Willful or Willing; Which should we be?

To open, the title of this blog post creates a false choice.  The dialectic device I am want to use is to build two cases (straw men) and then banter about to a conclusion on how I feel on this general topic.  Luckily, TED (Technology, Education and Design), has two preemminant scholars to do the task for me:

Barry Schwartz: The paradox of choice.  http://t.co/Zp7PI3FTLH

Malcolm Gladwell: Choice, happiness and spaghetti sauce.  http://t.co/L5Xvww9SjE

For those that are not familiar, TED is an information and idea-sharing venue that is supported by the likes of Goldie Hawn, Bill Gates, and other “big thinkers” and “doers” in the world from all walks of society.  Since I have discovered the online posting of the talks, I am more or less addicted.

But, back to this topic of choice.  Listening to these two videos from back in 2006, I was struck by how closely they hewed to a debate between two giants of the 16^th Century:  Erasmus and Luther.  Desiderius Erasmus was a Dutch humanist and Catholic theologian who debated Martin Luther, the father of the Reformation.  In his De libero arbitrio diatribe sive collation (“Diatribe on free will or contribution”), Erasmus defends the doctrine of “free will” that was held by Roman Catholicism at the time; eschewing on both sides of the argument (at his core Erasmus was always trying to find a middle way).  Erasmus, for his part, was simply saying that humans have the freedom of choice.  This being a theological/religious debate, Luther responded with De servo arbitrio (“On the Bondage of the Will”) saying as humans we are unable to work our a way through to salvation, but are utterly dependent upon God and his grace to accomplish this goal.  Luther, somewhat missed Erasmus’ point, but was pointing out that, at its core, a power to choose, that can result in nothing more than the power to go counter to goodness, is not a good in itself.  He did his mighty best to show that in his religious context (and those in the Christian one) its about surrendering the will we do have, to that of God, the ultimate good; making us one with it.

After listening to the videos and then reading the above, I am struck in the similarities.  Schwartz convincingly says that a plethora of choices leads to paralysis, unhappiness, and depression.  Gladwell argues well that fixating on a singular ultimate perfection is wrongheaded and we need to embrace diversity and variation.  One is arguing that having the power of choice/variation is a good thing, the other that choice can result in the opposite (Schwartz allows that we need some choice, but the problem lies in having too much).  So, in secular terms, the argument/debate is the same as Luther and Erasmus (and even further back in history; Aristotle and Plato); is the will or choice a good or an ill (and do we really have it)?  Alternatively, as I have titled this, is it good to be willful (to have/use choice) or is it better to be willing (to not have/use choice)?

I opened this post with the statement that these are somewhat false choices, and I contend both perspectives are fully right and fully wrong.  I will say that at my theological/philosophical core, when it comes to the ultimate facts of life and death, I fully concur with Schwartz/Luther/Plato in that we are simply without choice and dependent on God's grace.  But because we can't choose the circumstances of our ultimate demise (and salvation), does not necessarily mean that we have no choice nor should it be seen as good to not engage in making choices in life.  Similar to Erasmus, I want and believe in a middle way.  There is merit to Gladwell’s/Aristotle’s thought frame within the world we live, so long as we recognize that getting the “golden mean” requires us to have boundaries, boundaries we are not willful about, but willing to accept.

Mainly because we see throughout history that the road to tyranny can easily be paved by the denial of any choice, one has to accept Gladwell’s argument that we need to embrace diversity, accept difference, and trust that enabling choice is a good thing.  But, I contend, diversity does not negate universality or unity.  I come at this from my life’s experience, especially that in the American military that I have now been a part of for over 16 years.

First and foremost, every single person in uniform today, is there by a choice.  No matter how incentivized, they made a decision to serve; and that point cannot be under emphasized, especially given the last 12 years have been in a state of constant readiness, combat, and war.  Many from the outside presume that the soldier-ization process (or creation of sailors, or marines, or airmen) is one that squelches all diversity, that seeks to make replicated robots out of men and women, and amounts to brainwashing into a singular mindset.  Having served at all ends of the process (Basic Training through to the Army Staff), I can tell you diversity is alive and well in the Army and Joint force, and the battle of ideas at the Pentagon and elsewhere rages from day in to day out.  What being a part of the military does do, is put a fence around this rage.  It centers the individual on the common purpose (defense of the nation) an enables a respectful process, while messy at times, to refine ideas to a useful and much more powerful purpose.  I will admit that this can have the effect, sometimes, of having such a tempering effect that good ideas do not rise to the top and are lost; but with persistence, drive and determination nearly any good idea eventually gets its day in the sunshine.  Being a soldier isn’t about giving up being willful and driving to be the best (actually is quite the opposite, we are encouraged to excel and drive hard), but it is also about being willing to obey orders, respect the chain of command, and knowing when to argue and when to salute and put your energy into the common good.

I have been in leadership environments that have fostered a great understanding of this and others that have failed.  In my first tour in Iraq, our Battalion Commander (for most of the tour, the first one was relieved for not respecting boundaries) simply acted as a deterministic bureaucrat less than a leader.  He did not respect Gladwell’s argument that there was more than one way, his way, to do things.  He did not assume operational risk and seek out those opportunities presented to him to step outside of the box and make those large impacts that were needed to build moral, empower subordinate leadership, and maximize our potential as an organization to have a dramatic effect on the battlefield.  Some of these things happened, but despite his command climate and not because of it.  During the surge, on my second tour, however, the commander of our Brigade clearly understood the balance, the middle way.  He knew he needed to encourage a command climate where the battle of ideas could rage and subordinate organizations and leaders could try other things.  He had boundaries, he employed coercion (oft times using his leading non-commissioned officer), but he also allowed people to get to those boundaries before he yanked on their collar and pulled them back.  Consequently, we did much, much more than we could have ever thought to have done; and we strove harder and harder to make the difference needed to win.  There were choices, but unlike in Schwartz’s presentation, these were not overwhelming.  It was about being willfully willing.

I think the best example of this has to be in one of my favorite fantasyland worlds, the world of Gene Roddenberry’s Star Trek.  Again, the construct is that of a military culture, one that has a strong chain of command and a common purpose.  However, throughout the various episodes in all of the various series, there are examples of willfulness and willingness.  You see episodes where beings become mindless replicas willingly and blindly following for supposed good but mostly for ill.  You see strongly willful being and leaders that overstep and their hubris leads them counter to the boundaries of society, science, and the universe itself.  And then you see the protagonists that are willing to sacrifice, submissive to the will of leadership and something greater then themselves, with a strong understanding that their fate is not ultimately their choosing, willfully pressing to accomplish the mission, challenge the norms, and push beyond themselves and achieve something very much the echo of making the ultimate choice for good.*  Traditions are valued and innovation is encouraged.

Therefore, to sum up this short treatise, I think both Schwartz and Gladwell make really good point about choices; it is in paradox we find truth.  We need to understand that chaos and too many choices can be just as bad as no choice what so ever.  We need to be willing, to sacrifice and to be bound by norms and understandings, and these are good things.  Nevertheless, just as good and not taking exception, are the needs to assert your place, to challenge what has been, to invent for ourselves a new tomorrow.  It’s about willful willingness.  It’s about engaging the world as Aristotle tells us, but acknowledging that we live in Plato’s cave.  It’s about trying to work things out as Thomas Aquinas did in his Summa Theologica but recognizing that Augustine was right in the end, and calling it nothing more than a pile of straw.  It’s about acknowledging we have free will, so long as we understand that the will we have is ultimately a tool that can lead to ill, so we have to be bound by the ultimate realities of the universe.  It’s about being willing to be willful and engage the world without forgetting our purpose in it.  With that mantra, one can go about settling on, perhaps, a middle way.

*For a good look at this, watching the episodes “Chain of Command” in Star Trek the Next Generation, and comparing the leadership of Picard vice that of Jellico, you get a taste of my foregoing leadership experiences in Iraq.  Further, I recommend Make It So:  Leadership Lessons from Start Trek the Next Generation by Wess Roberts and Bill Ross, especially the chapter related to this episode entitled “Intellectual Honesty”.