Faces of Corruption

Here we go. Again, after too long!

Recently someone asked me how I felt about corruption. When questions of such a nature unexpectedly erupt out of the blue, and thus not as part of a developing discussion, I actually feel much like I used to when the young me faced the onslaught of tennis or hockey balls. But that is possibly another subject for a later stage.

Suffice it to say that in this context, a sense of overwhelm flooded the space needed for calm reasoning and deduction in the face of such a complex issue such as corruption.

I could glibly respond, “Well, it’s not my cup of tea!”, fooling around in the knowledge that the one who had posed the question, knows full well on which side of the coin I reside, and naturally expected a degree more profundity in my reply.

The point is that corruption is the chosen cup of tea for many. And that raises a big Why. Is it driven by need, or greed or both, sequentially or otherwise? I don’t believe that any query relating to humans and especially human behaviour can be summed up in a single identifying answer on cause. Perhaps the pessimist would say that ‘Corruption is because we are.’ I can’t believe that and besides, it clashes with my inherent belief that the essence of each one of us is pure.

What does make sense to me is the influence of environment. Cell biologist Bruce Lipton cites the words of Professor Irv Konigsberg, “When the cultured cells you are studying are ailing, look first to the cell’s environment, not to the cell itself, for the cause.” Renowned in the field of epigenetics, Lipton says that specific signals from the environment activate a gene’s expression. Further, identical stem cells placed into different cultures develop into different types of cells, such as muscle, fat, bone and so on, depending on the chemical signals they receive from the environment.

Does the micro not reflect the macro and vice versa?

Research on ‘environments’ conducive to corruption will highlight factors such as lack of accountability, unfair payment structures, monopolistic powers, lack of transparency, restricted and controlled media and so on. I consider these to be the fertilizers of primary activating signals such as multigenerational malnutrition, poor education both formal and informal, competition, and disconnection from nature.

Each of these influences and ‘signals’ represents a complex, multi-layered issue that can effectively erode the ethical fabric of both individuals and society alike.

Again, in consideration of both the micro and macro level, if a few cells began to malfunction, the issue would not remain isolated. The organ to which they belonged would also malfunction, thereby affecting the rest of the body. Left unaddressed, this condition would eventually consume the entire system.

Central to this metaphor is interconnectedness illustrating how we are not islands of humanity but rather dependent on each other for our survival. Our successful growth and development as a society, as a species, depends on cooperation, not the pitting of one against the other. What we do to others we ultimately do to the self. That is a point that should be central to education and thus awareness.

Can we really point a straight finger of accusation at those considered to be bad? Do we not all hold a degree of responsibility for the state of the ‘environment’ either by omission or commission? And how resilient are we to complacency once the rot becomes systemic?

We may perceive certain practices in other cultures to be corrupt, such as gifting an official or business partner under the guise of relationship building. Yet when we engage in the very same action at the end of the year, we regard it as an act of goodwill.

When corruption is systemic, the force of the tide may carry the individual in directions not consciously chosen but rather accepted as astute business practice. Such as unrealistically escalating the price of a product in order to create the perception of value and quality.

It is not uncommon to find members within global monitoring agencies to have direct conflicts of interest – that is considered to be an ethical transgression for good reason, yet it exists.

While the soil of humankind may have been infected by the virus of corruption since time immemorial, we can, with awareness, look to our own individual permeability status. Do we become host to it, allowing our true identity to be consumed? Or do we resist the toxicity with all our might? Both of those options involve compromising the truth of who we are and how we behave.

Back to the cell in the petri dish. The cell will move away from toxins, and towards nutrition. These directional movements cannot co-exist simultaneously. The former, Lipton describes as protection mode and the latter as growth mode.

The point is that the cell senses the difference between toxin and nutrition which in turn influences its choice of direction. How do we do this? How do we know when we can freely trust another and when we cannot? Or have we lost the ability and as such lapsed into the ‘better be safe, than sorry’ mode which in effect becomes a default mode of protection, as well as a fertile soil for anxiety.  

It is difficult to savour the full and true experience of life from behind the barricade of protection, just as it is difficult to contribute your own full expression to life through a barricade. Barricades inhibit connection while demonstrating lack of trust. And on the flip side of the non-trusting coin lies the demise of kindness. Acts of spontaneous and pure kindness would fall prey to the scouts of suspicion searching for hidden agendas. Now that’s truly sad, not to mention unhealthy.

How then, do we embrace more of the growth mode and feel free to fling the gates open to life’s experiences?

How often have you known who’s going to call you just before they do so? How often have you felt a hunch about something or listened to your gut? How often have you heeded these feelings or signals? In the materialist and reductionist world in which we live, there is little encouragement to tune in to our inner state of in-tuition, with the label ‘woo-woo’ often being responsible for its dismissal.

However, if it cannot be explained in terms we understand, it doesn’t mean that it does not exist. Nor does it refute the reports of those who are in tune.

If we can have ‘hunches’ in some cases, surely we can have them in every situation. Our ability to tap into this inner compass, requires an alert yet relaxed awareness with constant acknowledgement and recognition of not only the guiding hunches but the consequences of them too.

Any process begins with baby steps, and if we draw a blank, that’s ok. However, as we gift every little signal with recognition, we encourage an exponential strengthening of our sensory skill and thereby our trust in our choice of direction.

Trust begins with the self.