Situantional Control

I'm back!

My month-long hiatus is at an end. The election is, thank God, over (very interesting, considered thoughts to follow), and I have had a week's sabbatical, slowly regaining some of my energy levels. I'm ready to start reading, cooking, living again after so much hard work during March.

I read two fabulous articles during lunch today, one I know quite a bit about, the other I know very little about. In some ways, they both tie into things I have thought about or experienced whilst working on the election campaign.


More...

Philip Zimbardo was the man behind the infamous Stanford Prison Experiment. He has written an article recalling his personal experiences, and how the experiment is still surpremely relevant today.

I studied the Experiment as a wet-behind-the-ears first year sociology student - as I'm sure have most sociology students, and it's as fascinating to me now as it was then. I think Zimbardo is right when he talks about how easy it is to minimise social and institutional effects, when in reality they wield an incredibly potent influence.

Of course, the fact that most of us participate in the same institutions tends to render the effect invisible, and perhaps those on the right are keen to downplay things like this because it clashes with some of the libertarian principles they hold dear. The idea that we're not all islands could seem an unconscionable imposition on an individual's sovereignty.

Nonetheless, I believe these are things we should remember and explicate wherever possible - not just for power arrangements with strong dichotomies, either. The places we work and circles we move in are all in thrall to these same currents. Heck, it forms the very marrow of reality television.

Also, perhaps it may incite a shred of sympathy - or at least a more utilitarian viewpoint - when it comes to condemning those we think have erred, a thought I had to hold at the forefront of my mind when digging through this mammoth profile of Paul Wolfowitz, and his time at the World Bank.

The New Yorker is one of those last Grand Dames of the print world still doing proper investigative journalism, and though long, this article is a treat. Wolfowitz - considered by many lefties to be the devil incarnate - emerges as a three dimensional figure. However, whilst highlighting his many ideals, the piece also shows the spotty application of said ideals and the more disheartening reality of his time at the helm of the World Bank.

For me, this piece really highlight the importance of democratic decison-making, whether it's in politics or a company. Wolfowitz may have the best of intentions, but his knowledge is less than god-like, and it seems he has succeeded in alienating a huge proportion of World Bank staff and donors, and thus provoked a flood of resignations.

In some ways, his problems represent a perfect snapshot of US administration in general. Convinced he's right, Wolfowitz has gone about achieving his aims with little regard to the counsel or feelings of others. Moreover, he's convinced he's right, even when he's wrong. The checks and balances designed to limit bad (and more broadly I guess all) decison-making in large bureacracies have been steadily removed, with predictable consequences.

Also, Wolfowitz - like so many in the US administration - can't see the forest for the trees. Convinced there's one answer to a problem - or that there's an answer at all - he vigorously pursues his aim, even in the face of failure.

Whilst I can understand his pragmatism on one level (the last month has involved much decison-making by committee, and it is slow, frustrating and equivocal much of the time) - the need to just get things done - the perils of such an approach I think are self-evident. Wolfowitz has stacked the Bank with his Republican pals, against the advice of existing staff. Lack of diversity fosters a group-think that can only be damaging to the bank, and a myopia when it comes to policy priorities.

Hmmm, this rant is at the risk of becoming longer than the article! It is long, but definitely worth a read.