Module 8 of the class deals with the rise of new interests. Unusually for Global Trends, the focus will be mostly on the US, though the lessons apply more broadly. We will discuss the emergence of new voices in a society that is growing more diverse. We will discuss whether there is a growing cultural divide in the US - along lines of gender, race, national origin, religion, political affiliation, etc. The answers may sometimes surprise you. But when it comes to politics, there is an undeniable increase in political polarization. This polarization is most pronounced in Congress, for reasons that have to do in part with the manner in which candidates are selected. But it is also visible among the population itself. Growing political polarization in the US has profound ramifications for politics, but it also has major consequences for business.
This is to introduce a far-ranging article on the politicization of business, which appeared in Newsweek recently. It's a fascinating read and deals with many issues we have discussed in Global Trends in the past. The article focuses on the rise of "right-winged" business, and in this sense it may seem a bit one-sided. My view is that in a polarized society, there is growing pressure for businesses to align with one or the other side of the political spectrum - this is a pretty symmetric game. As some businesses align more with either side, there is growing social pressure by the other side to create brands and services tailored to their political preferences. Hence the fascinating example of Harry's razors versus Jeremy's razors that the article describes.
Is it a good idea for companies to take political positions? My personal view is that they have to tread carefully. There are issues of basic social justice and environmental responsibility that companies cannot avoid getting drawn into - justifiably so. But when corporations become perceived as too politically aligned, the risk of a backlash exists. The business world runs the risk of becoming politically bifurcated. Personally, I would not want to live in a society where all my consumption choices are politically patterned - where I have to choose between a right-winged razor or a left-winged razor. Razors should not have a political alignment. Neither should blue jeans, coffee, fried chicken, or sporting goods. Beyond consumers, corporations themselves should not want to be backed into a political corner: whatever your point of view, about half of society aligns with the other point of view! It seems problematic for companies to give up on half of their potential customer base, which is what we would end up with if all of business became politically patterned (look at what happened to cable news for instance - with CNN now trying to extricate itself from this self-defeating equilibrium). This is a great debate, and one that I am sure we will have a chance to revisit in class.
PS: The Newsweek article cites two UCLA Anderson affiliated scholars: my colleague Valentin Haddad, who teaches finance at our school, and Vanessa Burbano, who obtained her PhD with us.