The Rise Of Financial-Governmental Figures And Their Confession To The Government

We know the much discussed practice of financial industry figures joining the government; indeed we can call certain functional positions within the financial industry as “financial-governmental positions,” because the sole design of these positions may be to enable the figures in those positions to “go to government.” This move from finance to government appears motivated by the wish to “serve the people” that financial figures may feel after having served private interests for so long. But in truth the financial industry does not fragment once one of its members joins the government, rather, it gets even stronger, for it now has one of its own inside government and can influence the image and punishment of the financial industry.

The weakness of government when dealing with the financial-governmental figure is what can be called government's “confessional mode.” Whenever a financial-governmental figure approaches it, the governmental establishment swells with pride in anticipation of the admission of guilt that will come about through a confessional conversation of wrongdoing (involving greed.) The governmental establishment thinks that upon the admission of guilt, the financial figure will be “purged of the sin of greed” and will wholeheartedly work towards providing governmental service to the people. At no time does the government consider that the financial-governmental figure is a representative of the financial industry, and therefore the government does not act against the financial industry as a whole via a visible punishment, but acts only to slightly amend the constitution in order that the particular governmental-financial figure may be stopped from committing another sinful act.

The lack of strict punishment as a whole may be even more aggravated when the governmental establishment has figures who derive pleasure from the confessional mode. When there is pleasure in hearing a confession, there is no meaningful punishment of anyone in order that the financial-governmental figures can continue to do wrong and therefore continue to confess to government. We may turn to Foucault who shows us how integral visibility of the punished figure is to confirm effectively the role of punishment in society, but today there is no visible, meaningful punishment besides the slight and technical amendment of the constitution, which looks more of a symbolic gesture than justified punishment to the citizens.

One may say the willingness of financial figures to “go to government” shows the openness of government these days, an openness which may inspire the financial figures to share more and eventually work to change the financial system as a whole. However the confessional mode is shrouded in secrecy: we know from confession in churches where a screen separates the figures when they discuss the sin, and similarly in government, there are ways in which the confession is made vague and opaque, when not all of the guilt is conveyed, when only that much is said with which one oneself may continue to remain secret. In all, this confessional mode within government is in crisis and this is a serious problem, because even when the financial-governmental figures feel guilty and admit this guilt they are not able to enact meaningful change through the government, partly because the government itself does not properly interpret and act on this guilt and its confession. 

Office Meetings On Brand Names Made Of Invented Words

We feel brand names are powerful. But first we must be clear that the brand name is in fact not representative of one drive and pursuit of a company, but that a variety of complex and even conflicting objectives are forcibly collected together under the brand name. Today one company is home not to a variety of slightly different “departments” but rather a variety of highly differentiated “offices” entirely, so that there is no single powerful brand named company uniting all the offices underneath it harmoniously.

In the series of meetings between the different conflicting offices in a company, it is when a new word, an invented word even, is blurted out in the angry and fiery debate/dispute, and when a number of conflicting interpretations of that word arise from the conflicting offices, that the dominant office aggressively pushes that new word as a brand name to the weaker offices. The brand name is not a point of agreement between the different offices of a company as we may think on the outside but of fierce competition and disagreement.

Meetings held to discuss possible brand names are rare opportunities that produce the fiercest competition between the offices within a company. These meetings only occur at the beginning of the company's formation, at a stage when there is no obvious dominating office in the company. These meetings test each office's ability, drive and vision to take the company forward. The obscure brand name, the brand name where the words are invented, is difficult for the other offices to attack because invented words don't connote anything and cannot easily be “free-associated” with other words or ideas.