Critics of Cooperation & Community

Notions such as ‘cooperation’ and ‘community’ point to notable features of human relationship that merit attention.  Cooperation brings people together to achieve what they cannot manage on their own. Communities provide the basis for a sense of trust, mutual support and belonging to grow.  Impediment to the ethos of cooperation and any erosion of community life understandably raise concerns and prompt us to examine what should be done. 

Yet the fact that many thinkers devote time to discussing how to nurture cooperation and community has led some writers to pen dire warnings about them.  These ‘no nonsense’ critics pour cold water over the supposed romanticising of ‘cooperation’ and ‘community’ as though anyone would seriously forget that cooperative behaviour or community structure could be utilised by some to have undesirable effects on others. 

For example, one recent article in The Guardian, appeared with the title: ‘The big idea: is cooperation always a force for good?’ [Note 1]. Service providers, we are reminded, can cooperate with each other to set higher prices for consumers. Politicians and those approaching them with bribes can cooperate in carrying out corrupt practices which benefit them at the expense of the general public.  Members of a criminal gang can cooperate closely in causing serious harm to their targets. But do these examples tell us anything significant about cooperation?

 

Imagine someone writing an article or a book warning us that love is not always a good thing.  It highlights numerous examples of how some people do horrible things out of what they believe to be love, or fanatics causing death and destruction as a result of their love of some doctrine or tradition. Giving it the title, ‘Love can damage your life’, may grab a few headlines, but it would hardly be relevant to the work that goes into supporting the development of loving relationships between people.  

 

When it comes to theoretical and practical works to guide the development of communities, we have had an unmistaken flow of anti-communitarian reproaches – directed at the alleged assumption that ‘community’ denotes something perfect in every way.  Not only that nobody thinks that, but virtually every author who has written about communitarian relationships or the approaches to develop communities’ wellbeing, has stressed that prevailing forms of community life may not be satisfactory – and that is precisely why we need thoughtful, well researched ideas to guide community development and strengthen constructive community bonds.

Naysayers who just lambast anyone who writes about the importance of community – with their usual “some communities can be oppressive”, “some communities are dominated by outmoded traditions”, “there are communities people want to reject” – often end up achieving little other than putting people off from engaging with valuable writings about why and how communities should be supported in developing in a healthy direction.

Critics of cooperation and community want to present experts who focus on these social phenomena as naively blinkered, when in reality, we need to reflect more than ever on what these experts have to say, and explore ways to improve cooperation and communities.

--

Note 1: ‘The big idea: is cooperation always a force for good?’, by Nichola Raihani, 24 October 2022, The Guardian: https://www.theguardian.com/books/2022/oct/24/the-big-idea-is-cooperation-always-a-force-for-good

The 8-Point Political Checklist

‘Left’ and ‘Right’ are terms used by people in quite different ways at times.  To highlight the key political differences, the 8-point checklist below may help – each point invites responses which can range from ‘doing more’ to ‘doing less’ with ‘things are fine as they are’ in the middle:

[1] Regulating Corporate Behaviour

At any one time, it may be said that some aspects of corporate operations should be regulated more and some less. However, in practice, the two predominant calls we hear are (a) those pointing to specific areas such as exploitative contracts, dangerous workplace, escalating pollution, deceptive marketing, unsafe products, tax evasion, etc. where more needs to be done to curb them, and (b) those using ‘red tape’ as a generic term to call for deregulation all round without citing any concrete example of a piece of legislation that should be repealed for the good of society.

[2] Providing free medical care

Although the UK and the US have very different healthcare systems – the former enabling every citizen to access free medical care, while the latter leaves millions to suffer pain and distress when they cannot afford health insurance that gives comprehensive coverage, both countries have similar divisions with (a) those who want more to be done to safeguard/secure free medical care for all, and (b) those who want to see less support for such a system so that private insurance has to be relied on.

[3] Strengthening measures to counter activities that fuel climate change 

There is a clear distinction between (a) doing more such as investing in and facilitating the development of renewables, and curtailing fossil fuel usage, and (b) reducing support for renewables, and removing restrictions on oil drilling, coal mining, and fracking.

[4] Providing publicly funded support for those who hit hard times

Many people, despite their hard work, are left without even subsistent pay or any job security. Add in unaffordable housing, rocketing costs of living, economic instability, involuntary poverty traps millions. Some believe that (a) more should be done to help them both in the short term to make ends meet and in the long term to find sustainable ways to make a living, while others are convinced that (b) less should be provided so that these people will “sink or swim” on their own.

[5] Protecting worker rights

Except for where workers are the owners, those in charge of businesses have considerable power over their employees.  One response to this situation is (a) giving workers more protection through legislation on individual rights and collective bargaining, but another is (b) have less protection so workers have as few means as possible to question or seek redress in the face of their employers’ unilateral decisions.

[6] Tackling discriminatory and abusive behaviour 

In organisations and society more widely, many people are abused or discriminated against because of their ethnicity, gender, age, disability, religion, or sexual orientation.  The options are either to (a) strengthen protection for them and promote better understanding and, where necessary, more effective enforcement to minimise the offending behaviour, or (b) cut back on protective actions and leave people to being treated by others with contempt and disrespect.

[7] Improving safeguards against interference in the name of religion

Various groups have tried to use their religious beliefs as the basis to interfere with the lives of others – from what publicly funded schools can do to exclude non-believers, to what women must wear or do about their pregnancies.  One response is to (a) judge the issues without reference to any particular religion and do more to protect the wellbeing of all equally against interference demanded by groups invoking their religion; another would be to (b) reduce the number of safeguards and let religious groups push their own agendas on others who do not accept their views.

[8] Enhancing accountability arrangements to deal with the abuse of power 

If those in government, law enforcement, or the military can abuse their power without being held effectively to account, democracy would be in peril, and the rule of law would collapse.  Yet while there are those who want to (a) strengthen accountability arrangements to detect, judge, and punish those who betray the public trust, there are also those who want to (b) cut down accountability measures (by granting them immunity from prosecution, etc.) so those with power can more easily get away with the abuse of power.

Conclusion

Overall, those who adopt 'a' across the above checklist believe that society should through an accountable government serve the people by ensuring those with wealth and power act responsibly and those in need of help get the appropriate support to function as dutiful citizens; whereas those who prefer 'b' want rich and powerful individuals and corporations to be left alone by and large so they can act as they see fit regardless of the consequences for others in society.  There may be some who reject both 'a' and 'b' because they think existing policies are just right and no government needs to do more or less.

Most people, one suspects, will stand with 'a' in line with fairness and solidarity, or with 'b' because of the benefits they think they can get out of a society which takes little action to counter exploitation or oppression.