Alasdair MacIntyre on Why Bureaucracy is the Worst

Some words elicit a visceral disdain upon the hearer. One such word is Nickelback, a band whose name transcends their own music to be a catch-all for disliked heavy pop-rock, even by cultural referees at NPR. The damnable word of today is bureaucracy, a word whose meaning is just as contemptible as its spelling. Much like Nickelback, bureaucracy serves as a catch-all for the sluggish and inefficient tropes of governments and businesses. "Why can't I just _________?" may be the form of every argument against bureaucracy. This essay will explore a few tensions and problems with our bureaucratic practices. It seems that to achieve the ends of an organization or society, some individual freedoms must be submitted to the oversight of bureaucratic institutions. Philosopher Alasdair MacIntyre picks up on this logic, writing:

"On the one side there appear the self-defined protagonists of individual liberty, on the other side the self-defined protagonists of planning and regulation, of the goods which are available through bureaucratic organization. But in fact what is crucial is that on which the contending parties agree, namely that there are only two alternative modes of social life open to us, one in which the free and arbitrary choices of individuals are sovereign and one in which the bureaucracy is sovereign, precisely so that it may limit the free and arbitrary choices of individuals." - After Virtue (34-35)

In this passage, MacIntyre discerns two incompatible paths for individuals: unfettered freedom or submission to sovereign bureaucracy. The underlying agreement is that these are the only two alternatives. However, a sovereign individual creates tension for other sovereign individuals. How do we discern and adjudicate the claims of one person's sovereignty over another's? In our society, we try to have our cake and eat it too. While we appeal to bureaucracy to oversee the limitations of personal freedom, we frame the purpose of bureaucracy as institutions which secure the maximum equal freedom for individuals.

MacIntyre uses two qualifiers on the kinds of choices which bureaucracy limits: free and arbitrary. Again, we encounter the form of all arguments against bureaucracy, "Why can't I just ______?" Why is my freedom limited in this situation? Why does it matter what choice I make, if it is my choice to make? To be clear, MacIntyre does not believe that protecting personal freedom is the ultimate end of institutions or governments. He is not playing the game of bureaucrats. However, his primary concern here is the justification bureaucrats give to get individuals to comply. In fact, MacIntyre is concerned that bureaucrats don't offer any real justification at all.

In our society, MacIntyre describes three characters, social roles which provide a culture with its moral definitions. One such character is the manager who "treats ends as given, as outside his scope; his concern is with technique, with effectiveness in transforming raw materials into final products, unskilled labor into skilled labor, investment into profits." The manager enforces bureaucratic ends, but he or she is left with no justification beyond, "Because that's how it is." Thus, we encounter the first reason for why MacIntyre thinks bureaucracy is problematic: those who enforce bureaucracy do not offer justifications towards the ends they aim.

Next, consider the purpose for bureaucracy which MacIntyre offers, namely "limiting free and arbitrary choices of individuals." Why should it limit free and arbitrary choices? Perhaps because un-checked individual freedom inevitably affects other individuals, so there ought to be a system in place to regulate freedom. But is merely protecting freedom the highest end of our institutions or governments? MacIntyre argues that answering "yes" to this question presumes a monumental, though slow, historical shift on the relation to the self, its social roles, and the ends to which all people are oriented. Under MacIntyre's view, free choice is not a sufficient end to orient an individual or society towards. Thus, we discover the second reason MacIntyre thinks bureaucracy is problematic: the end to which contemporary bureaucracy aims is neither sufficient to justify its purpose nor sufficient as an end for individuals.

To understand the greater context and implications of MacIntyre's critique of bureaucracy, I can only commend you to read After Virtue. However, I will here conclude with a few thoughts for us to consider regarding our relationship with bureaucracy. First, we should not be surprised or angry when bureaucratic managers cannot offer good reasons for why things are the way they are. They inherit a problematic system. Second, "Why can't I just _______?" is not a sufficient argument against bureaucracy. The very purpose of bureaucracy, according to MacIntyre, is to limit personal freedom. "Why can't I just run through this wall?" Because it is in the nature of walls to keep you from passing through them. Finally, we read our disdain for bureaucracy upside down. Bureaucracy exists to limit individuals such as you and I, largely because my unchecked free choice would lead to the harm of and injustice for others. In the end, perhaps we disdain bureaucracy because we dislike parts of ourselves.