The implications of exporting an idea like a service club
by John Borst, PP Rotary Club of Dryden, ON
When I put on my jeans this morning, I noticed a tag which said “Made with American cotton”. That is something you do not see too often when it comes to clothes.
The role of manufacturing has changed drastically in America during the past 50 years with the advance of globalization, international trade agreements, just in time delivery systems and the maximization of investor returns as the driving force winning out over the concept of capitalism for the common good.
There is, however one dominant economic activity of the world where America still leads and excels over other national economies. This is the area of intellectual innovation.
I use that term because it includes innovation in the areas of technology, research and services.
In particular, I want to focus on one of America’s most important intellectual “service” creations, the concept of a volunteer service organization. Such organizations had their genesis in the first quarter of the 20th Century. During the remainder of this most dynamic century in the history of humankind, the big three, Rotary, Lions and Kiwanis became one of America’s most significant exports.
The idea of voluntary service to the community was not knew, however, America changed it from a narrowly focused, sectarian, and often religiously focused activity into a nonsectarian, secular concept with the local community as its focus.
In 1985, Rotary even took the idea of community service one step further. It had the audacity to conceive of the World as one community. In retrospect, it was nothing short of a revolution in thought when it was decided to rid the World of the Polio virus.
By the final quarter of the 20th C, perhaps inspired by Neil Armstrong’s 1969 walk on the moon and the creation of an international space station, Rotary’s leaders were primed to take their “internationalism” to an entirely new level.
A lot like the fictional international crew of the Starship Enterprise, they set out on a voyage of discovery like no group of volunteers before them. In doing so, everything about Rotary has been altered, it’s mission, its organizational structure and to a large degree its relationship with its founding nation, America.
This last alteration of course was to be expected. As in any interstellar travel where voyages take 30 years or more the crew will not find the place they left the same upon their crafts return.
The PolioPlus campaign took Rotary from a loose worldwide network of local clubs doing local projects to a globalized institutional powerhouse much akin Goldman-Saks, IBM, Apple or Nike. This new Rotary International began, by building its foundation on raising money, enough money to immunize every child on the planet. When that wasn’t enough it sought out partners, big partners with big pockets such as governments and private philanthropic organizations like the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation and that of the Aga Khan.
“Doing good in the World” took on a whole new meaning as did “Service Above Self”. Both grew to mean more than just building the local Rotary Park or funding an upgrade to the local hospital’s MRI machine. Now Rotarians openly discuss, a world where everyone has safe, drinkable water, a world where every Earthling is functionally literate or a world without malaria. No problem is too big to tackle.
The simultaneous introduction of women, and advances in the computerization of data gathering and networking introduced both new ideas and new organizational controls permitting an ever more centralized system of controls over such things as image, branding, promotion and networking.
The upshot was a truly international board of directors, one no longer dominated by Americans and one influenced by Women.
In the meantime America itself was changing. The post war years of economic growth, progressive social programs and civil rights activism was giving way to a consumerist society, built on libertarian capitalism, anti-unionism and an increasingly fear driven response to big government, all antithetical to the values espoused by Rotary.
Some American Rotarians, who accept and support these trends in America are now using social media to decry the new trends in Rotary. This has surfaced as a reactionary stance to such RI initiatives as the redesign of Rotary’s logo and the restrictions placed on where the brand can be used or not used. In the most recent issue, that of the introduction of Policy 2.100 RI has been described as out of touch with its clubs, of little value to clubs or more seriously intentionally creating policies which are not consistent with America’s values or rights.
At some point it was inevitable that Rotary would become truly international in its scope and begin to institute policies which reflect an international perspective of Rotary’s lofty goals. It is, after all, those made in America goals, which have stood the test of time.
Hopefully, it is only a vocal minority of American Rotarians who will need to accept that as Rotary’s demographic mix has changed America’s role too will have to change. I would hope that for the good of Rotary those Rotarians currently opposed to Policy 2.100, the changes in branding both in its design and execution and the growing influence of the RI Board of Directors will not cause a significant number of American to expect some sort of special exception to the rules or abandon RI, just because America may have a unique perspective on what for them is a political issue.
Rotary is now much like the cotton foundation of those new jeans. Americans can stand tall and proclaim it is a foundation built on their ideas of how citizens can take collective action to make their country and world a better place to live. It is also time, however, to accept that just as other nations can and do influence the design, manufacture and quality of jeans the same is now happening to our beloved organization.
We the 4 
April 25, 2017 at 11:26 am
John, Bravo! A well written, very thoughtful piece. I think your exposition of Rotary’s development is unlike anything I’ve read before and deserves much credit for a fresh approach and perspective.
I do think that after laying a firm foundation, you start going afield with your conclusions. To begin with, I’m not clear on how “an ever more centralized system of controls” (some would argue not a positive outcome in Rotary) leads to a “truly international board”?
Your next paragraphs are even more suspect. You list two characteristics (I have no idea what “libertarian capitalism” is…) that I do admit to being recognizable traits in some Americans (by no means all) and label them as “antithetical” to Rotary values. How are unionism and a love of big government “values espoused by Rotary”?
While I know you believe that Rotary should follow a progressive socialist agenda, which belief underlies all your conclusions here, I fail to understand how you don’t see that is what is antithetical to the core values of Rotary. Rotary could not have achieved what it has if it didn’t maintain an apolitical stance. The very fact that the Rotary Movement is embraced by the diverse world of politics (aside from the totalitarian statists on your left) is proof positive that not taking a stance on political issues is the Rotary way.
John, I think I’ve come to know you well enough via these electronic communications to realize that you confuse your sincere beliefs with universal truth. You think that those of us who hold different beliefs are just mistaken and should sit quietly and shamefully in the corner, not daring to debate. Yes, I fear government. You apparently do not. (There are a number of places where, if you lived, would quickly change that tune.) I do not insist you agree with me, yet you insist I agree with you, and you want Rotary to enforce your demand. You do not make sense, as so very much of liberal progressivism does not.
I was not aware that there are Americans who are against the redesigned logo. I try to stay abreast of any Contrarotarian arguments, but I’ve must have missed that one. Of course, when you have a logo that you loved for so many years being changed, I would expect some well-intentioned people to not approve. So what?
As one of the American Rotarians you describe with the “reactionary stance” of having the affront to question an official RI policy, your summation is once again flawed by your ideology. The objection to the weapons policy, 2.100, is based upon RI’s prohibited stance on a political issue. Furthermore, it does display a serious lack of cultural sensitivity and arbitrarily denies some Clubs a source of fundraising that they have been using without issue for many years, thus displaying a lack of connectedness with a number of Clubs. While I may believe that some of the Secretariat and some Board Members, during the formulation of these policies, may have enjoyed the thought of tweaking American noses, I do not think that was the intention. But I do agree with you that these policies “are not consistent with America’s values or rights.”
I agree with you that some of America’s role in Rotary has changed as the Rotary Movement evolves in the twenty-first century. Of course, the fact that the US is still Rotary’s biggest wallet by far has not. Or that the greatest number of Rotarians from one country are Americans. I think these two facts give Rotary US some say in how things should progress in Rotary’s evolution. I disagree with your assumption that the Rotary Movement should solely be determined by the Board. As someone who distrusts authority, placing so much in the hands of so few concerns me. And I see no reason to believe that official RI’s vision of what Rotary is and should be is the correct or only way to go. I think a very compelling argument, based upon recent history, particularly with Future Vision and beyond, can be made that the Board is intentionally or fecklessly going where many Rotarians don’t want to be.
My way or the highway is not a Rotarian value. We do need a discussion of what Rotary is to be in the near and distant future, and that discussion needs to be among all Rotarians, not just the few in a boardroom with their consultants. John, that is why I reject your demand for silence and obedience. We in the Rotary Movement are faced with a new world of Rotary and, as was true for so many years, all Rotarians should be able to voice their opinions, particularly if they go against the grain.
There is no logical reason that the way it is being done is the only way it should be. The rules today are not carved in stone. Different times perhaps call for new approaches or relationships. We all have at heart the values and work of the Rotary Movement. And we all should carefully consider what will best advance those things into the 21st Century.
LikeLike
April 25, 2017 at 1:01 pm
Ken, thanks for the compliment on the originality of my ideas and thanks too for the thought and time it took to write your response. I am disappointed, however, in some of the conclusions you draw from my writing.
In my view, I think due to your own particular ideology you fail to understand the implications of the values which underlie Rotary. Let’s take “unions”. Although I said nothing about Rotary’s stance on unions, as I was describing socio-political trends in America I do believe Rotary would see them as consistent with the 4-way test in the same way the Catholic Church sees them consistent with Christian values. This was expressed by Pope Leo in the encyclical Rerum novarum or Rights and Duties of Capital and Labor which supported the rights of labor to form unions, rejected socialism and unrestricted capitalism, whilst affirming the right to private property. Rotary of course says nothing one way or another due to the political nature of the issue, especially in America.
Similarly you charge me with saying “my way or the highway” and of “demanding silence and obedience”.. I fail to see how you draw such conclusions. I think we actually both want a more democratically structured organization, one in which the members are more engaged at the District, Zone and International levels. Hence, I fully agree with your final paragraph.
LikeLike
April 25, 2017 at 6:55 pm
“anti-unionism…antithetical to the values espoused by Rotary.” Vs “I said nothing about Rotary’s stance on unions.” It is logical to assume from your words that you believe that to be pro-union is a Rotary value. Vs. “Rotary of course says nothing one way or another due to the political nature of the issue, especially in America.”
“a vocal minority of American Rotarians who will need to accept…” “It is also time…to accept” Sounds to me like you believe that something is settled and the discussion is over.
Pope Leo, Rerum Novarum, 1891. John, I know it may seem like it was only yesterday to you, and while I personally enjoy papal writings, you gotta do better than that… (And I am not a fan of Popes pontificating on political issues. It is just another opinion.)
John, as I previously stated, you often steep your beliefs with an assumption of the universality of them. You take your ideological positions, which you deem “higher,” project them on Rotary, then insist all Rotarians should value them equally as you do. Some of us don’t agree.
We have both written about the 4-Way Test. I did so because I grew tired of people throwing it at me as some magical incantation that settles an argument their way. The 4-Way is a process for the compromised resolution of a dispute when two different opinions are at odds. I think that there are two diverse views about unions today (not 1891). I’d be happy to run it through the Test with you. Since you brought it up, you first…
And ditto on the last paragraph thing. Let’s get something going on how RI, TRF, and the Secretariat should be restructured as we move along in the 21st century. I for one have been trying to learn more about RIBI (not as easy as you’d think. I guess I just haven’t learned how to properly ask lord google yet.) And I do think that the way we arrive at a President has too much in common with the Church of Rome, only lacking the white smoke moment. From my reading of Rotary history, it seems to me that much of the official processes used to be a lot more democratic. How can we get that back? I think as a father of the Rotary blog, John, this would be an outstanding project that would be a welcomed addition to the Rotary Movement.
LikeLike