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.
Saturday, July 25, 2009
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?
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?
Wednesday, July 22, 2009
Like Catching Fireflies
There is god in art, I think. In images, in movement, in sound in color and words. Which is why we like it so much or so desperately want it. What's not to desire of something with beauty or grace? The rest can be taught, but beauty and grace can only be gifted and maybe discovered. Why else would the things that are essentially majestic usually be natural, spontaneous or dreamed in a rage of creativity?
It's as if the artist--of whichever medium--is catching fireflies. We catch them one by one and put them in shiny mason jars when the weather is just right. And like fireflies, it's wonderful and reasonable and uplifting to have those fireflies held in those jars, even though we know that's not where they belong. They belong in nature, where god created them. I think art is meant to be free.
If it isn't, it makes me feel much better about not being able to catch a poem and cage it in a notebook, in years. It's gotta be okay to borrow creativity for awhile, though.
And, I don't know how I feel about god (though I use the idea freely here) whether or not a god exists or has relevance in our day-to-day lives outside of faith--or if any of it even matters. But if that god was responsible for making things like art, friendship, freedom or souls and their mates...that god has to be a gracious one.
-----------------------------------------------
We'll make scribbles in the morning soil,
And a put a canvas on the afternoon squall.
In the evening shaking like the first tree we see,
Before recording the whistling of the stars,
Oh...what a masterpiece we'll make.
It's as if the artist--of whichever medium--is catching fireflies. We catch them one by one and put them in shiny mason jars when the weather is just right. And like fireflies, it's wonderful and reasonable and uplifting to have those fireflies held in those jars, even though we know that's not where they belong. They belong in nature, where god created them. I think art is meant to be free.
If it isn't, it makes me feel much better about not being able to catch a poem and cage it in a notebook, in years. It's gotta be okay to borrow creativity for awhile, though.
And, I don't know how I feel about god (though I use the idea freely here) whether or not a god exists or has relevance in our day-to-day lives outside of faith--or if any of it even matters. But if that god was responsible for making things like art, friendship, freedom or souls and their mates...that god has to be a gracious one.
-----------------------------------------------
We'll make scribbles in the morning soil,
And a put a canvas on the afternoon squall.
In the evening shaking like the first tree we see,
Before recording the whistling of the stars,
Oh...what a masterpiece we'll make.
Tuesday, July 21, 2009
Governance 2.0? and reviewing Paul Light's a Government Ill Executed
Whether or not I've blogged about this before, I often think it: our reconstruction of institutions for governance are outpaced by our increasing and increased demands on institutions for governance. Our problems are becoming more difficult to solve just as our capacity for solving those problems lags behind. I'll take this as truth because I've read about it quite a bit in Paul Light's A Government Ill Executed, I've heard about it from people who know governance, I've witnessed it myself and it's evidenced in small things like crumbling bridges, baffling government websites and inept paper trails.
So, what do we need to do to get governance ready for new problems?
First, what are the tell-tale signs of new breeds of problems?
Interdisciplinary Complexity - We're not in Kansas anymore. Problems we have are large and difficult, often requiring multi and interdisciplinary problem solving approaches. For example, protecting our borders requires addressing illegal immigration, drug smuggling, food safety, the mapping of terrorist networks, financial intervention etc...only to name a few. This one example encapsulates many different disciplines and issues. Moreover, many of these components are intertwined in other government missions (food saftey is related to public health, etc.).
Data Centered - The problems now have to be addressed in the most cheap, effective, and non-intrusive way possible. On top of that there's a tremendous amount of data that's able to be collected. On top of that, performance is measured quantitatively (my guess that it's a borrowing from the financial system, for better or worse). All of this requires data at all steps in the problem-solving process.
Speed, but - Things move fast. If problems aren't addressed quickly, the nature of the problem will change. At the same time a lot of problems require long term strategy, planning or oversight. So, speed must be balance with long-term circumstances...which is really hard, in my opinion.
Subject to democracy - As constituents, we have access to a lot of information. Because of this there can be a tremendous amount of scrutiny from interest-groups, the educated public or the public at large. So, governmance structures not only need to be able to withstand scrutiny but also filter out irrelevant or politicized criticism and leverage increased exposure of government work to aid in problem solving. Institutions of governance need to be able to know when to say "we're wrong", "you're wrong" and "we could use your help". This issue is beyond public relations, it's more appropriate to consider this issue public integration because the public is inolved in governance from day 0.
Resource constrained - Anyone and everyone bashes institutions of governance. This rhetoric is characterized by the suggestion of big, bloated government or in the assertion of extended individual rights at the cost of the good of the republic. As a result governance organizations have to d more with less. Perhaps once their performance is elevated or better recognized resources will follow, but for now, they've gotta do more with less, god forbid Americans don't get another tax cut or get pork barrel spending in their state or district.
There are probably other qualities.
So, what to do? A first step (and I agree with Light here) reorganize the government to center around missions, not functions. What is within the purview of the government, what are the most important priorities? Government agencies have inertia and should be moving forward not based on what prior needs were but on what future needs are going to be.
Clean up the data and fix up the portals. There's a LOT of information, but it needs to be better organized so that governments and the public can use it better. Otherwise, why have it in the first place? With this goes, triage. Creating systems that allow valuable public interaction not only keep the public at bay regarding issues that don't concern them, but it also puts the public comfortably in the center of the debate in issues which their involvement matters greatly.
I have to think about this more.
Reviewing Paul Light's A Government Ill Executed:
An important book which sharply addresses one central question...what's the deal with the Federal Civil Service. It lacks an in-depth historical perspective as to why the Federal Civil Service came to be this way just as it only has a brief list of prescriptions. It's strength is explaining the situation on the ground, right now. And, by golly, the situation is dire.
A particular treat was analysis surrounding particular areas of reform and the difficulties those reforms might bring. Light had a particularly keen insight about streamlining the Federal Civil Service. It's not simply about cutting staff and resources. It's about trimming layers of management and moving resources way from the top of the hierarchy and towards the front-lines, where resources matter most. He also unveiled another issue, the size of the "shadow" contractor workforce, which most tend to underrate.
Light's prescriptions, though brief, are clear. The educated reader could easily piece together a slew of ideas by simply reading the analysis he provides. Whether Light does this to keep the page count low or to avoid partisan overtures is irrelevant, his text is well researched, candid and urgent. Light keeps it non-partisan but like most Americans his tone is pro-good governance.
His most important call to us is not issue specific. He bring momentum to the idea that piecemeal reform just won't do anymore and that we need a comprehensive, non-partisan, civil-service reform agenda. I sincerely hope that's a call that American's and America's elected officials will take action towards.
So, what do we need to do to get governance ready for new problems?
First, what are the tell-tale signs of new breeds of problems?
Interdisciplinary Complexity - We're not in Kansas anymore. Problems we have are large and difficult, often requiring multi and interdisciplinary problem solving approaches. For example, protecting our borders requires addressing illegal immigration, drug smuggling, food safety, the mapping of terrorist networks, financial intervention etc...only to name a few. This one example encapsulates many different disciplines and issues. Moreover, many of these components are intertwined in other government missions (food saftey is related to public health, etc.).
Data Centered - The problems now have to be addressed in the most cheap, effective, and non-intrusive way possible. On top of that there's a tremendous amount of data that's able to be collected. On top of that, performance is measured quantitatively (my guess that it's a borrowing from the financial system, for better or worse). All of this requires data at all steps in the problem-solving process.
Speed, but - Things move fast. If problems aren't addressed quickly, the nature of the problem will change. At the same time a lot of problems require long term strategy, planning or oversight. So, speed must be balance with long-term circumstances...which is really hard, in my opinion.
Subject to democracy - As constituents, we have access to a lot of information. Because of this there can be a tremendous amount of scrutiny from interest-groups, the educated public or the public at large. So, governmance structures not only need to be able to withstand scrutiny but also filter out irrelevant or politicized criticism and leverage increased exposure of government work to aid in problem solving. Institutions of governance need to be able to know when to say "we're wrong", "you're wrong" and "we could use your help". This issue is beyond public relations, it's more appropriate to consider this issue public integration because the public is inolved in governance from day 0.
Resource constrained - Anyone and everyone bashes institutions of governance. This rhetoric is characterized by the suggestion of big, bloated government or in the assertion of extended individual rights at the cost of the good of the republic. As a result governance organizations have to d more with less. Perhaps once their performance is elevated or better recognized resources will follow, but for now, they've gotta do more with less, god forbid Americans don't get another tax cut or get pork barrel spending in their state or district.
There are probably other qualities.
So, what to do? A first step (and I agree with Light here) reorganize the government to center around missions, not functions. What is within the purview of the government, what are the most important priorities? Government agencies have inertia and should be moving forward not based on what prior needs were but on what future needs are going to be.
Clean up the data and fix up the portals. There's a LOT of information, but it needs to be better organized so that governments and the public can use it better. Otherwise, why have it in the first place? With this goes, triage. Creating systems that allow valuable public interaction not only keep the public at bay regarding issues that don't concern them, but it also puts the public comfortably in the center of the debate in issues which their involvement matters greatly.
I have to think about this more.
Reviewing Paul Light's A Government Ill Executed:
An important book which sharply addresses one central question...what's the deal with the Federal Civil Service. It lacks an in-depth historical perspective as to why the Federal Civil Service came to be this way just as it only has a brief list of prescriptions. It's strength is explaining the situation on the ground, right now. And, by golly, the situation is dire.
A particular treat was analysis surrounding particular areas of reform and the difficulties those reforms might bring. Light had a particularly keen insight about streamlining the Federal Civil Service. It's not simply about cutting staff and resources. It's about trimming layers of management and moving resources way from the top of the hierarchy and towards the front-lines, where resources matter most. He also unveiled another issue, the size of the "shadow" contractor workforce, which most tend to underrate.
Light's prescriptions, though brief, are clear. The educated reader could easily piece together a slew of ideas by simply reading the analysis he provides. Whether Light does this to keep the page count low or to avoid partisan overtures is irrelevant, his text is well researched, candid and urgent. Light keeps it non-partisan but like most Americans his tone is pro-good governance.
His most important call to us is not issue specific. He bring momentum to the idea that piecemeal reform just won't do anymore and that we need a comprehensive, non-partisan, civil-service reform agenda. I sincerely hope that's a call that American's and America's elected officials will take action towards.
Monday, July 20, 2009
Stories in sacrifice
How can we possibly learn to do something that has the appearance of being against individual interest?
Well, here's a place to start. Why make a sacrifice? Of course, these are interrelated, but in my mind they are distinguishable cases.
-For someone else: an individual or group sacrifices for the benefit for another individual or group. (A parent commutes a longer distance so that their children can attend a better public school)
-For themselves: an individual sacrifices so they can ultimately benefit. (I sacrifice an extra helping of cake so that my health gains)
-For the future: An individual or group sacrifices so that there will be utility in the future. (A company invests in a pension fund)
Now, another assumption: this behavior is learned. Even if it's not, we make an effort to teach it, and those interventions seem like they might have a chance at forcing someone to sacrifice in an involuntary manner--which causes sacrifice to happen even if it's not dictated by the conscience of the sacrificer.
So, there are ways of sacrificing, and that behavior is [at least partially] learned or directed. There are other ways of influencing behavior, like coercion or incentives. And there are times when people sacrifice when they don't HAVE to...like giving change in your pocket to someone on the street. So why do people sacrifice when they don't have to?
Perhaps it's a question of assigning value. Maybe people see the option of sacrifice as providing more value to another person or in the long-run. This is plausible, because I'm skeptical of this suggestion because individuals as consumers have so much difficulty placing value on the choices they make or the resources they have. If value is at the core of this myster, we'd have to tepidly assume that people are extremely rational--to the point of controlling their primary urges--right?
Persuasion is another problematic explanation. Simply put, if people make sacrifices because of persuasion, they can also be persuaded out of making sacrifices or be persuaded into making bad sacrifices. Which, seems to stand up to reality I concede.
Some sacrifices seem to just happen, whcih means it's in the nature of some people in some circumstances to sacrifice or that sacrificing can be learned/cultivated.
I don't know exactly how that teaching/learning happens. I think it's by example. I just know it's important...many of our public policies will need sacrifice to be successful. When people don't sacrifice, it seems like non-optimal outcomes happens...if all that happens is take-take-take, there eventually won't be enough left to give, right?
Sheesh, what a random thought-experiment. So much for the vignettes.
Well, here's a place to start. Why make a sacrifice? Of course, these are interrelated, but in my mind they are distinguishable cases.
-For someone else: an individual or group sacrifices for the benefit for another individual or group. (A parent commutes a longer distance so that their children can attend a better public school)
-For themselves: an individual sacrifices so they can ultimately benefit. (I sacrifice an extra helping of cake so that my health gains)
-For the future: An individual or group sacrifices so that there will be utility in the future. (A company invests in a pension fund)
Now, another assumption: this behavior is learned. Even if it's not, we make an effort to teach it, and those interventions seem like they might have a chance at forcing someone to sacrifice in an involuntary manner--which causes sacrifice to happen even if it's not dictated by the conscience of the sacrificer.
So, there are ways of sacrificing, and that behavior is [at least partially] learned or directed. There are other ways of influencing behavior, like coercion or incentives. And there are times when people sacrifice when they don't HAVE to...like giving change in your pocket to someone on the street. So why do people sacrifice when they don't have to?
Perhaps it's a question of assigning value. Maybe people see the option of sacrifice as providing more value to another person or in the long-run. This is plausible, because I'm skeptical of this suggestion because individuals as consumers have so much difficulty placing value on the choices they make or the resources they have. If value is at the core of this myster, we'd have to tepidly assume that people are extremely rational--to the point of controlling their primary urges--right?
Persuasion is another problematic explanation. Simply put, if people make sacrifices because of persuasion, they can also be persuaded out of making sacrifices or be persuaded into making bad sacrifices. Which, seems to stand up to reality I concede.
Some sacrifices seem to just happen, whcih means it's in the nature of some people in some circumstances to sacrifice or that sacrificing can be learned/cultivated.
I don't know exactly how that teaching/learning happens. I think it's by example. I just know it's important...many of our public policies will need sacrifice to be successful. When people don't sacrifice, it seems like non-optimal outcomes happens...if all that happens is take-take-take, there eventually won't be enough left to give, right?
Sheesh, what a random thought-experiment. So much for the vignettes.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)