Higher education: less Gekko, more Gandhi
Written by Steven Schwartz on October 8th, 2008
In a speech to a group of business leaders recently, Prime Minister Kevin Rudd linked the turmoil in global financial markets with the 1987 film Wall Street. In the movie, fictional stockbroker Gordon Gekko makes the following speech:
Greed is right.
Greed works.
Greed clarifies, cuts through, and captures the essence of the evolutionary spirit.
Greed, in all of its forms - greed for life, for money, for love, knowledge - has marked the upward surge of mankind.
Mr Rudd says the “greed is good” era of the 1980s brought on the stock market crash of 1987 and played a part in the global recession of the early 1990s.
According to Mr Rudd: “It is perhaps time now to admit that we did not learn the full lessons of the greed is good ideology. And today we are still cleaning up the mess of the 21st Century children of Gordon Gekko.”
Mr Rudd is not the first person to condemn greed. It is, after all, one of the seven deadly sins. But Gekko uses the word “greed” to mean more than mere avarice. For him, greed is a synonym for wanting more, not just more money, but more life, more love and more knowledge.
The repulsive Gekko sees everything in material terms. In the film, he is shown to be an acquirer not just of money, but also of art and even people.
Ironically, Gekko’s materialistic world view is also reflected in many government documents.
For example, in its 2007 manifesto, The Australian economy needs an education revolution, the Labor Party has this to say about the value of education: “… evidence suggests that more educated economies are wealthier economies. Countries that invest in education do better in achieving their potential economic growth rate”.
In other words, education is a way of making the country richer by preparing graduates for better paying jobs.
Contrast this with John Ruskin’s idea that “the highest reward for people’s toil is not what they get for it, but what they become by it”. For Ruskin what people do is not nearly as important as what people are.
Don’t get me wrong - I am not against people getting rich.
As screen siren Mae West said: “I’ve been rich and I’ve been poor. Believe me, rich is better.”
Clearly, Australia needs a sound economy if we are going to achieve our social goals. But first, we actually need to have some social goals. Otherwise, we are a country of means without ends.
It is only in relatively recent years that governments have adopted an economic rationale for education and the sad result is that we are all financially poorer - the world economy is falling into recession - and we are morally poorer as well.
What value is an education that ignores character? What can we expect from an education that fills students with facts but does not help them to be wise?
We who work in education need to revive our moral purpose. We could start with the seven deadly sins, but I prefer the updated version produced by Mahatma Gandhi:
• Wealth without Work
• Pleasure without Conscience
• Science without Humanity
• Knowledge without Character
• Politics without Principle
• Commerce without Morality
• Worship without Sacrifice
A curriculum based on these would be the basis of a real education revolution.
- Steven Schwartz
I concer wholeheartedly. However, I believe the recession, while damaging to many will lead to a re-evaluation and a “get back to basics” approach that is so desperately needed. Perhaps people can take this time and we can start to ingrain some of the social morals spoken about above, and apply them. Without some sort of change in our westernised, consumer driven societies, where the Frankenstein monster is a number on a board that governs our lives, you have to ask yourself, where will we end up?
VC,
Congratulations. John Henry Newman would be proud.
re evaluation usually leads to reform if not revolution.
too busy for my assignments to write some long comment, though love to, but have to leave something here, simply because i really like it.
good for you, vc, good mindset
Dear Vice-Chancellor,
An education based on that list would be a real education revolution, but first you’d have to explain the meaning of the word ’sin’. A metaphysics and theology program might be just what the doctor ordered, but then again, compulsory education in comparative religion would be necessary to limit tension - the university would then truly be turning out global citizens, in my opinion. Educating according to the opposite of the list would turn the university into a monastery. We could then brew a house beer to fund it.
Yours sincerely,
Peter Anderson
My Dear Vice Chancellor,
What Mahatma Gandhi espoused 100 years ago is even more releveant today. Should we all imbibe a little what this great main mentioned the world will be a great place to live.
The choice is ours whether to relegate Gandhi into history books or to keep the 7 sins into our hearts and practice it in all our affairs.
Many thanks for bringing Mahatma Gandhi’s 7 sins to awareness which I believe most of us had forgotten.
Kindest Regards
Gautam Dahima
Dear VC,
Well put and reminded the philosophy of Gandhi. However, I may add some lines to the Gecko’s greed comment or reference. It is not a provocative remark of mine, it is a reflection. Wall Street is today every market’s corner, so reference to Gecko’s role (and there are many Gecko’s around the market’s world) to the crisis should be extended to company shareholders that negotiate incredible golden parachutes around the world, not only in Wall Street. But it is always interesting to revisit history. Much is said about free markets, the greedy men and deregulation a frequent association for this crisis. Deregulation and free markets (meaning invisible hand) is a philosophical-economic theory attributed to Adam Smith. Although he has made a point well forgotten of regulation to the markets (or not well understood): “The statesman who should attempt to direct private people in what a manner they ought to employ their capitals would not only load himself with a most unneccessary attention, but assume an authority which could safely be trusted, not only to a single person, but to a council or senate whatever, and which would nowhere be so dangerous as in the hands of a man who had folly and presumption enough to fancy himself fit to exercise it.” That passage for me, spells today independent organizations to check and balance our markets independently of their political association to the ruler (meaning prime-minister or presidents of a nation).
But what is more important is what Smith says about prudence in economic affairs and family: “What is prudent in the conduct of every private family can scarce be folly in what of a great kingdom (nowadays, for a nation or country, we could read this Smith’s passage, though). If a foreign country can supply us with a commodity cheaper than we ourselves can make it, better buy it of them with some part of the produce of our own industry employed in a way in which we have some advantage.” *(Adam Smith, The Wealth of the Nations Books IV-V, pages 32-33, Penguin Books Edition 1999, first published 1776) And he calls appropriately this chapter “Restraints of Goods”. Therefore, it does not matter if greedy is around if we (as private citizenry) enjoy and spend more credit than we could afford to pay for. No family should do that. Yet, that is not the time for handouts from government but for spending wisely. Best to spend in what the country has the best, and in Australia the best is the human resource, the young generation, for which education should be more affordable.
Best regards,
Ana.
Dear Vice-Chancellor
I think you’ll find that Gekko’s line is misquoted.
“Greed,” says he. “For lack of a better word, is good.”
“For lack of a better word.” Perhaps if he’d studied the humanities rather than the stockmarket he may have found a better word than ‘greed’, I speculate. Perhaps also he may have had something more eloquent with which to inspire the stockholders.
By the way, I’m wondering along with many Christians on campus why the Sermon on the Mount isn’t the supplier of Macquarie University’s principles. You can’t serve two masters, you know.
Yours sincerely,
Peter Anderson
By the way, I’m wondering along with many non-religious people on campus why Peter Anderson would suggest such a thing.