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.

The Case of Schizophrenic Conservatism

Conservatism – or politics of the Right – originated historically when a group with political power reacted to challenges to the status quo which might encroach on their privileges.

It was during the 17^th century that a faction in England decided to side with Charles II against their parliamentary colleagues when the latter tried to exclude the king’s brother, James, from succeeding to the throne (because otherwise, a Catholic monarch would become the head of the Protestant Church of England). For them, backing the king – and the royal favours he would grant them – was more important than any other consideration. Initially labelled ‘Tories’, they later adopted ‘Conservative’ as the formal name of their party, and defence of their hierarchical power and privileges has always been their unifying objective.

The Right, as a political term, appeared later in the 18^th century when the National Assembly was set up as a result of the French Revolution and the deputies who were pressing for radical changes to the iniquitous power structures of the time sat to the left of the president of the assembly, and those who were firmly against such changes sat to the right.

Conservatives/the political Right may belong to parties with different names in different countries at different times, but the overriding concern that brings them together is invariably to secure those conditions which underpin the distribution of power and privileges that favour them.

The problem for Conservatives is that there are times when what it takes to secure those conditions come into conflict with each other.  Whenever that happens, polarising forces present them with unsettling choices.

For example, US Republicans claimed to be champions of the rule of law, but when they thought Trump could overturn a legitimate election and enable them to have four more years of plutocratic excesses, many of them sided with the would-be usurper (albeit without success).  Thatcher claimed to side with religious traditionalists, but when she had the chance in 1986 to change the law to allow shops to sell most goods on Sundays (in the interest of the business class), she pushed for it (and ended up being defeated by a combination of the Opposition and a minority of Conservatives who were unyielding traditionalists).  And in the case of Brexit, many Conservatives opted to fuel anti-foreigners/anti-EU sentiments to win votes even though it would substantially weaken their own country’s economic system.

Unfortunately for Conservatives, the forces which could help them retain and accumulate privileges are increasingly pulling in incompatible directions.  Those who demand strict national law and order don’t see eye to eye with anti-multicultural groups who think they can defy the law to preserve their own ‘traditional’ way of life.  Religious fundamentalists want to interfere with people’s lives while large corporations oppose such interference for being bad for business.  Global profit-making clashes with xenophobic obsessions. Self-centred isolationism collides with volatile jingoism.  Tax deals for the rich conflict with meeting the demands of the financial markets.

Some Conservatives have taken the position that what really matters is their own wealth and power, and they must focus above all on pushing through policies that reinforce their status and bank account in years to come.  But others take their personal versions of ‘faith, flag, and family values’ rather seriously and would not hesitate even if pursuit of them could threaten their country’s democracy as well as damage its economy.

Conservatives can be a formidable political force when there is one coherent set of conditions they can promote to increase their power and privileges.  But when there are multiple conditions that call for conflicting policies to support them, schizophrenic implosion draws ever nearer.

The Politics of Egoism

Egoism, in holding that individuals ought only to consider what they want for themselves, may at first glance appear to have little mileage in politics.  With people being told they should just care about their own desires, society is most likely caught in a perpetual state of conflict.  The rule of law could hardly prevail when self-centred behaviour everywhere is deemed acceptable.

However, what recent decades have revealed is that a hierarchical form of egoism can become a serious political force.  It operates on three levels.

First, it glorifies the ego of the leader.  Instead of subjecting those seeking or holding power to moral scrutiny – demanding that they care for others and put the interests of society above their own – it encourages the virtual worship of those who arrogantly present themselves as unquestionable.  Such egoistic leaders can make false accusations against innocent people, but whenever they commit a crime themselves, they claim they are being set up.  They indulge in corrupt practices routinely, and lie shamelessly to deny their countless wrongdoing.

Secondly, the hyper-egoistic leaders attract as followers those with strong egoist inclinations. They offer validation and support to people who have few qualms about pursuing their own preferences at the expense of others.  They seek to bring into the fold anyone who considers being concerned with the feelings and wellbeing of other people as a sign of weakness. The leaders tell their followers that they are right to always put themselves first, they should hold on to their prejudices against others, and they should seek their own betterment irrespective of the damages that might cause everyone else.

Thirdly, the relationship between leaders and followers is reinforced through [a] the followers vicariously identifying with their ‘faultless’ leaders so that they can feel powerful when the arrogant leaders act with impunity; and [b] the leaders enabling the followers to neglect, mock, despise, intimidate, exploit, or injure others who are unable to defend themselves. The followers are thus made to feel gratified and righteous when they get their own way at the expense of those derided as ‘weak’ as well as the genuinely vulnerable.

The pattern outlined above would be familiar enough given the behaviour of recent demagogues who won power in the US, UK, Brazil, etc. Their strategies are reminiscent of abusive cults where the followers go along with whatever their leaders say or do – no matter how groundless or outrageous it might be.

Like cults, it can be difficult to get those who have been drawn into it to see sense and disengage from it.  There are cases where a cult implodes – where the corrupt and abusive practices of the leaders become so excessive that even their fervent followers have had enough and abandon them.  In other cases, where the leaders lose their grip and one by one their followers are reached by friends and families who reconnect them with reason and common humanity – leading to the cult dissipating.  But there are also cases where the cult gains strength and threaten the lives of others on an ever-larger scale, and society has to respond with robust law enforcement.  In those cases, the cult leaders scream that they have been victimised, that their followers will readily use violence to defend themselves against ‘injustice’.  Provided those on the side of fairness and democracy stand firm, the reign of such cults can be brought to an end.

This is the challenge we now face in relation to the threat of hierarchical egoism. 

Rethinking Group Identity

Some people seem to think that everyone is subsumed by one overriding group identity.  And if that group contains individuals with certain characteristics, then everyone else in that group must have those characteristics as well. But a moment reflection is sufficient to show that this cannot be the case.

All women are physically weaker than men? All men are sexual predators? All French people resent American influence? All British citizens share in the guilt of imperial conquest? All Christians believe that ‘an eye for an eye’ means no transgression should ever be forgiven? All those who do not subscribe to a religious doctrine have no moral compass? All elderly people fear change? All young people are angry?

From trivial generalisation to obnoxious stereotyping, the inclination to categorise people by a monolithically defined group identity is misguided and dangerous.

Ultimately, it makes no sense. Each of us has multiple group identities, and none of those identities can be captured by a single set of characteristics. We draw from some of them, don’t mind too much about some, and firmly reject others. These unique and varied dispositions are what give us our distinct identity as a person. 

For example, am I, as a Brit – born in a traditional Chinese family, spent my formative years in a Catholic boarding school in Sussex, a life member of Humanists UK, educated at Oxford, having to make a living as an immigrant when employment opportunities were dwindling, attached to classic European civilisation, absorbed in American popular culture – supposed to resent my British self for the guilt of the Opium Wars against China? Or do I condemn my Chinese self from a contemporary British perspective for China’s violation of human rights? Am I appropriating European culture when I write in its intellectual tradition?  Do I betray my British roots whenever I favour American entertainment? 

In practice, I see the good in diverse groups I can be classified in, and I want to emulate those elements.  I also see regrettable aspects associated with some members of those groups, and I do not hesitate to criticise them.  But I am not thus battling myself.  I am piecing together what out of the different groups/categories to which I can be said to belong, the features I want to be at the core of my being.

Nearly everyone, even those who have not moved far from where they were born, would – if they think about it long enough – recognise they have multiple group identities.  Instead of pretending they must choose one and accept what some propagandist may selectively pick out as the defining characteristics of that group, they should consider what elements would truly embody the kind of person they want to be.

A Brit can criticise Britain’s imperial atrocities without being any less of a patriot. A Catholic can condemn the Church for ignoring immoral practices by members of the clergy without being any less of a believer.  A man can challenge anti-feminists without being less of a man.

Group identities do not define us. We reflect on varied elements of multiple group identities and define ourselves.

What is the 'Small State'?

[Reporters tend to gloss over politicians’ mantra about the ‘small state’ as though it’s obvious what they are talking about. But a more probing approach may help explain the real thinking behind it]

Q. You have repeatedly said that you are a champion of the small state. What do you mean by that?

A. It’s simple. The state should do as little as possible.

Q. What would you like to see the state stop doing?

A. For a start, it should stop getting in the way of business. We have too many regulations, too much red tape.  We should leave business to operate in a free market, and everything will be better.

Q. Are you saying businesses should be allowed to do whatever they want? The state should do nothing where businesses deceive customers about their products, exploit their workers and suppliers, pollute the environment, or sell what could cause serious ill health or injury?

A. You sound very anti-business. We should all be supportive of business.

Q. Then why did you ignore them when they asked you not to pull the UK out of the European Union? Should a small state go out of its way to do something the vast majority of businesses are against?

A. A small state does what is right, like letting businesses keep their hard-earned money, indeed everyone should keep their money instead of handing it to the state.

Q. You’re suggesting there should be no taxation at all?

A. Ideally, but we need to raise taxes to have a strong military and to lock up criminals, so we need to have some taxes – not a lot.

Q. What about the things that a country can only do effectively if it pools its citizens’ resources? For example, a reliable and accessible health service, a safety net for those without a job that pays enough for them to live on, protection against environmental degradation, plans to deal with shortage of housing, quality education for everyone, affordable care for the elderly, strategic research, communications infrastructure, a dependable supply of clean water and sustainable energy, …

A. Let me stop you right there. Anyone can come up with a long list of things we’d like to have. The key is to trust individuals and businesses, not a big government, to do what’s necessary. All the things you mentioned, we should always aim to let private enterprise handle them.

Q. Doesn’t the evidence tell us that we have problems and shortages in all those areas when they are completely left to private business. And where governments hand over responsibility for them through privatisation, hasn’t it often led to profiteering, deficient performance, and serious failures?

A. You’re exaggerating.  More importantly, you’re forgetting the value of freedom. It is inherently better for people – individuals, businesses – to do things for themselves than for the state to step in and boss people about.

Q. Aren’t you aware of the many cases where people on their own – lacking coordination, rules and enforcement, combined resources, joint planning, collective agreement – would be unable to meet their common needs, or worse, discover that some will cheat, intimidate, hurt others without hesitation?

A. Bad things happen in life. Instead of relying on a nanny state to barge in, we must learn to trust people’s moral sense. Promote good values, and problems will take care of themselves.

Q. That’s your reason for the small state not helping people in need, restraining corporate misconduct, or taking action against discriminatory behaviour? You believe people will get things right by themselves somehow?

A. Absolutely, we – champions of the small state – have faith in the people.

Q. Does that mean the small state would stand back if workers resort to strike action when they are faced with unacceptable conditions, women opt for abortion when they have problematic pregnancies, or protestors challenge those who spread racist lies and hate?

A. That’s totally different. When people don’t show they have the right values, the small state has to act – and we will continue to restrain strike action, abortion, woke protests and anything else that disrespects what our country stands for.

Q. You mean what you want our country to stand for?

A. We want our country to stand for: God-fearing, free market, patriotism.

Q. Some may say your notion of ‘God’ is just a mirror of your own prejudice, your concern for businesses is limited to those which make big campaign donations to you, and you care for what the wealthy few can offer you and not what you can do to help the people of this country. Isn’t that the essence of your ‘small state’?

A. You’re a damn socialist!

Extremism is the Problem

Every time there is a vile extremist attack which the perpetrators claim to be a response to some feature they denounce, there is a tendency to jump in and defend that feature as sacrosanct.  

So, if the extremists rant about a cartoon or a book that has so offended them that they set off to kill the people responsible, the public reaction is filled with the championing of free speech, the freedom to offend, the freedom to express whatever one wishes to express, and so on.  If the extremists attribute their violent attacks on a place of worship to their disgust with certain religious practice, we will hear that there must be absolute religious freedom, no limit on what people can do in the name of their faith, etc. Or if the extremists have set off explosions at some business facility because it was used for commercial purpose which has ‘undesirable’ consequences, there will be an outcry that corporate freedom must be protected, and nothing can justify any interference with the work of free enterprise.

There are two things wrong with this type of reaction. First of all, it takes the public focus away from the real issue – how to tackle extremist behaviour.  We can debate what is and what is not offensive with certain text or picture, the merits of a particular religious custom, or the acceptability of certain corporate activity.  But regardless of those debates, the central point is that extremist behaviour cannot be tolerated and must be stopped. What we are concerned with here is the threatening, injuring, and taking of others’ lives when those people have not in any objective sense, intentionally threatened, injured or taken anyone else’s lives. It is a serious deflection to get bogged down about where the line should be drawn in terms of possible provocation of extremist behaviour, because nothing can justify extremist behaviour, and reference to provocation is irrelevant when the priority is for potential perpetrators to be watched and actual offenders prevented from harming others again [Note 1].

Secondly, the tendency to regard ‘absolute freedom’ for expression, religion, business, or anything else for that matter, as a riposte to extremist behaviour is misguided. Imagine someone shouts the nastiest abuse at their children repeatedly, and an extremist shoots him dead. Should the response be that we should recognise the absolute freedom for parents to express themselves to their children? Or after an extremist runs over a person who has been giving out leaflets stating how drinking bleach can improve health, should that lead to a championing of the absolute freedom to give ‘medical’ advice?  The last thing society needs after a terrible extremist attack is the promotion of a false notion of ‘absolute freedom’ which can then be invoked to justify the spreading of lies, hatred, discrimination, pollution, and other forms of harm.

We should not forget that a distorted conception of freedom has dangerous affinity with extremists’ conviction that they are free to do whatever they believe is right.

--

Note 1: How to prevent re-offending through incarceration, restitution, rehabilitation, etc is a separate issue to consider.