Polite Company - Religion, Politics, Economics
This is a long post, and one that I’ve been thinking about for quite a while as it reflects conversations I have had with a good many friends, clients, and members of my audience. If you ever find yourself struggling with political, religious, and economic worldview differences between people with whom you must work at any level (and I’m pretty sure that’s all of us), this is for you.
We humans have a strange and complex operating system. It includes the rare, even unique, ability to analyze and improve our very experience. Other creatures are not so blessed (or cursed!) with this. They simply exist, driven by their instincts. And that’s fine. No judgment here. After all, they couldn’t be any other way. I like my cats and don’t expect them to suddenly develop metacognition. I just want them to be cute, silly, sweet, and cuddly. Likewise for the chickens in our yard. They can continue to lay their eggs, blissfully free of self-awareness, and never succumb to the urge to improve their societies.
But, we humans are different. Baked into the process of our humanity is a sophisticated toolkit that observes, dissects, aspires, theorizes, and transforms the very structure of human society in pursuit of an IDEAL state. The shorthand for this IDEAL state is called “human flourishing”, a term I’m sure you’ve heard. It is an abstraction - a general state of energy that we can sense, but struggle to define concretely.
When I consult with leaders and organizations I look for the “-rations”. Everyone has two:
Frust-rations - that which we have but do not want
Aspi-rations - that which we want but do not have
These mirrored concepts both point to an IDEAL of some kind, and we find -rations in every area of our life. Growth, I typically find, means using these -rations to move closer to the IDEAL, which is ultimately unattainable. We also have these -rations at the level of the human SPECIES itself, which means we all have visions for the best way to achieve a state of human flourishing and theories regarding how to best to do this.
Here’s the names we give to these processes of SPECIES-level visioning, analysis, prescription, and transformation, all of which deal directly with the nature of human flourishing:
Religion
Politics
Economics
I think it’s those 3. Each of these seeks to answer the question of what it means for humans to flourish, as individuals within a collective, in a very direct way. Supporting players include disciplines like psychology, sociology, philosophy, history, and others. In fact, one could argue that ALL human activity orients in some way toward the facilitation of human flourishing. But those three are the grandest. They deal most directly with our strongest and most comprehensive intuitions regarding the IDEAL state of the human condition.
By the way, this question of human flourishing is a sacred one. I don’t know why. The question of lion flourishing, for example, is not so fraught for humans OR lions. The very question of maximizing human flourishing, which is only possible thanks to our metacognition, drives our metacognition bonkers. And when a whole bunch of metacognitive humans meet one another, each with their deeply held visions and theories of the IDEAL form of human flourishing, the bonkers magnifies.
It is for this reason that we are advised to avoid conversations about religion, politics, and economics in polite company. And sociology, psychology, history, and philosophy often lead you there, which is why we are generally sensitive to any kind of ideologically-charged subject matter in such situations.
But, what if you have political/religious/economic differences with a business partner? What if you have them with a friend or family member? What if you have them with a fellow board member? What if you have them with someone else on the leadership team? What if you have them with a colleague? What if you have them with other members of your community? What if you have them with other members of your SPECIES? As we draw the social circles wider it is inevitable that we will encounter such differences. Heated arguments at the dinner table are born of the same explosive energy as demonstrations, riots, revolutions, and wars. And all because we have different visions, analyses, theories, and prescriptions regarding the IDEAL state of human flourishing.
And every now and then we collectively endure a time of societal stress in which the energy of these differences becomes particularly charged and rises to the surface. We are currently living through such a time and it is very threatening and disorienting for us. How do we navigate this?
When you are frust-rated with the SPECIES-level aspi-rations of a fellow human, particularly one with whom you must form a close, working relationship, keep the following in mind:
Neither of you asked to be here.
If you are working together to improve something it means both of you care for many people.
The human condition is bewildering and clear answers regarding human flourishing are elusive and difficult to define by their very nature.
We’re all operating from our best educated guesses and intuitions; our respective stories and experiences are highly formative to these educated guesses and intuitions.
For some reason religion, politics, and economics seems to defy empirical evaluation in ways that other disciplines do not.
SPECIES-level -rations are born of deep love and the desire to maximize human flourishing.
You can find the deepest impulse of positive vision somewhere if you keep looking, and that is where to begin building AGREEMENT.
Opposing ideologies tend to see things differently, and each have something about human nature to teach. Stay humble, become a better listener and be open to the lessons this offers.
Nature is full of tradeoffs. Society is simply an outgrowth of nature, and every organization is simply an outgrowth of society. You will need to make tradeoffs.
Morality has always been, and continues to be, highly complex, challenging, and gray, with answers often clear only in hindsight. A prerequisite for leadership is to be at peace with this truth.
The human condition is, seemingly by…design?, imperfectable, which means that no ideology has all the answers, and the whole system seems to draw energy from the disagreements that result. Flip “agree to disagree” around and you get “disagree to agree”. I think that’s actually the more metaphysically helpful formulation as it outlines the very process of debate and negotiation.
And don’t forget, leadership is hard! In all times and places. No problems, no leadership needed. Leadership is a problem-oriented business, so you need to learn to expect frust-rations. But that’s also why you have a job as a leader. So, do battle by day, and cherish your safe spaces in your off-times.
The energy of the SPECIES-level IDEAL is ever-present. It forms the ground of every choice you make and the energetic dynamic with everyone else in your orbit. These disagreements are uncomfortable, but inevitable. Remember that we love each other, and that’s why we rise each day, seeking the work to which we are called. And the world keeps getting better, bit by bit. Unjustly sometimes. Imperfectly always. We’ll get where we’re going, one step at a time. And you’re a part of that, as are the similarly metacognitive people you have been given, in this baffling human condition, which is the only one capable of, and driven by, the very process of analyzing and improving itself.