Mr. Giridharadas was pleased to be named a Henry Crown Fellow of the Aspen Institute. He attended events and talks surrounded by other bright and idealistic professionals. As time passed, however, he became uncomfortable with the message and methodology of the fellowship.
It bothered me that the fellowship asked fellows to do virtuous side projects instead of doing their day jobs more honorably. [...] Instead of asking them to make their firms less monopolistic, greedy, or harmful to children, it urged them to create side hustles to "change the world." (p. 266)
This book argues essentially that large corporations create enormous profits for a minority of people by taking advantage of the poor and marginalized, creating or exacerbating problems of poverty, unemployment, and violence. Then, rather than changing their business practices, they donate a small portion of their profits to organizations of their own design to address the effects of their business practices without accepting responsibility for their role in the problems.
By refusing to risk its way of life, by rejecting the idea that the powerful might have to sacrifice for the common good, it [today's elite] clings to a set of social arrangements that allow it to monopolize progress and then give symbolic scraps to the forsaken--many of whom wouldn't need the scraps if the society were working right. (p. 7)
The elite decide what to fund, how to address change, and how to measure progress.
For when elites assume leadership of social change, they are able to reshape what social change is--above all, to present it as something that should never threaten winners. In an age defined by a chasm between those who have power and those who don't, elites have spread the idea that people must be helped, but only in market-friendly ways that do not upset fundamental power equations. (p. 8)
Even with the best of intentions, inviting companies and their owners to be involved in addressing inequity or poverty immediately limits the creativity and revolutionary aspects of change. Not many board members are willing to entertain solutions that might inhibit their ability to pass on their wealth to future generations or that might disrupt the very companies that lead to their financial success.
Moreover, the charitable world is now described in the language of business, rather than something like justice or human dignity. Politically, for example, we have fewer people rising in the ranks of government organizations but are filling leadership positions with men and women from the business world, asking them to "regulate" their former colleagues and employers.
Young people who want to change the world are easily drawn into the narrative:
What threads through these various ideas is a promise of painlessness. What is good for me will be good for you. [...] You could help people in ways that let you keep living your life as is, while shedding some of your guilt. (p. 38)
Not only are capitalists able to assuage some of the problems, the prevailing wisdom is that they are better able to do so. However, the author argues this situation merely allows the winners to continue winning and pull even farther ahead.
There are still winners and losers, the powerful and the powerless, and the claim that everyone is in it together is an eraser of the inconvenient reality of others. (p. 50)
One of the key points of the book is how the large corporations manage to impact the messaging from speakers and authors. Many who begin by criticizing the current methods of philanthropy end up adjusting their talks and books as they are invited to conventions or retreats. As their income is more and more dependent on the wealthy, their words transform from calling for radical change to ones calling for change within the current system.
Inspire the rich to do more good, but never, ever tell them to do less harm; inspire them to give back, but never, ever tell them to take less; inspire them to join the solution, but never, ever accuse them of being part of the problem. (p. 155)
Then, not only do they continue to amass wealth at the expense of the week and poor, but they turn around and tell them something like "We know how best to solve your problems."
Leave us alone in the competitive marketplace, and we will tend to you after the winnings are won. The money will be spent more wisely on you than it would be by you. You will have your chance to enjoy our wealth, in the way we think you should enjoy it. (p. 164)
Interestingly, the book describes some companies that were designed to more directly benefit clients.
A company not run purely in shareholders' interests risked lawsuits from its investors. The dominant interpretation of corporate law, as we've seen, has since the 1970s come to regard companies' first duty as being to earn a profit for shareholders. (p. 248)
Mr. Giridharadas provides many examples showing how the current ideology (allowing capitalists to determine our goals and methods for social change) is failing. He argues we need more government discussion of corporations and their behavior to address the root problems of inequity. I believe he would like to see more government regulation, but what he argues for is actually a more explicit and amicable public discourse on the causes of inequality and the methods for addressing it. Bringing those conversations out of private elite conferences and into the public arena allows everyone to participate.
It is solving problems in ways that give the people you are helping a say in the solutions, that offer that say in equal measure to every citizen, that allow some kind of access to your deliberations or at least provide a meaningful feedback mechanism to tell you it isn't working. It is not reimagining the world at conferences. (p. 227)
This book is written for elites, most of whom are firmly in the American left, politically. Some of the arguments, therefore, are along the lines of, "This is why Trump won the election," in ways that conservatives may find distasteful.
I think it's worthwhile to ask whether the weakest members of our society are making any progress and tying our goals and assessments of progress towards those goals to measurements of the quality of life for the least powerful.
Now that I've read this book, I find myself noticing evidence of its arguments in articles and TED talks. It has helped me to be more critical of those who are promising to change the world without changing our lifestyles or our hearts.
Benedict XVI's Caritas in Veritate offers a rich contemplation of walking in love and solidarity with the poor and marginalized. I highly recommend it to anyone interested in charity or societal change, even if not Catholic.
For Catholics, though, changing the world is a matter of bringing forth the kingdom of God. Charities and governments can participate in that transformation, but what it requires most of all is allowing the love of Christ to change our hearts and then go forth to love and cherish every human person. Those of us who are comfortable in our lives must learn to sacrifice our own luxuries for the benefit of the marginalized if we want to follow Christ. Part of that sacrifice might mean admitting the deficiencies of our society's status quo.
Generosity is not a substitute for justice... (p. 182)
I have received nothing in exchange for this post. Links to Bookshop are affiliate links. I checked this book out from the library.
