When I lashed out in my last post proclaiming somewhat violently that I did not want to be a Big C creator, I realize now that what I did not want to be was someone who creates for creation's sake. But most of the creativity researchers would argue, none of the successful creators want to create for creation's sake: they are "intrinsically motivated" to work on problems in the field of study about which they are passionate. For example, I realize that I lied in the last post. I do have a desire to continue amassing knowledge in the field of philosophy so that I can work on really intriguing problems in an accurate, informed way. The motivation there is, however, not to make a contribution to the field but to satisfy a personal passion. I'd argue that this is the motivation for most academicians, except for the really miserable ones.
But business creativity: creating for creation's sake. Another model of an Ipod, another sort of television that creates an even more compelling image, another kind of special offer at Starbucks designed to do nothing but lure more people in. The grand bout n'est que l'argent! So when someone's passion is business, when someone is intrinsically motivated to build and maintain successful businesses, the are essentially intrinsically motivated to generate capital.
How can we be ethically satisfied with being intrinsically motivated to generate capital? We can be satisfied with the desire to provide a necessary or valuable product to the earth's citizens, but honestly, apart from being somewhere in the mission statement, is that the point of business? Does the cluster-fuck that is Wall Street exist for the purpose of providing goods or services to humankind? No. It exists to reward the lazy, to widen the gap between the wealth of the classes. We can NOT in good conscious justify studying the process that continues this social, political evil.
Clearly, I'm forgetting that business is a great part of what constitutes a society that is able to enjoy certain freedoms. I'm classing all businesses together without regard to the different sorts. I'm generalizing here, and I realize that with more careful evaluation, I'd revoke some of this or amend it. But the general sentiments remain, and I remain attached to them fiercely.
I think that when we discuss business creativity we aren't distinguishing between the person who may work at a corporation and the corporation itself. Yes, the corporation's goal is to increase revenue and have a place in the market. But what about the individuals who work within that corporation? What if the person who designs new Ipods is geniunly intrinsically motivated to create new Ipods, to constantly be reinventing his own invention to make it better?
ReplyDeleteIn this instance we can't punish the indivudal for just happening to find a big-wig corporation that will pay them to follow their passion. What about Wal-Mart? Wal-mart is, in my opinion, the epitome of all that is evil capitalism. But what about the people who design the clothes that Wal-Mart sells? I'm pretty sure that they didn't aspire to work for Wal-Mart, they just wanted to design clothes. I really think that if we are going to discuss business creativity and the evils behind the corporation, we need to distinguish the differnce between the individual and the company.
Sure, but I'd also say that even individuals could benefit from evaluating the ethical status of things that we find "intrinsically meaningful." For example, should a person who just REALLY loves hummers still be allowed to own and operate one? Does our intrinsic love for sugar and fat (which is a byproduct of the ancestral environment) mean that we can in good conscience consume it without thought? Should Bjork and Matthew Barne have been allowed to contract the use of a whaling ship and pour precious funds and resources into making "Drawing Restraint 9?" All of these questions really probe at our notions of censorship, but it's more of a matter of regarding ethicality as it pertains to resources and our environment than what is appropriate or useful. I just think that we all need to take stock of what is "meaningful" to us and muse about whether or not it's wasteful and or destructive ultimately.
ReplyDelete