‘Wrong’ said Fred

February 1, 2012 by
Filed under: Credit crunch 

This morning on the Today Programme I heard Labour MP John Mann question whether the public humiliation of Fred Goodwin might detract from the need to engage in deeper questions. It put me in mind of a personal dilemma.

Preparing for conversation in which my starting point is contrition, I find myself rehearsing the words; ‘I am asking you to understand, not to excuse’. You may have said or heard something similar. Sadly, although this sounds like a thoughtful and humane distinction, it is probably fallacious; a consideration which may be relevant to the preponderance in recent times of mass outbursts of vilification (think celebrities, think MPs, think bankers).

The idea of pure personal blame involves putting a punctuation mark in the narrative of cause and effect. Something bad happened because someone who was free to make a good decision made a bad one. Attributing personal blame (rather than mere proximate cause) involves adhering to a robust sense of free will; a bad decision was the result not of what led up to it but of a freely made choice.

But when we ask for our actions to be understood we are suggesting they were, at least in part, the consequence of factors other than a free and bad decision. Explanation dilutes blame. Clarity isn’t helped by the different associations of the word understanding (the verb to comprehend ‘he is good at understanding maps’ and the adverb meaning sympathetic ‘he was very understanding’). While the conflation or overlaying of the positive meanings of understanding is common, it is logically necessary. It is perfectly possible to separate them entirely as in ‘I understand exactly why you did it and that’s why I want you to suffer’.

When it comes to individual blameworthiness, as in the case of Fred Goodwin, our options could be put in a two by two matrix using the different meanings of understanding as the x and y axis.

Square one: neither understand/explain nor understand/sympathise, is associated with total personal blame. Fred should be punished to the max.

Square two: don’t understand/explain but do understand/sympathise might be the space for the religiously humble (‘let he who is without sin…’). A person holding this view would probably not want to punish Fred gratuitously.

Square three: understand/explain but not understand/sympathise could be the position of the anti-capitalist. Such a person night argue that to single out Fred from all the other ‘evil bankers’ is to excuse ‘the system’.

Square four: understand/explain and understand/sympathise might be the square either of other bankers or soft hearted academics. Presumably they too would hesitate before taking Fred’s knighthood.

There may be utilitarian or symbolic reasons why Sir Fred should have been stripped of his title but of these four positions it seems to me only the first is commensurate with taking such a rare and exceptional action (there are after all plenty of rogues with honours). So, on balance, I think John Mann is right; there is at some level a trade-off between a desire to punish the man and a willingness to question the system. This approach also throws up an irony; advocates of lightly unregulated financial capitalism should presumably be relieved that the public seems more inclined to blame Fred than explore how he came to be so powerful and why his decisions caused such mayhem.

Share

No related posts.

Tags: , ,

Comments

5 Comments on ‘Wrong’ said Fred

  1. Francesca on Wed, 1st Feb 2012 8:38 pm

    2. This post makes an assumption which I don’t think is accurate, which is that the decision-maker is concerned solely with the effect on Fred Goodwin of removing his title. It is possible, I think, to reason ‘FG is entirely a product of his system and therefore I hold no personal animosity towards him and do not want to see him punished’ and also ‘stripping him of his knighthood is the right thing to do for the wider system because it demonstrates that honours awarded based on deceit will be removed, which might deter others’. (I think this might be what you mean by ‘utilitarian reasons’ at the beginning of your last paragraph).

  2. Ian Christie on Thu, 2nd Feb 2012 6:43 pm

    3. There is a justification for the humbling of Fred G provided that a) it is based on a principle that means others can be assessed the same way and b) it is part of a systematic reform of the system whose excesses he symbolises. If neither condition holds, then we have a clear case of scapegoating. I think he deserves it, but he does not deserve to be the only one held to account.

    The ancient scapegoat mechanism described by Rene Girard in Violence and the Sacred (1970) seems to be at work in modern non-violent guise. The community is plunged into conflict and confusion by the escalation of competing desires and rivalries. A figure is selected who can plausibly be identified as the source of communal woes and strife. He is set upon by the crowd and expelled. A temporary sense of satisfaction and unity comes over the crowd. Until the next time. The trouble is, as Girard has spent much ink explaining, the scapegoat mechanism can no longer do the dirty work of unification it once did – by now in the modern era we know the script too well. Hence the nasty taste left in the mouth by the humbling even of Sir Fred, who has done so little to make amends for his huge failures of judgement.

  3. Michael on Fri, 3rd Feb 2012 12:27 am

    4. On the other hand, we are used to hearing recipients of honours say that the successes being recognised were achieved as a result of the efforts of others (sometimes many others) alongside themselves.

    So perhaps Mr. Goodwin and others who find themselves in a similar position should say “I regret the withdrawal of the knighthood, but I was only one person involved in the actions and decisions that caused all the trouble, and I accept the withdrawal on thier behalf as well as mine…”

  4. Robert Burns on Fri, 3rd Feb 2012 12:36 am

    5. I doubt very much that ‘Sir Fred’ has been ‘humbled’ at all.

    His economic independence and the value system of the social group he moves in renders any ‘disgrace’ a non event.

    There will be no effective reform of the ‘system’ that produced him.

    As a society we have a very poor record in the late 20th/early 21st century when it comes to addressing and correcting (in a positive sense) the social environmental factors that drive individual delinquency.

    This is true of muggers, vandals, drug dealers/users, Bankers, Stock Brokers and Chief Executives.

  5. Carl Allen on Fri, 3rd Feb 2012 12:04 pm

    6. @Michael, if Fred were so minded, that would indeed be worthy of a future Lordship should he wikileak details on the basis “I regret the withdrawal of the knighthood, but I was only one person involved in the actions and decisions that caused all the trouble, and I accept the withdrawal on their behalf as well as mine…”

    However as Robert points out, he is likely comfortable where he is.

    A niggling question on the legacy that such as Fred bequeaths … are those that receive it comfortable with it i.e. such is their bubble cuture only the bubble does not burst as it reseals itself.

Tell me what you're thinking...
and oh, if you want a pic to show with your comment, go get a gravatar!