The origin of what we call, today, “liberalism” is in the “progressive” movement of the middle of the last century. That is why liberalism is contrasted with conservatism, because liberals want to drive social evolution forward to produce good for all.
The problem is that the movement presumes that an enlightened vanguard is required to lead the way - indeed, to prescribe the way. The benighted masses are to simply slot into line, wander down their designated chutes, and enjoy the benefits, however dimly perceived, accruing to them from the selfless efforts of their betters.
Sadly, the dull-witted can sometimes be stubborn (as we’ve discussed recently). In that event, the vanguard, as Platonic philosopher-kings, must be entrusted to judiciously employ the cattle prods.
But, then, I’ve been in conservative - very conservative - places where canes, and even flexible whip-like sticks, are used to keep people in line. Whether political or religious, this conservatism can be every bit as punitively directive as the more strident forms of liberalism.
In this sense, then, both forces are opposed to free-market capitalism, or its political equivalent, representative democracy. The reason is that these latter systems suggest that the intellectual elite or the priestly classes are inconsequential, and even worse, incompetent.
There’s a lot to be said for that supposition. The real issue, though, is about more than efficiency - it’s about sovereignty and associated rights. That is, who owns or has authority over who or what? The modern age is largely characterized by the novel idea that ordinary people are their own masters, and masters of the systems they establish to administer their affairs, as well.
What does this line of thinking - about both the sources of competence and authority - suggest about the organizations we establish, and the systems we use to govern and manage them? We’ll be looking at this in the coming weeks, and hope you will join us.
—
Today’s tip: Speaking of pointless progressiveness, please see this BusinessWeek article about the Theory Fetish, at a real cost to research of genuine value to academics and practitioners alike.
—
Have you noticed the blue “Sphere” icon, below? When you click on it, it will produce a window offering you content related to today’s item from other blogs and the regular media. Give it a try!
And, while you’re clicking around down there, don’t forget to subscribe, by email or RSS reader!
Similar Posts:
- Everyone’s exemplar of evil
- Abhorrent vacuums
- The progressive
- Book Review: The Road to Serfdom
- The most difficult skill
Technorati Tags: liberalism, progressive, conservatism, social, evolution, enlightened, vanguard, philosopher, king, free-market, capitalism, representative, democracy, intellectual, elite, efficiency, sovereignty, authority, competence, organization, govern, manage, BusinessWeek, research, academic, practitioner
Sphere: Related Content
ON DECK
3 Comments
Jim,
You’re taking this topic in a fascinating and challenging direction.
To answer your question I offer one word:
Accountability.
Who is accountable in the organization? Therein lies the answer.
I got through a few more chapters of Democracy in America last night. As you can imagine, there is much to be said about that here, particularly about the authority of the majority, its tyrannical dark side, and the remedy of frequent elections.
Our founders were mighty smart folks. Can’t say the same for today’s politicians, but even de Tocqueville didn’t hold much esteem for politicians of his day.
America was founded on the ideal that the sovereign was bigger than anything man could devise. (…they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights)…
Thus, the power to reduce us to servitude might be assumed, but as a right it could never be granted. Consequently, we would always have a way to reclaim our freedom, should it ever be taken away.
Competence and authority can be derived from entirely different sources. The most meaningful is that which is freely given by those who are influenced by them. In America and in business, compliance comes from the pleasure and permission of the governed, lest we think too highly of our temporal position.
Hello Joe and Cam,
Joe, I agree that the issue of accountability is absolutely at the heart of the corporate governance issues we are facing today - more precisely, our failure to adequately address it and to figure out how to give it expression in a way that meets the fiduciary duties of those who are responsible for expressing it. To answer your question - who is accountable in the organization? - I think we need to also ask: who are they accountable to?
Cam, in that light, your point that “compliance comes from the pleasure and permission of the governed” is, I think, right on target. The thing is that Joe’s question becomes especially relevant when there is a breakdown of the institutional expression of that sovereignty between those whose pleasure it is to grant authority and those who are to be held accountable for exercising it.
It seems to me that the only way to answer Joe’s question is to examine that pathway of communication, to see if it is up to the task of expressing and maintaining sovereign control where it belongs or, as you suggest, Cam, where it might be usurped.
The question of competence and authority is also a fascinating one - and I can see that reading de Tocqueville would highlight it. I’m glad you brought it up, because it bears directly on this. That will have to come into the discussion - thanks!
Thanks for tightening this up - you both have given me the means to make the issue more concrete, now.
One Trackback/Pingback
[...] But they aren’t going down without a fight. The most infamous recent example of this is a study of a small number of American teenagers which purports to demonstrate that liberals are characteristically individualistic and free-thinking, while conservatives are naturally collectivist and submissive. This sort of strained argumentation, clearly so anxiously teased out of the ether with its conclusion (and meaning) so specifically in mind, can only be depicted, with the happy phrase David Mamet used in his celebrated Village Voice essay, as at best “proactive mediocrity.” [...]
Post a Comment