Ian MacPherson, Chair of the Principles Committee (1995)
The research and writing of Ian MacPherson, spanning from the late 1970s to his death in 2013, is essential reading within cooperative theory. One of his most useful contributions is the address he made, as steward of the Committee undertaking a revision of the cooperative Principles and Values, to a Congress of the International Cooperative Alliance in Manchester, England during 1995. It is at that Congress that the three elements - a Defining Statement, set of Principles, and set of Values - formally became what we now call the Cooperative Identity. As an historian, he brought a valuable and reverent perspective on historical precedent to his stewardship of the global movement’s engagement with cooperative philosophy. This was especially true in his work on the Cooperative Identity. He consistently endeavored to restate the interpretations of past cooperators in ways that were most relevant to his contemporaries. Since cooperatives are created solely to meet the needs of those using them, it is rational and logical that adaptations are necessary to meet changing needs. Our cooperative philosophy must also be organic - governed by continuous development while adhering to its basic tenets or axioms. “[E]ach statement of Principles, past and present, in fact, is a selective set of choices drawn from that heritage in order to meet the most pressing needs of cooperators and cooperatives at a particular time” (211). While the core values and intentions of the Cooperative Identity do not change, how it is expressed in word and deed necessarily changes across space and time.
The 1995 revision process was punctuated with references to two specific threats to the integrity of cooperatives and the Cooperative Movement:
- the rise of the private sector and its cooptation of cooperative terminology, paired with the over compliance of cooperatives with private sector practices; and
- nation-state dominance and its cooptation of cooperative terminology globally, but especially in the Global South.
In his address, MacPherson notes that these influences were first formally introduced into the realm of International Cooperative Alliance’s philosophical conversations by A F Laidlaw in a report to the 1980 Congress, also reviewed in this section. Laidlaw’s language, such as “New International Economic Order,” was crafted before the end of the Cold War, while MacPherson’s words were chosen after the Fall of the Berlin Wall and the “end of history.” In our contemporary context, these two threats have not abated but have strengthened and adapted. They are now more readily recognizable as:
- the growing monopoly of capitalism on all economic, political, social, and imaginative activities throughout the world, as well as the related and increasing adoption of capitalistic behaviors by cooperative entities;
- the rise of neoliberalism, or the evolution of the nation-state from economic mediator to primary agent of the private sector, thereby facilitating the continued encroachment of the nation-state on cooperative entities in order to enforce capitalistic standards.
In many ways, the second foe has evolved to exacerbate the first, transforming these two foes of cooperativism identified by both Laidlaw and MacPherson into one unit, with the nation-state existing in service to the capitalist marketplace. This brings all considerations of autonomy and independence from government entities into a new light. For more consideration on the interpretation of cooperative threats, refer to the “Words Mean Things” section titled “Isms.”
Of considerable note in MacPherson’s address outlining the Principle revision process is his detailing of the move by the German delegation to seek the removal of “cultural” from the Defining Statement in the proposed text. The stated reasoning for this edit was that the inclusion of culture muddied the primary goals of a cooperative as needing to be concerned with the “marketplace,” given that they are economic organizations; in this framework - all other activities are optional. While “marketplace” is a relatively valueless term, it can safely be assumed that it was used synonymously with the capitalist marketplace in this context. In his speech, MacPherson reported that the Board and Identity committee had accepted that revision; however, it was ultimately rejected by the broader membership. This is a key moment in cooperative philosophy in which a representation of the movement’s global membership refused to take a step towards narrowing the notion of cooperation to solely a business entity. If that had occurred, it would likely have relegated a global social movement to an international professional association. The German delegation was successful in the proposal to add “Self-Responsibility” to the set of Values.
As mentioned in the analysis of the Statement of the Cooperative Identity, another key takeaway restated throughout MacPherson’s contributions is his observation of a tendency among many cooperatives to view the Cooperative Identity as a “set of organizational injunctions'' or a “checklist of institutional structures” rather than an integral part of a coherent philosophy” (206, 209). Such a perspective is supported by the reality of how difficult to impossible it is to quantitatively assess the performance and impacts of cooperative organizing. If something in its full and true complexity is difficult to measure, assessing whether or not a cooperative is living up the Cooperative Identity logically can’t be as easy as making marks on a checklist. Despite some of the language in MacPherson’s address coming off as euphemistic or coded at times by shying away from potentially divisive concepts or terms, its core sentiments align with those introduced at the Congress in 1980 by his colleague, Laidlaw. As a proponent of intellectual and cultural lineage, alongside the enduring relevance of the spirit of the Cooperative Identity, this comes as no surprise in MacPherson’s offerings.