In the opening paragraph of chapter 15 Marker says the majority of businesses - who have been allowed to become the dominant institutions of our time - are so focused on profit that it "contributes to adverse social and environmental outcomes that outstrip our biological, psychological, and even spiritual abilities." (Marker, 117) Initially I read this as Marker criticizing the system that vaunts business in this way, the one he calls out for "making profit the ultimate measure of success." However, upon closer read it feels unsettlingly like rather than having an interest in changing the system, Marker is making a case for the way neurobiology can improve the methods of HPI to operationalize human behavior to match the tasks of profit better and also wouldn't it be nice if along the way businesses took on a more moral - here defined as taking into their method of profit methods of diversifying the industry in ways that allow business at large to continue into increasingly uncertain futures in regards to the livability of the world, and the line between humans as their most 'optimized' selves without the loss of their actual humanity.
Foshay's response seems specifically focused in on the individual behaviors of business. I say this because is method of undercutting Marker's ideas by claiming they are more in the realm of ethics vs science is a handy way to sound like he is valuing the idea while essentially dismissing it to those who still view the subject of ethics as a 'soft' science, and thus dismissable. (Marker, 120)
In a way it feels as though Marker and Foshay are essentially arguing over method of implementation of a system in which businesses are treated like rulers (and if they have surpassed government in influence, perhaps this is the future). In their arguments it seems like they begin to argue that those at the helm of business approach their 'subjects' or 'constituents' in ways that feel like similar arguments to a thematically akin idea of power balance between Federal and State sized rule and mentality.
In that Marker seems like a business 'liberal' - calling for a system of ethical governance that is broadly expectant of a type of morality in the overall institution of business that is intended to level the playing field by bringing everyone to a level of competency that he considers humane and livable in a profits driven system. While Foshay takes the voice of the 'conservative' calling for a system of ethical governance that is left up to each business itself to determine. Marker's rejoinder is driven by the idea that because all people have the commonality of a brain that can and does function in scientifically proven 'suboptimal' ways when it comes to business mentality and profit as highest measure of success, it would be a humane thing to approach educational design with a mentality of collective ethics and responsibility, rather than leaving morality in the hands of the individual business governing bodies.(Marker, 122)
To me this has all sorts of quite alarming future implications. I am fundamentally opposed to the idea of a future where the goal is 'optimization of the human' as it would look in a system driven by upholding profit as the ultimate indicator of success/growth/progress. So having this chapter paired with Chapter 16 felt especially poignant as I am also of the opinion that to avoid the more alarming futures - or at least to continue to hold space for upholding that not all of us must need participate in the same future. That those who would like a different future will still have strong systems in place to make sure that a crucial, empowered, and privilege backed livability and 'good things in life' attainment level of existence is attainable by the opted out of optimization crowd by choice. The autonomy here is also key - utopian sounding as that may be - but why not dream a little? Ideally too, a space that was also looking to the criticisms and treatment of those who do not have a place or representation, or have far less representation, in the rooms where the ideas about profit and its future are developed and turned into action currently to guide them toward something that defined itself and success in other ways.
What I dream of is that the future actually is driven by people with the knowledge about brain science like Marker's and balance of roles like Foshay, were using their expertise to help set up, as priorities, a system that was trying to either course correct or figure out how to exist in departure from itself into something new and cooperatively built by all and not an intellectually or resource privileged few. However, it is clear from the response given by Marra that to age in the system - as it is - means to either recognize it and become complicit in it in whatever way you can manage to soothe your conscious with (Marra's insistence that patriarchy has been the ruling ideology since 4000 B.C. and who were women to think they could just up and change that now? Ultimately, as an example of this) or try to 'look at what IS being done' instead - Pollyanna your way out of death threats with this one easy trick! This feels both too real and unconscionable to me - in my own life I feel like I am bouncing between these places regularly, which is perhaps why I read Marra with frustration - However, with the neurobiology science discussed in chapter 15 on how environment deeply impacts our judgements on others and ourselves in ways we are not even conscious of I can't help but lean toward unconscionable. If sitting in a dirty room can all by itself impact what kind of person another person believes someone to be, what impact does sitting in a tech board room of ten and having only one other co-worker who shares your social and cultural life experience as a woman bring? Or working in an internet space that has its inception in being a ranking system for a hotness level of women-identifying college students as Facebook does?
Looking at the neuroscience of how to optimize a brain so that it can keep up with the business glut for capital in a more 'humane way' is going to forever be a losing battle. Marker and Foshay will find that it's achievable, but it will continue to alienate people from what it seeks to provide for them. Watters' call for addressal of the failures of the system to protect and uplift and culturally empower individuals in democratized and radical ways that prioritize humanity over profit could prompt the kind of actual balance of intellect and wisdom that Marker is espousing. (Watters, 126) But that would require that he took a moment to actually consider the human-centered meaning of the definitions he provides; problem-solving, knowledge, and skill guided by patience, moral reasoning, emotional regulation, fairness, compassion, altruism, knowing what is important, humility, and the ability to deal with uncertainty. (Marker, 117)
Comments
Post a Comment