N is for Novak
I can’t recall when I first came across Michael Novak’s work, but I clearly remember buying a copy of Business as a Calling while attending an Aspen Institute seminar. At the time I was taken by the subtitle, ‘work and the examined life’, as the seminar readings included Plato and reference to grumpy old Socrates’ assertion that an unexamined life wasn’t worth living!
Checking the book cover, the blurb revealed he had been awarded the Templeton Prize in 1994. I wasn’t surprised. Novak had made it clear he was a Catholic and a Republican, and had been a lifelong proponent of the central place for religious faith in business. Perhaps less well-known than the Nobel Prizes, this annual award is given to someone who has made an “exceptional contribution to affirming life’s spiritual dimension, whether through insight, discovery, or practical works”. [i] A successful investor, Templeton was a supporter of management studies, establishing Templeton College at the University of Oxford, (today Green Templeton College). [ii]
At its inception, the Templeton Prize was awarded to people working in the field of religion. It was first given in 1972 to Mother Teresa. Other recipients include Billy Graham, Inamullah Kahn (former Secretary General of the Modem World Muslim Congress), Immanuel Jakobovits (former Chief Rabbi of Great Britain and the Commonwealth), and in 2012 the 14th Dalai Lama. However, in the last 20 years, awardees have come increasingly from theoretical physics, and, to a lesser extent, philosophy, but only to the extent these recipients had also shown at least a clear sympathy to spiritual beliefs. Incidentally, there is another distinctive characteristic of this prize: its value is always kept above that of the Nobel Prize (it’s currently around £1.1m).
Physicists contributing to “life’s spiritual dimension” might seem odd at first glance, but many work close to the borderline between the explicable and the inexplicable. Paul Davies, awarded the prize in 1995, offers a helpful example. A leading physicist, he had a particular interest in cosmology, and astrobiology. [iii] Astrobiology is concerned with three critical questions: How does life begin and evolve? Is there life beyond Earth and, if so, how can we detect it? What is the future of life on Earth and in the universe? Davies was interested in the ‘Goldilocks Paradox’, that the existence of life depends on the value of several key constants found in the laws of physics. [iv] Changing any one of these, even slightly, would mean the universe would become sterile, and uninhabitable: that’s much worse than finding porridge too hot!
Davies once said, “I do take life, mind and purpose seriously and I concede the universe at least appears [to be established] with a high level of ingenuity.” [v] Ingenuity? Clever design? In contrast, Davies is less enthusiastic about multiverses: the theory innumerable universes exist, each with different key constants, a theory which eliminates any suggestion of clever design. As you can imagine and despite his careful wording, Davies got into hot water with many other scientists. One of his colleagues at Arizona State, the theoretical physicist and atheist Lawrence Krauss, was quoted as saying Davies is “more than happy to jump into an area that he otherwise doesn’t have background in”. Doing this can leave you vulnerable to negative criticism, but Krauss believes there is nothing wrong with that. “I wouldn’t be surprised if Paul is completely wrong in a number of things, but asking questions provokes new lines of inquiry.” [vi] Perhaps it’s just that Davies likes to speculate out loud. Other winners are more forthrightly religious, like Michael Novak, who had been awarded the Templeton Prize the year before Paul Davies.
When he wrote his essay, Michael Novak held the George Frederick Jewett Chair in Religion and Public Policy at the American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research, usually referred to as the American Enterprise Institute (AEI). Although it claims a non-partisan approach, AEI is a major neo-conservatism forum. Members have included such stellar figures as John Bolton, Robert Bork, Dick Cheney, Newt Gingrich, Irving Kristol, and Antonin Scalia. Before I’m accused of cherry-picking its membership, some others are Aayan Hirsi Ali, David Gergen and Seymour Martin Lipset. However, the great majority are conservatives, or neo-conservatives, and, rather like The Economist, you know where AEI’s sympathies belong.
Business as a Calling examines what it meant to be a spiritual and moral person in business. [vii] Starting from the observation that most religious people work in business (is that true?), Novak claimed that business should be moral, and that the existence of some ‘sinners’ was not a reason to discount the reality of business as a moral endeavour. He went on to advocate the approach set out by Milton Freidman and colleagues at the Chicago School of Economics, which claims business is unbiased, gives opportunities for the poor, meets everyone’s needs, and promotes community, personal and economic liberty, supports creativity, and is practical, realistic and enjoyable. Really? I can only add ‘I wonder what they’ve been smoking?’
Much of that ideological nonsense has long been set aside. However, Business as a Calling does address some key issues. Despite its more extraordinary claims about business and society, the link between business and morality is important. There are two strands to this. The first is about the place of morality. On that topic, it is hard to disagree: business, like any other human endeavour, should strive to be moral in every respect. It’s a challenging expectation, given most believe the dominant measure of business success is profits, and performance is measured in financial terms. It is easy to see why people go astray. A CEO will believe his or her task is to maximise profits, and some seek to do so in any way possible. If it involves ‘sharp practice’, a nice euphemism for lying and cheating, so “that’s the way it is”. A manager seeking to avoid blame for a mistake may offload the failure to another’s activities, denying responsibility. An office worker might make false expenses claims. A shop floor worker on low wages might quietly steal raw materials for personal use, or to sell them around the back of the bar at night.
In every case, Novak argues, those behaving in this way will know their actions were wrong, although not all will describe them as ‘immoral’, a rather uncomfortable word to use. I suspect that most people, even if it is only in the moments before facing discovery, do think about the morality of their behaviour: an examined life is not the sole province of philosophers. Novak was right when he pointed out that there are moral standards. He was a little slippery with what characterises what is moral, however. In one example, he discussed “stratospheric executive compensation”. He accepted the familiar argument that the skills needed to be a CEO are in short supply, and adopts the “what the market will bear” perspective. Quite apart from the way in which the executive salary game is rigged, the approach presumes those chosen do have exceptional skills, and, as we see time after time, most don’t. Even those who are highly skilled often have a rather limited time to use their skills. Comparing business leaders to entertainment and sports stars, Novak wondered why the market pays them so much, and business leaders less. For some reason, he failed to ask about the morality of markets, especially those, like these two examples, that are easily manipulated. Surely he knew free markets are rare, and in practice most markets operate with imperfect information and asymmetrical relationships? [viii]
The second strand in Novak’s book concerns the basis for morality: if we should strive to be moral, from where do these principles originate? Novak proposes we have an awareness, a spiritual insight, into moral principles, and religion is the system of beliefs that underpins the way we should live. This is a tricky argument. His book suggests the moral principles that mattered are to be found in the Christian religion, drawing on biblical quotes, papal statements, and the works of scholars on the protestant ethic and similar issues. He briefly references Islam (which has many overlaps with Christian religion, of course), but not Buddhism, Confucianism, Hinduism, or any other major non-Christian sources on morality. Is this a surprise? It might have been an omission, but the ethics advocated in these other religions happen to be those that are less clearly related to the practices of business and wealth generation.
Business as a Calling is a thoughtful book. It offers good arguments for the place of morality in business. It nudges the reader to ask how far practice is failing communities, failing to do good, and failing to make a better society, asserting spiritual and business practices can be compatible. Although he never says so directly, he implies business or government employees should be a religious, and you know this means practicing Christians. Christianity as a recruitment device? He went further, adding corporations could be a “wedge of liberty into closed societies” since they are “in themselves embodiments of practices of human rights”. [ix] The thin end of a wedge?
The thin end of the wedge reminded me of the ‘Principle of the Wedge’, which has a very different connotation. Published over a 100 years ago, Francis Cornford’s Microcosmographia Academica is a guide for the young academic politician. [x] His views were clear, “If you are young, do not read this book; it is not fit for you; If you are old, throw it away; you have nothing to learn from it; If you are unambitious, light the fire with it; you do not need its guidance. But, if you are neither less than twenty-five years old, nor more than thirty; And if you are ambitious withal, and your spirit hankers after academic politics; Read, and may your soul (if you have a soul) find mercy!” As is often the case, humour is a nice way to convey important truths:
“The Principle of the Wedge is that you should not act justly now for fear of raising expectations that you may act still more justly in the future — expectations which you are afraid you will not have the courage to satisfy. A little reflection will make it evident that the Wedge argument implies the admission that the persons who use it cannot prove that the action is not just. If they could, that would be the sole and sufficient reason for not doing it, and this argument would be superfluous.” and “The Principle of the Dangerous Precedent is that you should not now do an admittedly right action for fear you, or your equally timid successors, should not have the courage to do right in some future case, which, ex hypothesi, is essentially different, but superficially resembles the present one. Every public action which is not customary, either is wrong, or, if it is right, is a dangerous precedent. It follows that nothing should ever be done for the first time.” [xi]
Older academics saw wedges and precedents as dangerous, to be avoided to keep the status quo. It’s possible Michael Novak had never read Cornford’s good advice. For sure, tying religion to business, he established a dangerous precedent. Today, in both the USA and Australia, the rigorous separation between church and state is crumbling, with alarming consequences.
One example, published just three years after Novak’s book, is David Marr’s The High Price of Heaven on “the enemies of pleasure and freedom”, offering a chilling example of how religion had invaded the Australian scene. [xii] For years, major companies allowed informal meetings of Catholics to discuss issues of concern. They were, I think, personal and probably had little impact, but today, this has become more serious.[xiii] In his case, David Marr was focussed on politics, uncovering how religious extremists influenced policies on sexual preferences, stopped legislation to support diversity or indigenous rights, rolled back abortion, banned homosexuality, and pursued a fundamentalist Christian agenda, all to “save society”. A high price, for sure.
Sounds familiar? Yes. In the US today, we have Donald Trump, defender of gun ownership and destroyer of democracy, seemingly determined to enable the Christian right agenda on issues ranging women’s rights to racial miscegeny. In his case, I doubt this comes from deeply held personal beliefs, but rather because the religious right is deeply embedded in his administration, a key source of support at rallies and elections. This reactionary Christian wedge is being used to turn back change, pushing, manipulating and influencing government in a planned long-term agenda. Trump doesn’t appear to think much about religion, but is happily erasing the separation of church and state to garner adulation and votes, serving a recalcitrant cause with little thought.
And what does this sorry saga illuminate.? That, once again, conservatives play for the long game, while progressives think that an appeal to justice, fairness and logic will always win. This is how politics is pursued, in government and in the boardroom. As Cornford wrote, reactionary politicians in the university understood it well: stop any new ideas, stay in control. Conservative patriarchal leaders take the discussions in well-meaning but mistaken books like Business is a Calling, and use them to steadily advance their program. New thinking and radical ideas have to be stopped. Step by step, they are determined to restore their traditional dominance, stamping on the thin end of a dangerous progressive wedge. Recruiting right wing Christians to their cause, spouting literal readings of the bible and any other texts that help their agenda, these backward looking dinosaurs are working hard to keep people in their place, controlling education, law, the workforce, the home, women and the disadvantaged, while stuffing the courts with like-minded thinkers: it’s politics as war, and the conservatives are winning. Oh Michael, what would you say if you could see where the perversion of religious beliefs has taken us today?
[i] As usual, Wikipedia outlines key information: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Templeton_Prize
[ii] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Templeton
[iii] https://web.archive.org/web/20081011192341/http://astrobiology.nasa.gov/about-astrobiology/
[iv] Paul Davies, The Goldilocks Enigma, Allen Lane, 2006: see pages 153-171 in particular
[v] Ibid, page 302
[vi] https://www.ft.com/content/f2479d9a-4cc5-11e3-958f-00144feabdc0
[vii] Free Press, 1996
[viii] These being the opposite of what Friedman suggested characterised a market. See Milton Friedman, Capitalism and Markets, page 14, Univ. of Chicago Press (I am using the 2002 Edition – pages are same in other editions).
[ix] Op Cit, page 162, with the author’s own emphasis
[x] Published in 1908 by Bowes and Bowes, the Cambridge publishing house and bookseller.
[xi] Ibid, page 9
[xii] Famous for his biographies of Patrick White and Chief Justice Sir Garfield Barwick, Marr is a trenchant progressive critic. The High Price of Heaven was published by Allen and Unwin, 1999.
[xiii] Does God Belong in The Boardroom? 1,800 CEOs Say Yes, Jerry Bowyer, Forbes, 12 August 2016
