“Maybe all men got one big soul ever’body’s a part of.” John Steinbeck, Grapes of Wrath
I’ve been discussing the difference between We and I thinking. But before going any further, I want to deal with two likely criticisms of a more We way of doing things. These criticisms aren’t based on facts or reasoned argument – but on dogma. Their aim is not to criticise (which can be helpful), but to sow confusion and discord.
We and individual freedom
Firstly, it may be claimed that We-ness stifles individual freedom and creativeness. Not true!
A We approach must acknowledge that society is made up of individuals. It has to – because any group is composed of, and is surrounded by, individuals. If we want a more We-like relationship with others, we must respect that other individuals have the same rights as we do.
Because of this mutual respect, there are some areas where We thinking simply does not belong. These areas purely concern the individual – love, sex (if consensual), music, art, religious faith (if not imposed on others), literature, travel (where you can go, though not always how – a private jet journey might be considered out of order, for good, collective reasons), inspiration, entrepreneurship, risk-taking, fashion (though sustainability, workers’ rights and environmental impact are all fair game for legislation).
All of these, and more, are off-limits to We meddling. They are individual choices. For We thinking to intrude here would be wrong – indeed, perverse – because that would mean We thinking attacking itself. Individual brilliance, innovation, and just plain old differences, benefit not only the individual, but society too. We all benefit from the diverse mass of people that we live alongside – their actions, insights and creativity… and from their protest, which is a fundamental freedom. Protest is like a ship’s tiller – it steers the We.
Is We thinking absolutist?
A second predictable line of attack is that We thinking demands total adherence, and that those that don’t comply somehow warrant censure or cancellation. In other words, that We is totalitarian. This can’t be, because We is not a final destination – it is a direction of travel. It’s not all-or-nothing.
This series of articles does not support, suggest, or hope for a Khmer Rouge or MAGA-type purity of vision, enactment or enforcement. This needs stating, so that anyone claiming ‘We means that we all have to examine every consequence of what we do every time we do anything’, or ‘Non-adherents will be punished by the zealots’ or ‘It’s a We culture war on free thought’ or ‘We crushes aspiration’ can be politely corrected.
We thinking points, never pushes
If you want an image of how We thinking works, picture someone in a wild landscape who, when asked which way to go, waves an arm vaguely and says, “Over there somewhere”. Which direction you go, and how far you go, is up to you. You choose the direction, not because you’ve been told to, but because you want to and you understand why.
You are not being told – you are telling yourself. “Over there somewhere” won’t appeal to lovers of strident certainty, but compared to where many governments, companies and individuals are currently leading us (in a multitude of wrong directions), it’s a vast improvement. But it’s not a diktat.
We, like curiosity or open-mindedness, is a direction, not a destination. You never become totally curious or totally open-minded, but by exercising those muscles, you become more so. Look at how acceptance – and then celebration – of gay couples has spread through society so quickly.
So too with We: a way of thinking and acting in the world, without expecting (or wishing) to create a world that completely exemplifies We thinking.
We respects individuality, I does not
And what about I? Putting aside the aspects of individuality that We embraces – aspiration, drive, determination, invention, musicality, poetry, art, love, friendship – the more organisational expressions of I depend on lies, obfuscation and distraction to maintain power.
I is more prone to absolutist thinking. It builds and preserves its ‘brand’ through certainty and control. It uses misinformation to pour scorn on alternative (We) approaches, and presents false symbols of unity – flags, statues, historical figures, high-status individuals and the like. There’s nothing inherently wrong with any of these, but it’s their use to fabricate cohesion that is dubious.
I, by definition, acts in its own interests. It is totalitarian – my way or the highway. I does not respect others’ rights. It believes it knows best, and feels entitled to exert its will. Whether it’s an individual, company, political party, trade union, or government, I seeks to gain or maintain the upper hand and anything is fair game.
So – and this may sound perverse – We respects (positive) individuality. I does not.
Two words often crop up in this context: collectivism and individualism. A We approach embraces both. Conversely, an I approach is ruthlessly individualistic – but only in the interests of a select group. Others are expendable.
Not left or right
To be clear: there is no connection between We or I thinking and left or right-wing politics. Stalin’s Communist Party imprisoned and murdered thousands of dissenters to advance the interests of The Party – an I action. David Cameron’s Conservative government legalised gay marriage – a We action. There is little actual difference between the underlying (I) ethos of Communist China, Bolsonaro’s Brazil, Donald Trump’s America, Vladimir Putin’s Russia or Pol Pot’s Cambodia.
Left or right-wing labelling is a distraction. The reality for those living in these countries is similar: a lack of transparency, lies, abuse of power, suppression of dissent.
We could argue endlessly about whether I or We align more naturally with left or right-wing politics – but these articles aren’t about that. They offer no comment on this.
It is up to you to consider how political parties – and all organisations – might better respond to the I / Wedichotomy. I hope that by the time you’ve finished reading this series of articles that you believe they should.
Next time … Simple pictures, and I and We in the real world.
