Alternative Editorial: Individuals Count
How many times a day do you find yourself agreeing with a statement - a headline, a tweet, a spontaneous thought from a colleague - only to immediately see its limitations? For example 'what is more important than freedom?" quickly followed by "yes but even freedom can be misapplied".
We won't go into the specifics of that huge debate here. Our purpose is more to draw attention to the "yes but, no, but" nature of our moment-by-moment experience of life unfolding. In particular, as soon as we recognise the danger of a 'truth' appearing overly simple we rush to make distinctions, to hold the space within which it might be more complex.
In a quote sometimes attributed to Mark Twain, sometimes F Scott Fitzgerald we've heard that it is "the test of a first-rate intelligence is the ability to hold two opposed ideas in the mind at the same time, and still retain the ability to function". But maybe Carole Gilligan, in her seminal book "In A Different Voice" would say 'some are more wired' for holding ambivalence: for noticing the wider context of a truth, while still holding it valid. A developmental perspective would suggest that we all develop this capacity over time.
One very commonly expressed truth that invites that quick move into 'yes, but' is the claim that we - particularly in Western societies - are overly individualistic and need to overcome our egos to prioritise our collective ways of being. It's a valid observation when seen as a call to overcome selfishness, putting our own needs above those of others. Or as a critique of our consumer society, that seduces us through offering quick fixes for our emotional needs (George Harrison captured it well in I, Me, Mine).
At the same time, it's a dangerous call if it tries to break down the boundaries of the self. Our mental health depends upon our ability to maintain some form of self-sovereignty. Anyone who has raised a child will know that autonomy is a 'given' emotional need and indeed one that we encourage in every young adult as they try to become independent of their parents. Both women and men have to learn how to say no to intrusion upon their private selves.
We understand the issue when we argue our right to make decisions about our own bodies, or the importance of consent before being called into relationship. However it's more challenging when one person's right takes away another person's freedom - a situation now commonly cited in the case of vaccines.
Attempts to decide the rules from above is often perceived as a threat to our wider freedoms - as the Austrian government discovered when they tried to make vaccines mandatory. Huge crowds came onto the streets to defend their right to choose and eventually the new law was put off indefinitely.
Instead, there are plenty of examples where communities and families can accommodate a diversity of views better. Especially when there is an opportunity to deliberate together, giving people enough time to question frankly and enough empathy to allow people to change their minds without humiliation.
However, these well facilitated spaces are rare. Whenever these two goals - understanding our own needs, understanding the needs of others - are presented as opposing rather than interdependent, troubles occur.
When we are told by our peers that individuality is a problem per se, or that that the ego is something to overcome, we can lose our own ability to question or to act decisively. Without putting our own ability to make sense of our environment at the centre of our 'truth making' we will be overwhelmed with options all the time.
Individuals without any naturally occurring places of belonging - where they can develop their tools for listening and collaborating - will be easily co-opted by gangs, cults or status symbols. And it's not only the most disadvantaged that are vulnerable: many with power find themselves swept along by popular demands or causes. If they don't have an effective way to notice and manage their own emotional turbulence, they might act without thinking.
President Joe Biden suddenly proclaiming during a speech to US troops that President Putin "cannot remain in power" may have pleased his more hawkish voters but that inadvertently signalled his readiness to commit to regime change. After weeks of resisting the call to come into direct conflict with Russia to avoid what he called World War 3, he suddenly leapt over his own boundaries and threatened Putin directly, putting us all in danger.
Actor Will Smith jumping up on stage and punching a comedian who joked about his wife, undid decades of cultivating his own image as a gentleman warrior. His own tearful apology after cited the stress he was under as a vehicle for black rights and a defender of those he loved - but what leader in the public realm isn't under that sort of stress? This may in the future be seen as the moment he defeated his own long-term plan to become President of the US - or be the making of it.
Or sixteen years ago, one of football's all-time greats Zenedine Zidane during his much-anticipated last appearance for his country in a World Cup Final - high stakes - suddenly head-butting an opponent for cursing his mother. With only minutes to go before being able to leave the world stage in a blaze of glory, he was sent off in disgrace.
These may be familiar examples of men behaving badly, but the deeper point is often overlooked. While we might all discuss whether Biden, Smith or Zidane were heroes of villains as they faced down their opponents, we forget that in each case there was an alternative to violence available to that individual at the time.
While history will continue to tell the story of war, fisticuffs and football aggression as if they were impersonal aspects of our culture which we simply participate in, in each case the individual perpetrator had the possibility of reacting differently. If each of them had developed - through committed personal practice - a deep responsibility for their inner resilience, able to process the provocations of others, they would have changed the course of history.
We are not simply products of our culture; we are co-creators - and we always have a chance to shape the future as individuals as well as in collaboration with other.