Why I bang on

I’ve been troubled by one of Pootergeek’s posts. Not (just) this one, but this, wherein I’m accused of “always banging on about” managerialism.
I don’t bang on about it because I’m obsessed. I do so for three other reasons:
1. Inequalities in power and wealth – such as the huge salaries paid to bosses – are typically justified by managerialist ideology, the belief that good, knowledgeable leadership can solve our problems. It’s surely important for egalitarians to point out that this ideology is at least questionable and possibly plain false.
2. Managerialism is, as Alasdair MacIntyre pointed out, a defining feature of our age. It’s so ubiquitous that people don’t see it - the mark of a successful hegemony. As Jolie Holland (with whom I’m genuinely obsessed) said, culture is the stuff you don’t notice.
Of course, the clash between Islamism and “Enlightenment values” is more salient. But salience is not the same as importance. Does the bigger threat to “Enlightenment values” really come from a handful of fanatics, or from a ruling class that apparently values a faith in limitless know-how over liberty? And shouldn’t a genuine left challenge those in power, rather than those on the margins?
3. There’s one big reason why I bang on about managerialism – because no-one else does.
Too many people write simply to ingratiate themselves with a tribe – left, right, pro-war, anti-war, anti-Muslim, whatever. I try (and probably often fail) to bring a little diversity. If others banged on more about managerialism, I’d bang on less.

Comments

[Andrew Zalotocky]

Don't be troubled. Banging-on is just a synonym for persistence.

[james higham]

Yo. You keep banging on, Chris. Fixations, such as about managerialism, are endearing. The next task is to convince us to become concerned about it and how can you do that unless you bang on about it?

[dearieme]

Managerialism isn't about ""knowledgeable leadership":it's about ignorant boss-ship. You appoint a man head of a car company because he use to run a croissant company - you argue that knowing about cars, and the market for cars, is unimportant. What matters is that he's a LEADER, in the sense that if you weren't paid to, you'd never take his opinions seriously. He's also PROFESSIONAL, which means that he's got the right sort of haircut and suit. Pah!

[Gracchi]

Keep banging on. I think managerialism is one of the things that is really worth thinking about and you do well- Cameron and Blair both express managerialist thoughts as does Brown adn you should keep going until the ideology ceases to be importnat. Oh and as for your point about unspoken thoughts- I think that's entirely right- the fascinating thing which we should all be trying to do is expose the assumptions of present politics not contributing to the frenzy.

[Tom]

Yes, keep on about it, you've hit on a key article of faith of modern society and we need to know these things.

[Shuggy]

"and probably often fail"

Nah. And it obviously isn't just me that thinks so. You keep on banging on. Bang an gong, even.

[Shuggy]

"Bang an gong"

Or a gong, perhaps - whatever's louder...

[chris y]

What everybody has already said. But Pootergeek seems to think (rightly) it's a good thing that you bang on, so be not affronted by him.

[Alex]

Keep banging, it's another word for consistency. I'm already converted.

[Paul Evans]

Banging on is a disconcerting experience though. I bang on about a few things on my blog (in my case, centralisation and representation) and I'm still waiting for other bloggers to take up the same cudgels.

Your particular obsession, Chris, is a good one, because it provokes all sorts of other debates.

I'd like to see more on the practical route-map from where we are now to where we should be though.

I'd say the same about 'Basic Income' as well - something that I agree with you about, but something that I'm almost certain that we will never see.

[Kevin Carson]

Yes, please keep banging away. Given my recent experiences at the understaffed shithole of a shithole where I work, and the MBAs who have run it into the ground, if a Pol Pot came to power in America and executed everyone who wore a necktie to work, I'd be sorely tempted to cheer him on.

And dearieme's remark is a classic.

[Kevin Carson]

Oops. Should have been "understaffed shithole of a hospital."

BTW, I refer to a CEO recruited from outside, on the basis of all the other "organizations" he's managed, as a resume carpetbagger. Unfortunately, the tendency of senior management is to adopt policies based on "industry trends": i.e., based on policies adopted by the equally clueless management of other "organizations," who have just as little knowledge of what's going on down-hierarchy. The only reason corporations run by such idiots don't go bankrupt is that they are "competing" in heavily cartelized industries where all the firms have the same pathological culture.

Bring on the guillotines!

[nz conservative]

Right, managerialism isn't talked about much on other blogs, and I've done a fair bit of looking.

Bak in the early 1990s there was a book called 'Voltaires Bastard's', by John Ralston Saul, which a best seller, that had quite a lot to say on the topic.

After that,I expected the topic to become big issue, but its sadly faded away.

As you point out, its a subject tends to fall between political ideologies, although a lot of the upbeat hubris of neo-conservatism dovetails nicely with managerialism.

[Patrick Crozier]

Well, if managers are a complete waste of time, as you claim, the answer would appear to be quite simple: set up a company without bosses. You should clean up.