Towards Organic Cohesion: A Diagnosis of the Generational Degeneration

The intergenerational contract lies at the core of humanity’s path to progress. What the world will look like in several centuries is a direct function of how the relationships between successive generations continue to develop. Earlier generations influence this path through bequeathing a conceptual framework or worldview, which sets out the aims and outcomes to aspire to, as well as the material state of the world and resources available to get there. The past generations deal the hand and initiate the rules by which the future generations play.

Concerns for a rise in intergenerational injustices are mounting; unaffordable housing, stagnating income, and climate change are some of the threats to the younger generations’ quality of life. Many liberal thinkers like Keynes envisioned a society where the spoils of economic growth would enable the majority of the population to spend their time on “creative use of leisure and the deeper problems of life” (Schuker 2013). We are now living in Keynes’ projected timeline but unlike his projections of economic growth, his predictions of increased leisure have failed to materialise for the majority of humanity.

Successive generations are undeniably closely connected through familial bonds. The nature of this connection frequently goes beyond a simple mechanism for imparting world views and transcends to a life-long bond of care and compassion. Clearly, every reasonable parent is deeply concerned with the welfare and progress of their children, and often willing to make great sacrifices to benefit their offspring. Why, then, do we see a deteriorating trend across several wellbeing indicators for younger generations?[1]

Ironically, the source for much of the intergenerational injustices we observe can be traced back to extreme inequalities between people living contemporaneously (The Intergenerational Commission 2018; Tozer 2019). The familial bond almost universally acts as a vector for each person’s endowments. From simple financial advantage which supports children in their years of development, allowing them to acquire skills without having to spend time providing for the family from a young age, and inheritance windfalls providing financial security, to the transfer of networks and connections, world views and mindsets and even genetic factors affecting success[2]. These intergenerational transfers serve to amplify the gap in endowments, and without mechanisms for diffusion of these endowments across a range of social strata, negative externalities arising from ever-increasing levels of inequality (in wealth, development, opportunity etc.) would constantly aggravate the quality of living for the masses of humanity. Looking back at our history, however, it is evident that the solution is not as simple as a forceful redistribution of wealth. Though this redistribution has happened several times in history, social fragmentation and inequality has returned, stronger than ever. To find the root cause and a remedy to this affliction, we begin by discussing justice and social fragmentation, and move on to extracting some principles and mechanisms for overcoming the challenges for future generations.

1. Why should we care?

The generally accepted philosophical argument takes root in Rawls’ veil of ignorance. Rawls argues that any individual ignorant of the station they will have in the world, be it their social class, gender, race, abilities, or the generation in which they are born, would design policies and institutions in a manner that would not disadvantage any given group, since they themselves may be a member of that group when the veil is lifted. And therefore, a just society would not let intergenerational injustices go unchecked.

Rawls’ thought experiment is incredibly potent in motivating an altruistic framework for thought. However, pragmatically, it would presuppose one individual being able to truly appreciate life as experienced by differently endowed segments of society. Even behind Rawls’ veil, a member of one segment of society (e.g., by age, gender, race, wealth, etc.), is unable to grasp the nuances of issues facing the other groups, their lived experience, or their preferences. Despite humanity’s increasing interdependence, our knowledge of the subtleties of the lived experience of the varying segments of society remains incorrigibly limited.

This is not purely due to a lack of effort. Research going back to Dunbar in the 1990s has long established that there is an upper bound to the number of stable relationships an individual can cognitively maintain (Dunbar 1992). We use our social network to collect and synthesise information about the world and our value systems. This means that each individual, and by extension each tight-knit community of individuals is fundamentally limited by the understanding the members of that community have built through their lived experiences and that of their peers, which excludes myriads of other social groups. This extends to fundamental assumptions and beliefs we feed our system of logic when forming conclusions about the world, as well as the literature we consume and the light in which we understand what we read. For instance, city dwellers in advanced nations often hold political views that differ greatly from their country dwelling counterparts within the same nation (Kelly and Lobao 2019; Scala and Johnson 2017). This rural/urban divide arises as a result of a systematic difference in lived experience and aspirations, leading to varying priorities. If humans fundamentally lack the capacity to have a deep grasp of the condition of every other member of mankind, how can we then design a fair system for everyone, even from behind Rawls’ veil? In an ever-changing world, with widely different lived experiences, how can members of generation X design fair institutions and policies to serve generation Z?

2. Beyond paternalism

Fostering a transparent democracy, where civil liberties and each individual’s rights to hold public office are protected, is widely acknowledged as a just system to aspire to. Theoretically, this would enable the aggregate living experience of the average person in a society to be represented at the decision-making level, providing a wider perspective in policy debates.

Today, this idea underlies the basis for much of the mechanisms governing the western world. At least according to the letter of the law, all citizens have an equal opportunity to aspire to public office, and in many cases, we see affirmative action seeking to diversify the pool of decision makers across the public and private sectors. Though great strides have been made, structural challenges abound. Self-interest and avarice wreak havoc on an already fractured social fabric, divisions and othering characterise contemporary discourse, and pure consequentialism is used to justify prolonging suffering. The political, socioeconomic, and generational divides have even deepened in many cases. In this environment, economic growth and wealth generation still take centre stage in much of the prevalent discourse, while it is well known that the link between wealth and happiness breaks for higher than moderate amounts of wealth[3].

A common thread in modern thought from which the above system stems, is the inorganic segmentation of society into the governors and the governed, into those making the decisions and those subjected to them, and into those who wield power and those who follow. The flames of this dialectical struggle between factions of society are fanned by a deep-rooted faith in competition, and a conviction to viewing any transaction as a zero-sum game[4]. Within this framework, decisions made at the top of the pyramid flow through the system in an attempt to shape society, as envisioned by the decision makers, who by virtue of being embedded in their own social networks, remain aloof from the realities of various segments of population. This is neither to blame nor praiseworthy, but simply a fact of life and a by-product of the limits to our cognitive abilities. But this paternalistic structure of governance has demonstrably failed in the past, while alternatives have shown promise (Arbab et al. 2000).

3. A path forward

We have established paternalism resulting from social fragmentation as one of the core reasons for the failure of our current systems to maintain and raise living standards for future generations. It is natural now, to turn to policies aimed at remedying this issue. However, we should note that policy is a blunt instrument, and though it is necessary, it cannot achieve sustainable progress by itself. Policy frameworks arising from impatience and a thirst for quick results, often born out of a need for the ruling class to maintain popularity have hampered sustainable progress. An evolved system should have an explicit conceptual framework at its core, where principles, assumptions and concepts informing the mechanics of policy design are discussed, and where a general understanding of these principles is prevalent. To overcome this, this paper recommends a set of principles and attitudes, and further, outlines a preliminary set of mechanisms informed by these conceptions.

3.1 The concepts and attitudes

1. Substituting consultation for paternalism — Challenging the notion of paternalism does not translate to a disregard for authority, or a call for abolishing structures of governance. It requires candid consultation with stakeholders, irrespective of their age, gender of social status. It involves reducing frictions for flow of information through social strata; it requires humility in seeking the truth in any point of view presented, and detachment from personal and political convictions. Transcending paternalism presupposes a collective understanding that every individual has the same inherent value as a person, and that the value of an individual as a member of mankind is not determined by their function, wealth, or economic output.

2. Appreciating the organic interconnectedness of society — Humanity is an organic whole. Mankind is like a human body and each person like a cell. The actions and the state of each individual affect the entirety of mankind, while the diversity of cells in the body and their effective coordination sustain life (Baha’i International Community 2012). An example of this interdependence, aside from the prime example of anthropogenic climate change, is the meltdown of the financial markets during the global financial crisis, which was a vivid realisation of how the consequences of the actions of a few can cascade and ripple throughout the world, affecting the lives of swathes of seemingly unrelated populations. We must remember that while each person shapes their environment, they are in turn also shaped by it.

3. Departure from short-termism and fire-fighting — The outcome-oriented view taken on every step of a policy program only works to disturb the balance of market forces. Evidence on the detrimental effect of myopia in both the corporate and policy spheres is extensive (Aidt and Dutta 2007; Kraft, Vashishtha, and Venkatachalam 2017; Mizik 2010). To avoid pressures pushing policy makers towards firefighting, a mature society should allow for and acknowledge mistakes and employ an iterative and scientific approach to policy. Historically, science has advanced because theories have been allowed to be tested and falsified. How can we advance policy if we do not have a united front on testing solutions and iteratively coming up with better ones as we learn?

4. Instilling fair-mindedness as an attitude — Creating an open forum for candid discourse and effective consultation requires participants to see through their own eyes and analyse information through their own understanding. Overcoming polarisation and a move towards social cohesion demands engaging with the core of the argument presented rather than judging its merits by who it is coming from.

3.2 The mechanisms

The above principles and attitudes can manifest themselves in all social and professional interactions, and when policy questions are considered. However, to actively promote social cohesion, policymakers can:

1. Facilitate community initiatives aimed at encouraging intermingling on a local scale and promote fora where consultation with an open attitude can take place. The gatherings can foster a sense of belonging and serve as the building blocks of a system of knowledge generation, where findings are permeated to the decision-making level.

2. Employ the scientific method in evaluating policies with conviction and humility; with a forgiving attitude and without fear of mistakes but determined to learn from mistakes, should they arise.

3. Utilise the existing institutions at the local, state, and national level, augmented with community and grassroots initiatives to transfer learnings from different segments of society through to the policymaking stage, where insights are synthesised and redistributed. Note that soft information in particular is best conveyed through in person interaction (Carlino and Kerr 2015; Chen et al. 2010; Malmberg and Power 2005), facilitated by this layered mechanism.

4. Conclusion

Lasting change can only be effected through the edification of the masses of society. Forceful change lasts as long as the enforcing force does, and even then, it entails illicit activity circumventing it. To be delivered from the struggles imposed upon us by society, we must first look within ourselves, since it is not only our environment that affects us, but also the reverse. Only when society forms a cohesive body, every cell of which cannot rest so long as part of the body is suffering can we sustainably grow.

Bibliography:

Aidt, Toke S, and Jayasri Dutta. 2007. “Policy Myopia and Economic Growth.” European Journal of Political Economy 23(3): 734–53. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0176268006000516.

Arbab, Farzam et al. 2000. The Lab, the Temple, and the Market: Reflections at the Intersection of Science, Religion, and Development. Kumarian Press.

Baha’i International Community. 2012. “Beyond Balancing the Scales: The Roots of Equity, Justice and Prosperity for All.” UN Global Thematic Consultation on “Addressing Inequalities.” https://www.bic.org/statements/beyond-balancing-scales-roots-equity-justice-and-prosperity-all.

Campante, Filipe, and David Yanagizawa-Drott. 2015. “ Does Religion Affect Economic Growth and Happiness? Evidence from Ramadan *.” The Quarterly Journal of Economics 130(2): 615–58. https://doi.org/10.1093/qje/qjv002.

Carlino, Gerald, and William R Kerr. 2015. “Agglomeration and Innovation.” Handbook of regional and urban economics 5: 349–404.

Chen, Henry, Paul Gompers, Anna Kovner, and Josh Lerner. 2010. “Buy Local ? The Geography of Successful and Unsuccessful.” Journal of Urban Economics 67(1): 90–102. http://www.nber.org/papers/w15102.

Diener, Ed, Weiting Ng, James Harter, and Raksha Arora. 2010. “Wealth and Happiness across the World: Material Prosperity Predicts Life Evaluation, Whereas Psychosocial Prosperity Predicts Positive Feeling.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 99(1): 52–61.

Dunbar, Robin I M. 1992. “Neocortex Size as a Constraint on Group Size in Primates.” Journal of human evolution 22(6): 469–93.

Gladwell, Malcolm. 2008. Outliers: The Story of Success. Little, Brown and Company.

Karlberg, Michael. 2004. Beyond The Culture Of Contest: From Adversarialism To Mutualism In An Age Of Interdependence. George Ronald.

Kelly, Paige, and Linda Lobao. 2019. “The Social Bases of Rural-Urban Political Divides: Social Status, Work, and Sociocultural Beliefs.” Rural Sociology 84(4): 669–705.

Kraft, Arthur G, Rahul Vashishtha, and Mohan Venkatachalam. 2017. “Frequent Financial Reporting and Managerial Myopia.” The Accounting Review 93(2): 249–75. https://doi.org/10.2308/accr-51838.

Leacock, Eleanor, and Ed Burke. 1971. The Culture of Poverty: A Critique. Simon and Schuster, Rockefeller Center, 630 Fifth Avenue, New York, N.Y. 10020.

Malmberg, Anders, and Dominic Power. 2005. “(How) Do (Firms in) Clusters Create Knowledge?” Industry and Innovation 12(4): 409–31.

Mizik, Natalie. 2010. “The Theory and Practice of Myopic Management.” Journal of Marketing Research 47(4): 594–611. https://doi.org/10.1509/jmkr.47.4.594.

Quoidbach, Jordi, Elizabeth W Dunn, K V Petrides, and Moïra Mikolajczak. 2010. “Money Giveth, Money Taketh Away: The Dual Effect of Wealth on Happiness.” Psychological Science 21(6): 759–63. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797610371963.

Scala, Dante J, and Kenneth M Johnson. 2017. “Political Polarization along the Rural-Urban Continuum? The Geography of the Presidential Vote, 2000–2016.” The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science 672(1): 162–84. https://doi.org/10.1177/0002716217712696.

Schuker, Stephen A. 2013. “Review of How Much Is Enough? Money and the Good Life, by R. Skidelsky & E. Skidelsky.” The Independent Review 17(4): 599–602. http://www.jstor.org/stable/24563140.

The Intergenerational Commission. 2018. A New Generational Contract. https://www.resolutionfoundation.org/advanced/a-new-generational-contract/.

Tozer, Thomas. 2019. A New Intergenerational Contract: Intergenerational Justice in Principle and Policy.

[1] For an example of a discussion on the data outlining the stagnating and sometimes deteriorating living standards across generations refer to the report by the Intergenerational Commission (The Intergenerational Commission 2018).

[2] See (Gladwell 2008; Leacock and Burke 1971)

[3] For a few examples of the extensive literature see (Campante and Yanagizawa-Drott 2015; Diener et al. 2010; Quoidbach et al. 2010)

[4] For a well-reasoned argument on moving beyond competition towards collaboration see Beyond the Culture of Contest (Karlberg 2004)