One way of seeing the choice we face in this coming election is a choice between the commercial and the civic. The following chart highlights some of the differences.
|
The Commercial |
The Civic |
|
Key value |
Ownership |
Membership |
|
The development of the civic |
When our country was founded, only property owners could vote, the commercial dominated the civic |
In time, we changed to citizenship, not ownership, as the criterion for voting |
| The basis of our life together |
Property relations |
Human relations |
| The role of government |
To protect property and property owners |
To protect citizens and civic rights |
| The role of public administration |
The management of property; guided by the criteria of efficiency |
The organization of people, guided by civic norms of reciprocity and moral equality |
| The purpose of business |
To make a profit |
To provide goods and services |
|
The misery of workers |
Ignores them as belonging to another “world” and focuses on trading of commodities. |
Includes them as citizens of same generation |
|
The environment |
Treats the biosphere as property. Ignores what cannot be priced. |
Treats the biosphere as a living system that needs protection. |
|
Meaning of citizenship |
Increase property accumulation
A ”productive” person |
Participate in civic conversations
An “engaged” person |
| View of elections |
The advertising of one’s “property” (what I can do for you.) |
The advertising of one’s capacity to represent the hopes of citizens (What we can do together.) |
| How to win elections |
Similar to selling products: more advertising increases sales |
Similar to winning debates: better reasons increase support |
- · See: Civilizing the Economy: A New Economics of Provision (Cambridge University Press, 2010)
BP is not a bad corporate citizen; because it is not a citizen at all. This idea of a “corporate citizen “is just a bad idea. It doesn’t show much understanding of either corporations or citizens. In Civilizing the Economy, I outline four aspects of a corporation or four ways we can think about them: as property, as a human community designed to produce goods and services, as an agent, and as a provider.
Let’s look at the idea that a corporation is a property first. Obviously it is. We can buy and sell them. Milton Friedman’s famous essay that the only social responsibility of corporations is to make a profit treats corporations this way. Friedman is not really talking about the obligations of corporations in this essay, but of the corporate executives who exist in an agent-principle relationship with the owners. Corporations are the property of the owners, and the executive has an obligation to the owners. Executives are essentially property managers.
Sometimes we need to separate the question,” What should we do?” from the question, “How should we do it?” “What should we do about our public schools?” for example, is quite different from the question “How should we improve our schools?” Or is it? If we cannot imagine a way to improve our schools, then maybe it is a waste of time to think about whether or not we should improve them.
According to Aristotle, even though families and clans preceded the emergence of the city, the city was the end that human communities aimed for. To be a good member of the city—a good citizen—was the human telos or final end. In some ways I think he was right.
How different from the world that Adam Smith created for us that treats everyone as traders, engaging in the exchange of properties to become wealthy. The truth is that we today live more in the legacy of Adam Smith than of Aristotle. We tend to define the good life in terms of ownership instead of membership.
Sometimes, others seem to belong to another time. When we try to understand religious fundamentalists, for example, it is easy to apply a temporal framework. They talk as though modern science, or humanistic research never occurred. They deny historical and literary criticism. They remind us of what we learned about early periods in Western history, such as the middle ages, before the eighteenth century enlightenment. It doesn’t seem that we all belong to the same generation—to this generation.
