Corporate investments in fuelling the rise of sectarian social movements have turned out to be lucrative. These movements – ironically, having ridden to power on the waves of anti-elite disenchantment – are returning the favour by gutting labour, environmental, and social security protections, lowering corporate taxes, and dismantling the guardrails of democracy. Part of the accumulated wealth is then funnelled back into cementing the hold of sectarian politics on power.
In a vicious circle, big businesses flourish while societies reel under worsening inequalities and polarization along racial, religious, caste, and ethnic lines.
The pattern is global. Big businesses and religious fundamentalists in the United States have for long supported each other. In India, the corporate classes have driven the rise of Hindu nationalism (Hindutva); not least because of the shared pro-business (anti-labour) and sectarian instincts. In these and other politically significant countries like Brazil, Russia, and Turkey, collusion between business elites and sectarian social movements are becoming more organized and brazen.
The business elites across the world are invariably educated in business schools, usually in the famous ones. Clearly, these schools have not done enough to inoculate its graduates against sectarianism. The paper explores whether business school curriculum can be modified to respond to this crisis of democracy. The challenges are formidable.
First, the interests of the managements in these schools, including that of the faculty, and large corporations are intertwined. As a result, though the negative societal outcomes were known for decades, launching a resistance to wealth inequality from within the schools has floundered. The obstacles have just become bigger with powerful sectarian forces acquiring a stake in the perpetuation of inequalities.
Second, using idioms of liberal rationality familiar to scholars – social contracts, Kantian ethics, human rights, stakeholder approaches - may backfire in these increasingly illiberal times. After all, grievances against liberal values are the key catalysts for sectarian mobilizations.
Third, as economic and sectarian interests become indistinguishable, critiques of economic injustice can be craftily miscast as a targeting of religious beliefs. In countries with weak protections for civil liberties, perceived slights to religious dogma can expose academics to vindictive states, abusive trolls, and violent vigilantes.
Using a liberation theology approach offers a safer alternative. This approach uses idioms and imageries of religious traditions to craft arguments for liberation and against inequalities. It can be tough for corporations to reject arguments rooted in a religious tradition they claim to back.
For example, the corporate-Hindutva regime ruling India touts a fusion of sectarian and neoliberal policies as essential to reclaim the (fictitious) glory of an ancient Hindu Rashtra (i.e. Hindu Nation; not unlike the manufactured nostalgia behind slogans like “Make America Great Again”). However, classical Hindu texts are also rich sources of injunctions (‘dharma’) promoting values – like equality, tolerance, dissent, and environmental justice – antithetical to this regime. Without risking the dangerous “anti-Hindu” label, dharma-based arguments can critique the role of businesses in bolstering sectarianism.
Religion in classrooms, however, can be fraught in these polarized times. Critical-liberal interpretations of religious texts can still rile right-wing groups. Endorsements of liberating facets of religious texts can inadvertently legitimize collocated regressive ideas (dharma is used to defend corporate malpractices and even entrench white supremacy!). Reifying myths and superstitions can encourage anti-intellectualism (see the bizarre responses to COVID-19). Celebratory uses of religious imageries, usually deployed to stoke supremacy and persecute, can turn classrooms hostile for minorities.
Nevertheless, business and society scholars should respond to the hegemonic collusion of big businesses and religious-nationalist social movements solidifying across the world. Use of the familiar liberal frameworks may not work with groups that thrive on a programmatic rejection of liberalism. Religious ethics, while staying alert to its inherent risks, deserves serious consideration.
Reference:
Poruthiyil, P.V. 2020. Religious Ethics: An Antidote for Religious Nationalism. Business & Society, 59(5). https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0007650317745635