Part III.1 - But where did this moral degeneration come from?

Moral degeneration! Two words used a lot in recent times. Then they’re followed by the million-dollar question: Where did this moral degeneration come from? This question is mainly asked over and over again when people try to make sense of social problems. More crucially, this question has come up at events organised to dissect the ethics in the accountancy profession. Yearly, we ask - Where did it all go wrong? Where and when did it start?

The answer is normally very general. Vague even. Some believe that moral degeneration starts in our societies and more pointedly, this degeneration starts in our homes. But nobody seems to truly know its source. As a result we never pinpoint any elements to watch out for to curb this ‘moral degeneration.’ We don’t discuss what to do to prevent it. What we need to learn and unlearn and re-learn? Often times, the question is left unanswered, the root causes left unidentified, only to be asked again when moral degeneration rears its ugly head again. Therefore, the status quo seems to remain unchallenged, the same questions asked every year, with the same result.

To answer this question, I often go back to the first lesson that the supervisor who saved me from the unethical meeting I mentioned in my previous articles taught me. My analysis extends to the social systems built around race, gender, class or ALL. Why are these systems designed? How does my analysis link to the experience I shared in part I of this series? What does this analysis have to do with moral degeneration?

The design

The world is mainly governed through social systems. Some are designed to benefit others while dominating, oppressing and marginalising others. Some people experience these social systems in isolation. For example, a black man may experience racism, but not sexism. A white woman may experience sexism, not racism. But people identified and identifiable as “black and female” may have to deal with racism, sexism, classism, patriarchy etc. To the black female, these concepts work in unison to oppress her. All these systems, however, have one universal goal – to take from others and give to some. All have at least four similar components:

• First. There are primary beneficiaries. These are the architects, strategists, perpetrators and designers of the systems. They get most of the benefits. They’re heavily invested in the system- after all - they’re the main beneficiaries. They’re the confident, the bold and the winners. They decree who the systems should benefit and who should be excluded. They dish out and administer the benefits and the consequences. I sometimes refer to them as the Takers. They mostly cultivate a culture of fear. They silence others. They’re don’t want to be questioned. They’re don’t want the systems to be questioned. They want all to blindly follow the rules of the system.
• Second. There are secondary beneficiaries (The Givers). – These are those who the Takers have decreed should receive most of the remaining benefits. The benefits may come in financial form or in investment by the Takers in the Givers’ capacity and capabilities. They come in the Takers imbuing them with the sense of self confidence. What do they give in return? They “pretend not to see.” They pretend not to see that the systems exclude some. They pretend not to see that they themselves are beneficiaries. This pretence is normally driven by fear, denial and minimisation. Fear of losing the benefits and advantages. Fear to speak up and speak out. Denial of benefits and advantages. Denial that the systems do benefit them. Denial that the systems are mostly controlled in part for their benefit. So, they minimise the impact of the benefits they derive from the systems. Minimise the consequences and disadvantages to the intended victims. This fear, denial and minimisation, props up, sustains and anchors the strategy formulated by the Takers. For the Takers, the systems work as intended.
• Third. The intended victims. These are the people who the systems are designed to take from. The criteria can be race, gender, class or ALL. They usually get the last bits or none of the benefits. They are recipients of the dire consequences of the Takers’ actions. They’re the disadvantaged. The systems take from them as designed. The systems infuse them with a sense of self-doubt in their capacity and capabilities. The systems disinvest in them or invest as little as possible and then shame them for the very disinvestment. In most instances, they’re actively precluded in various ways. They’re not allowed to grow, self-actualise, learn and are even precluded from earning a decent living.
• Fourth. Those who do the right thing. – These are the people who act publicly or privately and do the right thing. They’re from any of the above-mentioned components. They’re usually in the minority. They’re normally selfless. They challenge the status quo. They invest in the victims. They call out the injustice and unfairness towards the intended victims. They call out the behaviour of the primary and secondary beneficiaries. They, in various degrees and various consequences, try “not to pretend not to see.” They don’t always have enough numbers to overhaul the system, but they’re not deterred. They soldier on and achieve private victories rather than public ones.

How does this analysis link to the experience and the lessons learned?

In Part I, of this series I related a meeting where people deliberately spoke a language that only I couldn’t understand. That meeting, I believe, had the hallmarks of the traits of exclusionary systems mentioned above. There were takers, secondary beneficiaries, an intended victim and a person who did the right thing. I will list the parallels below:

• The primary beneficiary in my experience is the Team Leader – the perpetrator / the Taker. He created a system that would mostly benefit him and exclude others while giving to some, those who pretended not to see.  
• The secondary beneficiaries, are those in the meeting, who “pretended not to see” my discomfort. Maybe they feared the Team Leader’s reaction should they speak up. Or, they saw my exclusion as a competitive advantage for them. Or, they saw a chance to not deal with whatever discomforts they may have had regarding having a person who’s different. 
• I was the intended victim, the one the Team Leader precluded from learning and from participating in the meeting. I was the one the system had decided to disinvest in. I was the one the system tried to infuse with a sense of self-doubt and then try to shame for the very disinvestment.
• The Supervisor is the one who did the right thing. His victories were private rather than public. He didn’t have to confront the Team Leader. However, he made a profound long-lasting impact.

Did you also identify the parallels to be similar to formal systems like apartheid? A system that took from others and gave to some. Have you ever been in a meeting or event where you felt excluded? With this in mind, let’s talk about moral degeneration.

Where did this moral degeneration come from?

I feel that moral degeneration results from any system / process / action that is designed to take from others and give to some. It starts with any of the systems designed to privilege, benefit, and nurture others while dominating, oppressing and marginalising others. The beneficiaries have given many names to the consequences and concepts of these systems; they have the luxury to. They may call it, a of lack diversity and inclusiveness. Lack of transformation. Gender inequality. Cultural and traditional attitudes. Corporate politics. Competitive advantage. These are abstract concepts. The intended victims, however, are very clear of what the consequences of these systems taste and feel like. There’s nothing abstract about the consequences. To the intended victims, the consequences, the actions, the behaviours taste and feel like immoral and unethical conduct – no matter the fancy terms. The people on the receiving end of these systems, who are precluded from growing, self-actualising, realising their full potential and earning are very clear as to the immorality of the consequences. Any process, system, agenda, that actively invests in breaking people and making sure that they’re driven to self-doubt and a lack of self-confidence and takes away from them is immoral. That, I feel, is where moral degeneration comes from. If we’re serious about dealing with ethics, we need to focus on the people who don’t have any systemic privileges. The large majority of those people are black and female. Unethical conduct starts with daily activities, and daily conversations. It’s in the daily micro aggressions. It’s in the attitudes we reinforce in our homes and private lives. It’s the attitudes we reinforce in our societies, cultures and traditions. As the Supervisor said: “The perpetrators and beneficiaries of these daily micro aggressions readily tick the boxes of how they have met the ethical standards.” But would the victims agree? Maybe not.

To address moral degeneration, I would appeal to all of us to examine ourselves. To be self-aware. To critically and objectively analyse our daily activities. To analyse the processes, systems that inform our daily activities, actions, behaviours and thinking. What do we need to learn, unlearn and relearn? Let’s start with the man in the mirror. Once we do so, we might have the right answers and solutions to the question: Where did this moral degeneration come from?

But, what about the intended victims of these systems? Are they off the hook? Are they just passive victims? In the second part of Part III - I will address the intended victims.