Here is a story between a person who work as a chief of
the human resource department, and a person who work as a head of a section of
the same department. Name James for the former and Alex for the latter. In the
human resource department, the reformation of the evaluation for people was
discussed in order to adapt the current economic environment. James and Alex
were agreed with the basic concepts of the reformation plan. This section is
special because a lot of people are working only for this section and as a
result, the solidarity between people is strong.
James changed his attitude toward the reformation plan
when they provide the document with the member of the meeting to discuss this
reformation plan. He said that the reformation plan will not be accepted by the
workers above 40 years old, and he told Alex that this plan should be
completely revised. Not only was Alex perplexed, but also other colleagues of
him were so. Alex was perplexed because the meeting will be held in a month. It
seemed too impossible for him to revise and write a new document for the
meeting. Moreover, Alex was not sure what kind of reformation plan can be
acceptable because James did not point out specific points. Furthermore, Alex
was responsible for making this reformation plan. He was afraid of being
penalized if he cannot make a new reformation plan only a month. Thus, Alex
became nervous with James.
James rejected the reformation plan because he thought
his interests. He calculated the effect of the new plan. As a result, he notices
that he could lose 20,000,000 yen for life-earnings if this plan was passed.
James knew that this plan was profitable for the company, although he did not
want to accept this plan because of his interests. He also thought that Alex
was responsible for this plan. He knew that he would not receive any damage if
this plan was not accepted.
In this case, they share the same goal, values and
means. In addition, their personal relationship was not distracted. It is;
however, it must be recalled the fact that the differences in the standpoints
can cause different interests. There are few people who can free from their own
standpoint. Moreover, it may harm others.
It is really difficult to give up the status quo for
people even though they believe that the society should be more equal. It is
extremely difficult to free from own standpoints. It is easy to criticize that
behavior as egoism, although it is also easy to advocate egoism. Thus, the
problem is the limitation of the egoism. The egoists want to be recognized
their maximum autonomy regulated by the law and culture. They try to argue that
minimum regulation of autonomy whereas anti-egoists argue to maximize the
minimum regulation. This debate is in vain because most of the problems are end
of the spectrum.
The strength of the standpoint is different. In this
case, James is in a stronger standpoint than Alex. James utilized his position
to reject the reformation plan. I do not want to argue that the problem is
strength and weakness of each standpoint. It is inevitable that there are
strong and weak standpoints in the world. In some cases, these differences are
large and fixed, but in the other case, are not.
In this case, I am not sure that Alex who seemed to be
a weaker standpoint did counterattack or he might be succeeded as a result of
the attack. Differences in standpoints are different from the relationship between
dominance and obedience. Foucault pointed out the fact that there is some sort
of freedom, and this freedom produces the power and it was represented as
different standpoints. If there is no freedom between dominance and obedience,
then it can eliminate standpoints and it can be the condition that the complete
domination eliminates the notion of the domination. It eventually eliminates
the notion of the standpoints.
People are affiliated with the multiple societies and
multiple standpoints. Some might devote his life to utter their idealism
whereas the others might devote their life to criticize egoism. I am thinking
of both and consider to how to balance these different notions. I am not sure
that I can have another option.
I am not able to
sympathize with the optimists who ignored the real world or egoists who cannot
understand others. As Shakespeare says, “All the world stage, every men and
women were merely players.” It is not
the problem of judgment whether it is good or evil but it is reality in the
worlds. Standpoints or interests are naturally produced. It is not reasonable
to reject and disprove that fact. Rather, people should recognize themselves as
players in the world.
No comments:
Post a Comment