Energising a River of Love by Braiding the Work of the Parliament of the World's Religions and the United Nations Through Management Education

A Braided River of Interests and Concerns Flowing Towards a Culture of Peace

A braided river is a metaphor borrowed from Salmond (2014) and Volf (1996) to consider in this chapter the merging of the work of the United Nations (UN) and of the Parliament of the World’s Religions (PoWR) applied to the field of management education. The metaphor encourages critical examination of streams of ideas that diverge, converge, and ultimately confluence as the prevailing model of global development at a given time. The chapter begins with a critical review of two influential currents of thought i) an initial post-World War Two Keynesian orientation to justice and peace building and the subsequent rise of neoliberal influences globally; and ii) the critique of the neoliberal trajectory that emerged from the late 1970s. This review contextualises the historical context in which the PoWR and the UN have engaged with deeply embedded influences of Western but increasingly universalizing notions of justice. It draws attention to the UN’s Global Compact (UNGC), the related Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), and the Principles for Responsible Management Education (PRME) for a consideration of their potential influence on the development of leaders and managers for the realization of justice, responsibility, and global peace. The chapter then follows Schellhammer (2016) who posits that fostering a culture of peace requires world leaders who can “align people with very diverse world views and competencies […by rallying] people around common values and visions” (p. 206). The chapter proposes that fostering love is necessary for the achievement of such a culture of peace.

From Keynesian Beginnings to a Neoliberal Trajectory

After the devastation of World War One (1914-1918), at the Treaty of Versailles (1919), a League of Nations was created specifically to achieve peace and security in the world. The League, however, was not able to prevent World War Two (1939-1945). In 1945 representatives of 50 nations formed the United Nations (UN) as an international organisation to fulfil the continued aspirations for universal peace and security. Dictatorships and communism were to be averted by the rebuilding of post-war nations, economies, and lives. Keynesian informed policies sought to balance ongoing capitalist development with forms of social amelioration of the pre-war discontent with persistent economic inequality culminating in the Great Depression of the 1930s, a widespread discontent deemed by many to be the precondition for the rise of the Nazi Party in Germany and thus a precondition for World War Two (Stiglitz, 2002).

State-led national and international development with selective corporate alliances retained influence in much of the Eurocentric world until about the 1970s. From the 1970s, however, Keynesian policies could no longer keep unemployment low nor control inflation: “Keynesian policies were no longer working” (Harvey, 2005, p. 12). A refreshed stream of liberal ideas nurtured in the strategically constrained leadership of Friedrich von Hayek immediately after the war now converged with selective currents of discontent articulated as too much state or union control portrayed by Hayek’s leadership of the emerging Chicago School doctrine as a handicap to market freedoms (Humphries-Kil, 2019). Harvey (2005, p.11) notes, the neoliberal project was conceived “to disembed capital” from the Keynesian web of social, political, and regulatory constraints. The Chicago School doctrine would come to be known as neoliberalism. It would infuse widespread thought and action as a celebration of freedom (of markets). It would advocate for the reduction of State influence on matters particularly in relation to labour rights and would fuel the amplification of individualised responsibility for the outcomes of these economically driven political and social arrangements. Despite the “uneven geographical development of neoliberalism, its frequently partial and lop-sided application from one state and social formation to another” (Harvey, 2005, p. 13), the neoliberal doctrine has had almost uniform adherence globally for the past four decades. However, generations of authors well qualified to comment cautioned leaders of global and local development about the impending damage of neoliberalism. The main ideas of their critique are reviewed next.