Many years ago I wrote an article, inspired by Dr. Peter Vaill at George Washington University at the time. I can't find the whole text but thought my audience would enjoy the gist of it:
Golden Rule #1: Do Unto Others As You Would Have Others Do Unto You.
I believe this is Biblical and just good sense.
Golden Rule #2: Do Unto Others As Others Would Have You Do Unto Them.
This recognizes that people are different and want different things.
Golden Rule #3: Do Unto Others As You Would Have Others Do Unto Others.
In other words, lead by example.
As we move toward flatter, more democratic organizations and institutions, I hope these three Golden Rules will serve you well. Please post or link stories here where you have found resonance in these principles.
April 21, 2010
February 11, 2010
Please Sir, May I Have A Bit More Condescension?
The following is my response to this article by Gerard Alexander, associate professor of politics at the University of Virginia, on his Washington Post Outlook article titled 'Why are liberals so condescending to conservatives?'
Personally, I find this debate a bit of a yawn. In my experience and study, people tend to make decisions based largely on their social identification with one group or another. It's a cognitive shortcut for not having to "think" - by which I mean, do all the research yourself on every topic you care about and come up with a conclusion based on the merit and preponderance of the evidence as interpreted by a expert panel of reasonable people through intersubjective agreement of data and their meaning. It's okay. We all have to do it. No one knows or can know everything. That's why we need to either ramp up on a topic or trust other people's expertise and judgment.
What I find disturbing is the louder voices on the right who enflame and encourage an anti-intellectual agenda and then argue that it is a "diversity" of ideas that should inform debate. It is humorous that conservatives as a group routinely and throughout recent history have tended to reject social, cultural, and moral relativism and yet now cry to be included in serious intellectual debate by framing it as a diversity issue. What sublime hypocrisy. Yep, on this score I'm a condescender.
True, we should not stereotype or slap labels on groups without warrant, but when self-identified leaders of a group do not actively denounce anti-intellectual rhetoric - and rather defend it or attempt to mollify the seriousness of this trend as Dr. Alexander does by couching it terms of competing political narratives (a theoretical posture developed through the feminist movement, ironically), it discredits those reasonable voices who do self-identify with the group and wish to see it pull up its neural knickers and not just take a position because they wish to be on the winning side.
Dr. Alexander is on to something, however, but he misses the mark. Too many people on either side tend to use politics as a way to feel special about themselves, because admitting they might be flat wrong or in need of a better education is too much for their fragile egos to handle. Author Howard Bloom illustrates this exceedingly well in his book, "The Lucifer Principle," in which he suggests that people tend to think and behave based on where they see themselves in the pecking order, not by any rational calculus.
Be this as it may, my concern primarily is for people who devote their lives to research and education to find that their work is not respected because it represents an "elitist" agenda... hey, I used to be Republican until I spent 28 years studying. Now I'm largely liberal/libertarian in outlook. I believe this is why most academics lean left, not because they are blinded by ideology or a hatred of taking conservative steps toward lasting change, but because they've put a lot of time and effort into spinning cotton candy into fine crystal.
That as a group "we" academics are called condescending is probably exactly why we're having problems across the country with student incivility and a lack of respect for professors and informed thinkers. Of course, this doesn't mean one has to swallow things whole, but generally one should give the poor scholar the benefit of the doubt. So I will give Dr. Alexander the benefit of the doubt and recognize that his argument is surely based on study after study and not on some liberal agenda that would like to see fairness and equality in intellectual discussion.
Props on identifying four cultural narratives of the Left. I should anticipate his next article would give equal and fair treatment to the Right's narratives. That would be nice and thoughtful.
All sides of an issue do not deserve equal airtime, and I believe he knows it. To argue otherwise reflects a liberalism of the type Ann Coulter and her ilk love to shoot down. Not to resort to ad homonym attacks, but it seems Dr. Alexander may be a closet liberal. Then again, I may be a closet conservative, as I believe life isn't fair and all views are not equally valid. But more name-calling would be unkind.
Can't we all just get along without having to argue about who should have freedom, what's the future of civilization, and who in the public arena can string two neurons together? Let's just keep things as they are and be sympathetic to those who support a party that represses unabashedly individual liberty and the pursuit of happiness through claims of moral superiority or through public policy hijinks. Or by whining that their views should be heard even though they often don't make sense, to professors or to anyone who has lived, learned, and passed on their knowledge and wisdom of how to create a better world.
If learning and change as a way of being is framed as condescension of uninformed and unreflective views, then sign me up to receive the condescension of the great scientists and artists, philosophers and poets of the ages. And another helping of porridge too, if you please.
Personally, I find this debate a bit of a yawn. In my experience and study, people tend to make decisions based largely on their social identification with one group or another. It's a cognitive shortcut for not having to "think" - by which I mean, do all the research yourself on every topic you care about and come up with a conclusion based on the merit and preponderance of the evidence as interpreted by a expert panel of reasonable people through intersubjective agreement of data and their meaning. It's okay. We all have to do it. No one knows or can know everything. That's why we need to either ramp up on a topic or trust other people's expertise and judgment.
What I find disturbing is the louder voices on the right who enflame and encourage an anti-intellectual agenda and then argue that it is a "diversity" of ideas that should inform debate. It is humorous that conservatives as a group routinely and throughout recent history have tended to reject social, cultural, and moral relativism and yet now cry to be included in serious intellectual debate by framing it as a diversity issue. What sublime hypocrisy. Yep, on this score I'm a condescender.
True, we should not stereotype or slap labels on groups without warrant, but when self-identified leaders of a group do not actively denounce anti-intellectual rhetoric - and rather defend it or attempt to mollify the seriousness of this trend as Dr. Alexander does by couching it terms of competing political narratives (a theoretical posture developed through the feminist movement, ironically), it discredits those reasonable voices who do self-identify with the group and wish to see it pull up its neural knickers and not just take a position because they wish to be on the winning side.
Dr. Alexander is on to something, however, but he misses the mark. Too many people on either side tend to use politics as a way to feel special about themselves, because admitting they might be flat wrong or in need of a better education is too much for their fragile egos to handle. Author Howard Bloom illustrates this exceedingly well in his book, "The Lucifer Principle," in which he suggests that people tend to think and behave based on where they see themselves in the pecking order, not by any rational calculus.
Be this as it may, my concern primarily is for people who devote their lives to research and education to find that their work is not respected because it represents an "elitist" agenda... hey, I used to be Republican until I spent 28 years studying. Now I'm largely liberal/libertarian in outlook. I believe this is why most academics lean left, not because they are blinded by ideology or a hatred of taking conservative steps toward lasting change, but because they've put a lot of time and effort into spinning cotton candy into fine crystal.
That as a group "we" academics are called condescending is probably exactly why we're having problems across the country with student incivility and a lack of respect for professors and informed thinkers. Of course, this doesn't mean one has to swallow things whole, but generally one should give the poor scholar the benefit of the doubt. So I will give Dr. Alexander the benefit of the doubt and recognize that his argument is surely based on study after study and not on some liberal agenda that would like to see fairness and equality in intellectual discussion.
Props on identifying four cultural narratives of the Left. I should anticipate his next article would give equal and fair treatment to the Right's narratives. That would be nice and thoughtful.
All sides of an issue do not deserve equal airtime, and I believe he knows it. To argue otherwise reflects a liberalism of the type Ann Coulter and her ilk love to shoot down. Not to resort to ad homonym attacks, but it seems Dr. Alexander may be a closet liberal. Then again, I may be a closet conservative, as I believe life isn't fair and all views are not equally valid. But more name-calling would be unkind.
Can't we all just get along without having to argue about who should have freedom, what's the future of civilization, and who in the public arena can string two neurons together? Let's just keep things as they are and be sympathetic to those who support a party that represses unabashedly individual liberty and the pursuit of happiness through claims of moral superiority or through public policy hijinks. Or by whining that their views should be heard even though they often don't make sense, to professors or to anyone who has lived, learned, and passed on their knowledge and wisdom of how to create a better world.
If learning and change as a way of being is framed as condescension of uninformed and unreflective views, then sign me up to receive the condescension of the great scientists and artists, philosophers and poets of the ages. And another helping of porridge too, if you please.
February 5, 2010
Heroes
I've been marathoning through "Heroes" - the TV series - you can stream it on Netflix. Really cool. It's the way to go - watching a series without commercials and back-to-back. Saves time, great stories.
Anyway, this series is about people who are genetically different... I mean, we're all genetically different, but the idea is that mutations are occurring and while most mutations are harmful to the human species, some (a rare few) are positive mutations. In the series, the characters struggle to accept who they are while pulling together to save the world. Pretty cool.
Bringing this back to organizational theory, the evolution school of thought would posit that people should be free to use their talents, and that, using the metaphor of organizations as organisms, or meta-organisms, as leaders we should provide experiences for people to display their talents. In practice, this means sending people to conferences, apprenticeships, allowing people to try out new ideas in new situations.
Think of business like a petri dish. Drop one chemical in one solution, nothing happens. Drop it in another, it springs to life. The people who work for you may not even know what they are capable of becoming. As a leader, help them to find their way.
Anyway, this series is about people who are genetically different... I mean, we're all genetically different, but the idea is that mutations are occurring and while most mutations are harmful to the human species, some (a rare few) are positive mutations. In the series, the characters struggle to accept who they are while pulling together to save the world. Pretty cool.
Bringing this back to organizational theory, the evolution school of thought would posit that people should be free to use their talents, and that, using the metaphor of organizations as organisms, or meta-organisms, as leaders we should provide experiences for people to display their talents. In practice, this means sending people to conferences, apprenticeships, allowing people to try out new ideas in new situations.
Think of business like a petri dish. Drop one chemical in one solution, nothing happens. Drop it in another, it springs to life. The people who work for you may not even know what they are capable of becoming. As a leader, help them to find their way.
December 12, 2009
Reflections on the Academy
We are a tribe that dances on the shores of knowledge,
where the air is crisp and the oceans unmuddied,
to music we sing out in tremulous harmonies
beneath bright stars of familiar impertinence
on sands full of castles and footnotes.
-Michael Kull, c. 2008
where the air is crisp and the oceans unmuddied,
to music we sing out in tremulous harmonies
beneath bright stars of familiar impertinence
on sands full of castles and footnotes.
-Michael Kull, c. 2008
November 24, 2009
What is Age?
RealAge is a hoot. And yet more authentic than calendar age. Human beings are biological, spiritual, intellectual, emotional beings, not mechanical ones. Does experience matter? Sure, but I've had more varied experiences than most people ever will, or at least compared to my ancestors, so does that make me 90? On the other hand, I like to stay on top of popular culture and new trends, so does that make me 18? When I behave like a child, does that make me 5?
As an academic, I think it is important to ask hard questions about social conventions. When I was younger I was called the "whiz kid" which I felt was demeaning.
The term "age-ist" or age-ism is the idea: stereotyping people based on age. No one likes to be stereotyped, especially over things we can't much control, like age, height, where we're from, racial/ethnic background, etc. I see it as a diversity issue and am beginning to think that it is inappropriate for social networking sites, matchmaking sites, and the like, to require age. If it matters to someone, they can ask.
Take dating for example. In a free society no one should tell another who you can date. In practice, most people I talk to have an idea of the "type" of person they are looking for with certain qualities and features, but are willing to be surprised as well. Kinda like software. Age is one thing but should hardly be the defining characteristic the way some matchmaking sites work.
In all, we might want to consider a more sophisticated approach to understanding others than the metric we label "age." The site RealAge has attempted to do just that.
As an academic, I think it is important to ask hard questions about social conventions. When I was younger I was called the "whiz kid" which I felt was demeaning.
The term "age-ist" or age-ism is the idea: stereotyping people based on age. No one likes to be stereotyped, especially over things we can't much control, like age, height, where we're from, racial/ethnic background, etc. I see it as a diversity issue and am beginning to think that it is inappropriate for social networking sites, matchmaking sites, and the like, to require age. If it matters to someone, they can ask.
Take dating for example. In a free society no one should tell another who you can date. In practice, most people I talk to have an idea of the "type" of person they are looking for with certain qualities and features, but are willing to be surprised as well. Kinda like software. Age is one thing but should hardly be the defining characteristic the way some matchmaking sites work.
In all, we might want to consider a more sophisticated approach to understanding others than the metric we label "age." The site RealAge has attempted to do just that.
A New Age of New Ages
I think about age a lot. It bothers me that I think about age a lot, but I cannot seem to help it. There are so many things wrong with using age as a metric and yet it is useful information for many reasons.
To expand our thinking of the concept of age, we should do two things: break it down (analysis) and then see what it is connected to (synthesis). What do we mean by age? What social conventions inform our understanding of age? In the following blog posts, I will share my thoughts and perhaps come to some conclusions. Please share yours as we are all on this journey.
To expand our thinking of the concept of age, we should do two things: break it down (analysis) and then see what it is connected to (synthesis). What do we mean by age? What social conventions inform our understanding of age? In the following blog posts, I will share my thoughts and perhaps come to some conclusions. Please share yours as we are all on this journey.
October 1, 2009
The Dyad
Relationships are formed dyadically.
Memorize that. What it means is that people relate to one another one-on-one. Seems obvious, but it is essential for building trust. Why? Take it back to anthropology. You are two people in a cave. What are you going to do next?
Memorize that. What it means is that people relate to one another one-on-one. Seems obvious, but it is essential for building trust. Why? Take it back to anthropology. You are two people in a cave. What are you going to do next?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
