Innovation, Pressure and Leadership
I've been listening to a lot of material about innovation lately. There's one consensus thought: innovation takes discipline. It takes the management of inspiration and persistence, so they say. And, I agree. To be creative--to have good ideas which are valuable in people's lives--is useless if it happens randomly or only in sporadic surges of ideating. Innovation is valuable, if a problem-solver can produce an innovative by recalling a process, instead of just being dependent on unpredictable spurts of creativity. That process takes persistence.
I've also been living in a world where pressure rules. There's never enough time to complete a task in a manner that's comfortable. Everyone works in a hurry because it consumes less resources and prevents opportunities from extinguishing. Also, groups of people seem like they are hardly motivated without pressure.
The problem is, rushing doesn't produce innovation. I suppose it might--because competition might require innovation--but pressure seems unlikely to guarantee truly brilliant innovation because there's no opportunity for experimenting, exploration or risk-taking while under tight deadlines or immense pressure. I suppose innovation MIGHT happen, but in the random, sporadic way. Not the cultivated, systematic way. That cultivated innovation--through discipline--is the kind of innovation I'm after.
So, there are contrary forces here: the need to innovate and the pressures of organization(constraints of time, resources or anti-inspiring missions). So, in a way...maybe it's not typical to lean towards innovation. It's not rational to fly in the face of pressures and constraints. Maybe that's why it takes "leaders" to transform. Maybe that's why it takes the "crazies" to innovate.
I do have quite an admiration for the leadership that entrepreneurs can provide, they relentlessly do what is most difficult. And, those whose creativity lies in creative processes instead of creative talent...those are the people that I'd bet my marbles on.
What was Gandhi's intent?
It's not just the social justice crowd that adheres to or at least proclaims that one must "be the change they wish to see in the world". Lots of people advance this idea. But, I wonder, what exactly did Gandhi mean when he said this?
Most of the idea is simple enough "[blank] the change you wish to see in the world", that's pretty straight forward. But what exactly did he mean when he said "be"? I wonder, what was the nature of this imperative. Was it a suggestion, a compulsion to action or simply a state of mind or spirit to be in? Let me explain.
I think there's two ways to interpret the verb in the quotation. The more common understanding, I suspect, is a call to arms by Gandhi. He meant for us to go out and do things in the world. To live the change we wish to see by performing deeds and actions. He meant for us to focus on our actions, strongly. This is a command of the deepest sort--to be--make agitation and action your existence. He meant for us to transform the world through service.
Or did he?
Did Gandhi put character in front of action in his advice? Perhaps Gandhi, when using the verb "be", deliberately did NOT provide a call to arms and instead urged people at an individual level to live more virtuously. In other words, maybe "be" meant to have more character. His advice could have been to live better more noble lives and change the world by living an example that others could follow.
Surely, many will understandably complain about my analysis because Gandhi obviously meant to do both or his idea could reasonably be extended to include both interpretations. But, his primary motivation is what concerns me because it seems to underpin his philosophy on change...what's in the drivers seat, changing institutions or changing people? Again, a complicated question because the two are symbiotic actors.
Which interpretation would Gandhi advocate for?
I bring this up because of some reading I've been doing--The US Army Leadership Field Manual. The Army believes the following: Be, Know, Do. This roughly means, have character, have competence, combine the two through action. For the Army, the two interpretations outlined above are different ideas (Be and Do). I wonder if Gandhi felt the same way.
Nevertheless, this quote has lost so much value when people recite it. I really believe that motivational speakers and the like say it without thinking really critically about what it means. As I hope to have demonstrated above, it can mean radically different things.
Eating our Vegetables
There was a question in President Obama's news conference Wednesday night, in fact a them, about what Americans are going to have to sacrifice. The President gave a nonsensical, straw-manned response. I'll liken it to the following (I'm summarizing and paraphrasing, of course):
Question: What will the public have to sacrifice, you've talked a lot about what they are going to get...but what are the things we'll have to give up?
Answer: We'll have to give up having healthcare services we don't need.
We'll have to give up the old way of doing things, we'll have to give up the status quo.
You can find a transcript, here: http://voices.washingtonpost.com/44/2009/07/22/transcript_of_obama_prime-time.html
I was flummoxed by the response. I know our President isn't a healthcare professional or a scientist, but would it have killed him to talk about some things that are obvious? For example, would it have been a stretch for him to say that Americans are going to have to eat healthier, exercise more and manage stress better? Isn't it obvious that we're going to have to see our doctors for routine checkup instead of letting health problems fester until they are emergencies?
I think he should've. Why? Because it's the truth. I thin under any new system, citizens must take care of themselves better. We'll have to change to living healthier lifestyles. Is that so controversial? For the President to neglect such narratives--discussions of sacrifice--is a deficiency in leadership. It is dishonest, deceptive and doesn't not provide appropriate expectations for a difficult road ahead.
President Obama should've told us to put down the doughnut. If he had, wouldn't you have agreed with him?
"The Joy of Having Less"
I was have an e-mail chat with a few friends about this article, it's on a NYTimes.com blog. Two friends had this to say in response:
MS-
does a simpler life necessarily mean one alone or at a great distance from those one loves? is this a key ingredient or potentially complicating element?
i can find myself in a blissful thoreauvian state where i want to count beans and listen to nature. and then i can find myself feeling like an anne sexton poem where i want to fuse my bones to another person or series of person in order to feel alive.
JH-
I also have some criticism regarding the fact that not everyone's socioeconomic situations lend themselves to being able to up and move. And, I too am a person who needs to be surrounded by people that I know and love but at the same time I really enjoy solitude and independence. It's a balance. I do think that different types of people reading an essay like this can pull what they are inspired by into their own experience -- what better can an essay do than that?
Me-
I think you're knocking on the door of something interesting and controversial, here:
"I do think that different types of people reading an essay like this can pull what they are inspired by into their own experience -- what better can an essay do than that?"
Forgive me if I'm interpreting incorrectly, but I think you mean--perhaps implicitly--that people can kind of take things and their own experiences determines what makes them happy. That happiness is something determined by an individual or at an individual level. Different people like different things. Maybe you didn't mean this towards "what makes a happy life?" at all, or didn't mean it as strongly as I've put it...but I'll leave it that way to illustrate a contrasting viewpoint.
I think it's an open question: are people made happy by a similar menu of activities, occurrences, habits or behaviors or does the pursuit of happiness depend mostly on the individual? I'm not so sure that individual characteristics matter. Why? Because it seems like the "happy people" have many activities, occurrences, habits and behaviors in common...a few simple things seem to make them happy, like some of the following:
Have good friends
Have work that you enjoy or find meaningful
Show love and commitment to your family and have sex with your spouse, often.
Have proper rest and nutrition
Give back to your community
Learn
Exercise
Live a life without excess
Follow the golden rule
The list goes on, but not for very long. And I'd like to emphasize...these things are pretty darn simple, no? They're almost timeless, which in my mind makes them more applicable and believable.
But, I think there's an argument to be made for people discovering and finding what makes them happy. I'll let someone else make it if it pleases them. If not, we wasted too much time agonizing over majors and careers ;)="http:>
Confianza
5.27.09, 517pm Car Station, Cusco, en route to Ollantaytambo
As soon as we got off the plane in cusco this morning, in pure misguided tourist fashion, we stopped at a tourist stand. We asked hima bout getting to Ollanta. He connived us out of $30, dropped us off in downtown cusco and told us to meet him in front of a particular museum at 5pm. We didn´t get his name or phone number. And we didn´t hold our moolah in escrow.
So we showed up at 5pm, and we waited. What else could we do?
We were growing cynical at around 510pm, he was late. None of us showed it, but I think all of us-Andrew, Adam and myself- were all a little nervous. At 515 a boy...I thought, but he was 21 and had my demeanor...started speaking Spanish in an out-of-breath flurry. His boss sent him to recieve us after giving him a description of our appearances. He told us to come with him to a car station. So we went. Again, what else could we do?
There was a lot of trust in play today. We expected others to be trustworthy and we were vulnerable. Others had to earn our trust. But we also had to GIVE our trust. The opportunities to make or break trust exist everyday and those opportunities are all somewhat sacred because who knows what can happen next, right? The moment matters.
Now were in the car, whizzing through the mountains with aggressive speed through turns. It feels like a rollercoaster back here for the three of us. I´m trying to trust, but our driver just steam-rolled a ferral dog. Heaven help us.
Quotes, post-Journey:
"That was straight up fight or flight, I had so much adrenaline pumping through me..." - Andrew
"Did we just hit a kid?" - Neil
"That was seriously the worst experience of my life, bar none. I would pay $100 to never have to do that again" - Adam
"On the positive, the scenery was beautiful...LAS VISTAS DE LAS MONTAÑAS!" - Andrew
First Impressions
Miraflores, Peru - Backpackers Family Hostel. May 25, 2009 @ 830am
Ricardo, our cab driver from Lima´s Intl Airport was holding a sign. He greeted us casually but warmly and led us outside to the taxi stand. It smelled, like something I had smelled before...New Delhi. But with a sweeter lingering and less abrasive feel.
We started to chat. He asked us if we spoke Spanish. We said no and he continued with a good command of the English language. We asked him questions and he was a trove of knowledge of Peru. The whole country. This was my first impression, Peruvians love Peru. Not in a backhanded or zealous way like an Indian, or blindly and critically like an American. Genuinely, greenly, almost in a quietly jovial way.
In America, we seem like we have three school sof thought when it comes to patriotism. First, the Ani DiFranco approach, summarized by the first lyric of her track Grand Canyon --I love my country, by which I mean I am indebted joyfully to all the people throughout it´s history who have fought the government to make right.
Second, the approach advocated by flag-pin lapelers. Where there is dogmatic and unqualified love and support for the US of A and willful doublespeak in its defense if necessary. I am troubled by both because they are sentiments that do not support an affirmation of America´s timless values and principles, which I believe are one of our nation´s two greatest assets.
The Peruvians howver, have both approaches simultaneously, manifested inthe aspiration for the public good and a pride for a national culture.
What´s more impressive is the depth of this love. Ricardo told us about his town AND Lima. He spoke so excitedly about it all and gave hints about sacrifices that residents of Peru and Lima have made to advance the nation. Any, they have experienced their country.
Still more impressive was that he did not discriminate against other parts of Peru. That is to say he didn´t engage in the regional snobishness that we Americans too often display.
There are many adventures ahead, but I like that I´ve learned something already.
Going to Peru
Headed to AA in about 12 hours.
Then to DC on Saturday.
Then to Lima in the evening on Sunday, May 25.
Then to Cusco/Macchu Picchu
May 27 - Fly to Cusco/Ollantataytambo
May 28 - Aguas Calientes
May 29 - Macchu Picchu - Back to Cusco
May 31 - Back to Lima
June 1 - Fly to USA late at night.
June 2 - Arrive in DC and drive back to AA.
Will try to e-mail/post updates. Hit me back!
K.I.S.S - Keep it simple, stupid.
I don't know when or where I came across this acronym (K.I.S.S: Keep it simple, stupid), probably in a business book. But it makes a lot of sense.
I suspect that questions about how one should live life, is one that rests on the minds of many. You know, variations on "How to live a meaningful life?" or "What does it mean to be a good person?", all that jazz. Ideas about "figuring out life", you know what forms of expression these ideas take.
I used to think questions like this were pretty complicated, and hard to understand and in turn hard to figure out. But, I'm not so sure anymore. It might be pretty simple. I mean, it's easy to find answers to how to live a good life, it's almost painfully obvious. And, maybe this is easy for someone who has had a privileged upbringing to say...I acknowledge that. But let's assume these for the privileged, even though I think it's still pretty simple regardless of background.
Be nice. Make good friends. Don't lie. Learn. Diet and exercise. Play. Spend time outside. Adhere to the golden rule. Show respect. Don't be too selfish. Work hard. Have a reasonably good attitude. These are only a few examples. The list goes on, but I'm sure it's not too hard too add many many more ideas. We all know how this list goes. It's like fishing in a barrel to list them out.
So, what are the forces that hold people back from living by these simple ideas?
Well it seems like there are 3 things than can happen.
1. Lack of action - Knowing something and doing something are different. In other words, apathy and/or laziness. Simple enough.
2. Aversion to risk - It's hard to be bold, and transforming ones behavior/attitude requires a sufficient amount of risk. In other words, fear holds people back.
3. Pleasure - Some people seem like they over-aggress and take advantage of the folks who keep it simple. For example, why diet and exercise if lyposuction is an option? Why not cheat if you get the same results but can "have fun" with all the time is saved. In other words, hedonism gets in the way.
For the record, I find keeping it simple and doing the "simple things" pleasurable.
I think points 1 and 2 are not a big deal, those are leadership problems. People can be coached through apathy and fear. But, I can't figure out how to deal with the pursuit of pleasure, especially the short-term, less costly pleasures.
Although, I don't think it's "natural" to be hedonistic and pleasure seeking... so, would it really be that hard to coach others out of being scrupulously and viciously utilitarian? I guess I don't see the state of nature exactly as Hobbes did.
Nontheless, hedonism is more difficult because it's not a leadership problem, it's a deeply individual choice I think...something that leadership alone can't intervene in. It requires...as Joey says...for everyone to be "leaders". It requires a culture building and culture changing.
Which get's me to a question that I often consider: what does it take to reform, recreate or reaffirm a culture?
How does one combat hedonism? Or even leverage it for virtue instead of selfishness?
"you're living the dream baby"
I think I've managed to somehow meet all the best people on campus...
gChat from this evening:
Hans: be thankful for the things you've been given, the friends you've been surrounded by, the opportunities you've had, the memories you've made, and be hopeful for the future that awaits you
it's really all you could ever want
you're living the dream baby
me: I think you've just managed to sum up everything I'm feeling in one gchat message.
Hans: ha, I'll take that as a compliment
What Motivates Me
Institutions and organizations play an immense role in determining our lives. They can allow for the beauty in our lives to flourish or they can make the world grim.
University of Michigan Dance Marathon (UMDM) ended at around 4pm on a Sunday. The experience of it all and one particular conversation with someone--I'll spare her name here since I haven't asked her permission to mention it--about "[not] completely drinking the kool-aid about anything" inspired me to draft this...proclamation of sorts...immediately after the event. It's something I've been mulling over for the past year and this is the second version of my "fire talk".
It is a succinct version of what motivates me. Of course, being a dutiful husband, father and community member (if I'm so fortunate) supersedes this to some degree. My original copy went through the washing machine (I think, hopefully I'll find it), which I'm really upset about. It is recreated for safe-keeping here.
My cousin Nakul is someone I think about almost daily. A few weeks before I started the 9th grade, he was bit by a mosquito carrying Dengue Fever. He suffered tremendously (it is said that his body crackled like fire and he whimpered for an apple near the end) before he died. Years later, I realized his death had monumental impact on my life. I do not bring him up as an example for public-health advocacy. Rather, his case is something I bring up because it is an example of institutional failure.
Institutions and organizations play an immense role in determining our lives. They can allow for the beauty in our lives to flourish or they can make the world grim. They can destroy our moral fiber and make us less than human. Virtuous things, I think, are what makes life beautiful and worth living. Virtue and life must not be destroyed, they must be enabled and protected.
There are too many things in the world that negatively affect our lives that we cannot control. However, we can control, develop and transform institutions and organizations--so we must. Enabling and protecting life and virtue from the institutions and organizations that mangle them is one of my supremest and sincerest convictions*. Enabling and protecting life and virtue from the institutions and organizations that mangle them is what fires me up.
Addendum* - Public organizations, namely the US Government, are the class of organizations that I think are most influential, potent and dangerous. Consequently, transforming public organizations into protectors and enablers of life and virtue is my ultimate passion and commitment.
A thought, only quickly.
We must never err in our commitment to doing what is right. If we do, we will fail. It is a certainty. Even further, we must be feverish in our persistence to the path towards truth. I am willing to gamble everything valuable and invaluable that what is true is that which is right.
The difficulty is that we must be tenaciously persistent in advancing what is right, while also being absolutely certain that what we advance is right. Failing to do so is the kindling which causes irreconcilable conflict and destruction. It is what burns. So, to commit to doing what is right is accepting that we agree to do what is nearly impossible.
Nearly impossible.
Why do we distrust government?
I have been reminded that I Haven't followed through to much on blogging, and I think it's time to get started again.
Why do we distrust government?
Though, before beginning on this line of reasoning, I'd like to elaborate on government. What is it and what isn't it, (in ways relevant of whether or not we should trust government)?
What isn't government?
Government is certainly not a physical entity. It has physical manifestations like money, buildings or documents, but in itself is not something physical as is a tree, a mobile phone or a book. Also, government is not the laws that are represented in the United States Code, Constitution or Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Rather, those laws are government's footsteps in the snow, the echoes of government, the reflections of government. But, laws are not government.
Also, government is not simply an idea. It has moved beyond conception, it is in existence. Plainly, government exists...I won't spend time fleshing the obvious. But, since it does exist, what is it?
What is government? Obviously, what government IS must lie within the set of things that government COULD be. Most accounts that I can come across, on the "define:government" Google command and anecdotally, seem to shake government out to one of two things: an organization or a system. So, lets entertain the idea that government is either an organization or a system.
The way I think of a system is that it's static. In the words of my friend Ashwin, you can "turn the crank" on a system. A system has inputs and outputs. A system is a method, it has more to do with process and flow of operations. A system is used by people, but its definitive quality is orchestration not the orchestrators. A system is kind of like a computer program, whether a really cool, uplifting game or a virus.
The way I think of an organization is that it's defined by its smaller components. An organization is a more active entity. It has an element of dynamism...as in, it's a changing growing entity whether it has the effect of a cancer or a church.
To summarize, government is either a system or an organization. And, that classification has nothing to do whether we view government as a "good" or "bad" thing. But, a more interesting question is crucial to answer before moving forward. Is government more like a system or more like an organization.
This question is much like trying to distinguish something like Tropicana Orange Juice from Minute Maid Orange Juice. I'll advance that government is more like an organization. Why? Because the system doesn't use people, but people create and use systems, I hope. The defining feature of government, as we know it, are people; leaders, employees, volunteers included. Government is changing, at present, to better equip itself. Government has a collective intelligence and skill-set.
I think in the past government was more like a system...used by a select few to govern. Now, citizens can be active participants in governing. Now, government has adaptive problems instead of allocation problems. So, I think there could have been a metamorphosis of government, completed or ongoing, from being a system to being an organization. I'm sure this continues to be an openly disputed assertion--lots of people view government as a system, no doubt. Government seems like it's abstract and a self-driven entity sometimes, but I think it's still more like an organization because pockets of government have reinvented themselves. And, I strongly believe that the work that is done in government is not akin to turning a crank. The process by which government makes decisions, whether legislative or executive, are debated and collaborative. So, if outputs of government have some resemblance to inputs, government is more like an organization because the inputs are dynamic.
[Perhaps this distinction is also where dispute about the value/trust of government is rooted, more explanation to come].
If government is an organization, and an organization comprise of people at that, who are the people that comprise government?
Of course, there are the usual suspects: elites, the staff of elites, civil employees and to some the military or interest groups, perhaps. But, I'd like to draw a strong connection (or at least suggest that it's possible, or that it might be prudent to do so) between government as an organization and one other category..."the public". Not as a constituency of government, but as a component of government.
Why people are part of government or are benefited by acting in a way that warrants such classification
There are a few direct links to people being a part of government, that is to say a part of the governing process. Of course, indirectly, people are part of the other governing categories (elites, civil employees, etc.). Yes, the President of the United States and/or Senators and/or mayors are, in fact, human. But, there are more direct links that people are part of the governing process. Take the example of ballot initiatives, people (in aggregate) can make direct changes to our governing systems. Large ones, like Prop 2 in Michigan which radically changed affirmative-action programs in Michigan. Also, people are government in the sense that their pressure causes political elites to act in a certain way. So, in this way people participate in government. But, we know this already.
More influentially, I think, people enforce government. People are the ones who call the police, who bring suit in the courts or make claims of their representatives or fellow citizens. People buy-in to government...it's not like we constantly have farmers rebellions in the United States. In other words, people enforce (or reinforce?) government because they use systems of government as means to some end in everyday life. Without these actions, a civil government (as opposed to an authoritarian, militaristic government) would not exist. There simply would not be a government if the governed did not consent, participate or enforce and inform the principles of their government.
Government should be this way because it leads to stability. When people govern, it conforms to the features of the people governing, roughly. So, as long as governing populace doesn't change radically, government stays stable and consistent. Which is a good thing, especially if government dramatically affects day to day life, because government acts as such...just try getting through an hour of waking life without interacting with some area of government.
This method of popular government is also useful because it allows for signaling. Members of the governing populace have mechanisms for alerting the ultimate decision makers--in this case political elites--to their needs/wants. These opinions are aggregated and government is so ordered. This is efficient. This method of signaling leverages the wisdom of crowds, but also incorporates the stupidity of groupthink.
Overall, there are a few direct and/or indirect links that allow for government to be done via a coalition of elites and the governing populace. Also, there are advantages for this method. It provides for stability--via the actions of government crudely conforming to the aggregate needs of the people--and efficient signaling, by which the action of government can be aggregately informed.
Notice however, the way that the governing populace governs is through "course corrections" and not original creation. In other words, the governing populace takes the actions/ideas of elites and accepts or rejects those actions. If they reject the actions of elites, then they choose whether or not to intervene. Then, the intervention is accepted or denied by the governing populace at large. This amounts to a course correction model of participation. The people do not view themselves, on balance, as the creators or even the mentors of government but only the defense of last resort.
Advancing the discussion, why do we distrust government?
So, now that the underlying theory has be laid out, crudely, lets move on a more interesting discussion...why we might distrust government.
I think the conflict of distrust comes for a misalignment of expectations. We expect government to have the impact, reach and conduct of an organization but treat it and/or participate in it as a system. Of course, I'll give due diligence and explain further.
Take the regulation of financial markets, provision of healthcare, defense from terrorism (domestic or otherwise) or numerous other examples. These are the tasks we expect government to take, of course some libertarians would refut this point but the fact of the matter is government continues to take most if not all of these issues, head on. These are issues that require an organization to address because they require constant adaption, reorganization and resource/strategy reallocation. In short, these are considerations that need more than "turning the crank" they take more than a system, they take an organization to address.
While the demands of modern government are high, it is not managed as an organization but managed as a system. It takes more than money to function a government. Like a garden, governments take management, not simply the provisions of water and sunlight. And, because we look at it simply as a system government constantly underperforms and is easily manipulated--as systems are often manipulated.
Continuing the comparison to a garden, as a governing populace, we allow government to have its course corrected, but often government needs to be managed. We simply reap what we sow when it comes to government. We don't nurture government to grow and prosper, we treat it as an entitty that needs more or less money, more or less procedure or legislative guidance. But, government is about people. We need to grow the best people, with the best ideas, with the freedom to act boldly. Growing often involves growing pains.
But, instead of placing blame on ourselves for treating government as a system instead of an organization, and getting results as such, we distrust government and claim it doesn't to do the job that it should do...the job that an organization should do. Whether or not government--conceived as an organization--could do the job is an unanswerable. We treat government as a system, so it behaves as one. Because it behaves as a system and we are expecting it to behave and show results as an organization, we begin to distrust government. The longer this goes, the more we distrust government. So, how are we to know if government can function as an organization if we don't treat it as one?
Also, I think it's also important to complete the transformation of government from a system to an organization. There's probably discrepancy among the various participants--notice the use of the word 'participant' instead of 'stakeholder'--as to whether government is a system or an organization. How do we do this? I think by motivating elites to be 'creative' (meaning ingenius as well as moving to create resources/ideas instead of allocating or extracting them) and getting the governing populace to be creators as well. By doing this, government will have to move towards being an organization because assuming the governing populace is essential in the creative process, the governing population will not want to treat itself as a system rather than an organization.
Of course this raises larger concerns: does the governing populace have the efficiacy do involve themselves in creative processes? Does the governing populace have the capacity to be creative? Would the governing populace even trust itself if it was to act? If so, great, but if not, what would that mean for governance in general, would we even be able to government without a basic trust between the governing populace and elites or even within the elites or governing populace?
More immediately: What will Obama do? Does it even matter what Obama does, what will we do?
Family Ties
Why do we value family ties more than other ones? Why do family ties receive special treatment? It doesn't seem to make sense. Well, I'm not complaining that the ties do, just it doesn't seem like it should be a given.
I think that it could be compared to nationalism. I wish I could remember some of the arguments for and against nationalism. I know they exist, I wish I was more of a philosopher to be able to derive the arguments I guess.
Anyway, family ties are blood ties, they have no bearing on the nature of the relationship between two people or a unit of people. They have no indication on what the relationship between two people or a unit of people should be.
I think this is exemplified in relationships between adopted children and parents. I doubt that many parties of an adopted relationship would say that their relationships are any less familial or strong. Similarly, I doubt people in non-adoptive relationships would say that parties in adoptive relationships have ties that are any less significant than ties in non-adoptive relationships.
So, the kin relationship is self-defined. It's just what we sort of say it is, or it might as well be. It seems to be morally equivalent to saying somebody is in our family...we can really make family ties whatever we want them to be. Family relationships are really whatever we want them to be, with the exception that we have a narrower set of rules for defining them then we do with most types of relationships.
So, why must "family" come first. Family, an ambiguous term in this sense, as I've tried to demonstrate as self-defined. That is to say, I don't think it's good enough just to say that "family is family" or something along those lines.
So "family" ties seem to at least in a morally non-arbitrary way seem to be weightless ties. Furthermore, they seem to be morally questionable (to even think of ties as family ties) at least if a moral actor thinks that nepotism, favoritism, ethnocentrism, elitism and the like are morally questionable. Indeed, even within families "playing favorites" is scorned upon. Favoritism meaning preference (one way or the other) purely as a result of an arbitrary tie. Say if two people are linked by the color of their jackets or their hometown (even though they might have never met before). Putting "family first" seems to be on the same level.
So, in a way family ties and the preference we give them might not be so morally kosher.
Though, there are probably some exceptions that distinguish family relationships between nationalistic and ethnocentric ones. For one, the "shared history" component of familial relationships are probably legitimate and more genuine. On top of that maybe tribalism is really necessary in the case of families because family ties are a "last resort" sort of relationship so if family ties don't hold, maybe no other ones will. Hopefully that makes it better.
But at the same time, why shouldn't we have moral obligations to be ruthless about our relationships so long as our actions in relationships are moral. Being choosy about relationships, why the hell wouldn't we care deeply about them.
Even if it is immoral, or morally questionable, I'm certainly going to value some relationships over others. I have to. I have to be selfish in that regard. I can't function without meaningful relationships and not only do i think it's necessary to prioritize some relationships over others (of course not in the sense of undercutting some relationships, just in the sense of making sure some relationships get special treatment)
I feel guilty in a way at putting some relationships higher than others. But I've just got to. Family has to come first. Friends have to come first. At least on some things. Maybe not if the world hung in the balance, but maybe so too. It just has to be done. We have all have to be special to someone I think.
The catch though...we have to try so hard that nobody gets left behind. We might not be able to, but we have to try.
I think it has been a little bit too long since I've last blogged. As per my timestamps, the last post I made was in May of this year. As I recall it was just as I was heading in DC. I suppose that a lot has happened since then, perhaps nothing meaningful has. Maybe everything meaningful has. Regardless, I thought it was about time for an update.
I was watching television this evening. It was quite a big deal, because I don't really watch all that much television these days, Grey's Anatomy, College Football, and anything Jeff (my roommate) happens to have on. But anyway, I was watching the Comcast local access channel. It was a high school football game between Rochester Adams High School (one of my high school's rivals) and Farmington Hills Harrison (a traditional powerhouse) in high school football.
Now, one thing to add as background is that I'm all about football analogies. The complexities of the game seem to parallel life in general better than most activities. At least more so than badminton, croquet or speed skating. Anyway, back to the story.
So I clicked over to the channel just as the post-halftime kickoff was happening. Harrison high school was down by at least 25 points and were kicking the ball to Adams High to start the third quarter. This kid, fields the ball deep in his own territory. He runs. He cuts outside the right hash...he picks up a block...he picks up some more blocks, and cuts inside...now he has a team ahead of him, one guy to beat and he cuts back inside and then...touchdown. Just like that. It was unbelievable. Less so because of the run (to be honest, it was High School Football and it lacks the elegance that NCAA or NFL football have) but because running a kickoff for a touchdown is pretty impressive, it doesn't really happen that often.
And then consider exactly what it took for that one young man to run the kick back. He had to catch the ball, he had to make the right cut initially, he had to pick up tons of blocks, his teammates had to release off their blocks and march down field in sync with him, then he had to keep running forward, he had to break tackles. Running a kickoff for a touchdown is not simple, quick-strike sort of task. Several layers of decision making have to be in near perfect synchronization. It takes perfect execution of 11 people.
I've thought about this before (naturally, right?), but never to this degree. Lately, I've been thinking about how fleeting relationships are. All sorts of relationships I mean, friendships, marriages, business relationships, teams, fraternities, military alliances, everything. All of these relationships fleeting. When I say that I mean that they are rocky and have lots of variables and can end abruptly, and need to be nurtured. Relationships come and go quickly, or that's their nature. They take much effort to go in the same direction, naturally relationships seem to want to go in their own/opposite direction. That's fleeting.
Yet, we seem to go after them. Because their precious, we are probably relatively skillful at maintaining relationships by the time we are adults, but that doesn't mean that building them is any less glorious. Man, I can't really imagine taking relationships for granted. At least at this point in my life (it will be curious to reflect upon this entry when I'm say...45, if the world doesn't end before then, insallah)
I don't get why relationships are so fleeting, especially when I find them to be so valuable, almost defining even.
Cameron (one of my bros) has been telling me about fluid mechanics. Random, I know. We've been talking about it in the context of engineering (he's obviously the engineer in this duo, ironically). Fluid flow, there's a word for when it's smooth and predictable, I don't remember the term at the moment. When it is smooth, it's very easy to predict the behavior of the fluids. It is stable, it makes sense, it can be modeled.
Then, there's turbulence.
Turbulent flow, is chaotic. It's unpredictably. We've been aware of liquid flow for millenia, but we still no nearly nothing about turbulent flow. We can't model it. We can't really understand why it does...well anything. In a way, turbulent flow is fleeting...it does what it wants, we have little understanding of it. It's a discord in our wannabe harmonious systems, kind of like relationships. Relationships and turbulence, seem pretty analogous, at least in our understanding of them.
Perhaps turbulent, because they're a zero-sum sort of game/commodity? I don't think so though, because that seems to imply that there's a "winner" or supreme beneficiary in relationships, which seems to be dismissed out of hand, or should I?
I don't have a damned clue, hence the title of this blog.
So - Relationships are Fleeting
- Relationships are analogous to turbulence
- I don't really know why any of it matters, or why.
Okay...why are relationships turbulent...
1. Their inputs are people and people are changing constantly, causing uncertainty? - So, we should communicate to undercut uncertainty, okay that seems simple.
2. Relationships are a complex web, so in a resource constrained environment, people have overlapping preferences in relationships so, when they are mapped onto eachother there is conflict (or at least impending conflict) which causes turbulent behavior? - Don't know what to do about this...discover our intentions in relationships and not be greedy? But I feel like we out to be greedy (in a sense, not in the exploitative sense, but in the get fulfilled since) in relationships.
3. I don't really know.
I took a little break and watch some Teenage Mutant Ninja Turles on You Tube. But as fate would have it, I ran across a video clip that flies in the face of the other stuff I've written. As with everything around me, things seem to contradict.
Free Write
Everytime i wanna get a way
here to stay
that's the way
everyday
i get a little drop drop
when i tell you to rock
whoop whoop, just vibe wit it ride in it TRY-TO-PUT-YOUR-HANDS-UP.
Fairness
Lately, I've been thinking a great deal about fairness. It seems rather appropriate, seeing as how the holidays seems to bring this "virtue" to the forefront of our thoughts and conversation, with the Salvation Army bell-ringers and cocktail talk about the "magic of Christmas" and "those less fortunate".
So, back to fairness. What exactly is it?
It seems like an important characteristic of fairness is that there are some standards of fairness, and then some voluntary, deliberate compliance to those defined, fair, standards. Unfortunately, this seems to present a few complications.
First, it doesn't seem to be getting to the root of the question: what are those fair, defined, standards? Are they inherent, or are they decided upon? If they are inherent, are they obvious or are they a dictate from a higher power like god, or a law? If they are decided upon, who decides them, and are standards of fairness consistent throughout the state, region, nation, or world?
Also, it seems really sucky to think that our natural state would is not to be "fair", but rather we must take effort to be "fair". It seems like something of a shot on the character on humanity to comment that our natural state is not one of "fairness". Our "conception" of fairness is that just humans are "fair" or "just" or something or another like that. Think of it this way, wouldn't it seem sort of uncool if someone like Mother Teresa or Mahatma Gandhi had to try unbelievably hard to be good people? If that was the case, then it seems like there wouldn't be much hope for the rest of us if two of the people we think that are most pure in the world were half-a-care away from being average in their amount of fairness.
After deliberating about these two clauses of fairness and addressing some of their problems, where does it leave us?
Well, for starters, what should we even think of as constituting acting fairly? Should we form discussion groups and reach a consensus?...Probably not. Something very attractive about fairness as a "virtue" as opposed to a "principle" (I'll get into the details about this difference I see in a bit) is that it seems like everyone should be able to understand what something "fair" is.
In defense, is it really that hard to distinguish between what is fair and what isn't? In the words of Justice Potter Stewart in his commentary of pornography/obscenity..."I know it when I see it". Is divvying up a pie into equal pieces fair or not fair? Fair, obviously. Is an athlete doping fair or unfair? Unfair, obviously. I must admit though there are many situations in which fairness is unclear, and unfortunately for me, it sort of breaks apart this line of argument. It seems to me, in the cases were the stakes are rather high, the idea of fairness is pretty occluded. Take for the example of the death penalty (or other examples of retributive punishment), or committing a crime of opportunity, which doesn't have any discernible harm to anyone (like say stealing $20 from a billionaire's desk drawer). What is fair in these cases? I don't know. But, at least there are many obvious examples of fairness.
Flexibility, Commitment, Love? Wha?
I’m usually pretty emo and reflective after date parties. Today is no different. But, this is more important, I think, than talking about the happenings of a date party. But, perhaps these thoughts are motivated by the happenings of the evening. I suppose.
Lately, I’ve been coming to appreciate my parents, and their marriage, more. They didn’t have the most admirable marriage that I I’ve ever seen, in fact when I was growing up, I was afraid that they were going to divorce. They fought terribly. They used terrible words. I heard it. I saw it. I hold to this day that my witnessing of their interactions has been the most significant influence of my thoughts about relationships. I never wanted to be like them.
But, I’m starting to appreciate the deeper, nuanced qualities of their relationships. In retrospect, maybe their fighting wasn’t as negative as I once thought.
They are flexible with eachother. They allow eachother to be their worst, and their words show their disgust, but implicitly, the fact that they argue and disagree shows their flexibility. If you are sticking around and taking the time to argue, that’s flexibility. Getting pissed when you could be disengaging is a sign of love, at least minimally.
My two lovely friends, Laura and Jeff sleeping below me, call that—being flexible—love.
I think they’re right. At least in part.
But there’s something more subtle that has to be at play in partner-relationships. There are many others that know each other intently and have flexibility. Those people aren’t necessarily partners.
Actually, I don’t think that conclusion is right. I think that relationships need not have some special subtlety over “friends”. We add value to the relationships that we want to. Almost as if we peg our relationships to some other standard, like floating currency markets depending on what they mean to us or what we want them to be. We peg our friendships to one value system, we peg our romantic interests to another, but to begin with they still have something quite the same bout them, I think. In other words, we just view them differently, even if they’re the same.
So it seems as if that pegging is expressed as commitment. If you add some layers of commitment to a given relationships, you start to define the perceptions and preferences that dictate the role of that relationship.
So, different types and quantities of commitment seem to be the culprit of why relationships are different. So, a friend relationship and a partner relationship could be quite similar, or even the same in terms of “knowing someone” or “having fun”, but the type and amount of commitment you want to throw down is what defines it from being a partner/friend relationship.
I think it’s easy to lose sight of the fact that strong relationships have the same qualities despite on what their levels of commitment are. It seems that these days, with rising divorce rates above 50%, it’s not a problem of marriages to have commitment, but that it’s the more fundamental problem of “knowing someone” or “having trust” or “negotiating conflight”. It doesn’t seem like that many people have problems committing, but rather meaningful relationships fail because they have weak foundations to build their relationships on in the first place, that love and commitment are being confused for some sort of a strong bond.
Kind of scary?
Flexibility is important. Now the really important question is…how do you use flexibility to get from “weak” relationship to one that is strong like a marriage, or life partnership.
God, this topic is so complicated.
CD Hunt
So, I was on my way to Borders today after work.
Luckily I found myself there. Otherwise I wouldn't be listening to this great music.
"The Essential India" is what I'm listening too. It's a three-cd set, with one disc for Bollywood Gold, one disc for classical acoustic, and one disc for more contemporary chart-toppers.
Talib Kweli's album wasn't there. Jason Robert Brown wasn't there. I couldn't find their selection of choral music, either. And then, this album caught by eye against the world music wall. I immediately had to purchase it. I love Indian music, but I didn't really allow myself to admit the fact until just today...I've never purchased any hindi music before.
Culture has suddenly become important to me, really without any preemption. I love being Indian. I really am Indian.
But, in the store, i started to wonder why. Why did I surpress culture for so long? Why am I suddenly coming to realize that I truly am Indian. Why do I want to learn to read and write hindi?
It's just...my body is Indian. The way I carry myself is the way of my ancestry. The way my voice sounds, is Indian. I have everything that is Indian, and I've spent most of my life developing what is not Indian.
In addition to an intimate, soulful, relationship...my Indian-ness is a void in my life. It's important to be authenthic, as I was just blogging about. However, so far I've been neglecting part of my identity. I'm Indian American. Not just American, and not just Indian either. I have to be Indian, denying it is a lie.
So, part of the next phase of my development in addition to trying to be effective and consistent in all phases of life is to further explore my identity.
It's a process of going from an by Default American-Indian man, to that of an Indian-American, because that's what I am, and Indian American. And if I don't figure out what it means to be Indian-American, I'll never know who I am. Because...at the end of the day, if I don't understand "Indian", I'm missing out of half of who I am.
Progressions
I'm sorry Mr. Blog. You've been idle for too long.
I spoke with Jennie (my boss/co-worker) the other day. Among other things, like higher education and leadership theory, we were speaking about an exercise that all student workers in the division of student affairs are doing. It was a skills assesment. So we were discussing, and we got on the topic of "being authentic" in the context of human development.
So, "being authentic" means this: You are trying to be true to yourself in all facets of life, in a sincere way. So, at work you're striving to be you. At home your striving to be the same you. At play you are still trying to be that same you. You're trying to synergize your roles in life into one person. This struggle is something that happens for many people during their lifetimes. This is the stage I'm currently at.
What interests me is the transition period. How is it possible to understand when a person makes one jump to the other. Is it a natural process in which one seamlessly passes through? Is it something that must be made discretely and explicitly? I do believe that it is made seamlessly but discretely as wel. I feel that most people mst not reflect to regularly, and thus only figure out that a jump in personal development has been made only after some "significatn" life event has been reached. Like, say an experience like camp. An experience like world traveling. So maybe after a pledge term at a fraternity or a summer abroad will someone get the opportunity, or even force themselves to reflect about what is going on with them in their lives.
However, this is yet another reason that I advocate for regular reflection (a blog is a very good way to reflect)...because with regular reflection, the jump--in personal growth--is constanly being worked on, but also it can be noticed quicker. Then, the skill or growth that has been improved can be exercised more confidently faster. Reflection is the practice in "practice makes perfect". This reminds of another interesting piece of advise that I heard on an NFL commercial; "Ameteurs practice until they get something right, professionals practice until they cant get something wrong".
How true is that. Skills are practiced. Leadership is practiced. Sports are practiced. Studying, writing, researching, and horseshoes are practiced. Everything can be practiced. What cannot be? Grace, i think that's it.
But anyway, how long are these transition periods? Are they turbulent? Do they come with age? Must htey come with age? What is the role of a nurturer or teacher? All these questions are fascinating.
I've also been speculating about what the next possible phase for growth may be, after "authenticity". I have a feeling it might be something along the lines of "finding/living by principle. Being able to live as one person, in a principled way. Then perhaps, being able tolive as one person in a principled way in a manner that benefits others.
It's so exciting...my only qualm is...it takes a long time. And being able to negotiate principles with my lifestyle would be really important in college, right now. I could really use the skill of pushing myself to be disciplined to benefit others. I mean, I wish I was farther in the progression...I could really do alot with those skills now. I feel as if some of these realizations might come too late in life, or they coul dbe better serving if they came erlier in life. What an adventure, what an adventure.
Goodnight moon.
Happy Diwali.
Also, it's sweet typing laying down with your eyes closed. it's so much trust in your mental ability, and a freeing sensation from your eyes and ears. typing without looking with your eyes is like putting a ton of trust into your sense of touch and the sharpness of your mind.
Oh how I miss the blog.