Anti-Social Facebook Managers Addicting Children on Social Media

Rowan Williams, formerly Archbishop of Canterbury, spoke out repeatedly on the innate social nature of human beings. Before we can talk, we are talked to. Social interaction is firmly rooted in human nature as well as how we are constituted in groups and societies. Whereas Williams called for more compassion to emerge out of our social nature, a political realist might point out that we don’t have to look very closely to find a power-dynamic existing in practically any group. Nietzsche argues in Genealogy of Morals that exploitation naturally exists in how we as a social species are constituted because the will for power is the strongest human instinct. This motive can operate stealthily as compassion and even altruism. The Jansenist priest, Pierre Nicole, wrote an essay in 1677 to point out that what we moderns call enlightened self-interest is nonetheless rooted in self-love even when it is extended in acts of compassion that appear to spring solely from other-regard. On August 26, 2026, a landmark settlement was announced to end a trial in which 47 U.S. member states sued Meta, which owns and operates Facebook. Regardless of whether Meta executives agreed to pay $17 billion just to get rid of the bad publicity or because the accusations were true, the dollar figure alone suggests that Facebook’s management had indeed been intending to manipulate children by addicting them to feeds.  In other words, the company had been short on compassion even under the rubric of social media. Nietzsche would not have been at all surprised at such power being played to extract value from human beings under stealth.

Speaking on the settlement, Virginia Attorney General Jay Jones said, “For years, Meta intentionally deceived the public about the addictive and harmful design features that have wreaked havoc on youth mental health.”[1] The design features, such as unlimited “scrolling” and “likes,” were intentionally put in place to addict kids; that did not come about as an unintended by-product. Although Meta was not required to admit guilt formally, it is reasonable to assume that a business would pay such a hefty penalty as $17 billion were there not something to the case against the company in terms of evidence even of intent. So besides protecting “children from online harm,”[2] the settlement has value societally in exposing the intent to addict at the detriment of even children. The operative perspective at Facebook was likely one oriented to viewing humans for our use-value alone.

It is no accident that extracting use-value from human beings was part of a secret seminar at Stanford University. Also in 2026, Theo Baker, a student at Stanford, publicly exposed the seminar, which was being taught by Justin Lewis-Weber, a CEO in Silicon Valley. In his book, How to Rule the World: An Education in Power at Stanford University, Baker reports that the course explicitly taught students how to extract value from people. Gaining utility from people without regard to how they are impacted, whether mentally or physically, stems from self-love manifesting narrowly as selfishness even if under the subterfuge of helping children to be more social with their peers. In other words, the students were learning manipulation tactics that could be used under the subterfuge of altruism. Phoebe Gates, founder of Phia, used the course to recruit employees. In 2026, wire fraud charges were filed against that company.

The upshot from all this is that the public (and elected representatives) knew very little of the sordid mentality underlying Meta’s corporate culture; even just from the $17 billion settlement we can only infer guilt because why else would a company agree to settle at such a cost? Many years earlier, Facebook had been found to have sold user-information to Cambridge Analytic, a political organization, but that was treated as a “one off” rather than as indicative of the way Facebook executives actually did business—and Facebook (or Meta) is a business; it is not social even though its industry is social media.

In terms of business ethics, intentionally or even unintentionally but continuing to addict young users of Facebook and Instagram violates Kant’s “kingdom of ends,” wherein rational beings are (ethically) to be treated not just as means (to one’s own self-interest), but also as ends in themselves. It is by the use of reason, Kant argues, that we assign value to things, so reason itself must have absolute value. A being that has reason thus has absolute value and should not be used merely as a means. This does not exclude using other people for one’s own ends, but this should not be the end of the matter, for other people should also be treated as ends in themselves. Addicting kids does not fall under “ends in themselves,” and so Meta can be held to have acted unethically. As much as business ethics focuses on ethical decision-making, ethical theories provide the real grist for the mill. Furthermore, the continuing negative impact of corporate culture is very relevant, as the case of Enron illustrates (e.g., “burn baby burn.”).  Even a highly squalid (ethically speaking) corporate way of doing business can be hidden from the public and regulators, and managers can dismiss ethical concerns very easily. So as in the case of Facebook (Meta), an episodic approach is typically assumed by external stakeholders; connecting the dots would take more effort and insight into the way corporate decisions are really being made.

Finally, we can pause for a moment to glance at the sheer pathos of distance that exists between Williams’ claim that the inherently social human nature can easily afford being more compassionate and the selfish addicting of kids at Facebook. Religion and business management seem to be disparate domains, and the easy compartmentalization by business managers who identify themselves as Christian renders the separation all too ubiquitous. The distinctively Christian divine command of love as universal benevolence, especially to outsiders and even enemies as selfless (or self-in-abeyance) compassion, runs counter to the firm-centric perspective and profit-centric rubric in business. The contrast is so distinct, even severe, that it is no surprise that business practitioners who self-identify as Christian have resorted to compartmentalizing their work from even themselves as human beings. The statement, “I’m a manager,” supports the construction of a “manager compartment,” but look at the underlying assumption: that a person’s essence is solely a matter of one’s functionality. It is easy to extend from this perspective to viewing social-media users solely in terms of their functionality, and thus use-value, as if value is a function of use.

---

1. Barbara Ortutay and Kelvin Chan, “Meta Reaches $17 Billion Settlement with States in Landmark Trial over Teen Social Media Addiction,” APnews.com, August 26, 2026.
2. Ibid.

Deflating Bloated Self-Entitlement in Retail: Barnes and Noble at Yale

Atrocious human-resources management, even regarding in-store employees of a sub-contractor, can easily be understood to detract from repeat customers; a refusal to hold such employees accountable can be a reflection of a sordid managerial attitude towards customers, especially in relation to employees. In cases in which the refusal is explicitly stated to an already-offended customer, the slogan, “adds insult to injury” is applicable, with disastrous effects in terms of repeat business, and thus revenue. That management is in some cases so bad reflects on the primitive condition of the “science” of management in business schools. That a case in point occurred in Yale’s (Barnes and Noble) bookstore, not far from Yale’s School of Management, suggests the sheer distance between the “science” and practice of management.

The full essay is at "Bloated Self-Entitlement in Retail."

Bad Management as Unethical: On Reckless Bus Drivers in Boston

The corruption of an individual manager or non-supervisory employee, or even a government official can be distinguished between the collusion of multiple levels, as I contend has been the case at least as of 2023 in Boston, Massachusetts in regard to the government and the Commonwealth’s most populous region’s mass transit system—in particular, its bus service. I contend that the government has been looking the other way as the management of the local bus transit has held off from firing reckless bus drivers, who thus sordidly feel entitled to ignore the training—assuming it is not deficient—by driving recklessly by riding the accelerator pedal before stomping down on the brake pedal at the last minute, literally, in stopping. With positions to fill, the company’s management treats such driving at best with a slap on the wrist, with the government looking on rather than divesting the management of its disincentive to fire even dangerous drivers. Such corruption is systemic in nature, and thus is much worse than the corruption of an individual. Ultimately, it is the public—which includes the electorate—which goes unprotected while bus riders have to put up with jolting rides.

With a pay rate of $30 per hour, a signing bonus of $7,500, paid commercial-driver’s license training, health benefits, and $10,000 for tuition reimbursement for college being the new labor contract for Boston’s bus drivers in 2023, better bus driving would theoretically follow as better candidates apply. In her State of the Commonwealth speech in early2024, Governor Healey announced that 2023 had been “the best year of hiring the T has ever had.” But the T includes subway and light-rail operators too, and as of the end of 2023, 415 bus-driver positions were still unfilled, and that is relative to the 1,452 bus drivers currently working—a net increase of only 2 since that August. 

The tan areas indicate the number of bus drivers working

 and the red areas indicate the number of unfilled positions.

The better compensation package seems not to have made a dent, and I suspect that the company's mechanics would probably admit in private that too many buses continued to make dents (as well as wear out brake pads, from braking hard, and even shocks, from driving too fast on roads in need of repavement). In general, aggressive driving means higher maintenance costs than need be the case. 

In other words, the “in theory” consequence of better driving failed to materialize. This in spite of Governor Healey having told bus drivers in a press conference announcing the labor contract, “We’ll be looking to improve working conditions as you improve the safe and effective operation of our public transportation system,”[1] the drivers were able to take the raise without improving the safe operation of the buses. Perhaps this was due to not only incompetent supervision by the management of the mass-transit of its bus drivers, but also enabling by the government. “Today you see a demonstration that we have your back,” the head of state of Massachusetts said during her press conference.[2] To be sure, the incentive that the management of the “T” has serially had not to increase the number of unfilled positions by firing even reckless drivers is likely the real driver here, with the government looking the other way rather than looking out for the public’s interests by providing a countervailing force to the bus company’s disincentive in getting rid of bad drivers, who in turn doubtlessly have felt both entitled to drive however they want with the air of impunity. This is literally dangerous.

On the evening of November 29, 2024, I was riding on a route 71 bus, having boarded the beginning of that route, at the bus/subway station underneath Harvard Square. In spite of the fact that I had submitted a complaint concerning the driver’s aggressive driving, which was uncomfortable to passengers and a risk to pedestrians and people driving near the bus, he still felt entitled to floor the bus’s accelerator, even in the tunnel out of the terminal at Harvard Square, where the speed limit was 6 mph, and to slam the brake pedal despite the harsh jolt felt by passengers. After speeding through the tunnel out from the underground station, he proceeded to ride the accelerator pedal on the street that winds through the crowded square so excessively that he had to stomp hard on the brake pedal to avoid back-ending the car that was stopped in front of the bus at the red light. Then the driver honked the bus’s horn at the car’s driver, who did not react to the now-green light fast enough for the harried bus driver working to extend his break at the end of the route. He proceeded to accelerate so excessively that had braked hard not to hit the three pedestrians who were in the middle of a designated cross-walk. Because they looked like they could have been three undergraduate Harvard students, I wondered whether the university administration might have some words for the mass-transit’s management. I immediately called the transit’s customer service line while the driver was once again riding the accelerator pedal only to brake hard at the first bus stop in spite of the fact that he could see several people well ahead waiting at the stop. At the very least, his judgment concerning how much to accelerate in a given distance and how to stop a bus (including some coasting seemed beyond him) was warped.

On the phone with a customer-service employee, I hurriedly exclaimed, “The driver almost hit three pedestrians who were in a crosswalk! And now he is quickly accelerating again! I have called in a complaint on that driver’s driving before, and yet he is still driving recklessly. I’m getting off and will wait for the next bus; he is too reckless.” So, I got off at the first bus-stop and will wait for the next bus.” In spite of the customer-service employee telling me that she would notify operations at “the garage” as well as her immediate supervisor, I had the sinking feeling that, like my prior complaints, that one would fall on conveniently deaf managerial ears.  

The bus driver continued fast as the bus approached a red light even though an ambulance was making its way through the intersection and thus caution was just common sense. 

Sure enough, the driver was driving the same route on the next night. He tailgated another bus part way through the tunnel out of the station, and then was able to easily surpass the speed limit by accelerating until just before he had to stop before turning onto a road. Then he accelerated on that road, and braked hard at the first bus stop. Somewhere in the middle of the route, he accelerated until a minute or so before braking behind a stationary car at a red light intersection even though an ambulance with lights flashing was trying to make its way through the intersection. Passing through the intersection, the bus driver applied a series of “fits and hard stops,” and this pattern continued when he approached two or three bus-stops ahead. 

The bus driver pushed his foot down on the brake pedal too hard just before stopping, without having coasted so the sudden braking would not have to stop so much motion. This can be seen by the standing passenger's loss of balance. Were he to have fallen and broken a bone, he could have sued the company.

The customer-service employee on the night before had said that the procedure when that department is closed and safety is at risk from a driver’s reckless, aggressive driving, is that I should call the company’s transit “police.” When I called that department just after I got off the bus, a stern woman stated, as if she could not be wrong, “No, you need to call customer service.” I told her that customer service was closed on Saturdays and that that department had informed me that transit police should handle cases of safety issues when customer service is closed.” “No!,” she exclaimed, “you have to call customer service when they are open.” I was stunned because I had told her that the driver had almost hit three pedestrians in a crosswalk the night before, and he slammed on the brake pedal just fifteen minutes ago behind a car at a light that had been red for some time. “We have to witness the incidents to do anything about them,” the corrupt woman said. Knowing this was incorrect (I had already stated that I was a witness) and thus that the "police" employee was corrupt. The pathetic excuses she used clearly indicated that she was willing to dismiss a report even of pedestrians almost being hit. Her crime was more than being inept and corrupt; she didn't care whether the aggressive driver might kill a pedestrian between that Saturday night and Monday, when customer service would reopen. So, I ended the call as she was obstantly denying that she was refusing to take and act on my reports. I called 911 emergency to speak with the local police department not only to report the driver, but the transit "police" employee too! Even though I told the employee of the local police department of the driver’s reckless driving both that night and the night before, and that he was still driving even though I had notified the transit company’s customer service department the night before that the driver had almost hit three pedestrians—likely Harvard students—he told me I had to contact the transit “police,” which prompted me to relay the last conversation with the control-freak who presumed that she could not be wrong and utterly dismissed my claims gained from the transit company. “The transit police would rather risk pedestrians being killed than follow the transit company’s policy that the transit “police” handles such reports when customer service is closed. It’s really just common sense not to wait two days before reporting (and the company therefore acting on) a report of reckless driving where safety is being compromised. He said he would call the transit police, but I did not believe him. I gave up. A report against a bus driver was being blown off yet again, and the driver doubtless was breaking traffic laws with a sense of impunity, which made him especially dangerous.

This is the bus driver who had almost killed three Harvard students in a cross-walk and, on the following night, braked hard behind a car at a red light. On both nights, he had enough time at the end of the route for a personal break, as shown here.  I contend that this is why he was speeding and waited to the last minute, literally, to apply the brake pedal before stopping so as to shorten the time of the route. 

Not a full week before that weekend, I had called in a complaint on a driver, also a Black male, who had been riding the accelerator and hitting the brake pedal hard when stopping, rather than coasting to a stop—as that would mean less break-time at the end of the route for him. “He almost hit a car standing in front of the bus; that car had its left-turn signal on, and that could be seen at a distance as it was dark outside. But the driver kept acccelerating until he got very close to the car. What if he had misjudged on where to come to a quick stop by slamming on the brakes? He is a reckless driver!” That driver might have been the same one. I had also called customer service to report a young black woman whose stomping on the brake pedal had rendered rides very uncomfortable. Yet she was able to continue driving without any concern for the comfort of the paid customers on the bus.  

I had never ridden on a transit bus in which the driver slamed on the brake pedal so hard (and even after I had asked him not to do so). Again, the pattern is the same: customers, and even company policies on driving don't matter. After I had called customer service to report him, I rode again on a bus he was driving, and his driving was just as hard and reckless. A bus is not a toy, and we are ALL subject to the law--even those people who disrespect rules and laws, yet while demanding respect from everyone else in spite of having a selfish and inconsiderate attitude.

It bears repeating that after I had called customer service a few weeks before and said, “One of your coworkers told me to call the transit ‘police’ to report reckless driving when your department is closed, but your company’s transit “police” have insisted to me that I call customer service. Apparently, they are just fine with letting a reckless bus driver continue to drive through a weekend and have riders wait until your department is open, which could be a day or two away.” Although the customer-service employee told me that I had followed procedures correctly, and thus that the transit “police” dispatcher had been wrong, and I asked the customer-service employee to have her supervisor contact the transit “police” supervisor, but, as I have already stated, there was no change in the script of the transit “police” when I called the transit police to report the driver who had almost hit three Harvard students the night before and could easily have misjudged when to stomp on the brake pedal behind a stopped car at a red light. 

In addition to the bus company having a disincentive to terminate even bus drivers whose driving could terminate people in cars and in cross-walks, the refusal of the company’s transit “police” to contact “the garage” to intercede on behalf of the public (and bus riders) to get a reckless bus driver off the streets until the driving could be investigated by an operations supervisor points to bad management not only in the transit “police” department, but also higher up, to the manager who is over both that department and customer service and was thus responsible for making sure that reports of dangerous driving do not fall between the two departments, as when customer service is closed and yet the transit “police” insist that customer service be contacted when it opens.

Whether because my paternal grandfather rose from being a trolley driver to being the president of the Milwaukee, Wisconsin (then Des Moines, Iowa) mass transit company, or because I have worked in public accounting and have a B.S. and M.B.A. in business (with an emphasis on organizational studies because systems theory intrigued me), I have called the customer service (and transit “police” departments) to report uncomfortable and even reckless bus driving even though most riders would not bother, or even suspect that the problem is systemic both among the bus drivers and even including their supervisors. So, in response to one customer-service employee, who had told me that the company looks for reports from many riders before taking action, I said, “It is a fallacy to assume that there is not a problem unless many people report it, because, frankly, most people figure, why bother, nothing will happen, and some people may even expect bad driving because it happens so much.” Yet how many companies stick to this fallacy! The macro-culture of democracy may be erroneously projected on business management in assuming that a majority is needed for a complaint to be valid. The assumption ignores the fact that few riders may actually be able to “connect the dots” and be willing to call in a complaint. The assumption of political equality of voters—one person, one vote—does not hold in complaints to a manager about an employee. Even in terms of political democracy, Donald Trump only received the votes of 34% of the eligible voters (and Harris received 32%) in 2024, so it is not really true that majority rules. I for one am more interested to know why eligible voters did not vote (or voted for other candidates, who could not be expected to win) than in why voters voted for Trump or Harris.

Individuals have insights, and, for any given subject-matter or domain, some people have more insight than do others. I might even venture to claim that some people are, whether genetically or by effort in formal education, more intelligent than are other people. Herds, however, walk only when a general shift is occurring. Waiting for a herd to complain for the substance of the complaint to have merit and thus value and credibility, can be reckoned as foolish management. Nietzsche contrasted herd-animals, who are weak, from the strong, who act out of self-confident strength if they are not beguiled by the weak to be ashamed of being strong, as if it were unethical. In actuality, weakness even in not standing up to corruption is unethical even in feckless non-action, and the corrupt are themselves obviously unethical in being so.

I contend that the transit “T” company and the Massachusetts government with respect to that company comprise layers of negligence, beginning with the dangerous drivers themselves and going through the customer service department and the transit “police” department to upper management, and finally to the Massachusetts government: none of which are looking out for the public and the bus riders (as even accelerating even just until the point of stop by braking hard is very uncomfortable).

Once I conducted a small experiment to find out if the bad bus drivers had been trained badly or have been knowingly driving badly. I asked one bus driver to stop slamming on the brakes, and he complied, which told me that at least some of the reckless drivers know that they are driving badly and yet are doing it anyway. I believe they do so in order to rack up minutes at the end of a route to take a personal break, or else because they are late due to traffic and the company pressures its drivers to reach the end of a route on time. But this does not explain why many drivers depart the beginning point of a route early. A longer break at the end or insuring an on-time arrival is likely the motive. Creating a longer break could be called gaming the system. I know that the driver supervisors know this is happening, yet they conveniently allow it.

Finally, notice that I have not had to resort to claiming that the drivers’ union is protecting even reckless drivers. I suspect that is also in play, but the sad point is that I have enough without even bringing up the pressure from the union on the management. I would not be surprised to learn that the upper management has told the union’s head, We’ve got your back. After all, it is what the governor told the drivers when she announced the sweet labor contract in 2023 that was, according to that governor, supposed to make the operation of the buses safer.

Collusion upon collusion upon collusion can make for collision, collision, and collision when aggressive bus-driving is involved, and this is obviously at the expense of customers and even the public, not to mention the innocent pedestrians and car-drivers who are injured or even killed as a result. The banality of narrow, bureaucratic managerialism and oblivious, duty-free politics is none other than corruption writ large. This means that that the system itself, which spans the domains of business and government, is corrupt and thus is in need of reform. Generally speaking, furtive though obvious unaccountability can become so banal as it becomes so common that it renders bad management itself as unethical. 

In the present case before us, the expectation of harm to innocents may be eclipsed by a narrow, self-centered fixation on enuerated departmental tasks (e.g. by the transit “police” department), and willful gross negligence (e.g., many of the bus drivers). The harm may be an implicit byproduct of the incentives and disincentives that are operative in the system, including the bus company and the government that is supposed to oversee the company. Aside from the refusal or sheer inability of elected government officials and regulators to adequately oversee the Boston metro area's mass-transit, known as the "T," the aggressive bus-driving and the transit company's management can be so bad that both can be said to be inherently unethical. 

Even the ongoing momentum of the inertia of such a dysfunctional system can be said to be unethical, such that inaction is culpable. In such a case, the status quo does not warrant pride of place; rather, warrants should be issued for the drivers who believe that the traffic laws do not apply to themselves. 

Indeed, an attitude can be determined to be unethical, as can the consequences when innocent people are injured or even killed and human customers are driven like cattle. Ironically, the toxic "herd animals" depicted by Nietzsche that are too weak to master their instinctual urge to dominate are at the wheel, as they are too weak to experience the richer pleasure that comes from power derived from mastering one's own most intractible urges. If this verdict seems overly harsh, you might imagine the jolt from a foot stomping down on a brake pedal immediately after having ridden the acelerator without allowing the bus to coast at all, all this without any concern for the paid passengers or for pedestrians and people driving nearby.

In the seventeenth century, a European Jansenist priest, Pierre Nicole, wrote that even though self-love (over loving God) can have unintended beneficial consequences and thus be reckoned as enlightened self-interest, self-love is still a sin. Although Augustine wrote that sin can have unintended beneficial consequences, it is important to remember that self-love is still a sin. In moral terms, which has been my vantage-point here, it can be said that selfishness negligent of any possible resulting harm to other people, is unethical. Selfishness can be extended to an organization's managers as well as to government officials who look the other way. Unfortunately, the human nose can become accustomed to a bad odor if it hangs around long enough to become the atmospheric norm. 

---

1. Christian MilNeil, “MBTA Adopts ‘Historic’ New Labor Deal with Carmen’s Union,” StreetsBlogMass, August 2, 2023.
2. Ibid.

Should Philosophers Sell Out to Business?

Should philosophers at universities, by which I mean scholars who hold a Ph.D. in philosophy, try to be relevant?  Nietzsche wrote that no philosopher is a person of one’s own day, but Adam Smith saw in philosophers the potential as observers rather than doers to observe occupations rather than Plato’s eternal moral verities or Aristotle’s prime mover way up high. Opinions on this question can reasonably differ, but under no circumstance should someone holding a MBA and DBA or Ph.D. in business claim to be a philosopher. This is especially true in North America, where doctoral students in business have not typically even taken ethics courses in philosophy. Indeed, I turned down a doctorate in business in part because my area would have been business ethics sans any coursework in philosophy, including ethics. I attempted to take the core graduate course in ethics, but the professor, Kurt Baier, announced at the end of the first class session that only philosophy students could enroll. Baier had the countenance of Schopenhauer, and both, ironically, focused on ethics academically. To be sure, doctoral students in business who already have a Ph.D. in philosophy may be counted as philosophers, and the dual degrees fit an orientation to observing and thinking about occupations rather than just on metaphysics or ontology.

The full essay is at "Should Philosophers Sell Out to Business?"

Starbucks Bucks Its Workers’ Labor Union

Even though more than 500 Starbucks shops had unionized by the end of 2024, it seems that the company’s management did not respect the new union very much. Unfortunately for the company, one implication that can be drawn is that the company’s management didn’t respect federal labor law very much too. For in not respecting its union enough to negotiate it on reducing employee work hours, the company violated federal law. The “smoking gun,” I submit, was that the management used dissimulation to respond to the government, rather than address the complaint directly.

On October 10, 2024, the “general council of the National Labor Relations Board filed a complaint . . . alleging that Starbucks made the scheduling changes in late 2022 and early 2023” without consulting and negotiating with the union.”[1] The complaint reads in part that Starbucks changed workers’ hours “without prior notice to the Union and without affording the Union an opportunity to bargain.”[2] As per federal labor law, Starbucks was required to give prior notice to the union and give it a chance to bargain, as well as to tell the union how the change in hours would impact the paychecks of the workers affected. In its written response, the company’s management ignored this requirement and instead defended a practice that was not against the law and the government was thus not in the government’s complaint.

Starbucks stated, “We continuously review operations decisions to optimally address business needs and customer expectations, consistent with the law.”[3] Indeed, doing so does not in itself violate federal law, but the statement does not address the complaint. Next, the company tried to obviate the complaint, again by not addressing anything that was illegal, by pointing out, “our decisions were made across our system, in unionized and non-unionized stores, and they were made without regard to organizing activity at Starbucks.”[4] Even if that were true, it does not address whether the management had informed the union and given it an opportunity to bargain in the cases of the unionized stores.

By not addressing the violations specified in the complaint, the company’s managers may either have been dissimulating by changing the terms of the dispute or trying to avoid lying by denying the specific charges. Either way, the mentality is sordid, and this in itself can be interpreted in line with the old adage, Where there is smoke, there is fire.  Where there is a devious mentality, there is likely to be a crime.

As a result of the violation, some employees lost the benefit of health insurance because they no longer worked enough hours per week. Therefore, the union’s lawyer said that damages could be more than merely the wages for the lost hours. A conservative estimate could be “north of $30 million.”[5] Lest this seem like enough of a disincentive for the management to begin to respect the union (and federal labor law), I submit that it is extremely difficult to change a company’s organizational culture.

Today, I went to buy a product at a Target store. The shelf was empty so I went to customer service, which the linguistically opportunistic management calls “guest” services. The employee was incorrect that I could not order the product online and have it delivered to the store; she was even wrong that the product was not in the back of the store. I went to a manager, who assured me that she would “coach” the employee.  In a tone of “you’re not getting it,” what I actually said was, “It was not just her mistakes; her mentality—her attitude—was terrible, and that can’t be coached away.” The manager didn’t say anything, but her facial expression was one of dismissiveness. Starbucks’ management at the corporate level needed more than coaching from the government.

1. Dave Jamieson, “Starbucks Could Owe Millions to Baristas Who Unionized,” The Huffington Post, October 11, 2024.
2. Ibid.
3. Ibid.
4. Ibid.
5. Ibid.

On the Birth of Corporate Social Responsibilty in 1869

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:

“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  . . . — will ultimately succeed in directing government itself. Under the American form of society, there is now no authority capable of effective resistance.” (1)

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.  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.

Henry Adams saw the imprint of corporate power eviscerating both societal norms and democracy in the scandal.  In other words, the new-found corporate power eventuated in the birth of the need for corporate social responsibility amid capitalism eclipsing democracy. In academic terms, corporate social responsibility and (corporate) business & government, although discrete fields, were both first publicly recognized in 1869.

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.

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.

Undergirding the managerial basis in skill, 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)

Regarding the private power based on technique (i.e., managerial power), 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 a need for great responsibility. The corporate social responsibility movement began as precisely this recognition even as the modern large corporation was in its second decade.

Punctum Saliens, 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.

Endnotes:

1. Henry Adams, “The New York Gold Conspiracy,” in Charles F. Adams, Jr. and Henry Adams, Chapters of Erie (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1956), pp. 135-36.

2. Henry Adams, The Education of Henry Adams (1907; Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1961), p. 238.

3. H. W. Brands, American Colossus: The Triumph of Capitalism 1865-1900 (New York: Doubleday, 2010), pp. 22-23.

Starbucks: A Racist Company Against Racism

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 legitimately 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. 

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 partners, 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.[1] In 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.

In June, 2023, a jury in New Jersey “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.”[2] The company’s position was that Phillis’ boss fired her because she had displayed weak leadership. The use of such vague jargon as leadership 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[3]; instead, the company’s CEO should have got out in front of the issue and provided a vision for the company.[4] 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.

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 anyone trespassing would be legally subject to removal from the property. 

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 nigger 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.

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.”[5] 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.”[6] 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.

Moreover, in being willing to sacrifice Caucasian employees based on their race 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 by 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.

---

1. Skip Worden, Bucking Starbucks’ Star.

2. Danielle Wiener-Bronner, “Starbucks Ordered to Pay $25.6 million to a Manager Who Says She Was Fired for Being White,” CNN.com, June 14, 2023.

3. Ibid.

4. Skip Worden, The Essence of Leadership.

5. Danielle Wiener-Bronner, “Starbucks Ordered to Pay $25.6 million to a Manager Who Says She Was Fired for Being White.

6. Ibid.

Undermining Progress: Power Enforcing Infallible Ignorance

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 sapiens (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.

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. Cognito sum. 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.

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 even to reach peoples’ consciousness. Well-established beliefs clutch at us even in the face of strong arguments and empirical evidence to the contrary.

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 must 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.

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 living religion could 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.

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?  Josephus, an ancient Jewish historian who lived in the first century, wrote Antiquities, 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 religious claim/belief that Jesus is 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).

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 religious 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 belief 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.

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. 

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 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.

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.

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).

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.

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.

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^th 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.

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.

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.

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 belief 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 religious costs of trying to dominate in another domain.

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 and 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.

A Professional Misnomer: Everyone Is a Self-Proclaimed Professional!

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 common 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. 

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. 

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.

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 practice, 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.

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.

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.

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.

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. 

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. 

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.

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. 

Sources:

Jeff Madrick, Age of Greed: The Triumph of Finance and the Decline of America, 1970 to the Present (New York: Alfred A. Knoff, 2011).

John R. Boatright, “Conflict of Interest: An Agency Analysis.” Pp. 187-203 in Ethics and Agency Theory: An Introduction, Norman E. Bowie and R. Edward Freeman, eds. (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1992).

John R. Boatright, Ethics in Finance (Oxford: Blackwell, 2008).

Arnold S. Relman, “Dealing with Conflicts of Interest,” New England Journal of Medicine 313 (1985): 749-51.

Jean Van Houtte, “Research Report: Conflicts of Interest in Law Firms in Belgium,” Legal Ethics 12 (part II): 207-28.

See also:

Skip Worden, On the Arrogance of False Entitlement: A Nietzschean Critique of Business Ethics and Management.