I want to talk about a few things that are purely subjective, based on my own life experience. Not something factual, no articles or references I can really link to.
It's one of the things I always liked about philosophy (though I think Western philosophy has gotten a bit too hung up on semantics, and trying to define something exactly). See, most of it is something anyone can do. We all have life experience, which we can use to shape our opinions on all sorts of subjective topics. Like what it means to be human. Or what 'truth' and 'justice' really means.
So anyways.
Back in 2004 I deployed with the New York National Guard. There was a bit of culture shock, I'd say, coming as I do from a midwestern, middle class, white, strongly Catholic background. I've summed up the difference in a saying I learned there - "I got mine, how you do?"
It's this belief that you take care of yourself, and yours, first. That there isn't really any greater morality. That the things which annoyed me no end were just 'the way it was', and you would do the same thing if you were in their position.
This was vastly different from the way I was raised. Where I grew up hearing people decry the belief that morality was relative. That right or wrong depended on your point of view. Right was right, wrong was wrong, and just because 'everyone was doing it' didn't suddenly make it right or okay.
Truth, justice, and the American way.
I've talked before about the differences I noticed, particularly in decision making. I've worked in organizations that were fairly open and transparent about the decision-making process. Where at a staff meeting you might present a decision brief, showing the pros and cons of various courses of action... then debate them and see what the commander decided.
And then, there was the New York National Guard. Where the rules were never written, and you only learned them when you broke one. Where there was the 'internal reason', and an 'external reason', and you were never supposed to let outsiders know what that internal reason was.
Where I got asked to investigate something one of my superior officers heard about, a rumor that we were going to have to give up one of the buildings our unit was using. And I tracked down someone who had written up the orders, who said it was supposed to be there... but it was never published. And when I talked about it to my battalion commander, he claimed that this was proof the process worked. Because he knew someone (who probably knew someone) who got that bit taken out.
Not understanding that this was precisely my point. That a decision like that wasn't supposed to be about who knew who, and who had what connections, and who was able to pull one over on the other guy (all of whom happened to be, supposedly, on the same side. Though they sure didn't act that way sometimes.) That it was supposed to be about who needed the building, and whether that need outweighed ours, and about what the alternatives were and - if we did have to give up our building - what arrangements would be made for housing the people currently staying there.
I make that sound pretty negative, I suppose. I don't actually feel all that upset about it right now (though I had to deal with a lot of anger back then, cause that just wasn't the way it was supposed to be. And they just absolutely could not believe that it was any different anywhere else. That the midwest, for example, just made it look prettier... but the farmers lobbies and midwestern groups were just the same. Except, growing up in the midwest, I can tell you that it was never thought of or felt that way. I suppose, from one of my college courses, I would say that the people I knew all understood that you helped each other out when you could. Because you never knew when you might need a helping hand, in turn. You take care of each other, and do favors for each other, and you're not carrying some invisible tally of who owes who what.)
I learned a lot from it, and I don't really judge them for thinking the way they do. Or, perhaps I judge less now. It's a bit like the old 'pessimist vs. optimist' argument. It's a point of view, and it's almost impossible to persuade a pessimist to be an optimist, or vice versa. If I had grown up there, experienced life the way they had, I'd probably think that was 'the real world', too.
I came to believe professionalism mattered, though. Always, but especially when you dislike the other person. Because unprofessional behavior (i.e. 'losing' the promotion or award paperwork of someone you dislike) exacerbates the political crap, and takes the decision of who gets promoted or awarded out of the hands of the person it's supposed to be in. Yes, the process is not always fair or just... but people playing games like that doesn't make it more fair or just. It generally does the opposite. (And you should fight for systemic reform if it bothers you that much).
Oh, and it also seemed like decisions were never final, because it just meant whoever was pursuing their goal would just try to find another way. The bickering and infighting just never ends, really.
And, again, some of that really is true of everywhere. I don't care what nation or company or organization you are talking about, every time you get a large group of people together there are tensions and factions and things people disagree on. Learning how to manage that and work with that is pretty important.
But... there are ways, and there are ways, of doing so. Some ways exacerbate the infighting, some push it underground but don't really resolve it, and some succeed at getting most everyone else on board.
That's all background for what I wanted to go into next. Which, coming from that strong Catholic background (which has shaped and influenced me regardless of what my current beliefs are), I find the Bible fascinating... for a variety of reasons.
I hadn't really put this into words before, so some of this is more retrospective than my thinking at the time, but I started pondering how you could transform an organization from one to the other.
Or rather, learning how to be cynical and out for yourself is easy. Too easy. And as people see others 'succeed' by acting that way, they tend to start acting that way themselves. (Like my earlier post about driving).
But what about transforming an organization the other way? After all, those of us in the midwest came by our beliefs somehow. Just as valuing logic and rationality, truth, justice, transparency... all of these came from somewhere.
And when I read up on the Bible, it seemed to me like a lot of it is about exactly that. (and, presumably, other large religions as well... though I am not as familiar with them and don't make any claims to speak for them. Really, I can't even speak for my own, but I can speak of my own experiences/understanding.) The 'west', even as many have fallen away from the church and religion, had been transformed by centuries of christian domination, to the point where you can have pretty much the same moral compass without believing in God at all. (I knew a lady, as a child, who was married to an atheist. And she said once that her husband was more ethical than many Christians. And as Penn Jillette said, he does murder all he wants, and the amount he wants is zero.)
But the world wasn't always like that. Heck, even christendom wasn't. Early priests were out there sinning and marrying and having children in a way that would be shocking now (though for Protestants who allow their religious leaders to marry and divorce that's not really an issue.) Heck, early popes may have had sex after taking orders, and had children outside of marriage.
I think about my undergrad class, and how it talked about a culture where it was considered perfectly acceptable to cheat strangers and foreigners. So long as you were played it straight with you and yours.
And a large part of the New Testament is Jesus trying to teach his disciples... who were people like us, and more concerned with an earthly kingdom, and seemed to think they'd gain worldly power by following Jesus, and only really started changing after Jesus's death. On the cross, like a criminal.
By all rights, that should have been the end of it. The fact that it wasn't is mysterious, in the religious sense of the word.
It goes against the grain of our fallible, mortal world. Goes against a world where the rich get richer while the poor get poorer. Where the powerful crush the weak, and all the weak can do is suffer and die.
People wanted to believe that the world didn't have to be like that. That they could build the 'kingdom of heaven'. Because even though some people make their peace and accept a world where "I got mine, how you do"... and even though some people learn how to play that game themselves, and perhaps even take pride in 'winning'... most people find it a horrible, miserable, sucky world to be in.
Sure, you might be on the top. Some of the time. Right up until someone else comes along who is smarter, or stronger, or more willing to get their hands dirty. Or maybe you're lucky enough not to have that happen... but then you grow old, and weaker, and someone younger an more energetic comes along.
A dog eat dog world just plain sucks.
And so we have religions, that offer up an alternative. A way of transforming that dynamic into one that is... well, maybe not a utopia, but still a heckuva lot better for most.
Love thy neighbor as thyself.
Take care of the strangers in your midst.
Be truthful.
Be just. Merciful. Compassionate.
Turn the other cheek.
And have faith, believe in it enough to keep doing it. Even when the world seems to tell you that doing so makes you weak and vulnerable. Perhaps especially when you think it makes you weak and vulnerable.
Oh, over the centuries, as early Christians started to realize they were in for the long haul (many had expected Jesus to return within their lifetimes), they started talking more about doing these things for the later reward in heaven.
But much of it was also about creating a better society here, on earth. Because when a majority of the people believe in living this way, it's like the allegory of the long spoons.
Giving in to fear, and anger... going all Sith on the world... that pretty much does make hell on earth.
And, well. Some people can be persuaded by logic, and rational thinking. As I said above, we came to value these things for a reason.
But most people are more emotional than that. So I think, if you want to make that sort of transformation, you have to engage the heart.
It's one of the things I always liked about philosophy (though I think Western philosophy has gotten a bit too hung up on semantics, and trying to define something exactly). See, most of it is something anyone can do. We all have life experience, which we can use to shape our opinions on all sorts of subjective topics. Like what it means to be human. Or what 'truth' and 'justice' really means.
So anyways.
Back in 2004 I deployed with the New York National Guard. There was a bit of culture shock, I'd say, coming as I do from a midwestern, middle class, white, strongly Catholic background. I've summed up the difference in a saying I learned there - "I got mine, how you do?"
It's this belief that you take care of yourself, and yours, first. That there isn't really any greater morality. That the things which annoyed me no end were just 'the way it was', and you would do the same thing if you were in their position.
This was vastly different from the way I was raised. Where I grew up hearing people decry the belief that morality was relative. That right or wrong depended on your point of view. Right was right, wrong was wrong, and just because 'everyone was doing it' didn't suddenly make it right or okay.
Truth, justice, and the American way.
I've talked before about the differences I noticed, particularly in decision making. I've worked in organizations that were fairly open and transparent about the decision-making process. Where at a staff meeting you might present a decision brief, showing the pros and cons of various courses of action... then debate them and see what the commander decided.
And then, there was the New York National Guard. Where the rules were never written, and you only learned them when you broke one. Where there was the 'internal reason', and an 'external reason', and you were never supposed to let outsiders know what that internal reason was.
Where I got asked to investigate something one of my superior officers heard about, a rumor that we were going to have to give up one of the buildings our unit was using. And I tracked down someone who had written up the orders, who said it was supposed to be there... but it was never published. And when I talked about it to my battalion commander, he claimed that this was proof the process worked. Because he knew someone (who probably knew someone) who got that bit taken out.
Not understanding that this was precisely my point. That a decision like that wasn't supposed to be about who knew who, and who had what connections, and who was able to pull one over on the other guy (all of whom happened to be, supposedly, on the same side. Though they sure didn't act that way sometimes.) That it was supposed to be about who needed the building, and whether that need outweighed ours, and about what the alternatives were and - if we did have to give up our building - what arrangements would be made for housing the people currently staying there.
I make that sound pretty negative, I suppose. I don't actually feel all that upset about it right now (though I had to deal with a lot of anger back then, cause that just wasn't the way it was supposed to be. And they just absolutely could not believe that it was any different anywhere else. That the midwest, for example, just made it look prettier... but the farmers lobbies and midwestern groups were just the same. Except, growing up in the midwest, I can tell you that it was never thought of or felt that way. I suppose, from one of my college courses, I would say that the people I knew all understood that you helped each other out when you could. Because you never knew when you might need a helping hand, in turn. You take care of each other, and do favors for each other, and you're not carrying some invisible tally of who owes who what.)
I learned a lot from it, and I don't really judge them for thinking the way they do. Or, perhaps I judge less now. It's a bit like the old 'pessimist vs. optimist' argument. It's a point of view, and it's almost impossible to persuade a pessimist to be an optimist, or vice versa. If I had grown up there, experienced life the way they had, I'd probably think that was 'the real world', too.
I came to believe professionalism mattered, though. Always, but especially when you dislike the other person. Because unprofessional behavior (i.e. 'losing' the promotion or award paperwork of someone you dislike) exacerbates the political crap, and takes the decision of who gets promoted or awarded out of the hands of the person it's supposed to be in. Yes, the process is not always fair or just... but people playing games like that doesn't make it more fair or just. It generally does the opposite. (And you should fight for systemic reform if it bothers you that much).
Oh, and it also seemed like decisions were never final, because it just meant whoever was pursuing their goal would just try to find another way. The bickering and infighting just never ends, really.
And, again, some of that really is true of everywhere. I don't care what nation or company or organization you are talking about, every time you get a large group of people together there are tensions and factions and things people disagree on. Learning how to manage that and work with that is pretty important.
But... there are ways, and there are ways, of doing so. Some ways exacerbate the infighting, some push it underground but don't really resolve it, and some succeed at getting most everyone else on board.
That's all background for what I wanted to go into next. Which, coming from that strong Catholic background (which has shaped and influenced me regardless of what my current beliefs are), I find the Bible fascinating... for a variety of reasons.
I hadn't really put this into words before, so some of this is more retrospective than my thinking at the time, but I started pondering how you could transform an organization from one to the other.
Or rather, learning how to be cynical and out for yourself is easy. Too easy. And as people see others 'succeed' by acting that way, they tend to start acting that way themselves. (Like my earlier post about driving).
But what about transforming an organization the other way? After all, those of us in the midwest came by our beliefs somehow. Just as valuing logic and rationality, truth, justice, transparency... all of these came from somewhere.
And when I read up on the Bible, it seemed to me like a lot of it is about exactly that. (and, presumably, other large religions as well... though I am not as familiar with them and don't make any claims to speak for them. Really, I can't even speak for my own, but I can speak of my own experiences/understanding.) The 'west', even as many have fallen away from the church and religion, had been transformed by centuries of christian domination, to the point where you can have pretty much the same moral compass without believing in God at all. (I knew a lady, as a child, who was married to an atheist. And she said once that her husband was more ethical than many Christians. And as Penn Jillette said, he does murder all he wants, and the amount he wants is zero.)
But the world wasn't always like that. Heck, even christendom wasn't. Early priests were out there sinning and marrying and having children in a way that would be shocking now (though for Protestants who allow their religious leaders to marry and divorce that's not really an issue.) Heck, early popes may have had sex after taking orders, and had children outside of marriage.
I think about my undergrad class, and how it talked about a culture where it was considered perfectly acceptable to cheat strangers and foreigners. So long as you were played it straight with you and yours.
And a large part of the New Testament is Jesus trying to teach his disciples... who were people like us, and more concerned with an earthly kingdom, and seemed to think they'd gain worldly power by following Jesus, and only really started changing after Jesus's death. On the cross, like a criminal.
By all rights, that should have been the end of it. The fact that it wasn't is mysterious, in the religious sense of the word.
It goes against the grain of our fallible, mortal world. Goes against a world where the rich get richer while the poor get poorer. Where the powerful crush the weak, and all the weak can do is suffer and die.
People wanted to believe that the world didn't have to be like that. That they could build the 'kingdom of heaven'. Because even though some people make their peace and accept a world where "I got mine, how you do"... and even though some people learn how to play that game themselves, and perhaps even take pride in 'winning'... most people find it a horrible, miserable, sucky world to be in.
Sure, you might be on the top. Some of the time. Right up until someone else comes along who is smarter, or stronger, or more willing to get their hands dirty. Or maybe you're lucky enough not to have that happen... but then you grow old, and weaker, and someone younger an more energetic comes along.
A dog eat dog world just plain sucks.
And so we have religions, that offer up an alternative. A way of transforming that dynamic into one that is... well, maybe not a utopia, but still a heckuva lot better for most.
Love thy neighbor as thyself.
Take care of the strangers in your midst.
Be truthful.
Be just. Merciful. Compassionate.
Turn the other cheek.
And have faith, believe in it enough to keep doing it. Even when the world seems to tell you that doing so makes you weak and vulnerable. Perhaps especially when you think it makes you weak and vulnerable.
Oh, over the centuries, as early Christians started to realize they were in for the long haul (many had expected Jesus to return within their lifetimes), they started talking more about doing these things for the later reward in heaven.
But much of it was also about creating a better society here, on earth. Because when a majority of the people believe in living this way, it's like the allegory of the long spoons.
Giving in to fear, and anger... going all Sith on the world... that pretty much does make hell on earth.
And, well. Some people can be persuaded by logic, and rational thinking. As I said above, we came to value these things for a reason.
But most people are more emotional than that. So I think, if you want to make that sort of transformation, you have to engage the heart.
No comments:
Post a Comment