Beyond the Hero’s Journey: Rethinking Our Worldview to Address the Ecological Crisis (Part I)

Beyond the Hero’s Journey: Rethinking Our Worldview to Address the Ecological Crisis (Part I)

Jul 21, 2024 | Transformation

Floods, wildfires, drought, biodiversity loss, habitat destruction, pollution, mass riots, war—this is the world right now in active ecological crisis. There is very little recognition, though—much less discussion—about the interrelatedness of these issues, which underscores the urgent need for a transformation in our collective worldview that allows for sanctity of diverse perspectives across cultures.

Deconstructing the Hero’s Journey: The Western Worldview’s Role in Our Crisis
However, a prevailing model for personal and societal transformations is the hero’s journey that, although pervasive, offers a version of reality that feeds the Western worldview within which humans are centered (and in command). The current crises we face as a species demand that Westerners, especially Anglo-American, cisgendered White males (like me), consider their worldview as a primary cause. This worldview is characterized by what Robinson-Morris (2019) said is “the West’s misguided understanding of self, our interconnectedness and interdependence” (p. 3).

Western society, however, does not appear ready to collectively question its worldview. Instead, Westerners individually look outward. Nature and various social issues are objectified as characters in a story. Climate change is characterized as the foe (or monster) within this story, which humans (as heroes) can defeat with the tools (also heroes) of science, technology, or legislation. Simultaneously, these same tools are wielded in an (often separate) attempt to address the complex array of social issues faced by governments and other institutions worldwide.

Beyond the Hero's Journey
Questioning Western Tools
What if European American (Western) culture’s very use of its tools—science, technology, and/or legislation—is creating the issues that must be solved? The Western (European American) belief in technology reflects a kind of addiction where many people embrace technological fixes as “the answer to social, psychological, and medical problems caused by previous technological fixes” (Glendinning, 1995, p. 49).

Capitalism’s Role: Profit, Exploitation, and the Ecological Crisis
This addiction is part of a larger Western worldview that has not just contributed to the ecological crisis but caused it (X. Chen, 2017). Fueled by capitalism, the Western worldview has led to the exploitation of nature and (marginalized) people as objects whose value is only measured in their utility (Marx, 2005). As a species, we must not only acknowledge the Western world’s addiction to technology but also what X. Chen (2017) referred to as a thirst for profit and capitalist modes of production. The ecological crisis, then, results from the inability of the hero to satiate this thirst.

Embracing New Metaphors: Moving Beyond the Hero’s Journey
In part two of this expansive file, I will explore this proverbial thirst as well as the ubiquity of the hero’s journey, which underscores the need (opportunity) to embrace new metaphors.

References
Chen, K.-H. (2010). Asia as method: Toward deimperialization . Duke University Press.

Glendinning, C. (1995). Technology, trauma, and the wild. In T. Roszak, M. E. Gomes, & A. D. Kanner (Eds.), Ecopsychology: Restoring the earth, healing the mind (pp. 41–54). Counterpoint.

Marx, K. (2005). Grundrisse: Foundations of the critique of political economy (M. Nicolaus, Trans). Penguin.

Robinson-Morris, D. W. (2019). Ubuntu and Buddhism in higher education: An ontological (re)thinking. Routledge.

Space as Metaphor: Beyond Output-Oriented Paradigms (Part II)

Space as Metaphor: Beyond Output-Oriented Paradigms (Part II)

Jul 12, 2024 | Strategy

Strategic plans are particularly excellent examples of a process with questionable results, especially if stakeholder collaboration is desired (Tiwari & Winters, 2017). The logic behind strategic plans, however, is indicative of the Western paradigm’s contradictory view of the individual as of primary significance, yet also replaceable. The Western worldview rests on the Cartesian assumption that the mind is more important than the body. Though subtle, this assumption supports the ability of many Westerners to engage in disjunctive thinking (Morin, 2014) in order to break down complex problems into proverbial bottom lines that can be mapped through pure reason alone.
There is indeed vital information in our bodies, however, and even in the silence in our physical movements:

The silence is not merely golden; it is replete with meanings. Those meanings in turn testify to a corporeal semiotics, a movement-anchored corporeal semiotics that resounds within us. It resounds within the volume of our being an animate form of life, in all the so-called “systems” that functionally describe us—our respiratory, circulatory, and digestive systems, for example—some of which we can and do at times directly experience. (Sheets-Johnstone, 2019, p. 37)

There can be no substitute for what we experience in our bodies—and without our bodies, there is no mind. However, our minds also create our bodies, which are cultural representations of how we view our very selves. Indeed, the implication from this study is not that the hero’s journey has no use at all. Nearly 5,000 years of history demonstrate its ubiquity, but its relevance as a mode of transformation is misplaced in a world in desperate need for humans to remember they are part of a collective whole.

Perhaps our ability to share (external and internal) space is predicated on the extent to which we are able to be free of ourselves in order to become ourselves. Imagined without time, space as metaphor enables us to participate in creating, making, cleaning, growing, shrinking, shifting, expanding, and reconfiguring the metaphorical and literal spaces within, outside, and between us.

Whereas many of our discussions as a species revolve around borders and boundaries, space as metaphor removes the implied directionality of such conceptualizations, which inadvertently exacerbate the perceived divide that separates humans from self, one another, Earth, and cosmos. Space as metaphor is empty, yet full of potential, enabling individuals with diverse viewpoints to participate—and be heard—in collective space, a place in which there is still room for the occasional hero.

References
Morin, E. (2014). Complex thinking for a complex world—About reductionism, disjunction and systemism. Systema: Connecting Matter, Life, Culture and Technology, 2(1), 14–22.

Sheets-Johnstone, M. (2019). The silence of movement: A beginning empirical-phenomenological exposition of the powers of a corporeal semiotics. The American Journal of Semiotics, 35(1/2), 33–54. https://doi.org/10.5840/ajs20196550

Tiwari, R., & Winters, J. (2017). The death of strategic plan: Questioning the role of strategic plan in self-initiated projects relying on stakeholder collaboration. International Planning Studies, 22(2), 161–171. https://doi.org/10.1080/13563475.2016.1220288

Space as Metaphor: Beyond Output-Oriented Paradigms (Part I)

Space as Metaphor: Beyond Output-Oriented Paradigms (Part I)

Jul 12, 2024 | Strategy

In various fields (counseling, education, business, and leadership, etc.), transformation and change are often framed as part of a metaphorical hero’s journey. Patients, students, and employees are handed a list of goals and outcomes, and then a proverbial journey is mapped out regarding how to get there. This sort of logic generally informs not only business and productivity but also approaches to (and belief in what constitutes) knowledge in general.

In the Western world, there is an emphasis on considerations related to knowledge production and acquisition to the detriment of those related to ontology (Dei, 2000). Defined simply, ontology relates to the nature of reality, existence, and/or truth. This bias is a seminal cog in the Western wheel of life (and business) without which it would no longer easily spin. From an Indigenous perspective, ontological considerations are crucial and reflect a worldview in which everything is necessarily related to everything else.

The ways in which we ontologically express our humanity, then, are paramount, as they connect us with not just our culture and world today but also our ancestors, history, and the cosmos. For Indigenous cultures, embodiment is a way of knowing (Dall’Alba & Barnacle, 2007)—and to some extent, systems theory and the complexity paradigm validate this position, although it is not explicit.

The Western approach, however, often privileges the artifacts of knowledge as opposed to the ways in which we express and share our humanity. In European American contexts, this emphasis on knowledge acquisition and production lends itself to an output-oriented framework. 

What if the process, or the ways, in which we come to know and express ourselves, was the goal or outcome? What if treatment, learning, and strategic plans were no longer exclusively oriented around the needs and desires of the individual or organization?

In part II, these rhetorical questions are explored.

References
Dall’Alba, G., & Barnacle, R. (2007). An ontological turn for higher education. Studies in Higher Education, 32(6), 679–691. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075070701685130

Dei, G. J. S. (2000). Rethinking the role of Indigenous knowledges in the academy. International Journal of Inclusive Education, 4(2), 111–132. https://doi.org/10.1080/136031100284849

To ‘Lead’ Or Not To ‘Lead’ (Part III)

To ‘Lead’ Or Not To ‘Lead’ (Part III)

Jul 7, 2024 | Leadership

If we think in silos, we bring ourselves deeper inside single systems, which “cannot account for interrelations and how the system we have chosen to study interacts with, affects, and is affected by, its environment” (Montuori, 2012, para. 6). This way of thinking mirrors how many organizations organize knowledge and ‘their people’ into functional departments that often do not ‘talk’ with one another.

Social science and management science, however, have historically viewed individuals and organizations as fundamentally closed systems (Montuori, 2013, p. 206). By extension, organizations often separate employees from one another, especially as they relate to departments and functional units. Collaboration, then, is a step in the right direction.

Something leaders can do is create spaces so others can make decisions. Here, I reference Ashby’s Law that only variety can absorb variety, an idea paraphrased by Ison and Straw (2020, p. 127). This is a profound idea and one (I think) connects to Heinz von Foerster’s Ethical Imperative, which is to “act always so as to increase the number of choices” (as cited in Steier & Jorgenson, 2003).

For so many reasons, I find this idea brilliant, because it captures the essence of systems thinking (or does it?). Indeed, systems thinking appears (is) very circular.
So how does this relate to leadership? How can it not if everything is perpetually connected within a continuous feedback loop?

In the general case of circular closure, A implies B; B implies C; and (Oh, horror!) C implies A! Or in the reflexive case, A implies B, and (Oh, shock!) B implies A! And now the devil’s cloven-hoof in its purest form, the form of self-reference; A implies A (Outrage!)

– (Von, Foerster, 2003, p. 289)

Indeed, the outrage—and so, is a leader only possible in the minds of those who follow? Who or what makes someone a leader? Precisely…
…If one of a leader’s goals is to ostensibly lead by example and work to effect anything systemic on a massive scale in their organization, the first thing they must do is also the last. They must look within. If a leader is to channel Von Foerster’s Ethical Imperative, then they are faced with a nearly limitless number of choices, which does not come without consequences:

For some, this freedom of choice is a gift from heaven. For others
such responsibility is an unbearable burden. How can one escape it? How
can one avoid it? How can one pass it on to somebody else? (Von Foerster, 2003, p. 293).

In the truest spirit of cybernetic thinking, I must ask who passed this mantle of leadership to me? Am I chasing myself? Are ‘leaders’ and those who follow them the same cogs in the same wheel(s)? In picturing these proverbial wheels, I am reminded of the following stanza in one of my favorite songs, “The Windmills of Your Mind”:

Like a tunnel that you follow to a tunnel of its own
Down a hollow to a cavern where the sun has never shone
Like a door that keeps revolving in a half forgotten dream
Or the ripples from a pebble someone tosses in a stream
Like a clock whose hands are sweeping past the minutes of its face
And the world is like an apple whirling silently in space
Like the circles that you find in the windmills of your mind! (Bergman & Bergman, 1968)

To a very real extent, I believe the above stanza aptly describes Western society as it develops the problems to the solutions that cause the problems. To return to the original question as to how systems thinking enhances leadership capacity, my answer is that it does not simply change how leaders think about themselves in relationship with others. Rather, it changes how leaders respond to their response(s) to others and others’ respective responses to their responses.

Systems thinking can help all of us discover more windmills in our respectives minds where there is no end/beginning and is no ‘thou’. There is only I, and I ‘shall’ (not)…

References
Bergman, A & Bergman, M (1968). The Windmills of your Mind. [Recorded by Noel Harrison]. The Windmills of your Mind [Vinyl]. Reprise Records.

Ison, R. L., & Straw, E. (2020). The hidden power of systems thinking : governance in a climate emergency (Ser. Systems thinking). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781351026901

Montuori, A. (2012). Five Dimensions of Applied Transdisciplinarity. http://integralleadershipreview.com/7518-transdisciplinary-reflections-2/

Montuori, A. (2013). Complexity and transdisciplinarity: reflections on theory and practice. WorldFutures, 69(4-6),200–230. https://doi.org/10.1080/02604027.2013.803349

Steier, F., & Jorgenson, J. (2003). Ethics and aesthetics of observing frames. Cybernetics & Human Knowing, 10(3/4), 124–136.

Von Foerster, H. (2003). Ethics and second-order cybernetics. In Understanding understanding (pp. 287-304). Springer, New York, NY.

To ‘Lead’ Or Not To ‘Lead’ (Part II)

To ‘Lead’ Or Not To ‘Lead’ (Part II)

Jul 7, 2024 | Leadership

What does social purpose mean in the context of my life? How do I apply my belief in a social purpose? How I answer these questions may provide insight into the extent to which I have retained my systemic sensibility:

Living in a relational world is an evolutionary context into which we are born. Becoming conscious that this is our birthright is another thing, it seems. This is a challenge, as coming to be aware of relational dynamics is the essence of a systemic sensibility needed for our living. (Ison & Straw, 2020, p. 110)

According to Ison and Straw, our respective systemic sensibilities can be framed within the concept of resisters, revivalists, and remainers (p. 110). In what ‘camp’ do you/I fall? How might an identification with a particular group inform ‘our’ personal leadership theory? Is it likely that we fall into one camp or another?

Such ‘either-or’ framings of questions are challenging because they lead to absolute thinking and (metaphorical and real) dead-ends. In trying to advance objectives within an organization, leaders must consider the present external landscape, which is fraught with deep uncertainty, anxiety, and fear. We are living in an ecological crisis (Canty, 2014), and this recognition can help all leaders develop a deeper appreciation for the impact this crisis may have on the people they lead.

Bernstein (2005) says there is “a craving for moral certainty and absolutes” (p. 26), and there can be “a desperate search for metaphysical and religious comfort” (p. 26), which he contends is based on illusions. As a leader—we must be mindful that the skills we develop is not mistaken for knowledge or at least the kind that confers a sense of ‘rightness’.

At the other end of this one-way road is ‘wrongness’, and so where do we to go in any conversation if we toggle (back and forth) between such large, amorphous concepts? Discussions of right versus wrong represent penultimate examples of reductionist thinking, which are inadequate in a complex world.

What is a leader to do, then, in a complex world? In part 3 of To ‘Lead’ Or Not To ‘Lead’, I answer this rhetorical question.

References
Bernstein, R. J. (2005). The abuse of evil: The corruption of politics and religion since 9/11. Cambridge: Polity.

Canty, J. M. (2014). Walking between worlds: Holding multiple worldviews as a key for
ecological transformation. International Journal of Transpersonal Studies, 33(1), 15–26. https://doi.org/10.24972/ijts.2014.33.1.15

Ison, R. L., & Straw, E. (2020). The hidden power of systems thinking : governance in a climate emergency (Ser. Systems thinking). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781351026901