All or Some?
Is the future for all o
r only for some?
Our times demand we change our ways and undertake the hard work of examining our prejudices. This work requires us to uncover the thoughts behind our thoughts, the internal software that regulates our thinking. For me, it pivots around this question: Is the future for all or only for some? Is our world for everyone or selected groups? We say we are created equal but act too often as if we do not mean it.
Everything in life plays itself out differently depending on which answer we choose. I hypothesize that if our future is for all, then it follows that we must collaborate because the complexity of our cultural and natural ecosystems requires it. We need each other to expand understanding. We will see power as something to share. We will protect nature that nourishes us all. We will adjust our lives to make the prosperity of others possible. Building the future for all requires working together and using our differences to learn from each other. Is this true? What if we acted as if it were true?
If our future is for the selected some, we will plan only for our chosen group's survival. We will not protect nature because we have resources to move into a climate-controlled gated community. We will hold power for ourselves. Being kind will be a sign of weakness. We will not fight for the rights of others because the pie is not large enough for all. We better get our slices first. And we will always know more than others and will not need their input.
This year, the protesters are calling for an end to racism and police violence. They are inviting us all to confront our prejudices and look at the causes behind horrible actions.
I have two ideas for what we can do:
Ask all political candidates to articulate their future images: Are they for everyone or a selected some? Ask them to tell us how their actions align with their vision. If their future is for all, is it unconditional? If not for all, who is left out? Why? Let the invisible assumptions become visible so we can work with them.
Engage thousands of people to share their images of the future: Are they for everyone or a few? Why? What are the consequences? In this process, we would listen to each other rather than pundits and experts. In hearing others' ideas, new understanding emerges. We learn and grow. We will find new ideas and more likely to agree on how to put them to work. It will take resources and talented individuals to organize community forums, create interactive websites, and distribute the results.
Our political parties fall rather neatly into two ways of thinking. The president has called for total domination of protesters, and the progressives have called for peaceful dialogue and inclusion.
We will have the November elections. May we choose wisely.
But the problem is more complex.
In my work with communities, I saw prejudices surface in many ways from people of all political orientations, ideologies, and professions: individuals promoting inclusion as long as it didn't disturb their comfort; many who glorified upright ideas that they then contradicted with their actions and never saw the irony of it; progressive on the surface, but underneath rejecting any change that would require extra effort. All for affordable housing, but not in their backyards. All for transit, but no bus stops near their houses. My colleagues and I have seen this attitude so regularly that we invented a code word for such individuals: noble citizens, with an emphasis on no.
If we delve below the surface, we may find something more profound. We need to find a new way to ask what in our life experience led us to the choice we make and reveal the source of our convictions.
The two proposals described above would expedite our collective learning. They would provide opportunities for our better selves to surface with the courage to expose our prejudices. I believe those better selves reside in all of us. This self-examination may not be pleasant. It will be hard work. It will help if we support each other, and slowly turn us from obstructionists into creative collaborators.
Just like the pyramids could not be built from the top-down, societal change can't be a top-down directive from experts. Lots of people tackling important questions will become a necessary foundation for new laws and policies. We all have a role to play in this courageous and urgent work.
What I am proposing is ambitious and necessary. For me, it is the question at the bottom of it all. If you agree, I would love to hear your ideas on how to move it forward. Please contact me and let's talk.