« Neglectfully Yours | Home | July Round Table ‘07: Updated 8/08 »
Systemic Responsibility
By Corvus | August 8, 2007
This is a response to a post on Only a Game which address the concept of personal responsibility in general and a comment of mine in particular (link). I have had trouble condensing this into a focused post as it touches on so many elements of my personal beliefs that my natural tendency to wander and woolgather have led to much digression. Let’s consider this an ongoing conversation comprised of comments and more posts, here and on your own blog if you wish.
Anyway, here’s my original quote to get us started:
I feel that the largest and most crucial issue facing the world today is one of personal responsibility and a culture which assures us we have none.
Organized religion, big business and government all use tools of individual disempowerment to ensure a passive and responsive population base.
I firmly believe that statement to be true, absolutely and without deviation.* The one flaw of this particular quote is that I use anthropomorphism in stating that these organizations, these systems, use tools. This is an ironic flaw, as you will see, and it is primarily upon this linguistic flaw that Chris balances his reply.
I could, and still may, address many of the specific points Chris makes which I vehemently disagree with. For example, he paints modern religion with such an astoundingly glowing brush stroke that I can’t help but wonder if he’s been paying attention to the scandals within the church and the rhetoric with religious phrasing that is coming from both side of the war. But what I want to do in response to Chris’s post is talk a bit about my views on Systems vs. the Individuals that inhabit them.
sys·tem (sĭs’təm) n.
1. A group of interacting, interrelated, or interdependent elements forming a complex whole.
2. A functionally related group of elements.
3. An organized set of interrelated ideas or principles.
4. A social, economic, or political organizational form.
5. A naturally occurring group of objects or phenomena: the solar system.
6. A set of objects or phenomena grouped together for classification or analysis.
7. A condition of harmonious, orderly interaction.
8. An organized and coordinated method; a procedure. See synonyms at method.
9. The prevailing social order; the establishment. Used with the: You can’t beat the system.
On the surface, I’d have to agree with Chris’s suggestion that I’m a bigot when it comes to corporations. I’d also pretty freely expand that to religious organizations and governmental organizations as well. But as someone who prides himself on his personal tolerance of others and his ability to keep on open mind, how do I justify this bigotry? It’s simple–corporations aren’t people. Neither are religions or governments. These entities can’t even really be said to be made up of people–these things are systems. And I, on the whole, am anti-system.
I’m not talking about biological systems. Those, I appreciate for their beauty, resilience, and (of course) necessity. I’m also not saying that I think we should abolish all human systems. That would be a disaster.
But we have this tendency as human beings to strongly identify each other based upon our affiliations–our tribal affiliations, if you will. Once upon a time, this was a useful trait. When your tribe consisted of a couple hundred people and other tribes represented a direct and physical challenge to the availability of resources, you could pretty safely assume that the interests of the individual were the interests of the tribe.
But when the tribe is thousands, millions, of people large and those individuals that make up the tribe are scattered across the globe, each one a member of a culture with different traditions, different needs, different available resources, is it still appropriate to consider the larger system a composite of the will of the individuals within the system? Or to ascribe the properties and traits of the system to an individual whose efforts sustain it?
I think not.
Our systems are primarily overseen by corporations, religions and governments. these guiding forces have become so large as to be entities in their own rights. Entities which are often afforded the rights of individuals, but are not held to the same standards and responsibilities.
When I say that Microsoft is evil, I am often told that Bill Gate’s annual charitable contributions are greater than the amount of money I’ll earn in my lifetime. Or I’m told, “I know someone who works for Microsoft and they aren’t evil.”
But when I say that Microsoft is evil, I am not talking about all of the individuals associated with, or working for, Microsoft. I am speaking about Microsoft the corporation. Now, a corporation is made up of the energies put into it. If every single person lending their passion, drive and labor to the system is steering it towards goals which are to the benefit of the culture, then there probably wouldn’t be as much of an issue. But the fact of the matter is, the corporation is focused on one thing–profit. Massive amounts of profit for those at the very top and trickle down profits for the greedy little pigs further down the trough.
This is accepted as a good and natural feature of capitalist system. I consider it unnatural and deathly.
The danger is that when you put all of your energy into a system and allow the system to apply that energy… you’re losing yourself. You’re putting your focus external to yourself. This is, on some level, dehumanizing. How many times in your job have you heard, “There’s nothing we can do about it, it’s the way things are done?” That’s someone placing blame on a system rather than taking personal responsibility for their input. My argument is that it is difficult, not impossible, merely difficult, to take on personal responsibility when the majority of your energy and effort go to sustaining a system. And for the system to survive, it needs your energy and effort. It needs you to reduce the level of your personal responsibility in order to be successful.
At last month’s IGDA meeting, we had a round table on violence in games which ended up asking where our responsibility as a game developer began and ended. When do you draw the line at your involvement in a project or culture that you don’t agree with? Is it our responsibility to make less violent games? To make sure our games are being marketed to the right audience? Where does it begin and end?
My take on that question is that if you are in a relationship with a publisher, you have handed over a major portion of your personal responsibility to that publisher. If you want to get it back, because you are uncomfortable with the direction your project is going, you have two options. First, you can stay in the system and fight to steer it in a direction you think is proper. Secondly, you can get out publicly disavow any connection to the publisher and project. Both approaches are not without risk. By staying and fighting you risk getting fired, or making so many compromises in order to get your message heard that you don’t fully realize your much your message has been changed. By getting out, you risk disenfranchising yourself from the industry as a whole.
I recently had a conversation with a couple of friends about the stock market. One friend expressed that he would like, through investment, to generate a large enough revenue stream that he could divert a large portion of his income to charity. I cautioned him that while his goals were noble, he’d have no way of knowing how much damage his money was doing while it worked for him. I compared it to telling a story, but allowing someone else to rearrange all the words into an order of their choosing before an audience got to hear it. It’s quite likely that the damage done would more than outweigh his charitable contributions, much of which would get absorbed by the massive… systems which funneled mere pennies on the dollar to the intended recipients.
Okay, this is getting long, so I’ll try and wrap up a bit and invite you to comment…
I am aware that the logical conclusion to this is seen as, “Drop out. Don’t pay taxes. Don’t buy things. Disappear.” To be honest, some days that sounds like a really compelling option to me.
But realistically, I need more than that. I need connections to people. I need the conversation. I need the contact. I think we all do. It’s why we’ve implemented these systems in the first place, we’re trying to ensure we can experience desirable human contact while minimizing harmful contact. But as we rely upon and participate in these systems, we need to keep in mind that they shouldn’t rule every aspect of our lives. We need to speak up when we see harmful behaviors. We need to stand up to the destructive forces. We need to take some personal responsibility for our own contributions to these systems we’ve built. After all, we built them, they ought not to rule us.
So… fire away. I know there are holes here and I’d like your help filling them in.
*Keeping in mind that I also don’t actually like to rely on absolutes unless I’m in a debate! *kniw*
Tagged:ethics, personal responsibility, Social. |
August 8th, 2007 at 11:22 am
Thanks for finding the time to do this! It amuses me when you say I “paint modern religion with such an astoundingly glowing brush stroke”… Gee, it’s almost as if I was trying to offset some opposite tendency… I wonder what that could be.
My point on religion is precisely concordant with what you say here: if one treats religion as a system and ignore the people, one has totally lost sight of the big picture. If the people causing religiously motivated problems are a minority, which seems to be the case, and if people without a religion cause similar problems, which they do, why attack religion? Why not attack the actual problems - such as intolerance and violence?
Attacking religion as a whole is the most certain way to ensure that the people you want to change their habits will stop listening. What is gained in this?
General attacks on religion incite animosity and solve nothing. Identify problems and attack those directly. Criticisms against religion should be specific and clearly supported, otherwise little purpose is served. I have one waiting to go up on my blog, actually… Perhaps I’ll run it next week.
Best wishes!
August 8th, 2007 at 11:58 am
I’m far tougher on corporations and governments than I am religions, I feel. While I agree with your premise on blanket condemnation of religion, I find it equally problematic to spread a blanket of acceptance.
August 8th, 2007 at 2:49 pm
I don’t believe I spread such a blanket, personally. But I will inventory my quilts and see what’s going on.
August 8th, 2007 at 2:53 pm
Then I guess what we have here is a case of, “Check the corners of your own picnic blanket before questioning the spread of your neighbor’s!”
August 9th, 2007 at 6:59 am
Having scrutinised my blankets, I’m reasonably confident I’m not turning a blind eye to religious criticism. In the Ethics Campaign thus far, I have criticised abuses of “the Golden Rule” - including attempts to use this to justify war - aggressive evangelism and “double mindedness” (acting for a future metaphysical reward or punishment to the exclusion of what is required in this world). And there will be more to come when we get to ethics of war and abortion. Furthermore, I levelled specific criticisms at the pagan community in Knoxville in discussion of the Wiccan rede. I’m not seeing any immunity being granted on my part in this regard.
When we get to politics at some future point there will doubtless be considerably more criticism! But, for now, politics is off the menu while we secure the feet of our table… A lot of what is annoying people in the US about religion right now is a political and not an ethical issue.
It is important to me that criticisms are raised in a certain form: firstly, they must not be overgeneralised. I appreciate the complaints you raise against large organisations in this piece - and indeed, I will later be discussing the rather pertinent question: how large do we want our corporations to be, and which areas of life do we wish to be defended against corporate control (although this is undoubtedly a political question!). The trouble with general complaints is that they condemn indescriminantly, and are therefore tend to be less than helpful. One should endeavour to identify the subject of one’s criticism! If necessary, one should cite the case that most embodies the complaint. Never presume that a general argument will hold.
Secondly, criticisms raised must reflect the different values in play. Now here it becomes tricky for you, as the value you are attacking is capitalism. Are we to say that one cannot hold this value? I find this incompatible with freedom. So we must instead say that this value must be balanced against other values - and this, perhaps, is the nature of the criticism against corporations: they are not taking into account wider values that are reflected even within their own organisations.
Lastly, criticisms must be accompanied with an explanation of what is suggested instead. For example, in this piece you criticise yielding responsiblity to the organisation and ask for individuals to take responsiblity for their own involvement in the organisations to which they belong. This seems eminently sensible to me!
If most of what I publish on religion is positive, it is only to counter the pernicious anti-religious bigotry that is circulating at the moment. I find it particularly important to defend Islam at a time when some people are having difficulty telling the difference between terrorists who are politically opposed to invasion by a foreign army, and Muslims in general. Were atheists suffering the brunt of such persecution, I would come to their aid too… I am looking for signs of this, but mostly what I am finding in this regard is *fear* of persecution. Conversely, I am finding Christians who suffer prejudice in scientific jobs because of anti-theistic bigotry. I continue to look… If you find cases of any similar kind, against any belief system, by all means bring them to me!
What is particularly offensive to me at the moment are intellectuals who are attacking religion collectively, making logical arguments against other people’s beliefs, and expecting this to incite positive change. What strange confusion lies at the heart of such behaviour!
Firstly, when you collect religion as a whole, generalisations become meaningless. Is the Discordian to be indicted with the Christian? The African shaman with the Scientologist? What nonsense!
Secondly, what is the point of logical assessment of other people’s belief systems? These other people have different values to you, they have every right to these values in a free society, and one needs to learn to communicate and co-operate with these people if any progress is to be made. Logical assessment of other people’s beliefs is an acceptible expression of free speech, just as racist speeches are protected expression - but if one is a smart person, why oh why squander one’s intellect on this cause?
Finally, no plausible alternative seems to be provided - other than conversion to different beliefs. At which point, the indictment of aggressive evangelism I levelled at certain Christians falls on these intellectuals, who demand conversion instead of attempting tolerance.
The way to effect change is to build a consensus. This is a difficult process, requiring communication and empathy, and a recognition for other people’s values.
Anyway, this comment seems to have rather got away from me!
Best wishes, and many thanks for your continued involvement in the Ethics Campaign. It is greatly appreciated!
August 9th, 2007 at 8:28 am
Sam Harris at the Aspen Ideas Festival…
Disclaimer: I didn’t watch Harris’ talk at Aspen as I don’t watch internet videos longer than about a minute. This piece is not intended as a rebuttal of that talk. Sam Harris, as Ross Douthat puts it, is the atheist…
August 9th, 2007 at 8:54 am
Okay, let me first say that I feel my post is being lumped in with attacks on religion, which it is not meant to be. In fact, my brush stroke comment probably should have been edited out as it doesn’t belong with the body of my post.
Secondly, it sounds (once again) like we agree in spirit about the major portion of this discussion, but state our belief in dramatically different fashions.
Thirdly, you and I have very different approaches to these types of conversations. You have a very methodical, scientific approach. You, if you will, are focused on the details of the Narration and use them to recreate the Plot. I tend to focus on the fabula. I address things from a metaphoric level, examining the commonality of experience. I am not intending to address the specific details, but to seek out and communicate the themes I find amongst them.
finally, you point out (if I may paraphrase) that lumping religions together is an invalidating and inaccurate. I don’t disagree. However, I am not talking here so much about the particulars of any given religion, but the dangers in contributing your energies to a system, any system, rather than your immediate environment. This goes for consumerism, pantheism, communism, environmentalism, or Catholicism. Yes, sometimes sweeping changes need to be made. Yes, oftentimes you get more done when you gather together. But if we lose our individuality to a system, we tread on dangerous ground.
And of course, as always, it’s good to get push back!
August 9th, 2007 at 5:09 pm
Nice article and a very exciting discussion. I just wanted to add that the kind of criticism against systems reminds me of the movie “The Cube”. In this movie, the protagonists find themselves inside of a mysterious, futuristic prison. During the movie it is revealed that the prison is actually built by no-one in particular and serves no purpose - punishing people without any reason. It is rather the emergent result of a very complex system. One of the protagonists even reveals that he himself helped in building this prison without questioning its purpose. The movie is an interesting allegory to the arguments made here.
August 9th, 2007 at 6:19 pm
That is a nice metaphor, Krystman! I will now refer to all evil repercussions of “the System” as “the Cube.”
August 10th, 2007 at 11:03 am
I should perhaps explain that multiple separate conversations on different blogs converged and crossed over; so religious themes that were tangential here just leaked out when I was writing a ’stream of consciousness’ comment here. That’s why I ended up posting the piece on my blog which ties it all together; you were kind of just caught in the crossfire! I appreciate the religion stuff is tangential to your point here - but it was the plotline that I happened to be following, and some of it leaked out here.
But we are in substantial agreement on the core issue you are raising, and I enjoyed exploring it in this way!
I do have a highly analytical approach to these matters; I try to draw people down to actions and not opinions. “What do you propose we do?” instead of “this is wrong”, if you see what I mean.
Have a great weekend, and see you around the internet next week!