|
|
|
Charlotte Bronte and the Man of Business |
|
Visit: Author's Website
By Tim Holland
Almost daily one sees, hears and reads of the abuses and exploitations perpetrated by the residents of the financial community. The authors of these critical reports express outrage while their readers and listeners, who believe themselves to be the objects of the exploitation, are angered by the described callousness and selfishness of the financial manipulator. But why are the actions of the money seekers deemed to be such a surprise? Is all this something new we have not come in contact with before?
In 1849, Charlotte Brontë’s second novel, "Shirley", was published. Set against an industrial backdrop in Yorkshire, England during 1811 and 1812, it was here that the fear and outrage of knitting craftsmen over the introduction of machinery designed to mass produce “stockings” at prices that would undercut the then weaving “cottage” industry, boiled over into violence. The mill owners were accused of lining their own pockets at the expense of the mill workers, who could no longer make a decent living. And so the “Luddite” movement raged through Yorkshire in an attempt to confront the businessman who would place his own personal wealth interest above the well-being of his workers and community.
"All men, taken singly, are more or less selfish; and taken in bodies they are intensely so. The British merchant is no exception to this rule: the mercantile classes illustrate it strikingly. These classes certainly think too exclusively of making money: they are too oblivious of every national consideration but of that of extending England’s (i. e., their own) commerce. Chivalrous feeling, disinterestedness, pride in honor, is too dead in their hearts. A land ruled by them alone would too often make ignominious submission – not at all from the motives Christ teaches, but rather those Mammon instills."
The quote above from Charlotte Brontë’s "Shirley" is a mild one as she explores the self interest of the mill owners and their flagrant appeal to patriotism in making sure England is first and dominant in matters of industry and commerce. The same arguments continue to be put forth (Wall Street must remain the center of the financial world) almost 200 years later and, to our peril, we embrace them.
Charlotte Brontë may not have been a trained economist or even one who made a study of “best practices” in the textile industry, however, as with so many great writers, she was a keen observer of the world in which she lived. Her vantage point was at ground level. “Many of them (tradesmen) are extremely narrow and cold-hearted, have no good feeling for any class but their own, are distant – even hostile to all others; call them useless; seem to question their right to exist; seem to grudge them the very air they breathe, and to think the circumstance of their eating, drinking, and living in decent houses, quite unjustifiable.”
Each generation has its authors who expose and warn us of the dangers of unbridled self interest. Consider Charles Dickens’ "Bleak House" and the English legal establishment; Upton Sinclair’s "The Jungle" and the meat packing industry; John Steinbeck with his "Cannery Row" and "Grapes of Wrath" and Arthur Haley’s view of the automobile industry in "Wheels" and pharmaceuticals in "Strong Medicine." We never seem to learn that to “unbridle” is to release control and to “self regulate” is to encourage industrial anarchy.
So why is it we do not learn from our own past – from our history; from anyone’s history? Why is it that each generation must experience a crisis of its own instead of being able to prevent it? Have we become so trusting of one another that we cannot see the pitfalls clearly lurking in front of us?
The business man/merchant/land owner has been suspect from the beginning of commerce. But then is not the object of a commercial enterprise to produce a profit for its owners and one of the first principles of the marketplace is to have an advantage over ones competitor? The fewer the competitors the greater the profit potential (too big to fail) as the market share per participant is greater. Anyone who truly believes that the worker’s well-being is a corporate priority or once an organization controls a major portion of a marketplace it will continue to cater to its customers is truly misguided. Such actions are clearly contrary to the very soul of the commercial marketplace.
The personality traits and business practices outlined by Charlotte Brontë have not changed since "Shirley" was written and the concepts will not change over the next 200 years. To believe they will is truly foolish. There will be successes but they are always limited. Sooner or later something new will be introduced and the rules will not cover it. It is the very nature of the merchant to exploit the uncovered gap, as he would be remiss if he did not. Corporations are not human beings; they exist for a pure and simple object: profitability. It is the sworn duty of the corporate leader to maximize the objective of the company and will be held accountable for not doing so.
So while "Shirley" exposed an inconvenient truth about the emerging industrial age, Charlotte Brontë did not break new ground in analyzing the psychology of the pursuit of wealth. However, she stands as one of the “reminders” to us that there is no body of historical evidence that supports voluntary regulation as an effective means of protecting consumers, workers or even the country that spawns the industry.
|
|
|
No Comments have been Posted.
|
|
|
Please Login to Post a Comment.
|
|
|
Rating is available to Members only.
Please login or register to vote.
No Ratings have been Posted.
|
|
|
Not a member yet? Click here to register.
Forgotten your password? Request a new one here.
|
|
