I've posted on this video during my undergrad it still remains one of my favorites and I highly recommend it. Below are the questions that came with the assignment and I will attempt to answer them but I hope that you, the reader, take away something of your own from the above video. I've re-used some of my original work on this subject but I've added the perspective that a few years of experience can bring as well as what I have learned managing programs. Lastly, in the context of the recent US election and some of the divisive issues it brought to the surface I will attempt to bring a timely perspective to this argument.
1. Why do you think the talk is titled 21st Century Enlightenment?
Global societies are undergoing quite a bit of change and not all change is always good. 21st Century Enlightenment means that as people we need to change the way in which we think and interact within the societies that sustain us. One-tier concepts such as freedom, progress, or technology are great for breaking down complex concepts but they carry with the the trap of simple answers. Quite frankly, getting your philosophy from a bumper sticker means that you lack the relationships needed to be aware of your overall place in society. Additionally, this trap of simple thinking disconnects the individual from the society that provides the individual with the tools for success. Nothing ever happens in a vacuum and enlightenment is no different. 21st Century Enlightenment means that we govern ourselves with empathy and self-awareness and not just concerning ourselves with the individual. It will be a profound shift in thinking for many.
In many ways my answer to this question has not changed and it may have been re-enforced recently. It seems that simple platitudes have replaced critical thought. It is easy to promise jobs to a beleaguered area but it is much harder to do in practice. Where I have changed is I have given a great deal of thought to how a population gets to a point where they stop questioning the deeper variables behind an issue. The recent US election highlighted a problem in the US that should have been obvious to anyone paying attention. Midwest areas and areas outside of large US cities have seen declines in earnings as well as a loss of jobs and the economic recovery has largely skipped these areas. So while it is great to expect an expansion of empathy it is difficult to do when you are looking at foreclosure and a shrinking portion of the economic pie. It is hard to think of others if your own children cannot be properly fed.
The spiral comes from thinking that simple answers that can be summed up in a Tweet are somehow going to fix very complex problems. The jobs in the rust belt are gone, victims of globalization and shifts in technology. No amount of empty air from a politician will bring back what it is no longer needed to keep a company profitable.
2. What does Matthew Taylor mean when he says "to live differently, you have to think differently"?
We cannot solve new problems with old thinking. Any fundamental shift in society comes from new modalities of thought. In order for us to create a more empathetic society we need to start to think in more empathetic ways. It isn't enough to ask "is this right for me" but to look past ourselves to how others view the world and attempt to reach across those boundaries.
I still stand-by this answer. Speaking only for the US, the focus has always been individualism and that may not be the best answer to move forward into a different, and more encompassing society. Changing an entire nation's culture of individualism is not an easy task, indeed my personal opinion is that the US is too entrenched in this idea of "rugged individualism" to really fully shed it. However, it may be possible to shift into a blended philosophy of individualism and collectivism. It isn't a binary choice after all. I can still work hard in school and my career (advancing myself in the process) while voting to protect the rights of other groups of people and dedicating time and effort to helping others. I feel like too many people view life as a zero-sum game; like as if someone else's gains means that one person is missing out. That may be true for things such as job promotions but it isn't true for things such as marriage rights or ensuring access to health care.
3. At one point in the video (4:10), Taylor argues that we need "to resist our tendencies to make right or true that which is merely familiar and wrong or false that which is only strange". What is he talking about? Can you think of an example within your company or your life that supports this point?
To make something right that is merely familiar means to ascribe logical fallacies to things that make us feel better. Some call this confirmation bias. You see this quite a bit in arguments such as gun control. Person A defended his home from an invader therefore we are safer with weapons in our homes. However the math does not support this argument. It just makes a person feel better to have a weapon in the home; thus it is true because it is merely familiar. On the other side of the coin we can look at the current gay-marriage debate in the US for an example of people attempting to make wrong what is merely strange. Current attempts to modify the Constitution to ban these marriages are people taking this argument to its absurd ends.
In my areas of patient care there are those that subscribe to the idea that things are wrong for being different and it can be rather infuriating to overcome. When it comes to addiction rehabilitation certain amounts of empathy are called for however this does not mean that there cannot be natural consequences for actions. For example, being intoxicated at work could lead to termination and this is a natural consequence. Empathy does not mean shielding those effects but to understand why one would see their actions as justifiable.
These examples still hold true. And the statement listed in the question is one of my favorite from the whole video. It is comforting to hold to ideals and norms that are familiar. However, we cannot claim to celebrate diversity if we do not also allow for a diversity of ideas. One thing I have come to learn since I last answered these questions is a growing fallacy of thinking opinion equals fact. The truth is that an informed opinion bolstered by supporting facts, reasoned judgements, and experience is worth more than one that isn't. Tom Nichols posted an excellent article that can be found here and it expands on the idea that reason seems to be taking a back seat to ignorance. I find it hard to disagree with him.
4. Taylor argues that our society should eschew elements of pop culture that degrade people and that we should spend more time looking into what develops empathetic citizens. Would this be possible?
I think we should but I am not so sure that it is possible. I've largely dropped most of pop culture from my life; I don't even have cable or antennae service. This allows me to pick and choose my entertainment through streaming or getting out and enjoying the arts. However, I have reached a point in my life where I can afford to make those choices. Not everyone is that fortunate or has that freedom. For many, entertainment is taken where it can be found and it would be understandable for peoples that are disenfranchised to experience a certain amount of schadenfreude over other's suffering. I wager most of you reading this has taken a fleeting pleasure at watching a Lindsay Lohan-type meltdown. Sure, we might feel guilty afterwards and the thoughts themselves are most likely fleeting but they are there.
I do believe that is a goal towards which we should all strive. There can be no harm come from less degradation and more empathy. If everyone already thought this way we wouldn't need an enlightenment in the first place.
To expand on this thought I think that developing empathetic citizens isn't something that is possible unless a level of living has been reached where people can spare the time and effort to develop empathy. The US child poverty rate is one of the highest in the developed world. This level of dysfunction in a country that likes to advertise itself as a model to the rest of the world would be darkly ironic were not its hubris so disturbing. A shift to a more empathetic model of humanity could well lead to a change in the policies that allow such poverty to exist in a county of plenty. However hungry people have little empathy to spare.
5. At the end of the video, Taylor talks about atomizing people from collaborative environments and the destructive effect on their growth. What is the implication of these comments for organizational change efforts?
Overall organizations must seek collaborative environments. Even simple change mechanisms such as Lewin's Model state that collaboration and buy-in are key to successful change. The simple fact remains that we all need something from each other. Simplistic thinking and rugged individualism often leave out that a person's success is dependent on using the protection and resources the group provides. People cut off from adequate protection and resources do not grow as well as those that are provided those tools. Go to any impoverished school district and see how growth is stunted in areas cut off from the fruits of society. This paradigm can be scaled to sub-units in an organization and even down to the individual. Without support people are doomed to fail.
I see little to add here expect to state that more experience in my field has even further entrenched the idea that collaborative environments are better than every man for himself. Diverse and collaborative environments are even better!
6. What can you take away from this exercise to immediately use in your career?
This has re-enforced my need for a global perspective. The myth of rugged individualism is just that...a myth. We live in an increasingly global environment, we cannot isolate from it. It affects everything we do and buy. Typhoons in China raise prices on goods in the US. Shady investment practices in the US cause bankruptcies in the United Kingdom. Faster communication means we are more aware of the world around us than ever before. Hiding from this change does not make it go away, it just means you get left behind.
As with question 5, I see little to add. For individualism to work the individual needs to be able to control a great deal of the variables that affect the individual. Globalism makes that increasingly difficult and removes the control an individual has. A line worker has little control over the company moving jobs to Mexico and it can be argued that groups of workers also do little to prevent this as the policies that allow these things to happen are written at the federal level. However, groups of workers can negotiate wages, benefits, and safer working conditions. Individualism plays well on the surface but the truth is that we all depend on one another to some degree or another. Developing empathy allows for deeper and more productive connections with those we rely upon and in turn rely upon us.
No comments:
Post a Comment