The Frazzled Entrepreneur's Balance Beam

A Modest Proposal: Market-Based Education

In 1729, British satirist Johnathan Swift (author of Gulliver's Travels) published an essay entitled "A Modest Proposal For Preventing The Children of Poor People in Ireland From Being A Burden to Their Parents or Country, and For Making Them Beneficial to The Public" in response to famine in Ireland and Britain's reluctance to offer assistance. His "Modest Proposal" was quite simply to respond to the famine by encouraging people to eat their children. It had the desired effect in Britain of causing general disgust and horror — a good deal more reaction than the general public apathy toward the plight of the Irish poor had thus far raised.

I think, after nearly 300 years, it's time for another "Modest Proposal" for the consideration of the US voting (and tax-paying) public. I propose that we let market forces — good old American capitalism — govern our public education. The current property-tax funded system is clearly unfair: it forces people to support the education of other people's kids (OPK), it makes home ownership much more difficult and expensive, and, as the necessity for No Child Left Behind has starkly demonstrated, we're not getting our money's worth.

I therefore propose that we stop all taxpayer funding of education. This country has a long and noble tradition of privately-owned for-profit educational institutions. Why should we not turn our public schools and state colleges and universities over to private ownership? People will simply pay market price for their children's education. For those who may not be able to find affordable education, we'll make tax credits available because, after all, the community does have some interest in making sure that the children of the poorer classes don't become a burden on the taxpayers later on in life.

With this modest proposal, we'll improve the quality of education (after all, schools will compete for the best — and wealthiest — students), taxpayers will be relieved of an enormous burden (OPK), and new sources of wealth will open up for investors in the new educational corporations. After all, education is just another service, and you should get what you pay for.

If, perhaps, you might think that my "Modest Proposal" is just too far-fetched to be even considered, or some kind of libertarian utopianism; if, by some stretch of the imagination, you might consider my "Modest Proposal" patently absurd because of the obvious inequities it would foist on society (creating an underclass of the uneducated who could not afford schooling — after all, tax credits only apply if you make enough to pay taxes), then, think again. This is precisely the approach that the conservative-libertarian political block is proposing, not to solve the education crisis, but to address the health care crisis in this country. Simply put, if this scheme so obviously wouldn't work for education where children's futures are at stake, what possible reasoning could suggest that it would work in health care where people's lives are at stake?

H. Les Brown, MA, CFCC
Copyright © 2008 H. Les Brown

Technorati Tags: empathy, education, privatization, taxpayers, profit, libertarian, conservative, health care
Add to: | Technorati | Digg | del.icio.us | Yahoo | BlinkList | Spurl | reddit | Furl |

Paying the Piper With Human Lives

Here's an opportunity to consider what's probably my least favorite subject: maintenance. There was a feature on last night's news reminding us that the US is heading into an infrastructure crisis. Our public transportation systems, built through an enormous expenditure of resources over many years is falling into severe disrepair. Transportation has fallen victim to what has become 'typical' administrative policy: deferred maintenance. On the surface, this seems like a 'lesser of two evils' sort of approach: defer maintenance that may not be immediately necessary in order to fund more critical projects. There's a whole lot wrong with this line of thinking, but it's so popular that it seems to be an 'obvious' choice when faced with a budget crunch nationally, state-wide, locally, company-wide and even in our families. We all do it, and we had better re-think our positions while we still can.

Let's start by considering where this idea of 'maintenance' comes from. According to Abraham Maslow, each of us exists within a hierarchy of needs. We begin life at the bottom of this hierarchy having to fulfill our most basic needs (food, security, human interaction) in order to preserve our very lives. As we grow into childhood, we recognize things that we want and, with the help of our protectors, we begin to realize our wants. Here's the key concept that most of us seldom think about: a fulfilled want becomes a need. We not only continue to need to be fed, we also continue to need to have physical and economic security, as well as expanding social and interpersonal connections, etc.

In this schema, how can we define 'maintenance'? Maintenance is nothing less than our efforts to continue to meet all of our current needs in order to maintain our status quo (the quality of our lives). Here are two examples. At the end of the Nineteenth Century, people poured enormous resources into creating a huge complex of railroad lines to move goods and passengers all around this country. The cost was so high, that the country was almost deforested from the harvesting of wood for railroad ties. Likewise, in the mid-Twentieth Century, the country went on an unequaled highway-building binge to respond to essentially the same needs: moving people and goods around the country.

We fulfilled an enormous want, and the country's economic progress reflected our success. We immediately came to rely on our transportation infrastructure to maintain our country's economic health and well-being. Just as we turned our economic resources away from building rail lines to building highways, we subsequently turned our wealth away from highways to the next set of big 'wants'. Yet, the more wants we turn into needs, the more resources it demands of us to maintain what we have. The proportion of our income that goes toward maintenance grows along with our assets.

What's the result of this budgetary strain? First, when the next Big Project comes along, we have fewer resources to invest (unless our gross domestic product is growing as fast or faster than our maintenance costs). Second, as maintenance demands grow, we eventually get to a point where maintenance needs start conflicting: it becomes too expensive to maintain everything all at once. So-called 'tough' choices have to be made.

They say 'an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.' In this case, they are so right. Corrective action saps many time more resources than preventive action. Yet, when it feels much more exciting to fulfill new wants than to take care of old needs, those new wants come at a higher and higher price. We as a nation (and as individuals) push the debt limits at the expense of preventive maintenance. We move forward at ever greater levels of risk: not only risk of bankruptcy, but risk of the potentially unstoppable degradation of our quality of life. When the 'luxury tax' of all this deferred maintenance comes due (much of it at the same time), there won't be (and already there's not) enough resources to pay the bill. We as a country will pay for this extravagance with human lives.

Take this lesson to heart: as a family, learn to budget and invest your resources in maintaining your assets (your home, your cars, your other 'big ticket' items). On the other hand, beware of the urge to acquire more. Resources are much more wisely spent in intangible items (like education) that won't require a lot of preventive maintenance. And, lastly, do your best to stay ahead of the curve: take care of your property before it needs it — even when you think it doesn't need it. That's the wisest use of your resources, whether you're an individual, a family, a country or a planet. Long-term thinking pays off in the long run.

H. Les Brown, MA, CFCC
Copyright © 2008 H. Les Brown

Technorati Tags: anticipation, maintenance, wants, needs, budgeting, resources, risk, preventive action, corrective action
Add to: | Technorati | Digg | del.icio.us | Yahoo | BlinkList | Spurl | reddit | Furl |

Culture, Politics, and Road-Rage

I love it when I can learn something new and significant first thing in the morning — even before I've had my breakfast. It bodes well for productive day. This morning, I was introduced to 'the tragedy of the commons': a way of understanding how self-interest and the common good interrelate (sometimes well, but most times poorly). The tragedy of the commons underlies the 'tragic flaw' in the democratic system. It explains how individuals are able to subvert the common good. I've made a great deal about going against the grain to change a corporate culture (and, indeed any culture). It may occasionally sound like I'm opposed to the current Western culture; yet my opposition is based on the opportunities that cultural change can bring to our way of life.

Has this ever happened to you? You're driving in very heavy, stop-and-go traffic, approaching a construction site of the right side of the road. For at least a half a mile, there have been signs saying, 'Right Lane Closed Merge Left.' Dutifully, you've waited your turn, and squeezed left into an open space. The right lane is narrowing as the orange-and-white barrels along the road way creep farther and farther into the right lane. Up ahead, there's a huge flashing sign with an arrow pointing left and the word 'MERGE' in big lighted letters.

Suddenly, a driver with the left blinker on comes tearing up on your right (in the disappearing lane) and tries to push you out of the way to take your place. You basically have two choices at that point: a) to allow the aggressive driver to squeeze in (possibly followed by others following his or her lead), or b) squeeze up closer to the car ahead of you in an attempt to force the aggressive driver to stop or hit you. If you've driven for any length of time, I know you've been in that situation. What have you chosen to do? If you've followed both scenarios, which one do you use most often? Can you reconstruct what you were thinking at the time?

The same scenario plays itself out continually in our culture. As political scientist Ella Schlager (from the University of Arizona) said, "Rational individuals are trapped. To act rationally, to pursue one's self-interest, leads to collective ruin. To act irrationally, to place the collective interest above one's self-interest, exposes one to exploitation." Washington Post columnist Shankar Vedantam (April 28, 2008) comments on Schlager's statement saying, "the only way to prevent tragedies of the commons is to set up structures in advance that reward long-term thinking and punish short-term selfishness." This requires social relationships of trust. Haven't I been writing about this since the beginning? (Long-term) planning supplies a critical element for success, and planning in a team environment requires acceptance, trust and engagement.

The win-win approach that Stephen Covey has so long promoted (in Seven Habits of Highly Effective People) works only with the cooperation of all involved. It only takes person with one win-lose attitude to subvert the entire process. Our democratic system is based on the win-win principle — the U.S. Constitution proclaims that its purpose is to "promote the general welfare" — and that opens it to any individual or group committed to promoting their own self-interest: the tragedy of the commons.

Once again, the only strategy that can effectively change a culture is the one the begins by changing yourself. Ironically, taking the stance that promotes the general welfare (the common good) carries with it the possibility that others may take advantage of you. There are only two things that you need to keep in mind at such times: a) the win-lose strategy carries with it its own consequences; and b) the only possible path that leads to genuine success leads through promoting the general welfare (long-term over short-term gain). Win or lose, maintaining your own alignment with your highest values gains you incredibly more in strength and esteem than any opportunist could ever take from you. So, next time that !@#$%^& cuts you off from the right lane, grit your teeth and take one for the team!

H. Les Brown, MA, CFCC
Copyright © 2008 H. Les Brown

Technorati Tags: understanding, culture, win-win, altruism, egotism, subversion, democracy, welfare, self-interest
Add to: | Technorati |  Digg |  del.icio.us |  Yahoo |  BlinkList |  Spurl |  reddit |   Furl | 

Are You Choosing Your Own Prison?

'Feelings aren't facts.' No, that's true, but they are still feelings. And, feelings have an existence all their own. At the same time, those pesky feelings can often get in the way. In one sense, emotions can really upset our balance by encouraging us to misjudge our priorities. They often cause us to confuse what's urgent (therefore generating fear of losing something) with what's important (things that carry with them real consequences). Only our rational minds can weigh the consequences of our actions, but that means somehow controlling our feelings so that they don't cloud our judgment. 'Deceived focus' comes into play when we pay more attention to how we feel than to what we know.

In another sense, our feelings can incarcerate us in a prison of our own making, and this situation causes far more damage to our pursuit of success (and happiness) than anything else. Consider the feelings of anger, resentment, and even hatred that you may be carrying. It doesn't matter at all what the object of these feelings may be: a person, an institution, a system, anything at all. 'Revenge is a dish best served cold,' the saying goes. Yet, we have to ask: who is most hurt by these feelings? Isn't it true that, in most cases, the object of our anger may not even be aware of how we feel? So, whom are we attacking? Whom are we 'hurting'? Perhaps the unintended target of all this emotion is actually ourselves.

For a success-oriented person, forgiveness can't be considered an optional luxury. Moving forward with your life requires that you let go of real or imagined injuries. In fact, when you find yourself feeling 'stuck', the first place you need to look for the answers is toward any resentments or grudges you may be holding. You can think of each of them as a set of bars that confines you (not them) in a prison cell. When you exercise forgiveness, you release your own spirit from its responsibility (again, not them).

Parallel to feelings of anger and resentment, we experience feelings of guilt and shame. The difference between 'guilt' and 'shame' is that 'guilt' is the gnawing feeling that comes to us when we realize that we've done something wrong. 'Shame' is the feeling that we get when we realize that we haven't lived up to our potential. 'Guilt', then, derives from what we do, while 'shame' derives from who we are. Once again, so long as we allow guilt and shame to retain its hold on us, we'll experience ourselves as imprisoned by them. At the same time, nobody can make us feel guilty or shameful. We always have the choice to accept or reject that responsibility. However, once we accept the responsibility, we incur the obligation to do something about it.

Ridding ourselves of guilt and shame uses the same methodology as escaping from anger and resentment: using the tool of forgiveness, only, this time, asking for forgiveness from those we may have wronged. Regardless of whether or not other people 'pardon' us (it's their choice whether or not to let go of their anger and resentment), acknowledging that we are wrong sets us free.

Finally, I need to let you know that, although these are basically spiritual principles, nothing could be more practical in any human situation. The emotions that imprison us — anger, resentment, guilt, and shame — don't limit themselves only to certain areas of our lives. As men and women who strive to live successful lives, the axiom is simple: in all situations, strive to keep your side of the street clean: forgive easily and often, ask for forgiveness as soon as you realize that you've been wrong. That way, you can live a balanced life, free from the burdens of emotional bondage.

H. Les Brown, MA, CFCC
Copyright © 2008 H. Les Brown

Technorati Tags: empathy, forgiveness, anger, resentment, guilt, shame, recognition, acknowledgment
Add to: | Technorati | Digg | del.icio.us | Yahoo | BlinkList | Spurl | reddit | Furl |

How to Stifle Creativity in One Easy Step

The deeper I go into using the internet to expand my coaching business, the wider the variety of services I encounter (and often use). Each service has its own particular approach to what it does, and for some of them, I get to interact with the service providers themselves. One of these services (which shall remain nameless to prevent my being 'blacklisted' from it) has been quite an education for me. The service owner occasionally asks for feedback then, when he receives it, generally posts a reply as to why the feedback doesn't count. Watching him operate over the past few months has been a real education — an education about how not to run a business!

Innovation flows from the process of brainstorming: allowing the problematic issues themselves to suggest solutions. That's one reason why I never talk about 'problems' — remember that our language not only represents, but creates our perceived reality — because 'issues' (rather than 'problems') are always opportunities for creative growth. If, as business women and men, we reject these opportunities for innovation out of hand, our organizations, systems, and even our products and services will soon become stale. Furthermore, when we reject feedback (or feed-forward), people will very quickly learn not to offer us any.

For any project — be it as large as a business or as small as a sales letter — both feedback and feedforward are essential elements. The word 'feedforward' was coined by Marshall Goldsmith to highlight the relationship between evaluations (feedback) and suggestions (feedforward). What approaches could you take to these brainstorming approaches? Odd as it might sound, the best (most productive) approach is always to accept these offerings uncritically and look for the positive in them. Knee-jerk reactions should have no place in brainstorming: any advertising agent will tell you that the most outrageous ideas most often contain grains of the greatest brilliance.

Don't censor yourself, and, for Pete's sake, don't censor your critics! When people feel that you actually appreciate any and all input, they will be anxious to give you more. People love to feel listened-to, even when their ideas aren't actually implemented. You always want to open the spigot of creativity, never to stifle it. So, watch yourself: do you ever respond to suggestions with 'but', or with reasons why the idea won't work? If so, it's time for a change. Try responding with, "How could we implement that?" instead.

Here's a final example. This service I was referring to earlier has a listserve that was created to allow users to share experiences and to ask questions. Over time, people have begun using the listserve to promote products hosted on this service. Responding to criticisms, several times I suggested starting another listserve specifically to service the product promotion people. Every time, the service owner has responded with "We don't have the resources to do that." The issue remains a problem, those in the community who would have been willing to volunteer to manage a new listserve were not solicited, and those of us who see my suggestion as a viable option will (most likely) not continue championing our 'cause'. Furthermore, we're probably not going to become involved in other issues because of our bad experience. See? Could this be a good time for you to take a close look at how you handle your feedback and feedforward?

H. Les Brown, MA, CFCC
Copyright © 2008 H. Les Brown

Technorati Tags: appreciation, feedback, feedforward, innovation, brainstorming, creativity
Add to: | Technorati |  Digg |  del.icio.us |  Yahoo |  BlinkList |  Spurl |  reddit |   Furl | 

Why Are You Sabotaging Your Own Success?

On a scale from 1 to 10, how successful would you say you are? First of all, how do you define 'success'? Do you include all the areas of your life? Some divide life into four quadrants: physical, mental, emotional, and spiritual. Does that work for you? I prefer to define success in terms of covering all eight levels in Maslow's hierarchy of needs: physical, safety and security, interpersonal, self-esteem, intellectual, cultural, creative, and spiritual. How're you doing in all these areas? Do you want to revise your position on the 'success' scale now? Here comes the zinger: if you rated yourself below a '7' in overall success, please write down a sentence or two to explain why?

If you tried to explain your dissatisfaction with where you are in life using any of these phrases: 'I can't', 'I have to', 'I need to', 'I must', 'I ought to', 'I should', 'I could', or 'I would', you're lying to yourself. You've created a mental fantasy world to explain away your refusal to take responsibility for your decisions. In this fantasy world of yours, you play the role of eternal victim, powerless before your adversaries who have prevented you from fulfilling your needs.

The only options left to you are, therefore, to become angry and resentful, to pout, and find comfort in blame, self-indulgence ('I deserve this after all I've been put through), rationalization ('You'd do the same thing if you'd had my life') and complaining ('It's just not fair!'). You can choose to remain the self-absorbed infant, the wronged party in your own little personal soap opera, or you can choose to take your thumb out of your mouth and assume responsibility for your condition.

The first move toward improving your 'success' rating is to change your language. Instead of saying 'I/we can't', say 'I/we won't'. Instead of saying, 'I/we have to', say, 'I/we want to'. This is the first step in the long process of getting rid of all your excuses and explanations. So long as you feel the need for self-justification, you can't arrive at self-acceptance, which is the prerequisite for meaningful engagement in your own life. Self-justification signifies that you lack appreciation for your potential, and the potential that you're capable of drawing out of any situation, no matter how desperate it may seem.

One last piece of advice about changing your language in order to change your life: steer clear of the question 'why?' Think about it: when people ask 'why?', what are they looking for? Do the really want to know the cause of something? Or, are they demanding a rationale or justification for something? Obviously, it's the latter; otherwise they'd be asking, 'What happened?' or, 'How did that happen?' If you want to receive somebody's best excuse for something, just ask them 'why?' And, if you want to stay locked in a world of rationalization, just dive into your best explanation when others ask you the 'why?' question. On the other hand, if you want to break out of the victim mold and dramatically improve your 'success' rating, start by not making excuses for yourself.

H. Les Brown, MA, CFCC
Copyright © 2008 H. Les Brown

Technorati Tags: appreciation, victim, rationalization, justification, excuses, explanations, acceptance
Add to: | Technorati | Digg | del.icio.us | Yahoo | BlinkList | Spurl | reddit | Furl |

Are You the Solution to Global Hunger?

Been watching the international news lately? Yesterday the executive director of the World Food Program reported that the international food crisis, spurred by the global economic troubles, has become a "silent tsunami" that threatens the economic and political stability of a broad spectrum of poor nations around the world. He reported that "one child [dies] every five seconds from hunger-related causes." Some have compared this growing threat as a 'Sally-Ann Struthers' problem: one that is getting 'hyped' but one that there's little any one person can do to alleviate.

Doubtless there are enormous global issues that seem so overwhelming that one person feels utterly powerless to have any influence at all. Our 'circle of concern' may be very large, but our 'circle of influence' seems tiny indeed. What can one person do? The brilliant answer to this question comes from thought-leader Lance Secretan: you can discover your true circle of influence by letting your circle of concern speak to you, and by asking it questions. If we believe that everything has a purpose (and we do), then every 'problem' has a 'solution', if only we're willing to look for it.

How do you find out what 'problem' you're the 'solution' for? Secretan calls that your destiny (and so do I). It's the one mountain that you alone have been given to climb. Its location is engraved on your heart, so that's where you need to go to find it. Perhaps world hunger is your particular, individual 'mountain'. To find out, dig deeply into what disturbs your most — into what stands out most in your circle of concern. That's a good indication of where your heart's secret longing is focused.

Now ask yourself what about this issue concerns you the most? If you had all the resources in the world, where's the first place you would direct some of them? But, we all know that we don't have all the resources in the world. So, what resources do you have? Here's where a deep and enlightened mindful self-knowledge is vitally important. You weren't inspired with the overriding concern to be left without personal resources to do something about it. What strengths, talents, skills, knowledge and experience do you have that could somehow respond to the threat that you've identified?

If you've followed this procedure well, you'll begin to see that, in fact, you have a viable response to your concerns. There is an influence that you can put to bear on a concern that's bigger than you are. You'll take the next step when you confront your fears and make the decision to act. Once you've identified your destiny, you'll no longer have the temerity to say, "There's nothing I can do about that." In point of fact, you've identified things that not only you can do, but you must do to be true to yourself. I'll let you in on a little secret: if every individual discovered his or her destiny and made it a cause that he or she were willing to dedicate (at least part of) their life to, these 'insurmountable' problems would find global solutions.

Global hunger and economic collapse may not be your 'thing'; but somewhere deep inside you is a 'thing' that's particularly your own: a mountain that you alone must climb. You were put here to find that mountain, to gather your strengths, to train yourself, and to do your part. When you do that, you're not 'sacrificing' anything for a cause; you're choosing to become fully alive: the person you were always meant to be. Today, you can choose not to 'live in the problem', but, rather, to 'live in the solution' — your solution.

H. Les Brown, MA, CFCC
Copyright © 2008 H. Les Brown

Technorati Tags: mindfulness, destiny, discernment, influence, concern, problems, solutions
Add to: | Technorati |  Digg |  del.icio.us |  Yahoo |  BlinkList |  Spurl |  reddit |   Furl | 

Confronting the Enemy Within

Life never turns the way you expect it to. There's an order to it all, but the details are so minuscule and so convoluted, that trying to sort them all out and comprehend them is utterly beyond us and our technology. One of the cornerstones of our interaction with the world of the 21st Century (or, any century, for that matter) is the Chaos Theory. The order of the universe lies hidden within the chaos that arises from the limitations of our knowledge, to appear only like silhouettes of lovers on a window shade. The subtleties of matter and energy throughout the universe are unknowable to us in their entirety, and, even those aspects that we do know are subject to the limitations of our measuring systems. So long as there is the least imperfection in our human knowing, chaos will control our prediction of the future.

Success in life is almost always counter-intuitive. About 15 years ago, I decided to buy a motorcycle. To get my license endorsement, I had to take a course and pass both a written and driving exam. What most struck me about learning the basics of controlling a motorcycle is that it doesn't steer like a bicycle. As a kid, I often used to ride my bike 'no hands', leaning left to turn left and right to turn right. Oddly, on a motorcycle, you lean away from the direction of the turn. I still haven't got the physics of that straight in my head; all I know for sure — from personal experience — is that it works.

Sometimes I even remember that life works the same way. The 'intuitive' approach very often rewards us with exactly the opposite of the result we were hoping for (and, most often, anticipating). Here's a great example: applying persuasive techniques to encourage a system to change will almost always succeed only in motivating everyone to turn on you. If you do wield sufficient power to get the system to pay attention to you, you'll first be met with all the reasons why your approach won't work, then, to prove you wrong, the members of the system will make sure that any changes that do occur will be superficial and short-lived. I've often said that for a leader to change a system means that he or she has to do the radical changing, then enlist the system's help in promoting that change.

Confronting an opponent with force only makes that opponent stronger. That's a lesson that Asians learned many centuries ago, and still teach. It's also a lesson that we have yet to learn. To overpower others consists not in forcing ourselves on them, but, rather, in neutralizing their power by allowing them to expend it harmlessly. Sometime that means absorbing their blows.

The traditional approaches to the exercise of power no longer achieve their goals, either in the world, in a country, or in a family. Negative approaches like anger, hatred, revenge and punishment produce the opposite of their desired effect (as in Iraq, so in a rebellious child). The tighter we hold on to control, the more out-of-control a system will grow. The deeper our fear of an 'enemy', the more fearsome that 'enemy' will become.

Eventually each of us will have to learn the 'ropes' of handling the wildness of a life: we'll have to lean left if we want to go right, and vice-versa. Even then, if we learn our lesson really well, we'll discover that where we finally end up is nowhere near where we expected to. It will surely be entirely different from anything we imagined — better, but entirely different. If you want to be successful at this game called 'life', you're going to have to lay aside your expectations, and climb on to enjoy the ride!

H. Les Brown, MA, CFCC
Copyright © 2008 H. Les Brown

Technorati Tags: comprehension, power, control, contrary, counterintuitive, system, chaos
Add to: | Technorati | Digg | del.icio.us | Yahoo | BlinkList | Spurl | reddit | Furl |

Why the US Can't Compete

A couple of decades ago, the world passed over from a national economy into a global economy. From that point on, the US began to lose any competitive advantage it might once have held. The slip from prominence doesn't happen all at once, but gradually, over time, as the results of our cultural shortcomings begin to take hold. We approach the world as though it were still the 19th Century and backwards attitudes and approaches were still all the rage. I wonder how far down we'll have to go before we begin to realize that something's amiss.

To have a better idea of what's happening, let's start with the deficiencies in our notions of what makes up a 'culture'. We're way too inclined to believe that 'culture' has to do with 'native' costumes, music, dancing and the other arts. Whether it's Aztec cities or Japanese flower arranging, we may value these 'cultural' heritages and may imagine that we have a broad appreciation of other cultures. If that's our idea of 'culture', then we need to drastically rethink our approach. Culture may express itself in the arts, but, at its roots, it comprises a way of thinking and a set of beliefs and values that determine our worldview.

We can only come to a realistic appreciation of other cultures by taking a very hard and critical look at our own cultural biases first — and that is something that, it seems, we US citizens are incredibly reluctant to do. This country maintains a deep strain of nativism that exercises enough power to infect our public policies. Consider for a moment the 'English only' movement. The very best way that anyone could get inside a culture's mentality would be to learn that language. The nativists want no part of that. Instead, we experience a very strong movement that insists that everyone think, look, sound, and act like they do. This approach reflects what sociologist Geert Hofstede calls 'high uncertainty avoidance.' In a few words, we can express this through the saying, "What's different is dangerous."

The immigration debate in the US is fueled by this nativistic attempt at uncertainty avoidance. Almost every other country in the world has to deal with a multi-lingual and multi-cultural population base. For them, the net result has to be a broader appreciation for different approaches and ways of thinking. This gives them a level of security and flexibility that we in the US can only dream about achieving. They have pushed through the 'different is dangerous' wall into 'different is enriching'. That makes them more accepting, more curious, more inventive than we. At one time the richness of our immigrant population was the source of our inventiveness and drive. To the extent that the nativists now have their way here, we're more than wiling to give this all up for the sake of a boring, uninspired homogeneity. So we face losing the competition for the global economy not by being bested by our neighbors, but by default.

H. Les Brown, MA, CFCC
Copyright © 2008 H. Les Brown

Technorati Tags: understanding, nativism, culture, competition, uncertainty, inventiveness, global economy
Add to: | Technorati | Digg | del.icio.us | Yahoo | BlinkList | Spurl | reddit | Furl |

The Bread of Affliction, The Cup of Blessing

The Children of Israel were led out of slavery and into the Promised Land by the Hand of God. That experience, or, more correctly, that series of experiences forged these individual people and their disparate families and tribes into one people with one identity. To be crass about it, the Exodus experience was one of the greatest team-building exercises in human history. So long as we miss the great lessons of this experience, we — all of us: Jewish or not — will remain blind to our own experiences and our own identities. We may not share any of the same details, but, for each of us, the story is the same.

The story of the Exodus of the Jewish people from slavery in Egypt remains only an historical event affecting long-forgotten people from a long-forgotten period of history so long as there's no one to reflect and discern their meaning. The Exodus event without the Seder meal would have been lost.Only when the words, "We were Pharaoh's slaves in Egypt . . . " are spoken that those events become history: something that happened in the past that has a critical impact on us here and now.

"We were Pharaoh's slaves in Egypt." When? How? In what way were we stuck, in bondage, unable to move forward, incapable of making the right choice, without courage, without hope? Who — or what — was our own private Pharaoh?  Where were we when we were lost and didn't know which way to go? Where was our own private Egypt? "We were Pharaoh's slaves in Egypt." Yes. Yes, we were. I remember now.

". . . and the Lord our God brought us out from there with a mighty hand and an outstretched arm." Who, me? How did I get out of my mess? How did I escape? How did that plague and that destruction and that — ugh! — death that fell on so many others in the same situation happen to miss me? I didn't see any miracles! No walls of water to my right and to my left as I walked free. No, sir! But wait just a minute. What did happen to get me from there to here? How did events happen to conspire together so that I got through it all? I didn't think I was going to make it, but I did! Was that the Hand of God? Was that God's Outstretched Arm? "God is in the details," said Corbusier. Maybe God is all about the timing. How come what happened, happened when it did? Huh?

Reliance on a Power greater than ourselves is the essence of Spiritual Intelligence (SQ). Whether or not we can name that Power, we can identify — discern — it without fail from the way It's gotten us from there to here: a Passover, no doubt, but only for those who have the eyes of faith to see it. That's why we need one another to help us to discern — to perceive — what's been there all the while under the surface. We need to find our own shared Exodus events and to hear each other as we say, "Remember: we were slaves . . . and God brought us out." Lacking that gift, I'm afraid not much of our human experience makes any sense at all.

H. Les Brown, MA, CFCC
Copyright © 2008 H. Les Brown

Technorati Tags: discernment, Passover, Seder, Spiritual Intelligence, Higher Power
Add to: | Technorati |  Digg |  del.icio.us |  Yahoo |  BlinkList |  Spurl |  reddit |   Furl |