Making The Case For Compassion In 21st-Century Capitalism

-OpEd-

BUENOS AIRES — Those who founded the pre-modern economic worldview, like the philosopher Aristotle, did so with the belief that we are social beings and that goodwill (philia) must prevail among the oikonomos (manager) of families, communities and the city (polis). 

This is expressed through reciprocity (antipeponthos) in our conduct, or a willingness to assume the burdens of a role and to share equitably. Aristotle also distinguished between essential chrematistics — or knowing how to meet a household’s basic needs — and the “art” of money-making rooted in a desire for profit. In modern times and with the formulation of economics as a science, thinkers like David Hume and Adam Smith pointed out the importance of a form of empathy necessary for a good business climate: They called it “sympathy” (we might also call it “cordiality”).

They were aware that conflicts could arise from competing interests in liberal capitalism and believed the State should establish a general — albeit minimal — legal framework appropriate to their final resolution. And while they did not consider benevolence as applicable outside the private sphere, they pointed out the general relevance of sympathy.

As the academics José Pena López and José Manuel Sánchez Santos wrote (in their 2007 article Smith’s Problem and the Relationship between Morals and Economy), Smith, in his 1759 Theory of Moral Sentiments, terms sympathy to be “fellow-feeling with any passion whatsoever,” or the ability to put oneself in another’s place and suffer with them, inevitably to a lesser degree.

The implications of sympathy

By virtue of that sympathy, which requires imaginative abilities conditioned by proximity, each person forms an idea of how others feel, and considers how they would feel in such circumstances while identifying with them. That characterization of sympathy has three implications.

First, it highlights the dual dimension of humankind, as sympathy cannot be considered a selfish principle. Second, it reveals the generation of a bond with the experiences of others. Finally, it emphasizes that it is not merely an emotional transference but cognitive, and the basis of moral approval.

The academics quote the following by Smith: “Society may subsist among different men, as among different merchants, from a sense of its utility, without any mutual love or affection… upheld by a mercenary exchange of good offices according to an agreed valuation… but.. cannot subsist among those who are at all times ready to hurt and injure one another.” How, then, could one frame sympathy or cordiality as a form of empathy?

Business is not incompatible with compassionate empathy.

For this, we should refer to recent thinkers like Daniel Goleman (and his 2006 book Social Intelligence), who indicate that psychology today uses the word empathy in three different senses: first, to understand another person’s feelings; second, to feel what they are feeling; and third, to respond compassionately to the problems that afflict them. 

These are varieties that seem to be part of the same 1-2-3 sequence: I recognize you, I feel the same way you do, and I act to help you. This last aspect, of “compassionate empathy,” is related to the concept of “benevolence.”

For Smith and the thinkers of economic liberalism, that could only occur in the private interpersonal sphere, not in the socioeconomic field nor could the State act in this way. This, however, changed over time, through various historical and socio-economic experiences. Just 50 years after Smith’s death came the Rochdale Society of Equitable Pioneers consumers’ cooperative and the cooperative movement that includes today more than 2 billion people worldwide.

Compassion today

In the 21st century, we know there are many ways in which business is not incompatible with compassionate empathy. Numerous and successful examples include the uniquely inclusive Alamesa restaurant in Argentina, opened by scientist Fernando Polack, Sekem in Egypt, the communion economy movement (in Catholicism), the common good economy, “B” or triple impact companies or Green economics, among others. 

Regarding the role of the State, it evolved from a “police state” to one with a more active role in addressing the economic and social imbalances produced by a capitalist system lacking regulation or intervention. That took various forms and modalities, beginning with the so-called welfare state and policies promoted by currents like social democracy, social Christianity and related movements in different countries. It has had successes and failures in mitigating or resolving those imbalances depending on the context or methods of implementation. 

What we can affirm is that such policies achieved greater social and territorial cohesion in several countries – like the European Union – but also led to excessive regulations, distortions and abuses. The most extreme examples are of populist experiences in countries (like our own) where, with the healthy aim of assuring social justice and fair rights for workers, governments turned to questionable paternalistic, corporate and clientelistic practices. 

Justice as fairness

Perhaps we should use the concept of equity (or fairness) more often, to break free from a sterile debate about what we do or do not understand by social justice. One of those who formalized a theory of “justice as fairness” was John Rawls in 1971. It consists of two principles.

First, every person should have an extensive or the most extensive set of equal basic liberties that are compatible with the same liberties for others. Second, social and economic inequalities must be addressed in such a way that: offices and positions will be open to all people under conditions of “fair equality of opportunity”; and inequalities are allowed if they benefit the least advantaged members of society (the difference principle).

The first of the two principles is the principle of liberty, and the second, of social justice, reflecting the idea that inequality is only justified if it benefits the most disadvantaged in society. Rawls, as a liberal, says the first principle takes precedence over the second, and in the second principle, the first part takes precedence over the second.

In Argentina, we might do well to redirect the civic and political debate.

In this context, the state must guarantee equal opportunities like quality education (particularly for the most vulnerable) and other social rights established in constitutions, regardless of an individual’s ideology or worldview. 

In Argentina’s case, the question remains: Beyond assessing the achievements in public spending, curbing inflation, appropriate deregulation measures or the elimination of public agencies (regardless of the dubious nature of how these are being decided and implemented), we can pursue development that is socially and territorially “fair,” by implementing the appropriate measures to achieve it effectively and sustainably over time. We might do well to redirect the civic and political debate in that direction. It would undoubtedly lead us to a better Argentina.