hesitation in answering came, I suspect, from a recognition that her answer violates the ethical principle of fairness. This recognition should have given her the sense that something was wrong with the policy she was supporting.<o:p></o:p></span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: large;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: large;">Even though the violation of justice as fairness—it is just that people enter a building in order hence via making a line—is salient in this case, the fact that managers of a store disassociated it from the line to get into the store, hence pertaining directly to the store, is even more bizarre and thus significant. The societal norm here is that customers forming a line outside a store before doors open are to be let in first. For a manager to open a store door and assume that the norm does not apply to his store, and thus does not form an obligation on his part to see that the customers in line go in first, removes him, in effect, from the society or environment in which the store functions.<o:p></o:p></span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: large;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: large;">Even the narrow property-limits rationale is bizarre, for Goodwill leased rather than bought the land and building, and the line of customers pertained to the store even though it did not extend to the sidewalk in front between the building and the parking lot. That the line pertained exclusively to getting into the store overrides the question of property in terms of the incurrence of an obligation because the customers in line had the societal expectation of being able to enter the store in order whether or not the sidewalk was owned by Goodwill. The managers with whom I spoke dismissed the customer’s expectation, whose legitimacy is societal (a societal norm) rather than company-based. The sheer dismissiveness is rude, not to mention bad customer service. Even though the ethical principle of fairness is in the societal norm, the bad attitude toward the customers, the lazy approach to opening the store’s front door, and the decision that the societal norm does not apply to that store are not necessarily unethical (or at least an ethical argument would need to be made).<o:p></o:p></span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: large;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: large;">Narrow self-interest, which business managers tend to adopt, is not in itself unethical. For one thing, the business and financial systems have infrastructures and norms that virtually necessitate it at the firm level. Even so, if stakeholders (or others) are harmed as a consequence, then the narrowness is culpable ethically. In this case study, the harm to the customers in line from one person entering second from opposite the line is small. Few of the customers in line could even see the interloper, and none of the customers—in line or afterward—would have guessed that the store manager’s initial position (and those of two of his associate managers) regarding the store’s responsibility to let the people in line in first.<o:p></o:p></span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: large;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: large;">In fact, that the associate manager who answered affirmatively that I would not need to stand in line (because Goodwill is only concerned, by right, with what goes on inside the stores) had come to such a nonsensical conclusion (and stood behind it) is not in itself unethical. She was not lying, for instance; she really believed herself. Moreover, that a person could believe anything so nonsensical (including the property argument) is also not unethical. Perhaps in the field of business and society, psychology figures in more than does even ethics. Of course, the norms-based field of business and society is (or ought to be!) distinct from business ethics even though the two relate, such as in there being an ethical principle (e.g., fairness) in a societal norm that is not in itself ethical because it merely is.</span></div>
Dr. Wordenhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02867414605883311000noreply@blogger.com