Through our Social Agency
We are all faced with choices all the time.
The nature of our choices ranges from the mundane and everyday, to the major and life changing, and person defining.
Sometimes we do not seem to know we are even making choices. These choices appear to happen out of habit or some other unconscious process.
It is these kinds of choices that I want to focus on today.
I illustrate the point about how we come to arrive at choices, decisions, opinions and actions through some unconscious process—like a poorly scripted algorithm—through a current high-profile example.
The example might be contentious in some people’s minds, while in reality it is just another leadership moment we face.
If I ask you:
- What side do you support in the current Palestinian – Israeli war?
Or, put another way:
- What side is (un)justified in its actions to wage war / defend itself?
What would your answer be?
And, if you did pick a side, how would you do that?
What information would you put together and think about to make that choice?
You may answer the question in the privacy of your own mind.
What I want you to think about while you consider the question is a set of generalisations that relate to my earlier point about unconscious choices, decisions and actions.
I follow the news all day every day—it is my business to know what is happening.
I scan multiple news channels and services from around the world to obtain a variety of perspectives.
I am always interested to discover how the same event is given such diverse interpretations by different news providers.
So, let us think about the example I have of the current Palestinian – Israeli madness.
Here is what I see:
- If someone’s forebears were colonised in the recent past, then they would probably support Palestine.
- Conversely, if someone lives in a country that was a recent coloniser they’d most likely support Israel.
- If the person and their country is largely ‘brown’ (rather than European ‘white’) then Palestine might be their choice, and if European ‘white’ then Israel will be.
- On the religious front, it is a similar kind of split between Muslims on the one hand and Judeo-Christians on the other.
- Race, ethnicity, is also at play: Arabs support the one side, and Europeans the other (while those who are neither Arab nor European seem to be relatively agnostic).
- There even seems to be a split between the so-called wealthy North and the poorer South, and to an extend East versus West.
- Of course, within regions and countries we will see the same sorts of divisions, where some communities by default support one or the other side.
- Lastly, what is even more inexplicable is that the above-listed side-taking has been similarly displayed for that other current war between Russia and Ukraine—except the supporters and opponents generally try to argue right and wrong. This might be because the warring parties are so similar in race, culture, history, wealth status and so forth.
The poorly scripted algorithm is rather based on geo-politics and greed.
BTW. I reckon a great way to test whether there is any merit in my generalisation is to imagine that all eight-odd billion people on the planet were to wake up one morning without any prejudices, then make a rational choice about this matter.
On average, the distribution of supporters for one side or the other would not be aligned with their history, race, colour, geography or religion.
The fact that this is not the case suggests that people are swayed by factors outside their critical thinking.
So, what is my point?
I have been asked numerous times in the past two months whether I support the Palestinians or the Israelis.
Although this is not a useful question, it comes my way.
A superior question would be whether we should keep going with mass murder to resolve a situation that has beset these people for thousands of years.
I too am touched by colonization, race and colour, belief systems, geography, poverty and wealth.
My answer is easy.
I support principles that define the situation, first and last.
In this way I can stay true to myself, and to others, based on principles.
Principles are thicker than blood, finer than friendship, superior to culture, greater than geography and richer than wealth.
Once we deviate from ageless principles, or values if you prefer, then any madness is possible.
How do I do this—applying principles to such a dire situation?
I use Social Agency!
Social agency sets me free from the dictates of any default settings I might have.
Yes, I might have inherent ideas and opinions based on my lineage, my past, my current context and so forth, but it is social agency that is my power to put to the test any assumptions and predilections (inherent preferences) I might have.
This is why the Influential Leadership System provides an intellectual basis for how we tackle leadership moments.
Scroll back up to the opening infographic, read it aloud to yourself.
Here is its essence:
I think (critically) so that I can choose (smartly) and then act productively.
This implies that I can have an objective opinion or even take sides because I have been freed from bias based on conditions (culture, gender, geography, origins, race, or religion) that I have no influence over (although religion is a choice).
When you apply leadership social agency as the basis of finding answers to what you support or oppose, then they will be principle-based.
The outcome will then be rational, honest, objective and productive.
Influence and shape your life and others’ lives with social agency.
Regards,
Colin @ Karoo
We are the Leadership REVolution!
Leadership Weekly Note: 4923.041223
e: colind@karoo.world
Follow The Karoo Influential Leadership on Facebook at https://www.facebook.com/KarooInfluentialLeadership
