Frivolous Bureaucracy:When did governance outgrow common sense?

Brienne ThomsonSIS 642: Intercultural Relations

October 14, 2012

Despite the expression, “Two heads are better than one,” there is a limit to the

amount of collaborative eyes-and-ears at which rationality and efficiency get lost. Just

as in economic diseconomies of scale, when the size of a factory becomes too big,

costs climb faster than output. The “too” bigness leads to coordination problems that

result in miscommunications and decisions being made that are just as unwieldy as the

bureaucratic beast the factory has become. And all of this – this bureaucratic

irrationality that is seen as so ‘normal’ today – began as an innocent desire for peace

and security.1 This tranquil need in the hearts of man was eventually externalized, or as

Edward T. Hall coined, “extended, and carried on outside the body,” from which we

developed our governmental protectorate. And as it continued to snowball into today’s

capitalistic fight to be bigger, better and faster, this “extension” has transferred into

something completely unlike its intent.2

Our government and institutions have sprouted layers and subdivisions so vast

that the “telephone game” they must play to move ahead, twists any ‘reason’ out of the

hallways of common sense. These are the bureaucracies and delusional schemes that

we accept as part of our culture; unquestioned and just the way things are.

2

Ultimately, when [extension transference] ET distortions become too great and the discrepancy between reality and the extension system is so evident that it can no longer be ignored, people become uncomfortable and begin to do something about it. However, the discontinuities can be horrendous before revolution occurs. (34)

So, how did we get to a point where common sense is secondary to “the

system?” How do we shed light on this delusional ‘norm’ and hold a mirror up to our

culture? And if indeed recognition is achieved, how do we do it differently?

Self-Imposed Framework

Even almost four-decades ago, it was with no new insight into the role that this

web-of-governance plays over society that Hall made an analogy to the King of Ruffle

Bar case. “The story epitomizes the little man against the big bureaucracy,” he wrote in

his 1976 intercultural relations classic, Beyond Culture. “Once triggered,” he continued,

it proceeds with a “mindless persistence that is too terrifyingly characteristic of

bureaucracies once they are activated.”3

Hall is referring to the linear mode Westerners have been “trained to think,” like

worker bees in the hive of bureaucracy.4 However, it was exactly 200-years prior to the

publishing of Hall’s book, and about six-months before America even became America

that a similar slice of Common Sense was pointed out by Thomas Paine:

The more simple any thing is, the less liable it is to be disordered, and the easier repaired when disordered ... but the Constitution of England is so exceedingly complex, that the nation may suffer for years together without being able to discover in which part the fault lies; some will say in one and some in another, and every political physician will advise a different medicine. (Ch. 4)

3

And thus is the model our founding fathers based our governmental structure and

the perspective from which America grew. Underlying the convoluted model Paine

described, is the perspective from which it hatched.

It was the mid-1600s, the Age of Enlightenment, when Thomas Hobbes

published Leviathan and the political philosophy of the “social contract,” which is a

concept also addressed in Paine’s Common Sense. The British philosopher, Hobbes,

noted that, “During the time men live without a common power to keep them all in awe,

they are in that condition which is called war; and such a war as is of every man against

every man.”1

Here, Hobbes explains that it is man’s nature to live lawlessly, as per his will and

desire. Hobbes also exemplified this notion with an analogy of the ‘Land of the Free’ …

pre-economic empire, of course. “For the savage people in many places of America,

except the government of small families, the concord whereof dependeth on natural

lust, have no government at all, and live at this day in that brutish manner.”1

But with this aggressive way of life comes fear and thus, Hobbes added, the

desire for peace. “As for peace and defence of himself he shall think it necessary, to lay

down this right to all things,” and establish a social contract with one another. This

collaboration, in turn, led to leaders to enforce the peace, a hierarchical order, and as a

result, a self-imposed government.1

And since colonization turned our “brutish manner” into the British manner, we

have modified this social contract concept into the Realism Theory of international

relations that we share with the Brits and many Western societies today. Basically,

instead of man as the self-centered aggressor, we have put the real power in the hands

4

of the state.5 And likewise, the state appropriated the same air of self-interest and

power, once possessed by the individual. Power is key in a Capitalist society; the bigger

you are, the more power and influence you have. In this world where power = value

(measured in monetary income and capital), we are massive. The United States leads

the world in Gross Domestic Product; twice that of the runner up, China, and just 14%

behind the 27-country EU amalgamation, which banked a nice $17-trillion last year.6

As our history has shown, government is self-imposed to keep security and

peace, but along with relinquished rights, man hands over power. And part of power,

assumed by the ruling faction, is this innate warring nature; competitive and driven by

self-interest. Now, as the government grows and grows, it, and all its bureaucratic

branches become “too” big to control. The power of the individual, “This natural right of

every man to every thing,” as Hobbes noted, including judgment and reason, has been

pledged to “one nation under God, indivisible.”1 And from under this umbrella, came our

birth, our perspective, our language and our reality.

Action Chain of Wasted Intent

As detailed, the origin of the system of government we created was based on

good intent; peace and security – as was the military, the police force, the National

Security Agency, and the list goes on. However, governmentally, we have a Federal

Republic, based on a division of powers, and just like our institutions, intent can get lost

in the meticulous sequence of events that depend on cohesion between all of the

branches, divisions and layers. The clear-cut continuum of this “action chain” is of dire

consequence to achieving a goal in a bureaucracy. And, as noted by Hall, the

department-to-department process is even more important than the content produced;

5

probably all too familiar to many Americans! “In fact the breaking of an action chain is

one of the most trouble-some events with which human beings have to contend in our

speeded-up technological twentieth century,” wrote Hall; 20-years before this draining

paradigm was even recognized on a wider scale when books like, “Death By Meeting”

and “First Break All the Rules” were published.7 However, it is not only the process, but

more specifically, the objective that gets lost in these action chains, which raises the

question as to how we let our system get so convoluted and why, as a culture, we have

so blindly rolled along on its assembly line.

Just as the intent of rescuing the King from Ruffle Bar was good, the Americans

with Disabilities Act (ADA) that was signed into law by President George Bush, Sr. in

1990, exemplifies this delusion of objectives. The driving force behind the ADA was, of

course, positively intentioned to enforce the equal treatment of disabled citizens. But the

breadth of the Act and its repercussions spawned financial and legal nightmares for

thousands and thousands of businesses across the country. And once an Act laden with

loopholes gets chiseled into law, one of America’s most frivolous institutions, our legal

system, is let loose. With limited morality and no efficient, legal way to “watch dog” such

a powerful force, the bureaucratic pendulum became a wrecking ball.

The delusional aspects have to do with the institutionalized necessity to control “everything,” and the widely accepted notion that the bureaucrat knows what is best. (11)

One of numerous examples of ‘should-have-been’ frivolous lawsuits that

spawned from the ADA was a class-action suit between: Plaintiff: National

Federation of the Blind (NFB) vs. Defendant: Target Corporation. The NFB

6

alleged that Target.com was not accessible to blind persons, thus “denying them full

and equal access to Target stores.” Target’s attempt at a “frivolous” appeal was thrown

out because the judge, Marilyn Patel, was interpreting and exacerbating the ADA’s

stipulations, in lieu of common sense. The ADA states that individuals with disabilities

have the same rights as the general public to the full use of public places. And in this

case, Judge Patel, merged digital space with physical space and deemed Target.com,

or cyberspace in general, public.8 And thus, the good intention, shaken through the

bureaucratic system, turned into a ruling where one would literally have to ‘make light

visible to the blind.’ And yet, the gavel had dropped. Insanity won, no questions asked.

In order to duck any further hits from the wrecking ball, Target settled for a sweet

$6-million, topped by $3-million in plaintiff legal fees, and the gates were opened for

more class-action waste.

The demands of bureaucracies trickle down through the layers. And sometimes,

the last layer is so deeply removed from where the order was made, by the time it

arrives, it makes no sense. So, why then would one proceed in carrying out the

command?

A U.S. Army veteran once told me a story about how his squadron handled

budget issues during tank training operations in Germany in the 1960s. His team was

allotted a certain amount of money and supplies, and needed to report on usage. If they

did not use a supply, it would be cut from their next budget allocation. So, being as far

removed as they were down the chain of command, they simply “used” everything to

prevent cuts. This included dumping thousands of gallons of fuel into the German

countryside to claim that it was “used” so that future allotments would not be cut.

7

This is not uncommon in a massive bureaucracy like the U.S. military and is thus,

probably not that surprising to the majority of Americans. We are accustomed to waste.

And in acknowledging that, one must reflect on how insane it sounds. But the system

we have established is fixed on schedule and punctuality, as well as a linear order of

actions. These cultural patterns are categorized by Hall as “monochromic” and “low-

context,” respectively.

“Monochronic, low-context cultures, with their compartmentalized approach and

dependence on scheduled activities, are particularly sensitive to interruptions and so

are more vulnerable to the breaking of action chains than high-context cultures,”

because we, as Americans, are less likely to bend.7 To further substantiate Hall’s point

as to why we continue down these delusional paths, we can compare this linear process

to high-context cultures that adapt to changes and continue toward the completion of a

goal. As a result, a break in the action chain for an American can instigate a complete

redo or another bureaucratic process, so it is avoided at all costs.

Reshaping our Lens

Reflecting on one’s culture requires, as Hall has stated, the ability to compare.

Although, as an ethnocentric culture with a unidirectional modernist perspective; an

observation published by University of Central Florida professor, Dr. George

Musambira, we are not apt to know other cultures, let alone be able to analyze

ourselves. This sends us down our delusional path, a structure of waste ‘seemingly’ too

big to combat.

8

However, to dust away a bit of the unending picture of gloom I have painted; I do

think our system can be modified for efficiency, for rationality, for intent, and for stepping

off this bureaucratic assembly line. But to achieve such a massive realization and

change, takes the masses. And sending out high-context lenses to 300-plus-million

Americans is just as inefficient as our institutions today.

The “high-context” prescription I mentioned, one of Hall’s general categorizations

for types of cultural communication systems, goes against the American framework for

“how to” live. As our low-context way of communicating is direct to get the message

across, a high-context culture has a more indirect manner of communication and a lot is

inferred. As an American does not expect much from people in regard to observation,

someone in Japan has high expectations for a co-context individual to infer their

emotional state without having to say it. Higher expectations in high-context cultures

also place greater degrees of responsibility on individuals for their actions, work, and

what they are in charge of. Time is another main factor of these cultural frameworks.

Whereas American’s are monochronic, deadline driven, and unwaveringly focus on one

specific task to move a project from one department to the next, for example, individuals

in Mexico are not as focused on “schedule” to achieve objectives. They will bend, as

previously noted, with the ebb and flow of any obstacles that cross their path. In their

high-context culture, they prioritize association and interaction with people over goals.4a

In order to recognize these differences in our framework; all the words and non-

verbal cues, reactions, priorities, methods and extensions that are so ingrained in what

we do, how we think and interact, one must experience a divergence from this familiar

structure.

9

The great gift that the members of the human race have for each other is not exotic experiences but an opportunity to achieve awareness of the structure of their own system, which can be accomplished only by interacting with others who do not share that system. (44)

It is the ability to see through the lenses of another culture that can allow a

culture to step back and compare cultural characteristics in order to be able to reflect on

itself. This recognition, according to Hall, is the only way we can familiarize ourselves

with the structure we have created. And thus, of course, it is the only way we can judge

or critique how we can improve and who we can improve for.

The aforementioned “who” is italicized for a reason. Because in this ingrained

way of thinking, our priorities and energies and time are not necessarily directed to

ourselves or our families, but to the institutions that hold the paycheck on the end of the

stick. And, if actions speak louder than words, a society of “workaholics” – and even the

fact that this term is recognized by spellcheck – dictates where our priorities lie. And this

rather delusional prioritization is a perfect reason as to why we should look into the

mirror with those high-context lenses.

Recognition and familiarization with who we are and how we have arrived in this

“department” requires the dissemination of the message. However, since the

Telecommunications Act of 1996 capitalized the distribution of information, we now

have another “lens” shading our way to self-recognition. What this Act did was to

deregulate media ownership allowing the privatization of multiple media outlets under

one roof. The door was opened to competition in our sacred industry of news and

information, and corporations were able to buy multiple newspapers, radio or television

10

stations and dictate who, what, when, where and how news was broadcast. Our media

is under corporate control; thousands of outlets owned by a handful of companies.

As a result, disseminating any sort of message to the masses will require taking

power from the corporate networks and broadcasting information, versus their lens-of-

opinion, which has been obfuscating our cultural bifocals since the passage of the 1996

Act. The question remains, however, as to who will do the taking.

It is indeed eye-opening to experience the ability to self-criticize and look at our

world with a more postmodernist perspective, to acknowledge “the existence of multiple

‘truths’ or ‘realities’ and stress a constitutive view of communication.”9 And although, this

is beneficial in our globalized world, this perspective will also offer the ability to look

inside ourselves as we roll down this linear assembly line and recognize the waste and

unquestioning ways in which we, as a whole, have been trained to think. And maybe,

together, we can reprogram.

Cultural irrationality is widely shared and therefore often thought to be normal. Our attitudes toward consumption and material goods and our apparent lack of interest in curbing waste at a time when our resources are running out is clearly insane. But because we share the insanity with others and get little help from our institutions or leaders, this insanity goes virtually unchecked in spite of valiant efforts of the environmentalists. After all, you can’t stop progress! Or can you? (220)

11

References

Buckingham, Marcus. First, Break All the Rules: What the World's Greatest Managers Do Differently. New York, NY: Simon & Schuster, 1999.

Hall, Edward T. Beyond Culture. New York, NY: Anchor Books, 1976.

Hall, Edward T., Mildred Reed Hall. Hidden Differences: Doing Business with the Japanese. New York, NY: Anchor Books, 1987.

Hobbes, Thomas. Leviathan. “Chapter XIII Of The Natural Condition Of Mankind As Concerning Their Felicity And Misery.” 1660. http://oregonstate.edu/instruct/phl302/texts/hobbes/leviathan-c.html#CHAPTERXIII (October 6, 2012).

Lencioni, Patrick. Death by Meeting: A Leadership Fable about Solving the Most Painful Problem in Business. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass, 2004.

Musambira, George W. “A Comparison of Modernist and Postmodernist Accounts of Cross-Cultural Communication between African Societies and the United States” Howard Journal of Communications 11. No. 2, (2000): 145-161.

National Federation of the Blind vs. Target Corporation, N.D. Cal., Jan. 2, 2008 (2009). LexisNexis. http://www.lexisnexis.com/us/lnacademic (Accessed October 7, 2012).

Paine, Thomas. Common Sense. “Chapter 1 “Of the Origin and Design of Government in General with Concise Remarks on The English Constitution.” 1776. http://www.ushistory.org/paine/commonsense/index.htm (October 6, 2012).

– “Data: GDP Ranking.” The World Bank. Accessed October 6, 2012. http://data.worldbank.org/data-catalog/GDP-ranking-table.

Yurdusev, Nuri A., “Thomas Hobbes and International Relations: From Realism to Rationalism” Australian Journal of International Affairs 60. No. 2 (2006): 305-321.

12

Footnotes

1. Thomas Hobbes, Leviathan (1660), Ch. 13.

2. Edward T. Hall, Beyond Culture (New York: Anchor Books. 1989), 179.

3. Hall, Beyond Culture, 10-11.

4. Hall, Beyond Culture, 123.

4a. Hall, Beyond Culture, 113, 150.

5. Nuri A. Yurdusev, “Thomas Hobbes and International Relations: From Realism to Rationalism,” Australian Journal of International Affairs 60. No. 2 (2006): 305.

6. “Data: GDP Ranking,” The World Bank, accessed October 6, 2012, http://data.worldbank.org/data-catalog/GDP-ranking-table.

7. Edward T. Hall, Mildred Reed Hall. Hidden Differences: Doing Business with the Japanese, (New York, NY: Anchor Books, 1987), 31.

8. National Federation of the Blind vs. Target Corporation, N.D. Cal., Jan. 2, 2008 (2009), LexisNexis, http://www.lexisnexis.com/us/lnacademic, accessed October 7, 2012.

9. George W. Musambira, “A Comparison of Modernist and Postmodernist Accounts of Cross-Cultural Communication between African Societies and the United States,” Howard Journal of Communications 11. No. 2, (2000): 147.