Buddhist Economics: have we outsourced our souls?
Last night, we watched an independent film called Outsourced. I thought it was a documentary when Jeanine first put it in our Netflix queue, but the Seattle Times review explained that it was, ‘œa thoughtful satire that looks at the human face beyond contemporary frustrations associated with the global economy.’
With the backdrop of a Mumbai call center, it ended up being a light, romantic comedy. The call center manager (an American) tries to explain our business practices and consumerism to the confused new employees. As he falls in love with one of them, there are lessons to be learned about globalization, work and life. It’s a pleasant and warm surprise of a story.
Jeanine thought I would like it because it had something to do with ‘œbusiness.’ For some reason she thinks I only see the world through the eyes of capitalism. For example: whenever we’re at a locally-owned restaurant, I’m always pointing out who I think is the likely proprietor. She wonders why I feel the urge to observe and make a guess. I find it interesting when you see people doing their ‘œwork’ in a different way than those around them. You can typically spot owner/operators because they treat work differently and it shows.
In an article at The Ingenesist Project, the author explains why a person’s work has psychological and spiritual value that must be respected. He references Buddhist Economics, a theory by E.F. Schumacher, an Oxford economist and protégé of John Maynard Keynes.
Schumacher was among the first to argue that economic production was too wasteful of the environment and non-renewable resources. But even more than that, he saw decades ago that ever-increasing production and consumption ‘” the foundation of the modern economy ‘” is unsustainable.
Are workers just an ‘œexpense’ to be reduced as much as possible?
Schumacher argued that an economy should exist to serve the needs of people. But in a ‘œmaterialist’ economy, people exist to serve the economy. Notably, he argued that labor should be about more than production because a person’s work has psychological and spiritual value that must be respected.
Instead we consider goods as more important than people and consumption as more important than creative activity. It means shifting the emphasis from the worker to the product of work, that is, ‘œfrom the human to the subhuman.’ We have outsourced our soul.
When people love their work, they seem happier. It’s not about making more money. Tons of studies and much has been written about money and happiness. In the end, happiness boils down to managing what you already have.
What’s your meaningful work? How do you think one’s career plays into all of this? How does our culture and consumerism impact happiness?
Photo credit: stock.xchng.
Great article! I’m always thinking about each job and whether it’s the best use of my spirit. Number 5 on the Buddha’s Eightfold Path to happiness is “Right Livelihood.” – a way of making a living without harm to others. Without transgressing your ideals of love and compassion.
Oh I have to check out this book you mention and add it to my numerous Buddhist studies. As Moorea shares the Eightfold Path holds a lot of clues as to how to live your way in a much more sustainable and satisfying way. If you’re taking Right Action, adhering to Right Speech, Right Livelihood…you organically become more attuned to doing the right thing and staying in integrity, in life, in business, and financially.
I recently saw Outsourced too… a few bits of good humor, little light romantic comedy thrown in. An “ok” movie…my parents saw it and loved it so they prodded me on to watching it. It does drive home the fact that one genius’ idea of the “next best solution” is fleeting and subject to change at the whim of who knows who at any moment.
Moorea: I like that… right livelihood. I’ll have to read up on Number 5!
Paula: I thought it was better than “ok” but can’t say I loved it either. I didn’t have high expectations so I was pleasantly surprised.
I once worked with a guy at a consulting firm in Silicon Valley who thought that the company should exist for the benefit of its employees rather than to make a profit for the owners (and so they could keep paying employees). At the time I thought he was completely nuts. Your post moves me to thinking him only a little nuts. 🙂