republic on a few weeks ago came out of a bell'intervento Saviano (that of "Gomorrah") on the degeneration of Italian society, where corruption "large" (that of bribes and rigged contracts) is accompanied by a more widespread, daily petty corruption: that the recommendations, the exchange of pleasure, favors to friends.
The complaint brings up, I think, the interpretation to be given to what this blog is concerned: the networks of human capital.
The thesis of this blog is basically: there is no identity, except within a network of relationships, there is no effect of its being in the world without networks of relationships and the network of relationships is a capital that the individual must care, watering, do grow.
Where is, after all, the difference between this model and what Saviano criticism?
Golemann Even in his highly successful "Emotional Intelligence" argues that the ability to succeed in life depends, more than intelligence logic, a form of intelligence that has to do with the ability to build and maintain social relationships.
then? I think the basic difference is ethics. I think what makes the difference is how they are interpreted and (if I pass the word) is "use" relations. It is the breeding ground ethics in which these networks are born and grow, this "soup" must be a non-corrupt, transparent, that rewards meritocracy and allows equal access.
0 comments:
Post a Comment