I'm currently reading Riane Eisler's The Real Wealth of Nations, a highly recommended book building on her ideas of a dominator vs. a partnership view. In short, she identifies two views or orientations - dominator and partnership.
The dominator view is based, ultimately, in fear and is built around unidirectional, top-down hierarchies of domination. Respect flows from the bottom up, and power is exercised from the top down. We are motivated by fear of losing our position in this hierarchy, based on the idea that we either dominate or are dominated.
The partnership view is based on caring and is also built in a somewhat hierarchical fashion, but rather than hierarchies of domination this is a hierarchy of actualisation. In this model, respect and consideration flow both ways and the underlying assumption is that we are all equal parts in a system, or structure, that is meant to work for the benefit of all, rather than a select few.
Eisler also points out that there are no "pure" partnership or dominator societies, but rather that societies orient further towards one of these views. Further, she recognises that these views are not solely found in, say, a society's economic system but that they permeate the society, in values, myths, social institutions and so on. Finally, and importantly, shifting towards a partnership view of society (which is what she advocates) does not solve every problem. A partnership society is not a perfect society. But it is a society better suited to our needs and to a more sustainable world.
In the book, she frequently mentions the Nordic nations as examples of nations orienting more towards a partnership society - bringing up our high taxation which enables us to maintain a high-quality public healthcare, our extensive parental leave system and our (relatively) high degree of gender-equality.
What we have seen these past couple of years is, to me, a regression of sorts to a more dominator oriented society. It bears pointing out that this didn't start in 2006 with the new (and current) government, but that it has been going on for quite some time. On the other hand, the current government has been doing a good job at speeding up the process.
The prime example is of course the "work line" ("arbetslinjen"). In short, I would summarise it as the idea that everyone should, to as far an extent as possible, carry their own costs. Included in this is the creation of the myth that those not working (be it because they are sick or unemployed) do so because they are lazy, that they can live well off of welfare or sick-pension. There has been a, largely successful, "rebranding" of what is essentially social security insurance into subsidy or allowance. This has created a view where people receiving welfare are seen as "leeches", draining away the earnings of "decent working folk". The question is asked - "why should my hard earned pay, through taxes, be given to those who chose not to work?".
I believe a big part of the problem is our mindset. For a long time we've been taught to think in terms of self-interest. Even our welfare has been motivated that way - "it is in your own best interest to have high, or at least decent, levels of social security, public and general health insurance and so on, because you never know if one day you might need them". Rather than an attitude of caring, we have fostered an attitude of fear.
Maintaining an economic system orienting towards a partnership view within a larger social system (of norms and values) orienting towards a dominator view is problematic, to say the least. Especially if we are unaware of the interdependence of the different parts of society and how they interact. Of course someone who is driven and motivated by self-interest, accompanied by fear and greed, will think little of a partnership view, and is likely to dismiss it out of hand as simply some form of communitarianism. But even communitarianism can (and quite often do) orient towards a dominator view - with the single individual simply replaced by a group of individuals, but keeping the hierarchies of domination and maintaining it all by fear of the others.
No comments:
Post a Comment