« Studying Blogs and Blogging | Main | The Finals, The Finals »

Koom by ya my lord.. koom by ya...

Posted by: musclehead at December 12, 2004 08:21 PM

What if, instead of thinking of greed as natural, we thought of it as abhorrent? What if we valued interdependence, cooperation, social-interest, community strength, equality, and justice for all? Hmm. Wouldn’t that be weird?

So weird that the idea is unoriginal by several hundred years at best. Envy, Gluttony, Sloth, Anger, Lust, Pride, and .... oh, yeah, Greed.

Nevertheless, your Prof. Corp. is correct: greed is a perfectly understandable human emotion. As is lust, anger, pride, envy... but I digress. Each of these emotions is understandable: they're capable of comprehension and empathy. Not all such things are laudable, but then, I've never met a person who's only had laudable thoughts. That person would be the only one to whom greed might not be understandable.

And of course, I'd argue that "American culture teaches us that there is, in fact, almost no higher value than greed." With the exception of Oliver Stone's Gordon Gekko, the number of people who use the phrase "greed is good" without an immediate qualifier that shows they mean competition instead of greed is slim indeed. If there is a sense in which greed has become more predominant in recent years, it's not because we've been preaching it as a virtue, it's that we've become accustomed to the idea that virtues are nonexistent. Nonetheless, what you're arguing isn't that we're lauding greed as the sole values (as opposed to, for instance, independence or liberty, which are the same thing only to the extent that you commit calumny on the concept), but that' we're not sufficiently lauding your own.

The trouble, of course, is that "interdependence" as a value cuts both ways. I'm sure you're perfectly happy to be "interdependent" so long as what changes in the interdependency is my ethos to yours. Ditto cooperation: everyone is happy to "cooperate" so long as the cooperative decision goes their way. These values are great so long as everyone agrees--or at least so long as the one lauding the value is on the side that has power to determine what the agreement is.

Posted by: A. Rickey at December 12, 2004 11:37 PM

Hmm. Just because it was a seven deadly doesn't mean greed is a "natural" human feeling or urge. The fact that it's on a list of things to avoid shows that people have long thought it was something unnatural (if it was natural, you couldn't avoid it, could you?).

You don't have to be perfect (thinking only laudable thoughts) to find the concept of greed baffling. If it's logical to be puzzled by concepts that are bad for society, then it's logical to be puzzled by greed and to find it difficult to comprehend or empathize with. No one growing up in the U.S. today would find it difficult to comprehend, I'm guessing, but that's just my point: Society naturalizes the concept, so we have difficulty seeing a world where the concept seemed foreign. What is it that a fish doesn't know?

The fact that you automatically assume that when I say "interdependence" I actually mean some sort of domination by the powerful (me) of the weak (anyone who doesn't agree with me) only proves my point. We've come to a place in our society where we can't even conceive of non-dominating, equal, just relationships among people. That's where the ugly, cynical, "human nature" of capitalism is rearing its ugly head, telling you that it's just naive and foolish to believe that some sort of true human cooperation -- without domination -- could really exist.
And thus "competition" will make all our lives nasty and brutish, if not short.

I agree with you though that we've become accustomed to the idea tha virtues, or ideals, are nonexistent. Ideals can be dangerous things, and rather than doing the work of trying to put them in some sort of perspective in our lives, we seem to be simply abandoning them altogether.

Posted by: ambimb at December 12, 2004 11:59 PM

1) At least according to the conception that brought us the Seven Deadlies, yes, the fact that Greed's on there makes it an urge that human beings have, and that they will understand. The fact that something is "natural" doesn't mean it's something that can't be avoided, merely that it takes discipline to avoid. (And indeed, the fact that it's natural means that no one will perfectly avoid it: no one's charity is infinite.)

2) The trouble with your "interdependence" is that it breaks down as soon as you and I disagree. The fact remains that there are things--physical objects, for instance--that are indivisible, desires that are conflicting, and points at which compromise--however laudable you may find it--simply cannot occur. Your value of "interdependence" will thus boil down to a simple choice of whom, in a conflict, is the winner, and who is the loser. That doesn't mean that one can't conceive of a "non-dominating" relationship: it's simply a recognition that if you do not assume some kind of perfect agreement, eventually there is conflict, and your value of "interdependence" becomes what it is. It's a shell for "let's get along when there's nothing not to get along about."

Nevertheless, "we" are not abandoning all sense of values. It is merely that the values that others are choosing to seek are not your own--and thus you consider them valueless.

Having lived in societies that function to a greater degree than ours by "concensus," let me say this: they work largely because they're much more homogenous, and generally require a strict dilineation between those "inside" and "outside" the group. This is because the opposing value to "interdependence" is the ability to dissent: inclusion of a dissenter creates just the conflict that your "conception" cannot resolve. Those outside are generally treated quite harshly: ostracism is traditionally the least of punishments available.

Provided that resources are limited--a situation that humanity has not yet been able to resolve, and won't in the foreseeable future--then at some point the use of those resources must be determined. "Interdependence" at its heart becomes the means for one group to determine their destribution according to the needs of the Group. But if there is a conflict between a Group and an Individual in that case, it's pretty clear: the individual is getting steamrollered.

Or, put it this way: if you wish to be "interdependent" and I do not, there is only one solution: you label me psychotic--how charming--and apply some form of sanction. Or, I suppose, you could try to convince me of the necessity of interdependence. The traditional means for this, of course, in societies that preach interdependence, is re-education camps...

Posted by: A. Rickey at December 13, 2004 12:19 AM

Your points 1 and 2 contradict one another. You assert in 1 that the natural is something "that it takes discipline to avoid" (your qualification notwithstanding) while in 2 you assert "The fact remains that there are things--physical objects, for instance--that are indivisible, desires that are conflicting, and points at which compromise--however laudable you may find it--simply cannot occur." This is a really problematic argument in several ways. Most notably, you argument elides the distinction between physical and the social. Which is to say that value is not a physical fact but a social one, established by people in the course of, and as a guide to, their interaction with one another. Thus we have a judicial system that finds the principle of justice, in part, through precedent, a historical record of how the right has been interpreted. Thus we have, for instance, obscenity as a community standard or a judicial apparatus that protects the rights or the minority rather than simply enforcing the will of the majority.

In this sense, it is neither a logical, historical, or natural fact that "the opposing value to "interdependence" is the ability to dissent: inclusion of a dissenter creates just the conflict that your "conception" cannot resolve." Interdependence can, and does in, for example, a system of government that is built around a separation of powers and checks and balances on power, include conflict and resolve it if we recognize that value is a human and historical fact, rather than a natural and indivisible one.

Which is to say that yes, sometimes the needs of the group outweigh the needs of the individual, as when government intervenes to prevent, say, the monopolization of the common airwaves or the profit of an individual from the distribution of tainted foods or unsafe drugs. Whether you admit it or not, the fact remains that living in society means you are depend on others for your very existence. Unless of course, you raise all the food you eat, make all the clothes you wear, write all the books you read, etc. Such a position is, on its face, absurd, and indeed would be the very definition of psychotic in as far as it refuses to admit any social realm into one's existence. Yet it is the maintenance of such a fantasy that is at the heart of the insistence that compromise must be unachievable at some point. Such insistence is occasioned by a personal, and not a principled, rejection of compromise.

Posted by: Famous P. at December 13, 2004 01:18 PM

You implicitly defined greed as a zero-sum outlook on wealth when you made the comment that, "What’s understandable about gain for self at the expense of others?"

Words have socialy constructed meaning, so I'm not saying it's flat out wrong, and that's one connotation I've heard attached to the term, but I don't think we absolutely must ascribe that viewpoint to greed. It's easy to imagine someone who is "greedy" and wants a LOT, far more than they need, while at the same time not holding any malice toward their fellow man, and perhaps even wishing that they too live in with such abundance.

Greed need not hinge on antisocial tendancies. And maybe we could recast it to being greedy for society, helping everyone find abundance. (although the more I say 'abundance' the more it starts to sound a bit, I don't know, self-help-tape-ish, so I'll stop now.)

All that said, hell yes, many, many leaders of large US corporations appear to exhibit sociopahtic traits.

Posted by: John at December 13, 2004 03:10 PM

'You implicitly defined greed as a zero-sum outlook on wealth when you made the comment that, "What’s understandable about gain for self at the expense of others?"'

Not too long after his 'greed is good' speech, gordon gecko called it a zero sum game.

Posted by: actus at December 14, 2004 09:35 AM

"Not too long after his 'greed is good' speech, gordon gecko called it a zero sum game."

I guess I'm just not inclined to let a film character, and a rather repugnant one pre-character-arc at that, be the final arbiter of that or any other word's meaning. :)

Like I said, I've heard greed conflated with a zero-sum outlook on life regularly, and so it's getting to be a common connotation with the word, but it's not actually inherent to the term.

Posted by: John at December 15, 2004 03:34 AM