Henry, thanks for this excellent article. It reminds me of the work of John Kenneth Galbraith on the theory of social balance. Galbraith looked at what society produces and suggested that the “line which divides our area of wealth from our area of poverty is roughly that which divides privately produced and marketedgoods and services from publicly rendered services.”
Society has continued to evolve and change since the days that Galbraith wrote about the Theory of Social Balance and the need is even greater today to find that balance between private, public and plural sectors. Thanks for this remdinder. Yes, indeed, please welcome the Plural Sector!
Henry
Great discussion and problematic premise. Your beautifully crafted and impeccably argued article perpetuates “sector” thinking in a sphere of social behavior fundamentally indivisible from the nurturing—and, admittedly, sometimes severely strained—bonds of human relationship. “Sector” thinking and name-chasing distances us from the essential behaviors of trust, reciprocity, caring, mutuality, love and looking out for others that lie at the core of authentic community.
Variously expressed formally and informally in the form of broad spontaneous movements; neighbors chatting in a living room about the need for a stop sign on an unsafe street corner; a fully formed nonprofit organization or private foundation; a salon-style book reading group; many types of clubs; and so on, these kinds of activities marble, insinuate and entwine themselves throughout every aspect of society. How is the notion of trust and the social capital that results from it amenable in any way to categorization as a “sector” when it constitutes a kind of behavior that has the potential for accretion to the ultimate benefit of all people no matter where they work, how they govern or are governed, or what affiliations they choose? And don’t all nonprofit organization missions, at least ideally, in some way aspire toward changing the totality of the human condition, not just one piece of it discreet from all others?
Perhaps we do ourselves the greatest service by dispensing altogether with sector-naming and this strange, too-academic urge toward categorization. It’s the wrong ball on which to keep our eyes. Rather, perhaps, we strive to fulfill our community lives—be they expressed formally through organizations or informally, even messily, through other means—in appreciation of the complex web of binding behaviors we seek to strengthen and perpetuate. There’s no convenient “sector” into which to stuff the imperfect, ever-evolving and shape-shifting forms that true community takes.
Very interesting article and I like the introduction of the term plural sector. We definitely need a new phrase! I’m a Business Professor as well and I really like your analysis about balance needed in society. I’d encourage you to consider the beautiful balance from the Dutch Prime Minister Abraham Kuyper and his view of sphere sovereignty. It looks for a balance in more spheres than public, private and plural.
I like the name “Plural Sector.” However, your conclusion about the sector working together to be a counterbalance to commercialism and capitalism is surprising and does not fit my view of why the “Plural Sector” is deserving of this moniker. I see the Plural Sector as a place where people can express their values, regardless of how different they may be. I truly doubt that the Center for Medical Progress and Planned Parenthood will be singing from the same hymnal any time soon.
I find your proposition that tax-exempt organizations existing in the Plural Sector should broadly work together toward some end on a broad basis. I find this as difficult as the concept that charities should get more government funding, since charities are responding in some ways to government failures and known by some, as you point out, as non-government organizations.
The article left out the largest of all communities, faith based associations. I am working with faith communities in over 100 nations to train lay social workers to provide mental, emotional, physical, and relational support.,Thanks to Marc Andreas for reviving the idea of adhere Sovereignty!
COMMENTS
BY Terry Gray
ON May 15, 2015 06:12 AM
Henry, thanks for this excellent article. It reminds me of the work of John Kenneth Galbraith on the theory of social balance. Galbraith looked at what society produces and suggested that the “line which divides our area of wealth from our area of poverty is roughly that which divides privately produced and marketedgoods and services from publicly rendered services.”
Society has continued to evolve and change since the days that Galbraith wrote about the Theory of Social Balance and the need is even greater today to find that balance between private, public and plural sectors. Thanks for this remdinder. Yes, indeed, please welcome the Plural Sector!
BY Paul Vandeventer
ON May 19, 2015 11:27 AM
Henry
Great discussion and problematic premise. Your beautifully crafted and impeccably argued article perpetuates “sector” thinking in a sphere of social behavior fundamentally indivisible from the nurturing—and, admittedly, sometimes severely strained—bonds of human relationship. “Sector” thinking and name-chasing distances us from the essential behaviors of trust, reciprocity, caring, mutuality, love and looking out for others that lie at the core of authentic community.
Variously expressed formally and informally in the form of broad spontaneous movements; neighbors chatting in a living room about the need for a stop sign on an unsafe street corner; a fully formed nonprofit organization or private foundation; a salon-style book reading group; many types of clubs; and so on, these kinds of activities marble, insinuate and entwine themselves throughout every aspect of society. How is the notion of trust and the social capital that results from it amenable in any way to categorization as a “sector” when it constitutes a kind of behavior that has the potential for accretion to the ultimate benefit of all people no matter where they work, how they govern or are governed, or what affiliations they choose? And don’t all nonprofit organization missions, at least ideally, in some way aspire toward changing the totality of the human condition, not just one piece of it discreet from all others?
Perhaps we do ourselves the greatest service by dispensing altogether with sector-naming and this strange, too-academic urge toward categorization. It’s the wrong ball on which to keep our eyes. Rather, perhaps, we strive to fulfill our community lives—be they expressed formally through organizations or informally, even messily, through other means—in appreciation of the complex web of binding behaviors we seek to strengthen and perpetuate. There’s no convenient “sector” into which to stuff the imperfect, ever-evolving and shape-shifting forms that true community takes.
Thanks.
BY Marc Andreas
ON May 31, 2015 03:30 PM
Very interesting article and I like the introduction of the term plural sector. We definitely need a new phrase! I’m a Business Professor as well and I really like your analysis about balance needed in society. I’d encourage you to consider the beautiful balance from the Dutch Prime Minister Abraham Kuyper and his view of sphere sovereignty. It looks for a balance in more spheres than public, private and plural.
BY Bill C
ON August 9, 2015 04:24 PM
I like the name “Plural Sector.” However, your conclusion about the sector working together to be a counterbalance to commercialism and capitalism is surprising and does not fit my view of why the “Plural Sector” is deserving of this moniker. I see the Plural Sector as a place where people can express their values, regardless of how different they may be. I truly doubt that the Center for Medical Progress and Planned Parenthood will be singing from the same hymnal any time soon.
I find your proposition that tax-exempt organizations existing in the Plural Sector should broadly work together toward some end on a broad basis. I find this as difficult as the concept that charities should get more government funding, since charities are responding in some ways to government failures and known by some, as you point out, as non-government organizations.
BY Nelson
ON August 17, 2015 11:42 PM
So powerfully written, you put water in my eyes. Thank you Henry.
BY Gary Sweeten
ON August 23, 2015 07:35 PM
The article left out the largest of all communities, faith based associations. I am working with faith communities in over 100 nations to train lay social workers to provide mental, emotional, physical, and relational support.,Thanks to Marc Andreas for reviving the idea of adhere Sovereignty!