Reasons not to be cheerful: one, two, three.
In my forthcoming annual lecture I offer an explanation for our apparent inability to make progress on challenges most people would like to see addressed; like providing dignity and decent care for all old people, increasing social mobility or achieving a more sustainable model of economic growth. I argue that there are three basic sources of social power, hierarchical authority most often associated with the state, solidarity most often associated with community, and individualism most often associated with the market.
The problem is that in different ways, and together as a whole, these sources of power have dried up. I explore the problems facing hierarchy (incompetence and low public trust for example) and solidarity (as a consequence of diversity and social polarisation), and argue that while individualism is powerful, it is also narrow and in many ways self defeating.
However, the problem with individualism is not so much that it has, under its own volition, mutated into something malign. Like the other social forces, the dangers of individualism are the flip side of its strengths, the latter including creativity, ambition and drive. However – as we saw in the financial sector – individualism unchecked by wise and trusted authority or the binds of solidarity and social responsibility tends towards selfishness and irresponsibility.
The characteristics of a well functioning society, organisation or strategy is the balance of top down (doing what you’re told), lateral (doing what others do), and bottom up (doing what you choose) ways of seeing and pursuing change. When one dimension fails not only is its power for constructive change lost, but it leads to the other dimensions being overloaded.
I came across an interesting case study of this phenomenon reading reviews of a new book causing much debate in America: The Twilight of the Elites by Chris Hayes. The book is an attempt to explain the multiple failings of authority in the US in the first decade of the 21st century (ranging from Enron and Worldcom to Katrina and Iraq, to Catholic priests and sports administrators).
I have read only the reviews (we will try to lure Mr Hayes over to the RSA some time), but I find it easy to believe the book’s account of how meritocracy has failed, placing particular emphasis on how elites close ranks and self perpetuate. Hayes’ solution is more controversial, although he is far from alone in advocating it. In essence he argues that meritocracy can only work within limits to overall levels of inequality. When society is highly unequal the rewards for staying at the top and the fear of dropping down make it impossible for all but the most socially responsible elite member not to use any means possible (including exploitation and gaming) to try to stay there and get their kids to join them.
The point is this: the individualistic ideal of meritocracy (remembering that social democrat Michael Young used the word disparagingly when he first defined it) only works alongside the solidaristic principle of social justice and, furthermore, that when solidarity fails to set limits to individualism the consequence is an incompetent and self-serving hierarchy.
Many American commentators have wondered aloud whether it would ever be possible to forge an alliance between the Tea Party and the Occupy movement, given that both share a profound hostility to the elite they believe are misruling their country. Given the degree to which both movements are driven by anger, the attribution of blame and a tendency to see conspiracies, I’m not sure this is either likely or to be desired. It is the system that is failing, something reflected in rising social pessimism, but the partisan nature of political campaigns means they only focus on one aspect of that failure. This is why when we listen to their message we often have the odd feeling of simultaneously agreeing with the critique while rejecting the overall analysis.
The problem is not a lack of leadership, nor a lack of social justice and responsibility, nor an inadequacy of personal responsibility and enterprise, but all these together acting on each other to create a deteriorating stasis. The answer is a counterintuitive combination of big thinking (whole system reform with implications for all of us) and moderation. The problem is functional (power to) rather than oppressive (power over).
Perhaps the system will correct itself (history provides plenty of grounds for both optimism and pessimism), but if we are waiting for a movement or a leader capable of articulating, let alone winning, an argument as profound but nuanced then looking at politics here, in Europe or – most depressingly – America, there are few reasons to be hopeful.
Comments
6 Comments on Reasons not to be cheerful: one, two, three.
-
Carl Allen on
Sat, 18th Aug 2012 10:05 am
-
Robert Burns on
Sun, 19th Aug 2012 5:56 am
-
Liliana Reasor on
Sun, 19th Aug 2012 2:34 pm
-
Matthew Mezey on
Mon, 20th Aug 2012 3:49 pm
-
The golden thread of develoment: spinning a yarn? « Serpents and Doves: A development policy blog on
Tue, 21st Aug 2012 4:10 pm
-
david pinto on
Thu, 23rd Aug 2012 11:10 pm
What the article seems to say is a highly disruptive event or moment has to happen whether the moment is man-made, act of a deity or nature.
If Meritocracy was actually what was in place then many of the people currently in the upper ranks of the socio-economic order wouldn’t be there.
I say this for two main reasons:
(1) You couldn’t be ‘born into’ an elite because the only way to gain entry would be by personal achievement as an adult.
Of necessity a Meritocracy would need mechanisms to divest a person setting out in life of any inheritance or support (be it economic or reputational in nature) from their parents or other relatives.
(2) After just a few generations the comfort of inherited eminence leads people into the mistake of believing they are part of some sort of ‘natural order’ – whenever these people are encountered commenting about themselves bogus ‘Darwinian’ arguments are not far below the surface.
In fact they are product of a profoundly un-natural order that renders each generation progressively less ‘fit’ to possess their privileges.
Two other problems with Meritocracy are:
(1) Who decides what constitutes ‘merit’.
The problems of affirmative action racism and sexism come under this heading.
(2) If Meritocracy really were in place then those excluded from social promotion would have no stake in the values of that society.
This would apply both ways across the divide and spiral down into mutual feral hostility and exploitation.
Welcome to the UK in the 21st century!
Hi Matthew,
I find your post quite insightful. You mentioned you will have an annual lecture soon. Can any one attend your annual lecture, and if so, what’s the date and place for your forthcoming annual lecture? Regards, Lili
I certainly think that big thinking and whole system reform is a key part of the solution.
However…
When Jake Chapman FRSA wrote his influential booklet – ‘Systems Failure – Why Governments Must Learn to Think Differently’ – he was invited to give numerous presentations across Whitehall and beyond.
“The result was universally the same: real interest in the ideas and their potential, and no willingness to adopt or try any of the ideas or tools in practice,” he says.
I suspect that Cultural Theory-based approaches might well hit that same brick wall.
But I think we can have a pretty good stab at the hidden reasons why Jake’s transformational systems thinking didn’t take off – despite the seeming wide interest.
Jake’s work with High Potential Development group (top civil servants) found that the delivery-focused ‘Achiever’ action logic was prevalent amongst them. There was a strong opinion imaginative big thinking was not a priority.
Yet the only people who went on to actually use systems approaches were those few civil servants who were strongly motivated by later stage (ie post-conventional), less common ‘action logics’ (to use Prof Bill Torbert’s term for adult maturational stages; though Prof Robert Kegan’s labels would do just as well).
(Interestingly, Jake also made great use of Prof Robert Kegan’s ‘Immunity to Change’ mapping exercise – which I recommend people try for themselves, in relation to some significant – yet unrealised – personal goal.)
One – feasible? – way (as we talked about a few weeks back) to get these hidden factors that prevent change onto the political agenda might be to invite key voices – from Cultural Theory/plural rationalities, Jonathan Haidt/moral matrices, Bill Torbert/Action Logics, Pat Dade/Values Modes (Maslow), Robert Kegan/’Ways of Knowing’, Spiral Dynamics value-memes et al – to write a short article on how they would (or already have) applied their approach to a pressing social issue/wicked problem, or similar. And bundle the articles together into a neat little booklet.
I don’t think anyone has tried anything quite like that before. (And the RSA is uniquely well-placed to do something like this, as it is already rather involved in 3 or 4 of these approaches).
I’d read it 
Matthew Mezey
(RSA Online Community Manager)
PS My RSA colleague Ben Dellot talks about some of these areas here:
http://www.rsablogs.org.uk/2012/uncategorized/making-sense-world/
[...] Taylor’s latest excellent blog has helped crystallised for me what troubles me about David Cameron’s golden thread of [...]
it’s less a question of whether a “leader” can articulate it
it’s more a question whether people can hear it
there are too many leaders
too much of a marketplace for our attention
Tell me what you're thinking...
and oh, if you want a pic to show with your comment, go get a gravatar!
RSA Animate
RSA Mobile
RSA Comment- RSA Projects Blogs
RSA Bookshop
The RSA Bookshop, in partnership with Blackwell's the UK's leading academic bookseller, offers Fellows and friends an opportunity to purchase books and to explore our speakers’ ideas in greater detail. Visit the RSA Bookshop.