|
You never know where you will encounter a pearl of wisdom. Sometimes, it just might be from a guide on a mountain top.
 I encountered this particular pearl on a snow-covered mountain in British Columbia. Eleven of us were attempting, with various degrees of success, to ski several feet of powder snow in a wilderness accessible only by helicopter. We were led by a guide whose job it was to make sure we didn’t kill ourselves as we alternately romped and floundered in the deep snow.
Much of our skiing was either above the tree line, or down clearings created over the years by avalanches. However, at some point during the morning, we came to a wooded area. With us gathered around him like students around a Zen master, our guide proceeded to tell us the secret of skiing among the trees: “When skiing the trees, look at the spaces between the trees. If you look at a tree, you’ll probably ski into it.”
At first, such an idea sounds foreign to our traditional approach to problem-solving. Our rational way of solving a problem is to not just look at it, but to put it under a microscope. We dissect the situation, analyze its parts, and then assemble a solution. Throughout the process we keep our focus squarely on the problem, as if it were a menacing dog that might attack us as soon as we turn away.
This reflects our classical scientific upbringing. We believe that by objectively observing something, and reducing it to identifiable components and processes, we gain knowledge and control over it. We assume that by removing the subjective “us” from the equation, we’re left with an objective, immutable reality that we can manipulate to our own ends. Our only requirements are sufficient raw materials, and sufficient technical knowledge.
However, while this approach may produce acceptable results frequently enough to lull us into a sense of security, it is based on an illusion. That illusion is the belief that we can, through objectivity, remove the fact of our presence from the situation we are observing. Quantum physics has found that this is impossible. In fact, it has found that what we observe is in part determined by what we look for.
There is a commonly cited experiment that illustrates this fact. Given the dual, particle/wave nature of any quantum entity such as an electron, it can be viewed as either a particle or a wave at one particular time. In this experiment, the electron is made to pass through a surface that may contain either one or two slits. Although a single electron can only pass through one slit, the result of the experiment reflects either the electron’s particle or wave quality, depending on whether one or both slits are opened.
If only one slit is open, the electron acts like a particle. If both slits are open, the electron behaves like a wave. It is as though the electron “knows” whether or not both slits are open, even though it can only pass through one. Even if the experimenter tries to “fool” the electron by either opening or closing the second slit as it approaches the surface, the electron will reflect the status the slits were in at the moment it passed through.
This illustrates how what we see can determine what we get.  If we view an electron as a particle, it will act like one. If we view it as a wave, it will behave accordingly. Likewise, if we are skiing through woods and see only the trees, we are likely to run in to one. If, however, we focus on the spaces between the trees, we are likely to successfully ski those spaces and avoid the trees.
The same is true in other activities as well. If we lack self-confidence on a job interview, we are less likely to get the job - regardless of the objective reality of our actual qualifications. And if we are confident in our ability to negotiate with a car salesman, we are more likely to get a better deal.
Essentially, modern science tells us that the “reality” we perceive is in part determined by how we view that reality. This raises many interesting questions. However, for now I’d like to focus on the significance of this insight for the many social problems we are confronted with. In particular, how can this awareness help us effectively deal with these problems?
Our current approach to many social issues is to “look at the trees” - to focus on the perceived problems and the people who appear to cause them. One result of this is that many social institutions, and many peoples’ livelihoods, become intertwined with the problems they are supposed to solve. The existence and size of a police force or a prison is shaped in large part by the size of the criminal population. The number of social workers a locale has is significantly influenced by the number of people there in need.
But this is not just a matter of the size of a problem-solving group reflecting the size of a problem. There is a more insidious aspect to this social fixation on problems. That is the growing vested interest any problem-solving group has in the continued existence of the problem it is supposed to solve. The more lawyers a society has, the more legal matters there must be requiring litigation. The more psychotherapists there are, the more neuroses there must be requiring treatment. In effect, the more people there are to solve a problem, the greater the “need” there is for instances of that problem.
 Imagine for a moment a society without crime, or poverty, or mental illness. Think of all the social institutions that would lose their reason for being. Think of all the people who would be thrown out of work. No more police or prison guards. No more welfare administrators or case workers. No more psychiatrists, psychotherapists, or social workers. Now, is it unrealistic to think that some of these institutions, some of these people, might be inclined to legislate new crimes, raise the poverty threshold, or diagnose new behavioral maladies, in order to keep themselves in business?
This is not to say that there are no social problems today. They exist, as surely as those trees on that mountainside in British Columbia. This is just to say that if we train our focus only on problems, we shouldn’t be surprised to find ourselves in a world filled with problems.
What then should we do? Should we close our eyes to these problems, declare them solved or nonexistent and move on? That was the approach Richard Nixon took when he declared the urban crisis over in the early 1970’s. Or maybe we could redefine them so that the solution becomes the problem and the problem becomes the solution? That seems to be the approach some want to take with welfare today. They argue that welfare is a “trap,” and that the prospect or actuality of poverty will push people to get a job and join the working class.
As appealing as these approaches might be to some, they ignore reality. As quantum physics notes, the act of observation is the central act. Simply closing one’s eyes or denying what one sees not only fails to accomplish anything, it is likely to make matters worse. It would be like skiing in the woods with your eyes closed, imagining you’re actually on an open slope. Sooner or later, reality will intervene.
But if focusing on a problem doesn’t eliminate it, and ignoring or denying a problem doesn’t work, what will work?
Perhaps we should take the advice of that mountain guide.  Maybe we need to focus on where we want to be rather than where we don’t want to be. On a mountain, we should forego concentrating on the trees and focus instead on the spaces between the trees. In society, we should avoid investing so much attention and energy into the negative side of a situation - the problem - and instead emphasize and strengthen the positive side - the role model. Rather than trying to control negative behavior, we should strive to inspire positive behavior.
Taking a positive approach respects the integrity and motivations of the individual. Instead of treating him like a puppet that can be controlled, it acknowledges the pivotal role he has in choosing how to behave and makes him a partner in that choice. But more than this, a positive approach also encourages society’s institutions and enterprises to focus on positive behavior. In doing so, it gives them a vested interest in an individual’s success, rather than his failure.
But this raises the question of what a “positive approach” would look like. One possible answer is the idea of “positive governing.”
© Dave Higgins, December 1996. All rights reserved.
Back to “My Thoughts”
|
