Mary Parker Follett: communitarian pioneer

The dawn of the 20^th century brought us a wave of pioneering communitarian thinkers such as John Dewey, L. T. Hobhouse, Leon Bourgeois, Emile Durkheim, and Mary Parker Follett.  They exposed the stale dichotomies of reactionary complacency v revolutionary conflicts; total state control v laissez faire; rigid traditionalism and iconoclastic free-for-all.  Instead, they put forward new ideas and practices for developing social, economic and political relations to improve people’s quality of life.

Mary Parker Follett (1868-1933) is mostly remembered today as one of the earliest and most influential management theorists in the US.  Occasionally, a few would point out that she was also a notable political thinker.  In fact, Follett’s ideas on the management of organisations, on politics, and on the social centres movement, are all aspects of her core reflections on community development.

A key focus for Follett is the nature of human relations.  She rejected the myopic individualist view that sought to idealise the isolated self as free from all ties and obligations – acting solely in pursuit of one’s own interests, defined without reference to others.  At the same time, she would not accept as a viable alternative the notion that one would realise oneself through being absorbed by a larger group, or through some unthinking dedication to serving and obeying what the group calls for.  The self, for her, comes to lead a more enriched life in developing wider interests and concerns in association with other people – through exchanging thoughts, feelings, perspectives, one grows intellectually, emotionally, democratically.

People who interact in this mutually instructive and supportive way form a community that gives greater meaning to its members, not because it represents something over and above them, but because it embodies what its members have themselves thoughtfully constructed as their shared goals – and most importantly, serves as an on-going nexus whereby people can work out together what they should do.  Accordingly, Follett recommended the promotion of cooperative actions through schools, social/community centres, workplace democracy, political group discussions, in order to facilitate more satisfactory human endeavours.

Anticipating criticisms (echoes of which are heard to this day) that this would increase unruly, chaotic clashing of views, she drew a clear distinction between interactions that are in line with the community principle, and behaviour that is associated with the crowd mentality.  The latter is actually just a collection of isolated individuals each driven solely by one’s own thoughts and emotions without any due recognition of others or engaging in any form of shared deliberation.  Worse still would be mob behaviour where people blindly follow the instructions of someone who has taken a ‘lead’ position and act without critical exchange of diverse ideas or due consideration of the consequences for others. 

Those who command a mob or order a subservient workforce exercise power over them.  By contrast, democratic leaders exercise power with the fellow members of their community.  Follett was aware that the threat of authoritarian power could push many towards the anarchic fantasy of everyone thriving with no power required for sustaining any organisation or enforcing any rule.  Power, she understood, was essential to hold any group together, and the challenge was to ensure power was exercised cooperatively with respect for and input from all.

Follett’s conception of community life is that of interactions of pluralistic viewpoints. In place of monolithic, fossilised groups of people who unquestioningly comply with one set of doctrines and instructions, she advocated mutual learning and cooperative development at every level – from the neighbourhood, the city, to the nation and indeed, world governance.

--

The New State by Mary Parker Follett remains an excellent introduction to her wide range of ideas on power, learning, organisation, and democracy.

Beware of Zombie Arguments

Some arguments have long been found to be misconceived because they are framed around a false dichotomy.  Imagine arguing over if we should run around continuously all day or stay still 24/7 – neither option is remotely sensible, and no one would want to waste time disputing which to choose.  Yet in politics, many arguments with no life in them have nonetheless been deployed in zombie-like attacks.  Anyone infected by them are liable to seek out ‘enemies’ with all rationality gone.  Let’s take a look at a few of these.

‘Socialism v Capitalism’ is code for one of the most common zombie arguments: should we have a completely state-controlled economy or an absolutely free market with no regulation at all?  The implication is that the unacceptability of one would serve as the justification for the other, but no one can seriously think that either of these is viable.  Ample evidence has shown that the closer any country gets towards overwhelming state economic control or relentless deregulation, it increasingly suffers economically AND socially.  What works in practice is responsive adjustment to introduce or remove state involvement in light of what in each case may help businesses and workers and the wider public.

‘Hawk v Dove’ is a classic zombie argument in defence discussions.  On the one hand, ‘hawk’ is supposed to be the way forward because ‘dove’ is blindly pacifistic and won’t do anything to defend one’s country’; on the other, ‘dove’ is meant to be sound because ‘hawk’ is blinkered in its aggression and will fuel disastrous conflicts which could have been avoided.  But how crass it would be to assume that one must always shoot and bomb regardless or insist that a gesture of peace will solve every problem.  History tells us that we need both military and diplomatic capability, and an evidence-based approach to guide us over how to combine them in different circumstances.

'Unquestionable Values v Anything Goes’ provides the core theme that lends itself to variations such as ‘our religion must be unchallenged’-v-‘my freedom must be absolute’, and ‘our customs are to be accepted by all’-v-‘my choices are no one else’s business’, etc. It is widely recognised that there is no single religion or set of customs that commands the assent of everyone in any modern city, or country, let alone the world.  At the same time, what any individual or group does can have serious consequences for others living near or far away. It follows that we cannot dogmatically impose any doctrine as binding on everyone or allow all to behave without any regard for the wellbeing of others.  Laws and policies have to be devised on the basis of how civility, mutual respect, personal safety, and constructive relationships may be affected in diverse situations.

‘Justice v Rehabilitation’, to take one more example, illustrates the unthinking approach of locking two dead-ends together. It tells us that the choice is either justice by harsh treatment of the accused as demanded by the tough ‘law and order’ brigade or rehabilitation through restorative practice as favoured by soft ‘sandal-wearing’ idealists. But we already know justice may not be served at all by ‘toughness’, especially if guilt is just presumed, and there can be no rehabilitation if there is no genuine remorse.  Offenders are varied – in the seriousness of their crimes, in what led them to break the law, in how they might (or might not) change their future behaviour. The relevant consideration is what ingredients would in different cases bring about the most desirable outcomes for society as well as the individuals concerned.

Zombie arguments are designed to muddy the water of political debates, fool people into backing absurd ideas when the only alternative is presented as palpably unsound, and block off serious examination of policy options.  When you see them coming, shut them out.