 |
(Illustrative Only) Two lenses. If they can't see it they they can't align it. Ignorance, greed, corruption and hate damages us all. |
(Just as a side philosophical thought. Is it possible that the individual and collective change in our brain's development leads to greater insight and societal change? Can enlightenment be traced to specific neural correlates, cognition, or behavior? No, and (a qualified) Yes)
For this philosophical experiment, imagine a society divided between an in-group and an out-group. The in-group is viewed as more valuable, legitimate, or deserving, while the out-group is treated as less worthy. This distinction may not always be openly stated. It can exist through traditions, assumptions, institutions, and unwritten social rules.
When members of the out-group repeatedly fail to receive justice, something larger begins to emerge. Individual failures become patterns. A lack of checks and balances allows misconduct to continue, and institutions begin producing outcomes that are difficult to explain as isolated mistakes.
Imagine, for example, that minorities are openly targeted, women are exploited, serious complaints are ignored, illegal money is obtained, and insiders become financially enriched by the system. Imagine that victims bring these problems forward, but the courts or other institutions protect the people responsible because acknowledging the wrongdoing would create political, financial, or institutional liability (In theory).
The victims are then blamed, ignored, or pushed aside.
The community challenges the corruption, but the institutions reject the challenge. In doing so, they begin to undermine their own outwardly perceived legitimacy (Depends on perspective and lens.). Witnesses, whistleblowers, and victims lose faith that the system will protect them or that improve if improvement is needed (Think of the implied assumptions and access to decision making. In theory. ). The natural shared understandings break down as a lens solidify based on self conforming logic that intentional discourages outside information (Freedom of speech argument and how that leads to greater overall awareness and decision making.)
History shows why this is dangerous.
When institutions that are supposed to provide accountability instead protects people in in-groups, society begins to lose trust. It is part of the natural system if you step back in the historical perspective. When any group dehumanize others and use institutions to avoid accountability, the situation can become much darker. In its most extreme forms, this kind of thinking has contributed to persecution, ethnic violence, and genocide.
The important question is not simply whether individual people are good or bad. The deeper question is what happens when a system rewards people for promoting their own group instead of protecting the principles of the institution?
That is where the idea of the lens becomes important.
People see the world through the experiences and assumptions they have developed throughout their lives. Someone raised within an in-group may naturally see the system as fair because the system has generally worked for them. Someone in the out-group may experience that same system as unfair because they have repeatedly encountered barriers that the in-group barely notices (Right or wrong is a matter of greater moral debate. We can dub this 'moral conscious'.).
Both people may be looking at the same society while seeing completely different realities. Each is backed by a long list of confirmining thoughts, beliefs, and perceptions built up over decades of socialization. All the way back the lens and early assumptions filter what is seen and what is not seen. The more people listen and understand other perspectives, the more broad knowledge they gain, and greater the overall shared perspectives (In theory).
The danger is that people rarely question their own lens.
A judge, scientist, scholar, politician, or other highly educated person is not automatically free from this problem. Education can provide knowledge, but it does not necessarily remove the assumptions formed through culture, family, institutions, personal experience, or social position.
A person can become highly educated while still interpreting new information through an old framework. You can see this in one sided arguments and it happens in science, politics, daily conversation, and life experience. Those who can play devil's advocate and think of alternatives are much more strategic in their thinking and able to be more accurate with decisions.
They may notice evidence that confirms their beliefs and overlook evidence that challenges them. They may see an individual from an out-group and unconsciously associate that person with negative assumptions about the entire group (....flip the mirror and they may see themselves through thier projections).
This does not always require conscious hatred.
Sometimes the problem is simply that the person cannot see what their own lens prevents them from seeing.
That is why life is a journey of awareness that opens one's lens is so important. The development of full self-actualized individuals is a series of challenges and insights. The same for a person and the same for society.
A society based on freedom and human dignity begins with the idea that every person has value. Laws, constitutions, courts, professional rules, and public institutions are supposed to protect that principle.
They are not supposed to become tools for personal enrichment, political favoritism, or persecution. Thus we must make change when it is found to maimize adaptability and societal performance (A human capital problem).
When officials use public power for private benefit, they violate the purpose for which that power was entrusted to them.
This is why corruption is more than financial misconduct. It can become a failure of the social contract itself (Every society has social contracts. We are self-governed in essence government works for the general will of the people. The democratic experiment continues in historical theory).
The purpose of institutions is ultimately determined by what they do.
If an institution claims to value equality but consistently protects one group at the expense of another, we should examine the outcomes rather than simply the words.
If it claims to value justice but repeatedly protects wrongdoing, we should question whether justice is actually its operating principle.
We do not necessarily need to solve these problems immediately. The first step is learning to see them. Think of their possibilities and then if necessary accept, reject or modify.
That requires people to examine their own lenses and ask:What assumptions did I inherit?
What do I automatically believe about other groups?
What evidence do I ignore because it challenges my worldview?
Would I judge the situation differently if I belonged to the other group?
Does the institution actually operate according to the values it claims to protect?
These questions can create the possibility of change.
But insight alone is not enough. Leaders must be willing to act on what they learn.
A society becomes stronger when its institutions serve the whole society rather than a narrow group of insiders. It becomes weaker when people use those institutions for personal gain or to protect their own group or party.
The long-term consequences can include greater inequality, concentrated wealth and power, declining trust, social division, and political instability. Ultiately performance as a whole declines (All societies are a type of system. The adaptable, strong and supported ones continue on for centuries.)
Challenging wrongdoing therefore serves more than the immediate victims. It helps protect the institution itself.
The real test of leadership is not whether someone has the best credentials, the most connections, the most polished language, or the most money behind them.
It is whether they can see beyond their own interests. They understand the values of the system, they understand a pathway to solve societal problems to strengthen the whole, and they have the skill to use resources to enact helpful outcomes. Then you get into more granular discussions on short and long term thinking ability, qualities, backgrounds, ethics, etc.
The best leaders must be able to change lenses—to understand how the same system looks from another person's position and to recognize when their own assumptions are incomplete.
This is especially important for each new generation. The lens changes, as the challenges change, and as we learn. Social and leadership change helps rejuvenate the system. The strength of the system is that it accepts newness because it is made of processes that enact a general will. In other words, its adaptable to new ideas and thoughts to improve (i.e. freedom of speech).
Those coming of age inherit institutions they will adjust and change to the challenges of their times. If bigotry, corruption, hate, etc. are tolerated in some places, even if that is in a minority of places, then there may be adjustments in the future.
Their responsibility is to question to improve performance. The alternative logic and anchor that may be a reasonable pathway or segway to adjusting the lens (in theory).
The lesson of the Allegory of the Clan is therefore simple:
If your lens never changes, there are things you will never see. In essence you are blind; or at least partially so.
And if a leader cannot see what their lens hides, they may make decisions that benefit themselves or their group while weakening the society and its foundational universal principles they were entrusted to protect.
The goal is not simply to do the right thing.
The deeper goal is to learn how to see what was previously invisible.
That is where meaningful change and thoughfulness begins. or not? 🤔🤷That is up to you.
*The Allegory of the Clan is a philsophical thought experiment. One can accept, reject, change, or adjust as they see fit. Take with a grain of salt. Thinking about it is enough.
