I want to thank Ed Weick for his very insightful comments.
Whether we are discussing teamwork or cronyism, we are basically discussing the same
thing, people working in concert to achieve mutually beneficial objectives. Teamwork
has a less exclusionary and pecuniary connotation than cronyism, but I think the two
words are closely synonymous. Ed's point is very important:
"Family circles or groups of families which have stuck together through good
times and bad for a very long time would feel a strong sense of obligation toward each
other and probably some sense of hostility toward other groups, especially if the pie
that was to be divided was not large. What we describe as "cronyism" would be viewed
by group members as the fulfillment of obligations that could simply not be avoided
even at the risk of economic collapse."
I don't think many of us appreciate the importance of obligations that we have to
economic, social or kinship circles that can transcend even personal economic
rationality. What disturbs me about our discussion of this issue is that I don't think
we have recognized that such teamwork or cronyism is typical behavior for economic and
social elites, but is discouraged among the working or lower income social strata.
I've discussed this in the past, and apologize for reiterating and old argument, but
for me this is such an important issue that I urge us to give it more attention. There
are several books I would recommend 1) Gordon S. Wood, The Radicalism of the American
Revolution, and 2) George B. Tyndall, The Emergence of the New South: 1913-1945, and
The Persistent Tradition in New South Politics. I would also recommend an article in
the New York Times, July 26, 1998, by Fox Butterfield, Why the South's Murder Rate Is
So High?
Wood gives a magnificent analysis of how Enlightenment values in America grew out of
monarchical values. Monarchical values were rooted in personal relationships and
obligations with respect to the king and his subjects, employer and employed, as well
as patriarch and family members. Those mutual obligations were undermined and
eliminated by the Protestant Reformation and the subsequent evolution of social theory
and values. George Tyndall provides an equally fascinating analysis of how the
Southern Bourbons and their modern counterparts have used their social status and
their purposeful denial of education to the working class and lower income population
to preserve their power position. In his book, The Persistent Tradition in New South
Politics, he discusses the paternal or aristocratic/monarchical values that determined
social relationships in the American South, and which produced the disfranchisement of
the lower classes and which was encouraged for different reasons by !
!
the Progressive movement. He sta
tes:
"The question of who disfranchised whom in the South. Was disfranchisement the
natural outcome of the revolt of the rednecks, who, frustrated by poverty and
political defeat, turned their aggression upon the relatively helpless blacks? Or was
it a deliberate class conscious effort of Bourbon reactionaries to use the
disfranchisement of Negroes as a shield for the simultaneous disfranchisement of poor
whites by poll taxes and literacy tests? Or was it, as the Progressives saw it, an
enlightened reform to purify the electorate by elimination of the ignorant, vicious,
and corruptible elements?"
My point is that cronyism or teamwork has political, economic and social implications,
and has been used very effectively by economic elites for both social control and
conformity. John Ralston Saul in his Massey lectures, which were published as The
Unconscious Civilization, 1995, describes the competition in the U.S. between
corporatism and democracy. He states, "Corporatists from the 1870s on began laying on
the idea that liberalism was guilty of a great sin because it had granted political
and economic equality to individuals who were manifestly unequal. The corporatists
were reviving the medieval hierarchical order."
We think of our modern era as a meritocracy. But that meritocracy, with relatively few
exceptions, only acknowledges the merit of those born to advantaged social
circumstances. As has always been the case, the best predictor of educational
achievement is the social class origins of a student's family. Soul discusses the
conformism of courtiers, as well as the modern corporatists. To be successful in one's
career and economic and social relationships, we are discouraged from being
intellectually critical.
It is not the economic elites in any country who are isolated as rugged individuals,
it is the working class, lower income people who are encouraged to compete as
individuals and who are disfranchised as a result. I doubt that the Asian countries
will ever abandon the relationships that we define as cronyism. It is too central to
their social cohesion. I think we need to reflect on how we can effectively build
social cohesion, teamwork, cronyism among the non-elites in every society.
Keith Hudson, when he was an active participant in this discussion, spoke of the
emergence of parallel economies, and many of his predictions are beginning to emerge
globally. As corporations rule the world and disfranchise an increasing number of
people, those people need to find alternative values with which to bond as cohesive
social units. For example, it is possible to educate people independently of the
public school system. But the working class and lower income people are encouraged to
relinquish their obligations to their children with respect to education, and rely
solely on the institutional bureaucracy. If the mass of people felt they could rely on
their neighbors more, they could find many alternatives to the corrupt existing
bureaucratic institutions. Dependency and ignorance serves economic elites, which they
try to reinforce by their use of elegant language, clothing and consumption. But they
also use something else -- violence. That is the focus of Fox Butterf!
!
ield's New York Times article. T
he economic elite encourages competition and physical violence among the masses as a
means of social control. The U.S. South did this with remarkable effectiveness, and I
fear that our modern national elite is adopting those methods.
So I think the issue of cronyism deserves much reflective consideration.
I apologize for such a long post. I hope I haven't rambled too much.
Hugh McGuire
On 08/17/98 17:18:53 Ed Weick wrote:
>
>Weick:
>
>>>It would appear that obligations among friends and families are of
>>>much greater importance in SE Asia and Japan than in the west.
>
>Keith Hudson
>
>>I really don't think there's any essential difference. If there is a
>>difference, it's mainly due to the fact that families are much smaller in
>>the West than in S-E Asia and are thus less important within the cronyism
>>network.
>
>Perhaps that is the reason. However, I do believe that obligations between
>family members and friends run deeper in many non-western societies than
>they do in the west. This may be because people in the west have moved
>around a lot and broken family ties by distance and separation. People in
>the West have also had far more opportunity to "make it" than individuals in
>poor countries. Hugh McGuire's point about American ethnic and family
>circles is, I believe, relevant. Though such circles may come under severe
>attack by the ethic of rugged individualism, it is probable that they will
>persist as long as they continue to play an important survival role for
>individuals who carry little weight and have little value in the broader
>society. The individual finds value as part of the circle or group, and the
>group, comprised of many weightless individuals but also some weighty ones,
>will likely be able to protect the individual and influence the course of
>events in his favour far better than he can himself. If it is possible for
>individuals to access opportunities, protective circles or groups may
>eventually break down. If that is not possible, the only real hope the
>individual may have is to rely on a group.
>
>I'm not arguing that the foregoing has much relevance to the discussion of
>crony capitalism, though it may have. Family circles or groups of families
>which have stuck together through good times and bad for a very long time
>would feel a strong sense of obligation toward each other and probably some
>sense of hostility toward other groups, especially if the pie that was to be
>divided was not large. What we describe as "cronyism" would be viewed by
>group members as the fulfillment of obligations that could simply not be
>avoided even at the risk of economic collapse.
>
>Anyhow, that is my two-bits worth on the subject. I would add that it is
>good to hear from both Keith and Hugh McGuire again.
>
>Ed Weick
>
>
>
>
>
>
>******
>How it will do so will depend on the society. Crony capitalism is how it is
>done in SE Asia. In Russia it would seem to be done by something that might
>more accurately be called "mafia capitalism". The Russian government is too
>divided to develop firm rules for capitalist behaviour, and too weak to
>enforce them even if they are developed. Much of the Russian economy
>operates both above and under the thin surface of legitimacy at the same
>time. One estimate that I'm aware of is that fully 60% of the existing
>private companies are in some way or another associated with the criminal
>world - either they are part of this world themselves or they make payments
>to it for their survival. In a world of this kind, it is very difficult for
>the government to collect sufficient taxes to pay its employees or repay
>loans from abroad, both of which are elements of the current Russian crisis.
>
>Although I would agree with Keith Hudson that cronyism -- "known over here
>as "The Old Pals Act" or "The Old Boy Network" -- has always existed the
>whole world over and always will", I do not see western economies as being
>dominated by cronyism - not yet in any event. There is a deep suspicion of
>corporate power and there are too many laws which circumscribe corporate
>behaviour.
>
>
>
>
>
>
