Introducing a Different Agenda—Temperatism
The best state for human nature is that in which, while no one is poor, no one desires to be richer, nor has any reason to fear from being thrust back, by the efforts of others to push themselves forward.
—John Mill
The original temperance social movement emerged in the late eighteenth century in the United States, spreading to other Western societies with members seeking a reduction or prohibition of the consumption of alcoholic beverages, with drunkenness a direct result of the social problems in society. Temperance is often described as a virtue, whereby the individual avoids being overcome by temptation and moderates wants within the boundary of propriety, modesty, and good health. In this sense, Adam Smith himself considered temperance as a “natural liberty” that enables society to prosper. Individuals are responsible for controlling their own consumption, but equally are supported by a culture that esteems those who behave with temperance. Individuals therefore develop a high personal reputation by developing prudence and moral decency in regard to their behavior and thus become valued by society for qualities that are worthy of recognition. “Smith considered that the ‘social market’ for temperance would tend to encourage frugality, since spectators are more likely to disapprove of any small impropriety (in spending more than one has, or eating voraciously in public) than excessive propriety” (Wells and Graafland, 2012). The Victorian Temperance movement was a response to the increase in alcohol-related issues, with violence toward women and children. The resulting degradation caused by the working man falling into alcoholism became more evident as the Industrial Revolution began to transform the Victorian society. Today society once again is experiencing the problems of rapid industrialization in emerging economies and the dramatic impact resulting from the digital revolution and globalization over the past 25 years. Government policies and societal structures reflect the economic demands of capitalism, protecting those with wealth and property and supporting a self-interested and individualist approach to governance.
The promotion of deregulation during the 1980s led directly to the excesses in the world economy that produced the 2008 credit crunch. Furthermore, the growth of consumerism and self-interest as societal norms is delivering a deathblow to the glue that binds human society together. Temperance as a virtue clashes with the commercial society in which we live, frugality isn’t rewarded, and excess is celebrated. Individuals now have to find their own balance of restraint. Rather than support temperance in the face of recession, the social and economic system continues to push consumers to spend. In the midst of recession, politicians and business leaders debate over which method is most likely to get the consumer spending again. Temperance has diminished in direct relation to the growth of consumption and the need for consumers to have material possessions to secure their place and perceived value in society, while becoming the engine of the economy. Abundance and free choice present the modern-day consumer with a “child in a sweetie shop” mentality, where self-regulation becomes nigh on impossible because of the variety of temptations on offer. Organizations compete by providing consumers excuses to indulge. The marketing slogan is deliberately designed to entice us to believe that we are worth “it” whatever “it” is that the organization is selling.
Our lives have become a cycle of keeping up with the Jones and the need to be in possession of the latest gadgets and gizmos to remain relevant. Until the credit crunch, the provision of cheap credit provided consumers with the means with which to indulge in unabashed consumption. This behavior was a symptom of the big shift that capitalism has taken in the last few decades, moving from the sphere of an economic mechanism into a market system designed to produce, deliver, and service every pleasure imaginable for our consumption. Necessity no longer drives forward our economy, nor is it the basis for motivation in individuals. Instead we pursue desire, conformity, and the cult of self-expression as our new measure of economic achievement. For many, our drive to consume is the paragon of the capitalist creed of self-interest. But rather than demonstrate our individualism, we use our material possessions to enhance our social standing and increase our acceptability within our social groups. We are all converts to the religion of consumerism, but the indoctrination of materialism is dehumanizing us all in a corrupt cycle of transaction and commerce. “Rampant consumerism, globalization and the decline of many institutions and fixed points in society have given rise to . . . isolated individuals occupying increasingly atomised existences” (Clegg, 2016: 250). Even organizations are being tempted to indulge, as the market promotes the need for organizations to become involved in their own personal shopping sprees: acquisitions, mergers, and takeovers. In the last decade temperance was especially lacking in the finance sector, where propriety and prudence were replaced with greed and excessive risk taking, driven by a desire to be recognized for delivering bigger results and more spectacular deals than competitors.
Just as the original temperance movement highlighted that alcohol can be injurious to physical and psychological health, so too are the excesses of the capitalist system. “Money is just a cargo cult, one that has been wrongly and willfully elevated to the status of a pseudo-science. ‘Confidence’ is what economists call willingness to spend, even as they destroy the confidence of so many people by leaving the market to inform them that they are not worth much and never will be” (Orr, 2012). The societal problems caused by the worldwide recession have affected those lower down the social spectrum more than those near the top. The poor are quite literally getting poorer, while the rich get richer. Something needs to change if people are to be protected, not just in regard to their security, but to improve their working and living conditions and avoid the continuation of the domination and exploitation that they have been exposed to via the growth of capitalism and the capitalist class.
Darkness Before the Dawn
Politicians and business leaders would have us believe that the only way out of the economic turmoil is through more deregulation, smaller government, less welfare, and tax reform so businesses can be more competitive and the rich and powerful can create and secure jobs. “As Margaret Thatcher once put it, not only is capitalism good, ‘There is no alternative.’” Monbiot (2016) suggests that “so pervasive has neoliberalism become that we seldom even recognize it as an ideology . . . we internalize and reproduce its creeds.” This effort to present managerial capitalism as universal and as necessary has been roundly criticized by a range of critics . . . it has become all but unthinkable to imagine anything more than minor changes in the social structure or economic systems” (Stokes, 2011). The ability of capitalism to mark any opposition as anti-democratic, or an infringement of liberal traditions, makes any attempt to search for an alternative fraught with difficulties. There are any number of individuals and groups writing reports and making arguments for change. But these ideas struggle to gather momentum. Even where direct action is taken, as in the Occupy movement, the wider public does not hear the arguments, the action is considered to be a nuisance, and, in the case of the Wall Street Occupy Movement, a public menace. With politics dominated by variations of capitalism in their economic discourse, universities filled with economists who teach capitalism to their students, and corporations unable to operate outside of the capitalist market system, the noise created demanding change becomes nothing more than a humming in the background. The problem with different being dismissed as impossible is that different is exactly what is needed right now if the human race is to avoid the fate of the dodo.
For many there is a curiosity of human irrationality that makes them wonder why we find ourselves in a position of empowered and disempowered, rich and poor, and the continuation of behavior that will lead to our eventual demise. But revisiting the history of Western democracy and liberalism demonstrates that there is any number of examples lying in the wastes of civility that demonstrate the ability of man to act against the interests of the wider society, exploit the weak, and coerce the poor for their own means. What we ignore at our peril is the fate of all great civilizations that, having stretched their resources to a breaking point, find themselves reduced in a couple of decades. The once vast Roman Empire disappeared in as little as 50 years as it exceeded its ability to live within its means and the boundaries of its resources. But our own self-destruction is not destined. Alongside each failure is an example of humanity’s ability to change fundamentally the way in which we operate. Two hundred years ago abolitionists tackled the appalling colonial slave trade and the accompanying genocide of whole generations of Africans caught up in slavery. Human society has been dogged by racial oppression, class struggle, and gender inequality, but all the while making progress through civil rights movements, trade unionism, and feminism. We may look at history in despair at man’s ability to act in an undemocratic manner, especially where there is money to be made, property rights to be protected, and wealth to be created. Or we can note that for each abhorrent waste of human talent and potential we have fought for freedom from coercion and greater liberty. What once began as a movement to exclude or remove sections of society, became a moment in history where a great leap forward was made in regard to liberty, freedom, and civilization for more people. We may yet be a long way off from true equality, and in regard to wealth distribution, the West is more unequal than even three decades ago. But it is always darkest before the dawn, and such is the level of inequality that once again humanity stirs from its slumber and begins to question the way things are and imagine the way that things could and should be.
An Alternative
Temperatism as an ideology offers more than a moderate form of capitalism. Many politicians today have expressed a need for “responsible” capitalism, and Jeff Randall when reporting the Libor scandal on Sky News suggested that it was time to stop worshipping at the mountain of Mammon (Material Wealth and Greed). Though the world has moved on from the world of Gordon Gekko, a seed was sown in the 1980s that has determined the course of human history to bring us to the financial crisis, global depression, and political instability that we find ourselves in today. The reality is that the range of options available to Western society in regard to a response to the problems that we are experiencing appears limited, and different combinations of regulations and deregulations have been tried to combat the impact of boom and bust of the capitalist market. Gordon Brown, then UK Chancellor of the Exchequer, proclaimed the “end of boom and bust” while presiding over the biggest consumer debt and spending bubble and the largest financial market bust in capitalism’s history. There is an assumption that in a marketplace of good economic ideas capitalism has emerged as the best ideology after a fair fight, even if it is a poor one in regard to solving long-term societal problems and the exploitation of the poor by the rich. But to believe there is no alternative is to forget about how enterprising, innovative, and inventive the human race can be when faced with a fight for its own survival.
What globalization has produced is the means by which change can take place and take place quickly. We already have at our disposal the technical means to create a global society, which is free of want. Developments in technology and science means that for the first time in history we can develop an infrastructure that would support food production, healthcare, and education to create a society free of want, on the basis of the need for a minimum standard required to live well. Of course the capitalist core, those in the top percentile, will argue and proactively work against such a possibility, because they do not wish to weaken their control over the system, nor reduce their own wealth in the pursuit of the eradication of the need of and benefit for others. How can we be sure this will happen? Could it be that the means already exist by which the wealthy can volunteer “doing good” activities, which can create an abundance required to meet basic needs? Why is it that some become involved in philanthropic acts, while many do not?
The main problem we face is that the purpose of capitalism is the pursuit of profit. So organizations and individuals pursuing profit regardless of social cost or putting profit before people is “responsible” capitalism. They are doing what capitalism seeks to achieve. Any organization that wants to compete in our current economic framework must compete with others not only to meet the existing needs of consumers, but also to create in the mind of the consumers wants that they have yet to think of, in order that the organization can succeed in creating greater levels of additional consumption. Thirty years ago smartphones; instant, stable, and fast access to the Internet; and digital downloads weren’t “wanted” by consumers. But now these things are “normal” wants. Consumers want to be connected, they want to be able to carry, listen, and read their digital libraries wherever they go, and producers are in a battle to ensure we have the devices and means to be able to do that. As we grow up and become more mobile because of an increasingly competitive job market, our wants and needs change further. Convenience is necessary because we need things to be convenient to fit in with our busy lifestyle. It is not efficient in regard to natural resources and creates a headache in regard to biodegradable waste, but it has become necessary, as our social and geographic mobility has increased. To speak temperance in regard to personal consumption into such an environment is challenging. For any individual they can reason as to why their materialism is necessary, why their excess of material goods is essential and indeed appropriate given their budget, and the way in which they operate their lives. We can all justify what we have and what we aspire to have. We persuade ourselves that the items that clutter our homes are what we ought to have and essential to our survival. But in a society driven by consumption and a market mechanism which is constantly creating new wants and turning wants into normal needs, it is increasingly difficult to separate how much is enough and what our real needs are, which is why temperance is a necessity if change, real change, is to occur. Developing a modern non-subjective, socially enforced framework regarding consumption standards will be a necessary starting point, if capitalism is to be overturned.
A New Way to Think About Business
In choosing the term Temperatism for the introduction of a people-centric approach to thinking about business and doing good, it is important to explore the many definitions of the word temperate, which include:
- Moderate and self-restrained; not extreme in opinion or statement
- Moderate in regard to indulgence of appetite or passion
- Not excessive in degree, as things, qualities, etc.
- Moderate in respect to temperature; not subject to prolonged extremes of hot or cold weather.
Moderation is a term that many commentators are currently using in arguments regarding the sustainability of capitalism, but trying to persuade a capitalist system to operate with moderation is akin to asking, as the early temperance movement did, an alcoholic to promise not to drink spirits, while still being able to continue consuming wine and beer. The injurious nature of the relationship between the alcoholic and alcohol wasn’t changed, just moved from one form of abuse to another. In an attempt to keep a grip on power, many may argue that it is possible to change capitalism through a number of structural reforms to corporate boards, or threatening those who do not act moderately with legal restraints or additional regulation regarding corporate governance. But more regulation, or greater policing of the way in which organizations operate, will only ever be a partial solution to the problems created by capitalism.
No amount of government intervention can alone adequately substitute for what Adam Smith called “temperance, decency, modesty and moderation.” The behaviour of corporate executives in a number of instances suggests that we are faced with a collapse of a sense of “enoughness,” of constraints on behaviour that were once imposed by conventional morality. What has been lost is the fact that the very preservation of the system requires that executives behave with moderation. (Stelzer, 2004)
To ask a capitalist to moderate their pursuit of profit while still allowing them to pursue a profit agenda will not reduce the problems of capitalism during a period of unprecedented change in a rapidly industrializing and globalized world economy. The more self-interested we have become, the more the goal of getting rich for the sake of being rich possesses us. We have lost from our society a great deal of understanding regarding a sense of decency and honor in the way in which we treat and value our fellow man. Individualism works only one way and that is not in a way that aligns itself with values such as social thinking, environmentalism, equality, poverty eradication, and true democratic freedom.
Temperatism is a new way to think about business and doing good, which pulls on a number of ideas in regard to economic, social, and political goals, the type of expectations that we should have of one another and the suggestion of some actions that could be taken to tackle the problems caused by capitalism. To some the ideas might appear abstract, such as the notion of doing good. But when applied to social, economic, political, and environmental issues, the concepts come to life. As with every approach to business, Temperatism is very explicit as a system of thought stemming from the virtue of temperance. There is a foundation of thinking based on the expectation of propriety in the social standards that should be set in our activities. Temperatism is focused on the outcomes of our political, economic, and social behaviors. It promotes an entitlement to basic human rights, a minimum standard of living that is acceptable and opportunities for all individuals to exercise their talent capability to reach their potential. Individuals, organizations, and government will be held to account for the decisions they make and the outcome of such decisions in the framework of the betterment of human society as a whole. Those who contribute by doing good will be rewarded for their efforts, while everyone in society will be empowered to take part in a democratic and equitable process that reduces differences in the proportion of reward one receives for effort and value-adding contributions.
Unlike other business approaches Temperatism isn’t seeking to control the means of production, or indeed manipulate market prices, or prevent free competition. Instead Temperatism is seeking that the primary goal and agenda of the economic marketplace and organizations be changed to that of doing good, to adopt an ethical and values-based system of economic, social, and political participation. To put social needs above self-interest, Temperatism offers an alternative that goes against capitalist ideology and liberal tradition in the Western world. For individuals, the pursuit of temperance and the creation of a discipline in avoiding excessive indulgence in consumption seek to create an environment where kindness, support, and togetherness reconnect them with other people and the community in which they reside. For organizations, although no business would openly state that they seek to destroy lives, manipulate, and exploit, it is their actions rather than their words, the outcomes of their behavior, that demonstrate where their values really lie.
Therefore, the reason why the word Temperatism has been chosen for this proposed new approach to business is in regard to the position of teetotalism toward a consumption and profit pursuant agenda. Only abstinence from the pursuit of the capitalist agenda can be said to work in eliminating the negative outcomes we are currently experiencing. Attempts by sovereign nations to tailor capitalist economic treatments to different cultures have all led to the same outcome, harm, and waste. At its heart, Temperatism seeks to change the dominant agenda from the capitalist model of the “pursuit of profit” to that of “doing good.” Many may frown at the use of such a subjective word. What after all constitutes “good” and how can it be understood and positioned in such a way that is universally, culturally, and socially acceptable and more importantly something that decisions can be made on, plans formed, and actions taken.