21st Century Ambitions Should be Multi-Dimensional and Collectively Empowered

It was recently brought to my attention that Deborah Spar, Barnard’s president, wrote a response to Anne-Marie Slaughter’s article, “Why Women Can’t Have It All”.  Spar brought up the point that women should continue to let their ambitions breathe instead of stepping away too soon from the table, as has coined it Sheryl Sandberg, or give up their ambitions before even entering the game out of dread for being unable to have it all and for the anticipated guilt linked to juggling so much.  Spar argues that women deserve to be boosted in their ambitions rather than focus on the perils along the way.

I agree heartily that every individual should have his or her ambitions and be able to pursue them as an individual, his or her own “way”. 

However, I can’t help but notice that, once again, the heavy lot of pursuing one’s ambitions in a somewhat hostile environment is conceptualized as an individual’s plight only:  to make it there where few arrive, at the highest rung, no matter the personal sacrifice, and to make it there alone.

It has often been remarked that the woman’s movement allowed for women to enter the workforce… but only according to men’s conditions and rules; that somehow “she” had to be “a man plus some” to make inroads at all.  And while some women are changing the rules and gaining in clout (remember recent laments of “if only it had been Lehman sisters”), much of this world remains a man’s world.  Within it, individuals’ quest for selfhood and self-fulfillment has obeyed, and continues to obey, the andocentric “hero myth” in which the individual strikes out against all peril (albeit with many helping, expendable hands), kills/seduces the evil woman, all in order to achieve the ultimate prize or goal.  In this hero myth, the individual plays a linear, solitary, all-or-nothing game of singular purpose.  Modern women have taken on this myth for themselves, relieved to finely be free to pursue this hero myth from which they were entirely excluded for so long. 

The problem with this worldview is twofold.  First of all, such a singular purpose is not pertinent to many women (or men).  Second, much must be improved collectively, instead of condemning individual ambitions to being such a solitary struggle. 

1.        A singular purpose is incomplete for many

The hero-myth requires the hero-to-be to reduce his/her life to a single dimensional outlook. 

Yet, human reality and potential are far richer than that.  We are similar to quarks and could gain much by accepting that we are highly sophisticated, multi-dimensional, beings capable of embodying simultaneously multiple purposes and needs.  The tacit societal agreement to limit ourselves to linear paths (with a positive slope) and to singularity of being is neither necessary nor preferable. 

Yet, in the meantime, this worldview has led us down the slippery slope of exclusion.  How can it be that we are actually letting ourselves be convinced collectively that only 2 models exist:  having children or having a career… and that any alternative is symptomatic of inadequacy or symbol of infidelity (not engaged enough as a mother or not engaged enough as an employee).  How can it be that learned, insightful, thoughtful thinkers can follow a track that makes total abstraction of having children, a kind of Brave New World in which some will carry babies and others will think and act, dissociating entirely the stuff of life and some nebulous imperative of “ambitions”?

I’ve mentioned it in a past blog but I think the idea has not received the attention it deserves:  Kathryn Ann Rabuzzi wrote, back in the 1980s, about the need for a new myth:  the Motherself.  For men and for women.  It doesn’t mean having children nor does it mean giving oneself entirely to children.  It means erecting a model that is less solitary, less linear, less individualistic, and less uni-dimensional than our current hero-myth.  It means embodying more than one ambition (personal and professional); it means having a purpose that leaves room for others with us instead of making it a solo zero-sum game in which the winner takes all.  But, above all, it means society deciding to accept that quality of life nourishes quality of work; that productivity and performance will increase if and only if we allow each individual’s multi-dimensionality to bloom.

However, this is unlikely to happen as long as we shackle individuals’ challenges exclusively to individuals’ gains, which leads me to my second objection to nurturing the hero-myth perspective:

2.       Much can be improved collectively allowing individual ambitions to be less of a solitary struggle. 

In the midst of our performance society that so values domination, power and wealth (of an individual or dynasty), we are afraid of building with others lest it puts us at a disadvantage or doesn’t milk our own individual/familial achievements fully enough.  There are plenty of stories of parents writing their kids’ school papers or cheating to help their kids get ahead.  There are the voucher schools that weed the best&ambitious into one school, leaving the under-financed and under-privileged in another.  And so on and so forth.  This isn’t to point fingers.  This is to illustrate that we are all falling into the game of “I, against the world”.  And that, in our fall, we are losing hold of the sense of community a society requires and in which it’s a game of “I, empowered with the world”.

As a consequence, women’s ascension to meeting their ambitions are beholden to a solitary, zero-sum game (like the hero-myth but with even more demons to be beheaded than for a man).  It is often mentioned that women do not display the kind of solidarity that the “old boy’s network” has, and that oftentimes women are competitive with each other rather than helpful (or even simply empathetic)!  But it doesn’t need to be that way.

In each of my posts since last November, I have made the same plea:  in this 21^st century, it is time we, collectively, revalued family, intergenerationalism, interdependence.    We must revalue the collective, the constructive.  Pull away from the individualistic nuclear family and build our society, community.  Not like in a religion that dulls each voice to create unison but a community with humanist values that orchestrates a symphony or jazz session. 

Let’s face it:  it’s for false and contrived reasons that children be exclusively considered of negative value for a woman executive.  And there’s no reason every single woman must reinvent the wheel or take on singlehandedly every battle in tow in order to pursue her ambitions.  It is time that we foster a more spherical, holistic life scheme.  We must stop valuing only individualistic short-term performance and pursue sustainable development for people and communities. 

What does it mean “sustainable development for people and communities” and what are the steps to get there? 

And what does it mean concretely to shift from the hero-myth to the motherself-myth? 

Now that performance seems to have trumped living, making us lose touch with much of the richness inherent in our humanity, we are increasingly losing our liberty and our control over our own lives. 

How can we, as a community, reclaim our many forgotten strengths to positively shape this new century into a beacon of light and a springboard for progress for all of us, not just the elite? 

These are the issues I will be exploring over this new academic year.  Join the debate with me and let’s make this world the way we want it to be.

Talk to you next week,

Eve

Our 21st Century Should Pursue Collective Progress, Not Individualism!

An article in Forbes last week was brought to my attention; “Why Millennial Women Do Not Want To Lead” by Julie Zeilinger, founder and editor of FBomb.org.  In it, she concludes that despite “impossibly high” standards of achievement for women vs. “upsettingly low” standards for men, women should not shy away from leadership for “their intelligence and integrity are more than enough”. 

OK, but part of women’s trouble is that they are pigeonholed for their intelligence and their integrity:  perfect for constituting the dossier, and then have others take all the credit.  Or being outcast for being overly ambitious. 

There’s no doubt that women are given a harder time (as Ginger Roger summed it up, “I did everything Fred Astaire did but backwards and in heels”).  But the problem goes much deeper, for it touches on a societal trait that transgresses questions of gender and sex:  it’s our societal love affair with shows of power, of domination. 

It’s suggested that women lead with intelligence and integrity.  But are we socially prepared for such a switch? 

Do we collectively value integrity?  Not so often; or at least we waive it when it’s a figure we like – why else do mafia sitcoms and movies make blockbuster ratings?  A couple of years ago, there was the joke what if Lehman Brothers had been “Lehman Sisters”?  But safe bets and risk-taming measures and regulations do not have rock star kind of value and are systematically refused by half of the American population. 

Do we value intelligence?  Street smarts, maybe; business acumen that can make someone rich and powerful, sure.    But nuanced thinking?  It’s often seen as “weakness” – just consider the last couple of presidential debates and elections.  Critical thinking?  It’s slowly disappearing from educational curricula increasingly focused on skills and trivia rather than a solid, well-rounded education rooted in knowledge and critical thinking. 

And what about some of the other values Americans learn in kindergarten:  kindness?  Sharing?  No, we still trump with whatever will stoke the dream of making it rich, fast, with cold razor-sharp calculations or with no effort at all.  No, in our current mores, fame and fortune are exciting; kindness and sharing are for the suckers. 

For some of us, it’s a no brainer.  Cooperation is a key asset for performance and for survival.  It’s a key part of Darwinism – survival of the fittest is not only about competition but knowing how and when to cooperate.  But explain that to a conservative American who accuses any positive collective measures put forth by Obama of being “socialism” (as if it were a great evil!).  The truth is we are societally in awe of the powerful and aim to get there ourselves, at whatever our level. 

Love is often leveled out to sex which is leveled out to domination

Work, which used to include loyalty toward a company-wide endeavor and allegiance to the workforce, is all too often leveled to outsourcing, productivity fragmented into individualized skill sets so that some few individuals can get ahead while the many more get ever lower

Profit, which used to be reinvested into a company to improve R&D (research & development) and boost its employees, is now often leveled to a few wealthy shareholders’ returns, widening the gap if the figures are good… and widening it further if the figures are bad as they will choose to cut heads before lowering dividends.

We are letting it happen because of our awe of the rich and powerful

And/or out of fear for our own personal survival, attempting to be part of the elite so as to not find ourselves entirely disenfranchised.

But it doesn’t have to be this way.  We can have a very productive and healthy society if we move away from such dogma (performance society, still-life identities, monotheistic beauty…).

One of the legs of the women’s movement was making the personal political.  But we’ve lost control of what makes up “personal”.  At the time, it meant using collectively each individual’s experience to help society progress.  But through the 1980s, then on through the 90’s and 2000’s, the “personal” because a very “personal” singular recipe for making it on one’s “own”.  Every person has been composing with his/her “own” to get ahead, make it big, make a break… or just make it through the day! 

And where has this left us?  “Every second’s a calculation”.  Each woman strives to live the archetype of each facet of a woman’s life, simultaneously… locked into her “own”.

And our current societal model is exacerbating that:  Nuclear family as opposed to community.  A walking portfolio of skills as opposed to a company of people.  A still-life, projected identity for others as opposed to a solid self concept with a sense of our individual and collective worth.  Personal/individualized intelligence and integrity as opposed to having higher expectations of our society for an environment conducive to collective progress.

It’s even got to to the extent that a single mother in the US is one of the most isolated members of our society as described in the NY Times.   And firing-up the debate as to whether women can “have it all”.  But how can we when we’re set up for every woman to take on the entire battle single-handedly and separately, individually?  Another article showed mothers proudly taking no breaks (no maternity leave), having babies for whom they’ll have no time and for whom they have no intention of making any space… because they’re going to try to do it all… individually.  And, with such models, how will those children cope?  Individually! 

The solutions we need now is to get back to the original call for the personal… A shift for making the “personal”… collective!

What does that mean? 

-          Continue protecting family planning and pushing for universal healthcare. 

-          It means reconsidering the nuclear family and how we can raise future generations more collectively (to at least give them a more collective mindset while freeing up more time for parents to balance career and family).  As says the Nigerian proverb, and taken up by Hilary Rodham Clinton, “It takes a whole village to raise a child”.  This is a great way of summing it up – we cannot do everything each on our “own” – economically and energetically, it isn’t sustainable.  Even these powerhouse, “superwomen” cannot sustain indefinitely doing it all on her own. 

-          It also means reconsidering work, collectively.  As says one mother who took very little maternity leave, “there is no way to have a ‘blissful maternity leave and also stay in the game’”.  Work is more cut-throat than ever and, she’s right, a short absence can be an irretrievable set-back.  But, is that necessary?  Must it be this way?  This is our society, our world, it’s up to us to demand change – but we must do it collectively.  There is enough scientific research to convince us that a company is most productive when its employees are in a trusting and empowering environment and feel a certain amount of security and motivation.  If a woman wants to have a baby and not miss a beat at the office, why can’t she do it from a distance? 

We must break out of this narrow-minded idea of individual gain and remember there’s little lasting individual gain without collective progress. 

Let me know what you think.

Talk to you soon for another bite from the apple,

Eve