Is this proposal economically moral?

[belisarius27]

You have every right to disagree with the following comments, but if you choose to, please cite your sources.

"Moral Economy" is a name given in economics, sociology and anthropology to describe the interplay between cultural mores and economic activity. It describes the various ways in which custom and social pressure coerce economic actors in a society to conform to traditional norms even at the expense of profit.

Prior to the rise of classical economics in the eighteenth-century, the economies in Europe and its North American colonies were governed by a variety of (formal and informal) regulations designed to prevent "greed" from overcoming "morality". In its most formal manifestations, examples such as the traditional Christian and Muslim prohibitions on usury represent the limits imposed by religious values on economic activity, and as such are part of the moral economy. Laws that determine what sort of contracts will be given effect by the judiciary, and what sort of contracts are void or voidable, often incorporate concepts of a moral economy; in many jurisdictions, traditionally a contract involving gambling was considered void in law because it was against public policy. These restrictions on freedom of contract are the results of moral economy. According to the beliefs which inspired these laws, economic transactions were supposed to be based on mutual

obligation, not individual gain. In colonial Massachusetts, for example, prices and markets were highly regulated, even the fees physicians could charge.(Morton Horwitz: Transformations in American Law).

It has been customary in the history of Drum Corps International to pursue competition in a manner consistent with a moral economy. This has been the case so that young people can participate and grow without the taint of capitalistic outcomes. This has NEVER been a profit driven endeavor.

The German economist Max Weber (The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism) describes the strength of this moral economic system and warns of the social collapse that might follow the rejection of a value based system of cooperative econimic enterprises.

I contend that the G7 are engaged in an endeavor that rejects a moral economy which promotes collective success and has instead adopted a post-modern, cynical outlook on the activity they claim to represent. This post-modern pursuit is characterized by:

1. No restraint on rational capitalism. (See Weber: The Sociology of Religion) There is a clamor for more money to produce "better" shows. Innovation is no longer seen as possible without significant capital expenditure. History refutes this claim.

2. Isolation of the collective group identity. (See Victor Von Frankl: Man's Search for Meaning) This is a process through which some individual identities are enhanced at the expense of others. As the process continues, few remain. Because of the inherent isolation that this process produces, the relavence of the group diminishes until those outside the group determine that the group's identity no longer has value. When the "rest" of us see only 7 corps remaining, we will find that those 7 have little value.

3. Rebellion/Disaffection (Weber: The Sociology of Religion) Max Weber describes a "propensity of alienation" that causes one portion of the group to rebel when certain conditions are met. In the case of the G7, economic stress has given rise to this "prophetic movement". The economic stress has blinded the G7 to the value of a broader participatory model.

4. A breakdown of ethical divisions. To identify certain corps as "premier" creates a defacto definition of "non-premier". This places value on numerical placement rather than effort. The activity is no longer effort driven, but outcome based. This creates a disdain for those who fail to measure up to the arbitrary standards of the G7. Historically, the activity has survived the loss of many "premier" organizations such as the 27th Lancers, North Stars, Bridgemen, and Kingsmen. The two most entertaining corps in DCI history are no longer active competitively in the World Class ranks either (Bridgemen and Velvet Knights). To suggest that any corps is elite and provides an indespensible service to DCI is not only offensive, but historically inaccurate.

The G7 movement is not only factually flawed, but sociologists have seen many movements like this in the past. The outcomes are not predetermined, but trend data provides powerful indicators that the Drum Corps activity cannot survive the process described in the G7 manifesto.

[BigW]

Well put. Read Weber many years ago, a solid read to say the least and applied well here. Also supports my claims about how YEA! does some of its fund-raising as well.

[BRASSO]

You have every right to disagree with the following comments, but if you choose to, please cite your sources.

"Moral Economy" is a name given in economics, sociology and anthropology to describe the interplay between cultural mores and economic activity. It describes the various ways in which custom and social pressure coerce economic actors in a society to conform to traditional norms even at the expense of profit.

Prior to the rise of classical economics in the eighteenth-century, the economies in Europe and its North American colonies were governed by a variety of (formal and informal) regulations designed to prevent "greed" from overcoming "morality". In its most formal manifestations, examples such as the traditional Christian and Muslim prohibitions on usury represent the limits imposed by religious values on economic activity, and as such are part of the moral economy. Laws that determine what sort of contracts will be given effect by the judiciary, and what sort of contracts are void or voidable, often incorporate concepts of a moral economy; in many jurisdictions, traditionally a contract involving gambling was considered void in law because it was against public policy. These restrictions on freedom of contract are the results of moral economy. According to the beliefs which inspired these laws, economic transactions were supposed to be based on mutual

obligation, not individual gain. In colonial Massachusetts, for example, prices and markets were highly regulated, even the fees physicians could charge.(Morton Horwitz: Transformations in American Law).

It has been customary in the history of Drum Corps International to pursue competition in a manner consistent with a moral economy. This has been the case so that young people can participate and grow without the taint of capitalistic outcomes. This has NEVER been a profit driven endeavor.

The German economist Max Weber (The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism) describes the strength of this moral economic system and warns of the social collapse that might follow the rejection of a value based system of cooperative econimic enterprises.

I contend that the G7 are engaged in an endeavor that rejects a moral economy which promotes collective success and has instead adopted a post-modern, cynical outlook on the activity they claim to represent. This post-modern pursuit is characterized by:

1. No restraint on rational capitalism. (See Weber: The Sociology of Religion) There is a clamor for more money to produce "better" shows. Innovation is no longer seen as possible without significant capital expenditure. History refutes this claim.

2. Isolation of the collective group identity. (See Victor Von Frankl: Man's Search for Meaning) This is a process through which some individual identities are enhanced at the expense of others. As the process continues, few remain. Because of the inherent isolation that this process produces, the relavence of the group diminishes until those outside the group determine that the group's identity no longer has value. When the "rest" of us see only 7 corps remaining, we will find that those 7 have little value.

3. Rebellion/Disaffection (Weber: The Sociology of Religion) Max Weber describes a "propensity of alienation" that causes one portion of the group to rebel when certain conditions are met. In the case of the G7, economic stress has given rise to this "prophetic movement". The economic stress has blinded the G7 to the value of a broader participatory model.

4. A breakdown of ethical divisions. To identify certain corps as "premier" creates a defacto definition of "non-premier". This places value on numerical placement rather than effort. The activity is no longer effort driven, but outcome based. This creates a disdain for those who fail to measure up to the arbitrary standards of the G7. Historically, the activity has survived the loss of many "premier" organizations such as the 27th Lancers, North Stars, Bridgemen, and Kingsmen. The two most entertaining corps in DCI history are no longer active competitively in the World Class ranks either (Bridgemen and Velvet Knights). To suggest that any corps is elite and provides an indespensible service to DCI is not only offensive, but historically inaccurate.

The G7 movement is not only factually flawed, but sociologists have seen many movements like this in the past. The outcomes are not predetermined, but trend data provides powerful indicators that the Drum Corps activity cannot survive the process described in the G7 manifesto.

I'd agree with most of what you said here. I might quible around the edges. For example, DCI was never truly " effort based " competition. It always has had ( rightly or wrongly ) a strong " outcome based " component. For example, " awards " are given to top placing Corps in " outcome based " competitions. If DCI was primarily " effort driven" the awards in competition each night would be given for " effort ". We would expect Judging captions would thus score points for " improved effort " over previous performance " efforts " for example, as opposed to such strong influences given to " execution " over " effort ". But using some of your studies of sociology, economics, religion, etc on organization's movements made for an interesting read. I was never much for Weber. I'd have appreciated his writings more had he started a business, ran a business, even failed in a business... or worked in a factory, a farm, etc. He was a great intellectual thinker, but he came from wealth, never started any organization himself, never had to meet a payroll for any workers, and his theories were mostly professorial and laboratory based. He never tested out nor applied ANY of his theories himself ...even once... to any organization he became a member of in his lifetime. But again, that's just my 2 cents worth too.

I would agree with you that the G-7 is composed of the" Charismatic Leader" influences on organizations that Max Weber wrote extensively and often about. In my own experiences, I've noticed this pulling phenomena with many organizations. So at least for me, Weber's writings here seemed to have had real world value in this particular example anyway.

Edited May 28, 2010 by BRASSO

[jplattSCV]

You have every right to disagree with the following comments, but if you choose to, please cite your sources.

"Moral Economy" is a name given in economics, sociology and anthropology to describe the interplay between cultural mores and economic activity. It describes the various ways in which custom and social pressure coerce economic actors in a society to conform to traditional norms even at the expense of profit.

[removed the good parts for brevity...]

The G7 movement is not only factually flawed, but sociologists have seen many movements like this in the past. The outcomes are not predetermined, but trend data provides powerful indicators that the Drum Corps activity cannot survive the process described in the G7 manifesto.

When I see and read a response to the aptly named G7 proposals like this one, I can't help but think about what the powers-that-be must have been thinking when they wrote their proposal in the first place. I assume that all were truly thinking that there will be some resistance, but if we can just get people to read it, eventually they will understand and see how brilliant and necessary the idea actually is.

In my mind I am picturing Bush or Obama making some sort of address. He finishes with the smugness only a POTUS can pull off. Then, immediately, more educated opposition lights him up with bullet points that he can't argue with.

The sad part to me is not that the G7 CAN"T argue with this type of response. Its that they WON'T argue with this. They will likely never even hear it.

Those of us that fear the death of everything we love about drum corps will just have to start throwing Tea Parties. uhg!

[IntheMood]

You have every right to disagree with the following comments, but if you choose to, please cite your sources.

"Moral Economy" is a name given in economics, sociology and anthropology to describe the interplay between cultural mores and economic activity. It describes the various ways in which custom and social pressure coerce economic actors in a society to conform to traditional norms even at the expense of profit.

Prior to the rise of classical economics in the eighteenth-century, the economies in Europe and its North American colonies were governed by a variety of (formal and informal) regulations designed to prevent "greed" from overcoming "morality". In its most formal manifestations, examples such as the traditional Christian and Muslim prohibitions on usury represent the limits imposed by religious values on economic activity, and as such are part of the moral economy. Laws that determine what sort of contracts will be given effect by the judiciary, and what sort of contracts are void or voidable, often incorporate concepts of a moral economy; in many jurisdictions, traditionally a contract involving gambling was considered void in law because it was against public policy. These restrictions on freedom of contract are the results of moral economy. According to the beliefs which inspired these laws, economic transactions were supposed to be based on mutual

obligation, not individual gain. In colonial Massachusetts, for example, prices and markets were highly regulated, even the fees physicians could charge.(Morton Horwitz: Transformations in American Law).

It has been customary in the history of Drum Corps International to pursue competition in a manner consistent with a moral economy. This has been the case so that young people can participate and grow without the taint of capitalistic outcomes. This has NEVER been a profit driven endeavor.

The German economist Max Weber (The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism) describes the strength of this moral economic system and warns of the social collapse that might follow the rejection of a value based system of cooperative econimic enterprises.

I contend that the G7 are engaged in an endeavor that rejects a moral economy which promotes collective success and has instead adopted a post-modern, cynical outlook on the activity they claim to represent. This post-modern pursuit is characterized by:

1. No restraint on rational capitalism. (See Weber: The Sociology of Religion) There is a clamor for more money to produce "better" shows. Innovation is no longer seen as possible without significant capital expenditure. History refutes this claim.

2. Isolation of the collective group identity. (See Victor Von Frankl: Man's Search for Meaning) This is a process through which some individual identities are enhanced at the expense of others. As the process continues, few remain. Because of the inherent isolation that this process produces, the relavence of the group diminishes until those outside the group determine that the group's identity no longer has value. When the "rest" of us see only 7 corps remaining, we will find that those 7 have little value.

3. Rebellion/Disaffection (Weber: The Sociology of Religion) Max Weber describes a "propensity of alienation" that causes one portion of the group to rebel when certain conditions are met. In the case of the G7, economic stress has given rise to this "prophetic movement". The economic stress has blinded the G7 to the value of a broader participatory model.

4. A breakdown of ethical divisions. To identify certain corps as "premier" creates a defacto definition of "non-premier". This places value on numerical placement rather than effort. The activity is no longer effort driven, but outcome based. This creates a disdain for those who fail to measure up to the arbitrary standards of the G7. Historically, the activity has survived the loss of many "premier" organizations such as the 27th Lancers, North Stars, Bridgemen, and Kingsmen. The two most entertaining corps in DCI history are no longer active competitively in the World Class ranks either (Bridgemen and Velvet Knights). To suggest that any corps is elite and provides an indespensible service to DCI is not only offensive, but historically inaccurate.

The G7 movement is not only factually flawed, but sociologists have seen many movements like this in the past. The outcomes are not predetermined, but trend data provides powerful indicators that the Drum Corps activity cannot survive the process described in the G7 manifesto.

I am a lean six sigma master black, so of course #1 really caught my eye and interest. From my experience working with companys, true innovation starts from the bottom up not from the top down. When I run Kaizens one of the first things that I tell the team is that our budget is $0.00. Now, do not get me wrong, there have been times when money had to be spent. If that happened, you better believe we had to prove our case with facts and a sound project charter not gut feelings. I would suggest the G7 contact Toyota, John Deere, or GE just to name a few on how true innovation happens with little or no money involved.

Dean

[jwillis35]

Well written, and I agree with a lot of this. I additionally agree with the person who stated that DCI was never really an "effort-based" competition, but driven more by outcome.

The G7 proposal loses me because, amidst some nice ideas, they never really explain how any of it will really work, or what the process will be, or how the finances will be distributed (only that they want more), or how they plan to enact all those "extras" they wish to add to the shows without adding an enormous amount of time and without taking massive attention away from the smaller corps.

Their proposal is an unfinished-idea-we-believe look at why they are unhappy. How dare DCI allow such "chosen" children to remain unhappy. It's a funny movie: Robin Hood robbed the rich to feed the poor; then as he became rich himself, he went back and robbed the poor to become even richer.

[FHdork]

The G7...if they're still seven when push comes to shove (most likely shove...as in 's%&t or get off the pot!') - will find they don't have the size of fan base and interest from 'educational music' that they wish they had. They'll get out there...all 4 or them or so...and soon find their new business model is completely untenable. At that point, they'll come running back to DCI...begging to rejoin the fold.

Hop's analysis that our audience in shrinking is, imo, correct. However, his vision for increasing it is flawed...and breaking away to live his dream will teach him the truth.

I believe DCI will fare well enough without them - even if all seven depart - though that kind of a schism will not pass without shock waves.

[Suviduvi]

I wonder who are the "business minds" behind this movement?

[capstone]

This is my first post ever because I have seen several posts similar to this one and feel the need to respond.

If you try to equate a private group of "organizations" like DCI with societal organization

you're making a serious mistake. DCI is made up of corps that voluntarily choose to associate with one

another for mutual benefit. The individual corps believe they need to have a structure of this sort to survive

as an activity. (and they're probably right)

But DCI (or any organization of this sort) is in no way a "microcosm" of society.

[belisarius27]

You just joined the site. That's awesome. Welcome.

But mere opinion carries little scholarship.

Any group of people makes a society. This is apriori knowledge and, as such, idiomatic. Just as the example of the Massachusetts Bay colony was a moral economy in a society, the DCI community has historically practiced a moral economy in a society. Saying it is not a society doesn't make it a non-society. I don't even know what a non-society is. Do you have an alternate theory or are you simply saying "no, it's not"? Do you have any history, examples, or academic support?