I have long known of the etymology of the word company, but it came up in conversation yesterday and I thought it worth sharing. This is from the Online Etymology Dictionary:
From Late Latin companio, literally "bread fellow, messmate," from Latin com "with, together" (see com-) + panis "bread," from PIE root *pa- "to feed.
As it was explained to me by someone with rather more Latin training than I have, ‘com pani', means ‘to share bread with'.
The image is powerful. For those familiar with the Christian tradition this may be particularly so: the sharing of bread is part of a sacrament.
However, relatively few partake in that sacrament now, so think instead of this understanding as it relates to a social construct. Bread is for many the basic food of subsistence. To share it is to provide in an essential of life. But it is more than that. By sharing that essential we recognise the importance of the other person. That is why shared meals are so important in so many cultures.
A few are, of course, symbolic and are statements of power. But they, surely, miss the point. The real essence of eating together - sharing our bread - is to get to know a person; to converse with them; to indicate our commonality and respect and to make clear our mutuality: in the act of eating we are equals even as the essential individuality of the act - we fuel ourselves, of course - is acknowledged.
There is then much that com pani implies that should be embodied in our notion of a company. Forget the statements of power: they are an obvious corruption of the essential nature of the sharing of bread. Companies need to be built on the idea of sharing, of mutual respect where differences are combined and valued for a common good. And communication is key. After all, very rare exceptions apart, the sharing of bread is very rarely an occasion for silence.
We need to better embrace the idea of com pani. Companies are places where people work together for a common good - which is the essential sustenance of all who partake, whoever they might be. It's an understanding too many have forgotten.
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
[…] had already been writing about what I think the true meaning of a company is when I read this in an eamil from The Sunday Times this […]
Oh, I do like that. Always fascinated by the derivation of words. I shall share this with someone who is equally so.
We do need some sort of structure where our competitive nature can be set free without imposing harm of the sort intended by J S Mill. If it’s not to be the company, then what structure should it be – the increasing use of Limited Liability Partnerships which are essentially one person perhaps?
I am working on proposals to better regulate companies, literally this morning
” For those familiar with the Christian tradition this may be particularly so: the sharing of bread is part of a sacrament.”
And being hijacked in this, way to become a symbolic act; an indicator of piety and membership of a particular ‘faith group’ rather loses the essential ingredient of a genuine sharing of resources.
‘The Churches’ tends to focus on the sharing of bread as a commemoration of the ‘last supper’, where a better and more enlightened teaching might be to consider the ‘feeding of the five thousand’ as it’s role model, where because one small boy was prepared to share the little he had, everybody else was shamed into sharing the sandwiches and goodies they were keeping up their sleeves. It is reported that there were twelve baskets of surplus when previously there had been apparently nothing to eat.
We could feed the world easily if we choose to do so. The god of nature is so much more bountiful than the Gods of man’s creation.
Sorry about the sermon, but it is Sunday and Richard started it 🙂
“Sorry about the sermon”
Good points although I have been told about a priest, who I know to be a very kind-hearted individual, telling his congregation in a sermon that even evil sociopaths such as Hitler will be forgiven by God and accepted into Heaven!
This is clearly the “sharing” of a state of well-being or sustenance based on forgiving mutuality even if one considers that “state” metaphorical! I suspect many of the priests congregation would struggle emotionally to incorporate Hitler in their “corporate faith identity” not least because we have a gene or genes like other life-forms to resist predation like Hitler’s.
Indeed. The idea of the “self-made” success is not only flattering to those who claim it, but it also excludes the work and agency of everyone else involved. We are not islands and the attitude of “it’s everyone for themselves” only excuses the naked greed that has been accepted as the norm in business today.
The cry “This is the politics of envy!” is heard all too often today. As if having more wealth means that you deserve more wealth and therefore those who have less deserve that too. An easy excuse for selfish greed and turning our backs on those in bad circumstances.
The basic argument being that the world is a meritocracy. A childish and naive notion at best, but one that bolsters the convenient belief of the “deserving rich and the undeserving poor”.
We work together, with others, to create a shared wealth and that sharing has been corrupted or co-opted by those who gain the power to tip the balance in their favour.
The rest are just excuses for the innate immorality of what they do…
One pragmatic step in the right direction is the increased development of co-operatives, which already make up a much larger section of the economy than most people appreciate. In 2015 there were 131,090 European cooperative enterprises, with 4,364,235 employees, an annual turnover of 992.66 € billion and 127,608,621 members (more than 17% of the population of Europe) – https://coopseurope.coop/sites/default/files/WEB_COMPLETE_72DPI.compressed_0.pdf.
Virginie Perotin of Leeds University Business School synthesized 2 decades of research on labour-managed firms in Western Europe, the United States and Latin America, and found that, aside from the holistic social benefits of worker autonomy, giving workers a direct stake in managing production enables a business to operate more effectively. On balance, Perotin concludes, “worker cooperatives are more productive than conventional businesses, with staff working ‘better and smarter’ and production organized more efficiently.” (https://www.uk.coop/sites/default/files/uploads/attachments/worker_co-op_report.pdf).
The 3 largest UK cooperatives are: The John Lewis Partnership (£10,026,200,000); The Co-op Group (£9,472,000,000) and Arla Foods UK, with HQ in Denmark & major brands ‘Lurpak’ butter & ‘Castello’ cheese (£2,158,000,000).
The internationally competitive chemical company Scott Bader offers a unique form of incorporation which could act as a successful & ethical template for other companies – http://www.scottbader.com/about-us. I don’t know why it hasn’t been more replicated.
And, finally, as many here know, Richard Wolff is a passionate advocate for worker coops. This is a recent (7 May) brief US interview in which he puts them into the context of capitalism – https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qT1JAzhywfA&t=450s. As he has said many times, it’s simply ‘childish’ to believe there is no better way of organising our economic activity in the 21st century than with the existing capitalist model.
Thanks
Coops are remarkably keen on the Fair Tax Mark. That may say something…
Mark Lockett: The cry “This is the politics of envy!” is heard all too often today.
Quite – almost everywhere where ctiticsm of the rich is heard. Soon you’ll then be accused of starting a class war. To which the best riposte is surely that you are not trying to start a class war but stop one.
PS: For those interested here’s the link to the 2nd part of Richard Wolff’s interview – https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QQr5k7pl4PQ.
While he may not be everyone’s cup of coffee, for such a highly qualified academic (BA from Harvard; MA from Stanford; PhD from Yale) I find him both entertaining and informative.
PPS : Just found the 3rd installment which is quite positive and worth 19 minutes of my time at least – https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UUPeRRRhGjo&t=31s. The take-home message from him is that, despite all the worthy efforts over the centuries to reform it and mitigate against its excesses, Capitalism is systemically flawed and unsuited to meet the future needs of global society. And Marx offers some original insights into how a new socio-economic model might be constructed.
Likewise “Corporation” – from Latin corpus /corporis -, meaning body. And Union/united, as in United Kingdom, United States, united Nations, European Union, trade unions, (comm)unity – from Latin unus, meaning one. our philosophy of society, politics, and economy surely should be inspired by those ideals – coming together, not separating, division. Joining together, fellowship, community.
Agreed
Mike says:
“Likewise “Corporation” — from Latin corpus /corporis -, meaning body.”
…And in Victorian and later times referred to the prominent belly of the well fed upon which the watch chain rested. 🙂
The OED reckons “company” comes from “companion” which, as you say, comes from Latin “com+panis” (literally, “with-bread”), which they say was (probably) inspired by a Germanic compound word, Gothic “gahlaiba” from Old High German “gileibo”, both meaning a messmate, or people who habitually eat together, with a flavour of soldiers who live and fight together.
“Tax” apparently comes from the Latin “taxare” (to evaluate, or to censure or find fault with). “Task” too. (Clearly the occasional pronunciation of “ask” as “aks” is not a new thing at all.)