Articles & Opinions
Register for eNewsletter
Keep up-to-date with all the latest news with our enewsletter.
Register »
To Find a Common Good, We Need a Common Language
by Robert Gordon
Posted: 05 Jul 2013
Five years on from a catastrophic failure in our global
financial system, we find ourselves towards the tail end of a transitional
period. A period marked by reviews,
protests, parliamentary commissions, and a great deal of corporate
restructuring and regulatory enforcement.
Now it seems we have to wait and see where all of this work might take
us. We're told it will take time, but
the results will be worth it.
What is worrying is that even at this quite advanced stage there remains a
consistent voice of scepticism - one that does not believe the desire for true
change is felt strongly enough, particularly amongst those whom it will affect
the most. The parting
words from Mervyn King were amongst his strongest yet, pointing towards a
source of "tremendous pressure" working to dilute what are seen as necessary
and prudent measures meant to ensure we don't find ourselves in another crisis
before overcoming the current one.
His
words were intended to highlight a widespread, disingenuous approach to the
conversation on banking reform. A
conversation that - given the £133 billion of UK public finances spent alone - really
should occur within the public sphere.
We have seen time and again a callous disregard for due process
exemplified by the Libor and PPI scandals, and a closed-door mentality that brazenly
mocks publicly-funded bail outs. The
dialogue on the role of the financial sector in our democratic society is too
important a debate to occur via private channels of influence. Society as a whole bailed out the financial
sector, and as such deserves nothing less than the most transparent and
inclusive process for reform that we can muster. We need to be part of the same conversation
or nothing substantial will change.
The argument that the public cannot engage appropriately on technical matters -
often succumbing to the whims of popular sentiment without understanding the
consequences - should certainly be taken into consideration. It is very important that we do not mistake
inspiring rhetoric for tangible and effective paths of action. However, we must
remember that in this instance it is the regulators themselves who are being
circumvented and calling foul. The
public has appointed our technical experts, through the appropriate representative
channels, and for them to be sidelined so readily is a very strong argument
that the call for lasting and significant change is not being heeded by many
within the financial sector. Allister
Heath, the avidly pro-business editor of City A.M., added to the strong words
of the outgoing governor in a recent
editorial:
"UK Plc's obsession with negotiating in
private is bad for its own reputation, as well as short-sighted, ineffective
and ultimately detrimental to shareholders and the national interest."
The issue we face is not primarily one of resolve - there are many passionate
people both within and without the financial sector who are acting positively -
but rather it is one of division. We
have lost the capacity to talk to one another.
We've lost the capacity across class divides and levels of education;
we've lost the capacity across political and religious affiliations; we've lost
the capacity across private, public and civil sectors. It is impossible to come to any conclusive path
of action without first finding a common reference point. To find a common good we need a common
language.
This begins within a commercial context, with consumers
being clear on the products they become involved with and entering into
conversations with their banks that are accessible and supportive. Finding a common language at the 'point of
sale' is vital to restoring a trust-based relationship which has been violently
severed by mismanagement and predatory obfuscation. "A bank
has a responsibility to ensure that customers have had a reasonable opportunity
to understand a transaction, having regard to their knowledge and personal
circumstances. The FCA now has a mandate
under its consumer protection objective to enforce this responsibility" - just
one of many statements of this kind in the Banking Standards report.
Of course, this responsibility runs both ways.
If the ongoing crisis has highlighted how influential the world of
finance is to our social well-being, then there is an urgent need to develop
more effective and comprehensive avenues for education and community support in
this area. The onus cannot solely rest
on for-profit corporations who have a legitimate responsibility to shareholders,
and so a great deal of effort must also be put forth by organisations,
charities and public bodies to close the knowledge gap and facilitate a more
equal conversation. We must not shirk
responsibility onto others, but instead be forthright as organisations and
individuals of the role we may have played in encouraging the crisis to occur
and what we can do to alleviate it. We
are all complicit in this crisis (although by no means equally so) and, to
broaden a turn of phrase used by the Archbishop of Canterbury at our Good
Banks event, we all need to 'pop
the bubble of inward-looking self-regard' in order to form the foundation of
our way out of it.
At a more basic level we need to recognise that the words and phrases we use to
discuss personal and societal strength have been underpinned almost entirely by
a single point of reference: that often intangible, always domineering utility
called 'money'. Our headlines and
attention are constantly drawn towards analysis of 'productivity' that depends
on monetary expenditure and gain. Our
concept of 'wealth' is dominated by golden handcuff indices that overlook the
underpinnings of social utility and happiness the term might otherwise espouse. Our notion of 'success' has been skewed to
refer more to the size of one's pay packet then social contribution (and,
indeed, we have the paradox that the more socially useful roles are generally
amongst the lowest paid). We've even
corrupted entirely a word whose basic root means nothing more than a 'good
thing': bonus.
It is amongst this backdrop of language creep - one that divorces us from the
daily practicality, personal effort and communal identity of words such as 'value',
'investment', 'growth' - that we witness remarkable examples of incongruent
thinking. Stock markets falling rapidly
because the economy is improving (and therefore quantitative easing programmes can/might
subside); commentators calling out in alarm because China's economy is
'collapsing' to a mere 7.7% increase per
annum; 'straight talking money' from payday lenders having enough hidden
terms, fees and conditions to confuse most and ruin the lives of many.
We have lost our ability to communicate with
one another honestly, instead relying on sensational rhetoric that belies
self-centred agendas and hijacks our language through an obsession with the
current era's monetary overlord. This
might sound like a common language for those of us who are relatively
comfortable within such a framework, but by allowing monetary concerns to
direct our thoughts and actions we are condemning an increasing section of
society to generational hardship and shutting them out of the conversation on
what it means to forge a good society.
Having said all this, I don't count myself entirely in the camp of the sceptics. The Banking Standards report is accessible
and forward thinking, bringing together a broad range of opinions and
perspectives into its findings and providing a very strong platform for
systemic reform. Sentiment has shifted
across the board palpably in just the last six months, and resolve
from regulators looks to continue unabated.
There is a clear and widespread understanding that change is required to
a degree not previously envisaged - and not merely from the corporations and public
bodies that make up the financial sector, but from many of us in our personal
lives and spending habits. Not just how
we 'spend' our money either, but how we spend our time, energy and emotion in
coming together to formulate a more positive and vibrant way of being.
The spectre of individualism runs deep throughout this conversation, but we are
becoming better at calling it out and recognising the influence that it has on
the way we live our lives. One of the
final hurdles to overcome is to reconnect our personal and professional lives
into one cohesive vision for what it means to be a good person, a good employee,
a good citizen. Discovering this in
ourselves allows us to see it more clearly in others and recognise similarities
rather than emphasise differences. From
here we can stimulate a conversation that embraces a universal sense of duties based
upon a new and more inclusive frame of reference. A common language across all parts of our own
lives allows for a genuinely common conversation to occur in the public sphere.
It is clear that a growing majority want to find a positive path forward based
upon a notion of the common good. In
order for this process to flourish and not become stifled by divisive
structures and old-era siege mentalities we must rediscover a common language. With this we can join a common conversation -
built upon openly defined agendas and accessible meaning - that enables us to
forge a future that flourishes with value and wealth of all kinds, promotes
productivity and creative success, and encourages investment in ourselves and each
other.
About this author
Robert Gordon was the Manager of St Paul's Institute from 2009 - 2017.
Anthony Sperryn - Posted: 09 Jul 2013
The opinions expressed in this article are those of the author, and do not necessarily represent the views of St Paul's Institute or St Paul's Cathedral.
The problem, as I see it, is that we are entrenched in a legal and commercial system where unlimited freedom to make contracts, of whatever sort, is a paramount objective and "caveat emptor" rules.
In this context, the Common Good is, ultimately, irrelevant.
In the recent events at the Cathedral, it was Tarek El Diwany who showed a possible way forward. Much tougher product regulation may help, but it needs a change of mindset.
Last night, I saw the BBC Parliament TV, debating reform. The Government spokesman rejected the idea of a duty of care being imposed, so there is a long way to go yet.