[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
PUBLIC: Re: Maslow !
Dear Colleagues
There is actually now quite a large body of scholarship on the
question of culture and development.
One can start with Douglass North, winner of the 1993 Nobel Prize
for
Economics, specifically his book INSTITUTIONS, INSTITUTIONAL CHANGE
AND ECONOMIC FUNDAMENTALS (1990, but sorry I don't have the
publisher
to hand) will be instructive for "pure" economists who do not wish
to
have their economic theory enriched by the emerging understanding
of
the rules, customs and history which make each national economy
tick.
Then, I suggest Fons Trompenaars' RIDING THE WAVES OF CULTURE,
London
1993; ALSO Charles Hampden-Turner and Trompenaars, THE SEVEN
CULTURES
OF CAPITALISM, Doubleday, USA, 1993
Finally, Lawrence E Harrison's UNDERDEVELOPMENT IS A STATE OF MIND,
Harvard UP and Madison Books, USA, 1985 and his WHO PROSPERS, Basic
Books, USA, 1992
Also, for the specifically Indian context, Mangalwadi's TRUTH AND
SOCIAL REFORM, Good Books, India, 1996.
Finally, I append a review which I was asked to do recently, which
might be of interest in connection with such matters.
Professor Prabhu Guptara
Director, Executive and Organisational Development
Wolfsberg Executive Development Centre
(A subsidiary of UBS AG)
CH-8272 Ermatingen
Switzerland
Tel: +41.71.663.5605
Fax: +41.71.663.5594
e-mail: prabhu.guptara@ubs.com
Religion, Business and Wealth in Modern Britain, edited by David J
Jeremy; Routledge, London, 1998, 195pp, h/b, #50, 0-415-16898-8
Debates about the interaction between religion, business and wealth
go
back a long way. The debate can be traced in scholarly literature
at
least to the 1770s. In most people's minds, however, the debate
focuses around the work of Max Weber who, in his articles published
in
1904 and 1906, focused the debate on the role of Protestantism in
the
rise of Capitalism. This collection of essays can be seen as a
contribution to the continuing debate about Weber's thesis.
In his Introduction, Jeremy helpfully provides a table of the main
controversies and disputants since 1770, summarises Weber's thesis
and
the main supporting and opposing arguments, considers the
nonconformist contribution to the Industrial Revolution in Britain,
places them in the larger context of religious minorities and the
creation of wealth, discusses the role of rich individuals in the
life
of the Church, and examines the questions of: how far Methodism
(and,
by implication, religion generally) was an instrument of social
control by capitalists; whether religion played a central role in
British industrial decline; and how far religious duty influenced
power relations in firms (including paternalism and
profit-sharing).
The essays themselves are divided into four sections (The
relationship
between religion and political economy, Nonconformists and wealth,
Quakers and wealth, and Ethnicity, religion and wealth). Some of
the
contributions, especially those in sections one and four, are of
interest primarily to academics. Of wider interest are the essays
examining a host of aspects of the increasing wealth and
benefactions
of Methodists between 1740 and the early twentieth century, as well
as
those which examine Quaker business attitudes and culture from 1690
to
1950. Though the essays on Quakers throw some biographical light,
there is only one study of an individual, that of the nonconformist
merchant-manufacturer John Rylands of Manchester, and it is a
fascinating portrait of divinely-endowed ability, deep commitment
to
values and to God, and incredible hard work (sixteen hours a day,
six
days a week, for seventy years).
Reflecting on this collection of essays, I have the following
observations:
1. Some scholars quibble semantically about the Weber thesis but
there is as yet no alternative explanation for the fact that it was
those parts of the world which experienced the Reformation which
also
experienced scientific, technological, industrial, economic,
political
and eventually social progress (even today, the parts of the world
most active in environmental matters are those which most
experienced
the Reformation), and that progress of all sorts has spread from
Reformed to non-Reformed parts of the world.
2. The problems with the Weber thesis arise mostly because
scholars
focus the debate too narrowly on the attitudes, habits, beliefs and
actions of entrepreneurs as individuals. The Reformation was not
primarily about these; it was at least in equal measure about
making
individual attitudes, habits, beliefs and actions possible by
reforming society in such a way that a particular set of
individuals,
institutions and beliefs did not prevent other institutions and
beliefs from arising. Weber's own focus on individual
entrepreneurs
is a reflection of how far the individualisation of society had
progressed by his time: he was not even aware himself that such
individualism was possible only because of the Reformation. But
the
Reformation was also about establishing the rule of law over kings,
rather than making kings rule over law; it is the Reformation
therefore which eventually democratised society (the most Reformed
parts of the world are also the most democratic; in non-democratic
parts of the world, the key question is still whether the ruler is
subject to the law). It is such institutional re-arrangements
which
enabled the modern Capitalist-Industrialist-Democratic world to
emerge. In other words, the Weber thesis needs to be expanded from
concern with the behaviour of individuals to a concern with the
whole
of the social-economic-scientific-political context if its
intuition
is to be expressed fully.
3. One writer in this collection attempts to draw a distinction
between the "explicit teachings" of the Reforming groups and
"unrelated characteristics" (i.e. the networks or groups
themselves)
This is not entirely a true or even a useful distinction: speaking
from personal experience of family-, Hindu-, Christian-, Muslim-,
Buddhist-, Rotary- and other networks, I can testify that the
character of a belief-system ineluctably moulds the character of
the
network created by it.
Prabhu Guptara
Wolfsberg, Switzerland
______________________________ Reply Separator
_________________________________
Subject: Maslow !
Author: Srikumar (Srikumar@simexmail.com.sg) at nyuxuu
Date: 03.12.98 10:48
[This was sent in to me; but it is relevant for the grp; hence sending
it to IPI, along with a tiny comment at the bottom]
Dear Sanjeev,
I have earlier attempted to point out the important role that culture
plays in the development of various regions. I strongly believe that
economic and other principles, which are closely linked to human
behaviour, espoused by westerners needs to be inspected with the correct
cultural view point while applying to other cultures. I do agree that
most of the findings will apply but it scares me when people ignore the
local cultural aspects totally. For example you wrote about Maslow:
"Maslow showed that food is at the BOTTOM of man's needs. After food
comes security (i.e., good Police, good housing, good banking), social
(i.e., culture and family), ego (i.e., taking to each other like this
on IPI), and finally self-actualization (becoming a Stephen Hawkings)."
I do not totally agree with this concept with respect to India. We have
heard of and seen many people in India who have straight away gone for
self-actualisation ( more in a philosophical and spiritual dimension)
even when they may not have food, security or social satisfactions. IMO,
it is not just the tail end of the normal curve, though, I should agree
that with the invasion of the American culture the size of this
population will reduce.
Just a thought !
Sri
-----
Comment: I wonder whether we Indians are really and truly the
self-deceiving 'spiritual curiosities' of the world. Just because we had
a Buddha does not mean that ALL our one billion people have reached
Nirvana! I have seen poverty, Sir. Real poverty. In front of my eyes, in
my daily tours. I am sure you have seen it too. However, while sitting
in Singapore, it is convenient to ignore that and to claim that we are
somehow different and that we need not bother about food or security (of
course that is not you mean to imply, I am sure). Our women in the
villages who have to fetch water from 10 miles on their heads are NOT
doing this out of self-actualization. Period.
I know that you don't mean to denigrate the search for policies to
produce wealth for India, but let us NEVER make the fatal mistake of
thinking that Indians are in some way different from the rest of
mankind. Biological evolution has no trace of this difference. And if
you experiment on choices and preferences you will still find that the
basic assumptions on preferences still hold in most cases:
a) asymmetry (i.e., if you prefer x to y then you do not simultaneously
prefer y to x)
b) transitivity (i.e., if you prefer x to y and y to z then you prefer x
to z)
c) local non-satiation (i.e., you always prefer a LITTLE more of a good
thing)
Also:
d) bounded rationality: we have serious limitations on our knowledge and
ability to maximize perfectly.
e) opportunism: we tend (not that we ** do it **) exploit a situation if
possible, to our advantage.
These 5 things summarize a human being: a living, self-interested ball
of needs and wants.
You will be very hard pressed to show to me that there exist 1 billion
Indians who defy these five principles! There is nothing "American"
about these five things. This is not a cultural issue. It is an issue of
basic wants and needs of all peoples, everywhere.
Sanjeev
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
This is the National Debate on System Reform. debate@indiapolicy.org
Rules, Procedures, Archives: ../debate/
-------------------------------------------------------------------------