So how does Gramsci say we can escape hegemonic rule? As a political
economist he of course refers to structural problems within the production processes. Resource constraints or too high levels of inequality might challenge their
smooth continuation and therefore the acceptance of the division of labor and
revenues within them. But, most relevant for this book, he also suggests the
weakening of the cultural and ideational consensus or dominant paradigm that helps
to justify the unequal distribution patterns and provide moral hazard on a sociocultural rather than structural level.
Public discourse after the financial crisis, at least in Germany, was full of
statements—for example, that human nature is simply greedy and that it was not the
fault of individual bankers but of regulatory loopholes that they basically had to
use. The question these articles never answer is which of these implacably greedy
humans should then suddenly be enlightened enough to write laws without loopholes. Nor do these articles suggest how it might be possible to find laws without
loopholes for globalized systems. The moral hazard discussion so far points out that
systems too big to fail and contracts with golden parachutes are not very conducive
to good governance.
But there is also a sociocultural moral hazard perpetuated by a narrative and
proclaimed common sense in which people are innately greedy. The ethical default
changes from one of ‘intending no harm’ to one of ‘do everything that is not
explicitly forbidden because this is legitimate.’ Even regulatory and judicial consequences will differ from those of a society in which egoistical behavior to the
detriment of the great majority is considered an individual and civilizational failure.
Different sentences for corruption or rape in different cultural settings are just one
example of this hazard effect.
German philosopher Richard David Precht offers a forthright view on the effects of
the widespread adoption of mainstream economic ideas and the commodification of
human relationships: “Strict and tough calculation of utility, ruthlessness and greed
are not man’s main driving forces, but the result of targeted breeding. One could call
this process ‘the origin of egoism by capitalist selection’, following Charles Darwin’s
famous principal work” (ibid., here cited by Habermann 2012: 15).
More subtly, Gill writes: “a change in thinking is a change in the social totality
and thus has an impact on other social processes; a change in the social totality will
provoke change in the process of thought. Hence the process of thinking is part of a
ceaseless dialectic of social being” (Gill 2003: 22). This means that many of the
ultimate drivers of societal change are located within each one of us. Here, as
indicated in purple and blue arrows in Fig. 2.6, we find the connection between the
big picture of meta-level paradigms and hegemonic narratives on the meso-level
and the mini-level of individual thinking and acting: everyone can challenge the
declared system-purpose and the ideas and assumptions it needs to appear as
beneficial or legitimate. By questioning the standard answers and ways of doing
things we can drive change from below, within and above, at the same time.
154
5 How to Work a Great Mindshift for Sustainability Transformations
economist he of course refers to structural problems within the production processes. Resource constraints or too high levels of inequality might challenge their
smooth continuation and therefore the acceptance of the division of labor and
revenues within them. But, most relevant for this book, he also suggests the
weakening of the cultural and ideational consensus or dominant paradigm that helps
to justify the unequal distribution patterns and provide moral hazard on a sociocultural rather than structural level.
Public discourse after the financial crisis, at least in Germany, was full of
statements—for example, that human nature is simply greedy and that it was not the
fault of individual bankers but of regulatory loopholes that they basically had to
use. The question these articles never answer is which of these implacably greedy
humans should then suddenly be enlightened enough to write laws without loopholes. Nor do these articles suggest how it might be possible to find laws without
loopholes for globalized systems. The moral hazard discussion so far points out that
systems too big to fail and contracts with golden parachutes are not very conducive
to good governance.
But there is also a sociocultural moral hazard perpetuated by a narrative and
proclaimed common sense in which people are innately greedy. The ethical default
changes from one of ‘intending no harm’ to one of ‘do everything that is not
explicitly forbidden because this is legitimate.’ Even regulatory and judicial consequences will differ from those of a society in which egoistical behavior to the
detriment of the great majority is considered an individual and civilizational failure.
Different sentences for corruption or rape in different cultural settings are just one
example of this hazard effect.
German philosopher Richard David Precht offers a forthright view on the effects of
the widespread adoption of mainstream economic ideas and the commodification of
human relationships: “Strict and tough calculation of utility, ruthlessness and greed
are not man’s main driving forces, but the result of targeted breeding. One could call
this process ‘the origin of egoism by capitalist selection’, following Charles Darwin’s
famous principal work” (ibid., here cited by Habermann 2012: 15).
More subtly, Gill writes: “a change in thinking is a change in the social totality
and thus has an impact on other social processes; a change in the social totality will
provoke change in the process of thought. Hence the process of thinking is part of a
ceaseless dialectic of social being” (Gill 2003: 22). This means that many of the
ultimate drivers of societal change are located within each one of us. Here, as
indicated in purple and blue arrows in Fig. 2.6, we find the connection between the
big picture of meta-level paradigms and hegemonic narratives on the meso-level
and the mini-level of individual thinking and acting: everyone can challenge the
declared system-purpose and the ideas and assumptions it needs to appear as
beneficial or legitimate. By questioning the standard answers and ways of doing
things we can drive change from below, within and above, at the same time.
154
5 How to Work a Great Mindshift for Sustainability Transformations