B is for “be FOR something”

There is no virtue in being uncritical nor is it a habit to which the young are given. But criticism is only the burying beetle that gets rid of what is dead, and, since the world lives by creative and constructive forces, and not by negation and destruction, it is better to grow up in the company of prophets than of critics. -Richard Livingstone

In 2008, I won’t be against something if I can’t offer something to be for instead.

It is so very easy to criticize. It comes naturally, quickly. “What a lousy conference,” we might say. It is harder to solve, change, make better, offer constructive suggestions. We don’t take the time to fill out the conference evaluation in the kind of detail that would offer suggestions for the next time around; we’d rather just complain. It’s easier! More fun!

I worked for years for a man who expected I would tell him the real truth. When others kissed up to him, he’d more often than not appear at my office door and say, “well, what did you really think.” And I would tell him.

One day, he appeared in my office door to ask that question, but he started by jokingly saying, “well, I’ve come to ask our office cynic a question…”

Hmm.

I didn’t see myself as the office cynic, but I knew in an instant from the sharp pain I felt at his words that it was, in fact, true. Sure, I was creating more than I was complaining, but I did fall on the critical side of the continuum. I had to acknowledge that while I knew why I was being intellectually critical (that is, critical of ideas and not people, though, well, what the hell, I did plenty of that too)—to move the organization to greater heights—I began to realize that looking deeper and holding us all to a higher standard often sounded negative. I would sit in endless meetings that felt mindless and center-less and make pronouncements at the end, sounding like the Lord of Doom. I was right sometimes, but even so, I often only made pronouncements and not suggestions. I needed to be for something, and not just against things.

This blogger (link to “this blogger” is now broken, years after this essay was first published) got it so right:

“A few days ago I saw a bumper sticker that reminded me of a lot of [IT] people. It was a list of nine political/social topics, all of them with a red ‘anti’ symbol (you know, a red circle with a line through it) over them. The list included all the ‘hot’ topics of the last fifty years, and the owner of the vehicle was apparently opposed to all of them: abortion, war, genocide, racism, poverty, starvation, illiteracy, etc.

“This bumper sticker made me laugh. Not because of the topics on the sticker, but because of the thought it generated: I wondered if the driver of the car in front of me was FOR anything at all!”

I spend a lot of time thinking about intention and direction these days, trying to own up to the primary intention that I am playing at any given moment in time. I watch HR professionals say they really want to do diversity work in their organizations to unleash the talents of all their employees, but what they really want is to impress their boss, mark it off their lists, and maintain the status quo. Owning what our real intentions are is vital—otherwise we are playing to split intentions. When you teach young actors, one of the first things you tell them this is this: You can only play one intention at a time. In the case of an actor, if their intention is to play Hamlet, they need to play Hamlet fully. If their intention is to get the audience to loe them, they can no longer play Hamlet fully, but are – instead – operating from a split intention.

If my intention is to refute you, let me own that. If my intention is to embarrass you, let me own that. If my intention is to understand your point of view and ask questions to enlarge my understanding, let me own that. Can you see how the actions taken for each intention would be vastly different?

Direction is the other thing I’m pondering about a lot. When I’m asked to do anti-racism work, I often engage the client in a conversation about the language of “anti-.” It implies a negative intention, I tell them. Far better to name what you are aiming to create. The naming of what you are for will drive your actions, the verbs you use to talk about your actions will drive your intention. The striving for will get you to against.

As I watch our national debates at the moment, I realize that it is so easy to ridicule presidential candidates, and not so easy to get involved, offer alternatives, ask questions. Is my intention to show how ridiculous the national debate is, or is my intention to make this country a great place for my children to live? What actions would each of those intentions entail?

Intentions: This year, I will name the one intention I am playing at any given time, no matter how uncomfortable that is. In procrastinating, for example, I say that my intention is to get my creative juices flowing, but my intention is, really, to delay the possibility of failure and the fear that comes with that. In 2008, I will be intellectually critical while offering both intellectual and emotional support and ideas and alternatives. I will redefine myself not as office cynic but as wellspring or buoy.