Kinship arising from
the extended family has tremendous advantages in poor countries
like India. It has protected most of India from anarchy, famine
and destitution. The web of relationships, checks and balances,
incentives and disincentives ensure overall social security and
risk management especially in the case of low and middle-income
groups in the rural areas. Kinship preserves the uniqueness of our
culture and values. It reinforces mutuality, protection, solidarity,
and has been behind the resilience and patience of rural India against
chronic deprivation, discrimination, poverty and hunger.
Some could argue that extended families and the obligations of kinship
are inefficient. They restrict mobility for most of the members
unless ordained by the patriarch. They confine members to work in
the household and on the common property for common good. They do
not provide incentives for excellence as each one fears “free
riding” by the others. Obviously, they restrict pursuit of
individual aspirations and hence a doctor, a civil servant, or a
manager has to suffer from the pains of transition when he moves
away to the city to pursue his own goals and the interests of the
conjugal family. He becomes partially inefficient by having to fulfill
the obligations of the extended families such as religious rites,
family functions and celebrations and ceremonies that often clash
with individual freedom and career growth. He has to overload his
household with relatives that wish to stay for medical treatment,
job search or education. These professionals may be better off by
distancing themselves from the extended families – despite
the research findings such as erosion in their altruism, tendencies
to free ride and using money as a surrogate to fulfilling obligations
and failure of duties.
The discernible problem with kinship in a world transiting from
the agrarian/feudal to the professional/democratic is that it demands
that those who have attained power and wealth or have reached high
positions promote other members. Members of the group may want to
believe that they had contributed directly or indirectly to the
success. They feel proud, share joy, celebrate - and expect reciprocity.
Wins by politicians and the promotion of their family members and
relatives illustrate this at the extreme. Such expectations are
the very basis of kinship that has survived centuries of our civilization.
In poor countries where opportunities of any kind are far lesser
than the population and monetary resources are limited, kinship
thus leads to tremendous pressures for nepotism.
Thus, despite the advantage of social security, cultural bonding
and risk management, kinship could create economic loss to the larger
society, if it comes as a package with nepotism. Kinship promotes
the interests of one subculture at the cost of the others. Competition
amongst powerful kinship groups crowds-out the marginal ones and
brings oligopolistic conditions that one notices in business. Thus,
in most situations of employment, service providing, supply contracts,
distribution rights, franchises, warehousing, dealerships, transport
contracts, credit, concessions etc., kinship plays a significant
role. Those who ignore the interests of kinship may suffer from
disrepute and/or ostracisation, though a careerist or a businessman
will evaluate these costs with the benefits of objectivity, professionalism
or long term returns on his capital, as the case may be.
The urbanized and the westernized may be relieved from the ill effects
of traditional kinship. Without the family customs, uneconomic relationships,
obligations to attend prayer, birth, wedding and death ceremonies
of dozens of relatives, they become more focused and efficient adding
to the wealth of the country. (Except in the case of business
communities which have mastered the situations to reduce overall
transaction costs and derive synergetic effects of kinship with
professionalism). Under normal conditions, the modern society,
if not the economy as a whole, should be better off without kinship.
However, the conjugal families may not be totally free from social
bonding and may seek beneficial relationship with another type of
cluster. These new types of social bonding may indeed promote favoritism
of a subtler variety. The networks arise from professional associations,
industry lobbies, cultural centers, ethnic compacts, and other types
of social groups. The brotherhood of religious sects, divine orders
and alumni of premier institutes is an example. Comradeship among
members of voluntary social organizations and clubs is another.
The close-knit among elite civil servants is a further example.
These tend to promote each other, friends and their families and
competitively edge out others. In some organizations such as the
Freemasons, which have been in the eye of many a storm in Europe,
helping “brothers” becomes an important test for progress
and respect. In the US it is reported that members of a club which
are frequented by the CEO of Banks are benefited by higher credit
of an average of 23%.
The alumni of Harvard, former employees of, say the IBM, the civil
servants, career diplomats, the Freemasons, Lions, Rotarians etc
may all be able to strengthen the ties among their members to act
as a modern and more beneficial surrogate to kinship. In fact, members
will find this social bonding more appealing than the rural one
due to the material irrelevance of the latter, on the one hand and
on the other, the relative anonymity, finesse and current relevance
of the former. Additionally, the perceived net transfer for the
urban professional and his conjugal family is adverse in the case
of transactions with the sub units of kinship than with the social
networks – overall economics will demand that the network
replaces kinship.
The new mutuality results in favors of a modern variety such as
a business by the spouses or children supported by a senior member
of the network using his official position. Enron is replete with
illustrations. Apart from the world of business, such favoritism
is evident in research publications, research grants, highest of
awards and honors, auditing, jobs or assignments in multi-lateral
organizations and from “legacy preferences”
proudly practiced by several schools and even the Harvard Business
School, for admissions.
If one is not sure which type of kinship among the two is worse
for the society, management experts may be quick to find a solution
in “meritocracy”. This has an intuitive appeal as it
sounds objective and promises pursuit of welfare. But it is not
without its own set of owes. The term “meritocracy”
was reportedly coined to describe a system of rule by ability than
by class, wealth or social position. In fact, it was used for the
first time, but in a pejorative sense, by Michael Young in his book
“Rise of the Meritocracy” (1958). In this book,
the status of an individual in the society is determined by IQ +
Effort, but those who attain such a status become so elitist as
to become arrogant and alienated from the masses – which indeed
is evident from our brown sahibs in industry and the callous civil
servants. A social revolution by the masses overthrows this meritocracy.
The real criticism of such a system comes from “critical
social theory” which argues that meritocracy will be
used as a front by those in power to legitimize a preferred situation
by other means. They will decide on the criteria, standards, methods
and measures, howsoever invalid. This is apparent when we note that
favoritism followed by the cliques described above do pass off as
a merit system – the host of job specifications, product specifications,
the examination system are replete with questionable criteria that
only favor the elite or the pre-chosen. Hence the adage “you
show me the man, and I will show you the rule”. Pure
meritocracies are virtually unknown and researchers say that the
military may be the closest, at least at the lower ranks.
Thus, meritocracy may indeed be nepotism or favoritism by other
means!
The answer may be that the entire social cluster of any variety
must truly believe and adopt the Gandhian view of “trusteeship”
and the ethicist view of “welfare”. If these
are made the underlying values, and hence the rules to be followed
in social bonding, one may be able to take the battle to a higher
level of defining welfare and trusteeship at individual decision
points.
|