Can a big company have a soul?
I was sitting around (in Africa still) having yet another great conversation with a friend of mine, Rob. It went something like this (any facts I get wrong are a result of my faulty memory and not a lie on Rob’s part):
Rob: “So I noticed you’re wearing a Matix T-shirt”
Me: “Yeah. Funny thing is, I don’t know where I got it. I didn’t buy it. And someone, I don’t know whom, sent it to me. But I liked it and so I’m wearing it. Why? Who are they?”
Rob: “Every pair of pants I own are made by Matix. They are a great grassroots company that I used to work for. I trust them.”
Me: “You trust them? You trust them to do what?”
Turns out that Matix is a skateboard and surf clothing company. And apparently they have a soul. I asked what that meant. How does a company… whose purpose is to make money… have a soul? Rob proceeds to tell me that he used to skate for this company. He wasn’t good enough to get paid, but he got free gear (or “flow” as he called it) and they asked for input from the riders. They incorporated that into what they produced. Apparently the company’s main aspiration was to make clothing that riders wanted to wear. Kits designed to their specifications. I suppose the idea was to make stuff for the riders; the riders get seen by kids on the streets; the kids buy what the riders wear; the kids realize the gear is effective for how they ride; they tell other kids about it; you get the idea.
It wasn’t about the marketing directly. It wasn’t about making a lot of money. It was about doing something that the company owners enjoyed (skating and surfing) and becoming a part of that whole scene. Not using that scene to make money, but (as an adult) remaining a part of that scene. Remaining relevant to what they valued.
Me: “But if you’re no longer a rider and now you just wear clothes, how is the company catering to you… the customer?”
Rob: “They aren’t. But I trust that they will remain true to the riders. And I have found styles of their jeans that still cater to me as a casual clothes hanger… not a skater.”
Me: “And that’s important to you why?”
Rob: “Because they are willing to stay true to the art form. The art form of what we loved to do as kids. Skate. They will invest in and take input from the kids who ride for them. They trust in the sport and so the sport trusts them back.”
The entire time we are having this conversation I’m thinking about Walmart and Whole Foods and The Gap and that blonde that keeps running through my mind. With her long flowing hair. And her… huh? Oh. Sorry. Have I mentioned that I’m deployed? To Africa? For a year? Anyways, I’m thinking, here’s this small company that apparently has a soul. Can those larger companies have souls? The Gap doesn’t seem to have changed much. They sell basic clothes that haven’t really changed over the years. Classic, really. They own an upscale version of themselves (Banana Republic) and a cheapo version (Old Navy). But both those stores are just reflections of The Gap. And we all know it. I guess The Gap has a soul.
But Rob admitted that Whole Foods does not. I wouldn’t know because I have never step foot inside one. I don’t live in cool places. The Army is notorious for keeping its soldiers in decidedly uncool places. Where’s the Army base in downtown NYC? Las Vegas? LA? Miami? And the list goes on. But apparently Whole Foods has this killer micro-brew section that cannot be rivaled. And while Rob knows that he is killing the Mom and Pop’s chance of selling those micro-brews by going to Whole Foods to pick up his Monty Python’s Holy GRAIL, he cannot resist the Mecca of choice the soulless store provides.
There are numerous examples of this kind of thing in numerous fields. But it left me wondering. Is the small company that just wants to please itself, and still makes enough money to keep doing it, better — morally — than the company of whatever size that is bringing me what I want when I want it? Can a big company have a soul?
Do I?
Latest posts by Jeffrey Maryak (Posts)
- What Independence Day means, and needs - July 4, 2010
- Mother’s Day is a great day - May 9, 2010
- A solution to the problem of illegal immigration - May 2, 2010
- Get well, Bret Michaels — we need you - April 25, 2010
- Comparing the President to Hitler — Pot, meet Kettle - March 25, 2010
Print This Post
Answer: No.
@ Parsifal…is that a “no” for big companies having souls or is that a “no” for me not having a soul? If it is the latter, I would refer you to an earlier post of mine where I discuss what I think about my own soul. :)
Apologies for my imprecision. For big companies. I do not know whether you (or I) have a soul, but I know big companies do not, despite the Supreme Court having declared more than 120 years ago in Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad that companies are persons.
How godlike.
The real question is, do they have a spleen?
I would say yes. A couple that I have worked for certainly vented theirs at me. Probably I deserved it.
I know for certain they have gall.
I think it is interesting to talk about corporations, not in their soulful or less-ness, but in how they are regarded by the state and what that means for humans. In 1886 in Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad corporations came out entitled to the protections of the 14th Amendment. Frankly, I think this is where it has all gone wrong.* Providing corporations protections the same as citizens meant that the individuals who run the corporations, who make decisions (for example to dump grossness into water that then gives babies fish fins-even if they know it’s going to happen) and then not be accountable.
A corporation matters equally to a human according to the law. When the amendment passed voters thought they were taking a step to right the wrongs of slavery and help make all citizens protected by the constitution. Turns out Wal-Mart got in on it too.
I am into this partially because I teach college students and they are often totally into damning The Man. The Man in Boulder Colorado includes companies. I show the documentary “The Corporation” (http://www.thecorporation.com) which is a little extreme but does lay out a pretty good case about the problematics of the ideology of corporation as citizen. Because if, they are in fact protected in these ways, than they should be held responsible more often as well.
*I know that when someone says, “This is the point were it fell apart.” Or some other singular argument like that they get blown out of the water. But I am just going to say it anyway.
That was pretty much my point in citing Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad in an earlier posting (above). I mean, a corporation cannot vote or have a religion or bear arms or in any meaningful way exercise many of the rights that are protected in the Bill of Rights. Why should a corporation have, for example, co-equal speech rights with an individual?
Wouldn’t the removal of free speech (free press in this example) rights from a corporation have a tremendous effect on the news media? CNN is a corporation. If it didn’t have free speech/press, couldn’t the government control it?
Why shouldn’t the corporation have the same freedoms?
Can you point out a corporation that isn’t made up of people?
If the people have an individual right to the freedom of speech, why should they lose that right if they band together?
Isn’t that sort of the goal of the freedom of religion? To keep the government from cracking down on groups of people who believe something different than the mainstream culture?
Would groups like the National Organization of Women lose the right to free speech by this logic? An organization, profit-oriented or otherwise, does not have a soul. But if people do have the right to free speech, shouldn’t they continue to have that right if they group together, issue a joint statement? Members of NOW, or the NRA, or shareholders in a company, are all still people. Many not-for-profits are incorporated — these are organizations that speak out on political issues, fight for the poor, advertise their charity efforts to try to raise money, and so on. Does a political party not have a right to speech, since it is not an individual?
Mike and Jeffrey raise interesting points that are worth pursuing but that I am not willing to pursue, not out of disrespect for the points or lack of counterpoints of my own but out of sheer laziness and, on a Saturday, more fun things to do.
I suppose, weirdly, a corporation could have a religion. Scientology is a corporation that is its own religion, for example. More corporation than religion, I would argue, and I hope Tom Cruise is listening.
I suppose also, on further thought, that if a person can become a corporation (which he or she can by incorporating him- or herself), then a corporation should be allowed to be a person. I wish I had thought of this when I got my draft notice*, because, as far as I know, a corporation has never been drafted. I should have incorporated myself and told the draft board, “Sorry, Charlie, only unincorporated citizens can be called to the colors.” Doesn’t this, then, make corporate citizens MORE equal than private citizens? Corporations do not have to shoulder the same burdens as actual human beings. (And don’t respond that the government can “draft” corporations to do “war work.” That is a thing different in both degree and kind.)
*Those too young to know only the voluntary military will not understand the social and cultural complexity represented by the conscripted military. especially that of the late 1960s. I went when called of course, like any good unincorporated citizen — in fact, I enlisted rather than allow myself to be drafted — but I did not have to like it (and I had plenty of company in that attitude). But I digress, and must go off to do more fun things.
I noticed Scott’s comment after I posted mine. It’s National Organization FOR Women. They get testy about that. Don’t diss them. I know a NOW who is also an NRA.
I’m signing off before this gets fun.
Parsifal, indeed it’s Saturday, and where I am we have nice weather, so I have errands to run and a child to entertain. We don’t have to agree or resolve all of the world’s issues, not on the weekend anyway. So I am also signing off.
But let me say that I appreciate that we can have these discussions in this tone. Even if we sometimes are snarky with each other, and you seem to enjoy finding things you disagree with and commenting on them on our site, one thing that is clear to me, after seeing some other recent commenters at WFTC, is that you are not a troll. (Please don’t make me look stupid now by responding in some troll-like fashion.)
Thanks for the NOW correction. I knew it sounded wrong when I wrote it.
The notion that a corporation/group can have rights is an extremely dangerous one. In the UK, it is frequently used by members of a religious group as a justification for over riding the rights of the individual.
Which makes no sense, since the idea that a corporation has rights is predicated on the premise that those rights stem from the innate rights of the individuals which comprise it.
Daniel, can you explain what you mean, how this operates in the UK? I think I have an idea of what you’re referring to, but maybe I’m wrong. Is it particular to the UK and religion?
The rights I am talking about that groups should have are simply the same rights the people within those groups already have. If one person can freely speak, then twenty or a hundred people who choose to work together or pool resources should be able to freely speak, as a group, if they wish to. I am focused here on speech.
But if, as Mike says, the premise is followed that the basis for any group right is the rights of the individuals within that group — that individual rights are the foundation — then using the concept of group rights to infringe on individual rights seems like a contradiction.
I am guessing that the premise or practice of group rights you’re referring to is different from what Mike is talking about.
I try to apply the Orwell test. Orwell could see the common sense and logicality of things, and I think he would see that corporate “personhood” makes little sense.
Corporations are property that can be bought and sold. By acting as if corporations are persons that have rights like a living human citizen, they gain great advantage over ordinary citizens – particularly those who are not wealthy. Corporations thus viewed have greater advantage than even a single wealthy citizen has over the single ordinary citizen. (It is silly to argue that we are all equal under the law, because in fact we are not. Wealth can, for example, buy more justice than poverty can. The goal is to make that playing field more level, which it never will be if we accept the notion of corporate personhood.) Corporate personhood thus helps enable the rise of corporatism, or corporate rule, a sinister development currently taking place that has alarmed ideologues on both the left and the right.
If you argue that corporations are simply organizations of people and that these people shouldn’t be deprived of their rights when they join with others to act collectively, then you must answer the problem that logically follows: double-representation. People in corporations may act collectively and at the same time be able to act individually, giving them a greater presence than just individuals not in such a collective. A corporation’s interests are already covered by all individuals who hold an interest in a corporation, among them shareholders, managers, employees, suppliers, and customers.
Moreover, in the concept of corporate person lies a legal contradiction that is a greater problem than any other. The corporation, being owned by shareholders, is the shareholders’ property. If the corporation is also a person, then it is in a state of slavery to those shareholders, a condition forbidden by the 13th Amendment. If you contend that this is tortured logic, that a non-human cannot be held in slavery, then you must follow that reasoning to find that that same non-human is not a person in law. Is a corporation a person illegally held in servitude by its shareholders? Or is it a person enjoying the rights of personhood that take precedence over the ownership rights of its shareholders? I say “enjoying the rights”; I will not even get into the realm of practicing those rights, some of which, such as voting or bearing arms, it patently cannot do.
Orwell might, in his inimitable way, say that you should as easily, or perhaps more easily, declare a cat or a dog a person as a corporation. Cats and dogs cannot vote or bear arms, either, or quarter soldiers in peacetime (or not), directly elect senators or pay (or not pay) poll taxes. And they have they added advantage to such an argument of being living, breathing beings.
“The goal is to make that playing field more level”
I disagree.
Rather than spend your time trying to pull others down, why not devote it to raising yourself up?
Why isn’t your goal “To make as much money as you can/want”?
Great points Parsifal. Particularly how corps are slaves…made me smile. I thought you might bring up double representation. However, double representation is not just a corporate issue. Any group, not just a corporation, will have that same effect of representing the individual and representing the group. A partnership, a union and perhaps most interestingly, a government.
Doesn’t the US do things in our name (I’m reminded of the protesters shouting “Not in my name!”) that we disagree with. Yet we still have the ability to represent ourselves AND the government is representing us. There is nothing in our law (that I am aware of) that prevents any one of us from declaring ourselves a sovereign nation. If we did, we would represent ourselves and our nation at the same time.
This line of logic can go on but you get the idea. And because we elect our representatives to represent for us does not make our ability to declare ourselves sovereign null and void. However, in my best estimation, we still won’t have souls and neither will Whole Foods.
For Mike: Why does the entirely American idea of wanting to have as level a playing field as possible equate in your mind to wanting to “pull others down”? It can be read entirely the other way ‘round. The noble goal of a level playing field is to make it possible for EVERYONE to have the opportunity to at least TRY to pull him- or herself UP. Being human, we most likely will never reach that noble goal, but in a decent society – which is surely what we want in the United States, or any democracy – we should strive to get as close as we can. If we do not, if we tolerate an eternally unlevel playing field, we will condemn some people to being permanently down.
I have always striven to make as much money as I can. I have not been terribly successful at making as much as I want. I won’t speak for myself, but many many many many people in various fields do not set for themselves your goal of making as much many as they want (or even can) – religious workers, teachers, medical humanitarians, the military, even people in the arts and journalism. Not all of them, of course, but a great number. Their goal is to do something satisfying to themselves and, often, helpful to others. You might even say they do their little bit to level the playing field. Nature is indifferent — not cruel, but indifferent — red in tooth and claw. The persons inhabiting it – real persons, not “corporate persons” – do not have to be.
Oops. Not “as much many,” but “money.”
“The noble goal of a level playing field is to make it possible for EVERYONE to have the opportunity to at least TRY to pull him- or herself UP.”
Which we have here in the US right now, no change required.
For example: Obama. Born roughly middle class, but through 20 years of hard work making political connections and getting an education, he managed to become President.
This country is full of other such rags-to-riches stories. Men, women, every race, good looking people, ugly looking people, it doesn’t matter. Martin Luther King Jr’s vision has come true today in America. Anyone here can rise to any height, go any where, do any thing, as long as they have the drive and dedication to make it happen.
Or would you prefer the old Russian model of standing outside in the breadline starving because the government levelled the playing field?
Good idea. Let’s take America, laminate it just as it is. Preserve it in amber at this very moment. Never change, never improve, never adjust to altered conditions.
This is such a good idea, I wonder why we didn’t think to do it in . . . oh, I don’t know . . . say, 1857? Nail that sucker down when they got it right with Dred Scott. What WERE they thinking about, with all those Amendments? What number are we up to now? 27? Excessive; that’s about 17 more than any sensible nation needs.
Ahem.
There is nothing like the Dred Scott rulings in America these days. No slavery, no oppression, no doors closed to anyone based on race, sex, or religion.
Why do you think America is so evil?
Oh, hey-zoos, I give up. You’re hopeless, hapless, helpless, clueless. “Why do you hate America?” That’s all you right-wing apparatchiks know. Grow up, wise up, smarten up, learn some history, learn how to counter an argument rather than vomiting slogans, learn how to write. Have a nice time in your sink of ignorance.
Awwww… You’re leaving?
Mind taking the steaming pile of refuse that is the idea that “America today is no different than America under Dred Scott” with you when you go?