Opinion: Express the discomfort and speak about values

All affairs are similar, yet every scandal is scandalous in its own way. The benefits affair (toeslagenaffaire) or the Groningen gas extraction scandal were caused by a government that operated mainly bureaucratically and was not an ally of the people. An instrumental way of thinking, which fostered a losing sight of social values such as human dignity and solidarity.

On 26 April, EUR is hosting a debate at Arminius with Stine Jensen, Ronald van Raak, Gijs van Oenen and others on 'Wat ons bindt'. A conversation about polarisation and the return of values in the public domain. You can attend by filling in the form on this page.

The scandals are different, but the solutions falter in a similar way. The immoral actions are covered up with fancy-sounding words like 'guilt of honour' - and then recovery for the victims does not get off the ground and gets bogged down in bureaucratic thinking. Both affairs lead to distrust. These people know: for the government, I am mainly a nuisance and a bill.

Another type of affair is about transgressive behaviour: The Voice, DWDD and NOS Sport - we move from scandal to scandal. Again, these affairs are different, yet here too we always hear instrumental arguments. Making tv-programmes is supposedly 'top sport', on a newsroom where people are under 'great pressure', for valuation and ratings.

As long as this thinking in pure profitabilty prevails, merely replacing the current puppets with newer, more diverse or youthful people (more women, more people of colour and more young people) will not be enough to foster a different culture. Nor will introducing tools, such as confidants, or protocolising right and wrong behaviour.

Regulating out

Discomfort will not be regulated out just like that. If we only introduce protocolised solutions, we outsource the discussion to a desk. Real cultural change requires not only that a presenter realises that it is not acceptable to invite an employee to take a bath, but also that she dares to say to him, "Behave! What do you think you are doing?", without fearing the consequences and trusting that a complaint will be taken seriously.

In companies and organisations, debates about shared values are on the rise. Often, these debates also lead to an instrumental solution: from internal codes of conduct to external mission statements. However, values are more than marketing: we see the importance of shared values especially in the moments when things chafe. When discomfort arises in discussions and there are no easy solutions at hand.

In philosophy, too, there is a shift in thinking about values. German philosopher Markus Gabriel shows that the taboo on discussing values has led to bureaucratic efficiency thinking. British philosopher Roman Krznaric believes that what is lacking is empathetic thinking, putting yourself in the other person's situation. We add that if we can no longer talk about our shared values, we also do not know when and why boundaries are crossed.

Substantive confrontation

Dutch people are worried about polarisation, recent opinion research by the Social and Cultural Planning Office shows. At the same time, according to these perspectives from citizens presented by the SCP, it turns out that on many topics people are more in agreement than they thought. A promising fact, which shows that we really don't have to cancel each other, but can feel free to confront each other on the content.

Lack of shared values makes people defenceless, is our response to the motto of the Maand van de Filosofie ('Vulnerable and valuable'). If it is not clear what unites us, we are actually powerless as individuals, as the scandals we face show. Feeling discomfort is not a bad thing, but can be the start of a solution. Talking about the values we share prevents us from stumbling from scandal to scandal.