On disempowerment and oppression

Like many a new employee I started out with great enthusiasm and drive.

Like many an employee within this particular organisation I became crippled by inaction and the inability to effect change. As a result, like many an employee within the organisation I unfortunately became cynical.

This is how it happened.

I tried to do my work in the best way I knew how - by getting stuck in and going for it. It had worked in my previous jobs, so I assumed it would work in this one. When barriers were put in my way I tried to find ways through them or around them. That seemed to work for a while until I started trying to address the fact that there were barriers in the way in the first place. So I began trying to tackle the internal hurdles to action. When this was met with resistance I began to question my colleagues: Why didn't they want to make things better? After some time I realised that most of them had followed a similar path to me and had ended up feeling hopeless and helpless.

This story seems to me a classic one of disempowerment.

Disempowerment (v): to deprive of power, authority or influence.

So what happens when someone is disempowered?

Well, from my experience at work, they either get angry and fight, or get angry and leave, or, worst of all, they get cynical and stay. This last outcome perpetuates the system that creates the cynicism in the first place. Dealing with people that have given up is painful, disempowering and toxic to an organisation's internal culture and ability to get things done.

In the grand scheme of things my experience of being disempowered is really not that bad. I have the option of leaving my job (and thus the source of my disempowerment), a luxury that many disempowered people around the world do not have.

This experience has got me thinking more about how disempowerment affects those people with little or no options to change the situation in which they are living. I don't for a moment want to imply that my experience of feeling disempowered in my workplace is comparable to that endured by people living lives in which they are completely disempowered - I'm thinking here of people that live in poverty or who live under oppressive regimes. What I do think, however, is that the nature of the experience of disempowerment is similar, it is just on a scale of magnitude that is completely different.

It seems to me that there is a spectrum of disempowerment that goes from the trivial through to the oppressive. My experience is certainly closer to the trivial than the oppressive, however, I think that the options for action remain the same regardless of where one's experience of disempowerment falls on the spectrum:
- to fight;
- to leave (flight);
- or to become cynical and essentially give up and accept disempowerment as a given.

If this is the case, then my question is as follows:
Is terrorism a justifiable action by those living within an oppressive regime and for which leaving is not an option?

I don't feel adequately informed to reasonably and/or responsibly answer this question, but what I can say is that from my experience, giving up is not a desirable course of action but rather a position one is likely forced into taking if the other options are not possible, plausible or palatable.

The bubble is popped!

I spent over six years and tens of thousands of dollars studying at university to, among many other things, learn how to critique and question. I toyed with, tested and then constructed an ethical framework and slowly carved out a worldview that serves me to this day. I like to think of those years as the years that I created my own 'canon', for I am the product of the books that I have read.

On gaining employment with a large bureaucratic organisation I have found that the skills of questioning and the art of argumentation for ethical ends are generally undesired. I am expected to accept that the dysfunction is as inherent to the system as is the indoctrination.

I'm not sure whether to feel insulted or angry. Perhaps it is both.

On the erosion of a shared moral code

Religion has historically provided a cross-society moral code that is by and large subscribed to by the masses. It creates by faith or by fear a shared sense of what is 'right' and 'wrong'. The social norms created through such a system can be (and have been throughout history) used for both good and bad. Indeed, there are instances where the agreed moral code has been contravened by those within the institution - I'm thinking here of paedophilia within the Catholic Church. However at the same time, the Christian teaching of God as Love has been used to encourage compassion and charity within the community.

I am not religious myself and I do not believe that such a framework for society's moral code is perfect, however, I'm not sure that what we have today is any better. 

As the mainstream move away from religion there is the simultaneous breakdown of a shared moral code at a cross-society level. Individuals or clusters of people (sub-communities / cultures) create their own unique sense of morality and as a result the individual or the sub-community become the sole point of reference and/or verification for what is moral. Indeed, post-modernity has placed ‘truth’ (and I would argue morality) solely with the individual and thus one person’s truth or sense of morality is just as valid and authoritative as the next person’s.

Of course, like the examples of Christianity above, this secular system has both good and bad sides. An individual's or a sub-community's sense of what is right may lead to societal change such as the passing of legislation to allow same-sex civil unions, but it may equally be used to authorise hate crime camouflaged as freedom of speech. What is morally right or wrong depends on one's perspective and with the fracturing of a cross-society shared moral code it is easier to advocate for one's own agenda with the likelihood that there will be someone else out there with a similar perspective willing to support your cause. 

Again, I must stress that there are, in my view, positives and negatives to both the traditional religious and the indiviudalist systems.

My fear with the individualisation of morality however, is what happens when advertisers prey on the vulnerability of the individual. By targetting their marketing to those with a more lax sense of what is good / bad / right / wrong for the wider community, advertisers indulge, justify and perpetuate a moral code that is inherently self-centred. This has resulted in the proliferation of advertising that is focused on the individual – the ‘me’ / ‘I’ / ‘my’ generation of advertising. Individuals without a society-wide outlook are enticed by the advertising that appeals to them and their individual needs, thus having no qualms about indulging their selfish wants while ignoring the needs of wider society.

The capitalist system’s premise of competition and ‘getting ahead’ further validates this selfishness and serves to erode the moral code of those individuals with a more society-wide outlook as they are seen to be losing out. As the sayings go, “nice guys finish last” and "eat or be eaten". Taken to its extreme, this system would result in a society devoid of compassion, charity and empathy.

Thankfully we are not there yet but my concern is that if the advertisers had there way, that is where we would end up. It seems to me that there is a moral power struggle going on between those promoting indulgence of one's selfish wants and those promoting the fulfillment of societal needs. As is so often the case, the choices we make on a daily basis become the expression of where we sit in this struggle.