Yet To B

Empowerment is a more positive, more productive paradigm than the current paradigm that most of us hold. Through it, we will lead happier, more fulfilling lives. However, while many would agree that happiness and the serenity that comes from leading a fulfilling life are worth almost any effort, some might question whether we really need a new paradigm to achieve them. Do we really need to go to the considerable effort to form and adopt a new paradigm, or can we just garner happiness from our current way of life?

 

For the answer we need only look around us. Very few are truly happy, let alone at peace. Most equate material comforts – entertainment and pleasure – with happiness. This is an invalid correlation. Happiness is based on quality of interactions and relationships, not on quantity of material possessions. The primary reason for our misplaced focus is that our current paradigm is reactive.

​

A reaction is a response to a past event that is meant to improve conditions in the present. All living things must be able to react in order to survive. Unfortunately, those living things that can only react can do no more than survive. Development – the ability to consciously improve themselves – is beyond their capacity. This same principle applies to organizations and societies.

When we hold a reactive paradigm, individually or collectively, we act primarily in response to external events. The specific reaction to the event may be determined internally, but the impetus to act is external.

​

Solutions are reactions to undesirable external events – problems. Therefore solutions are initiated by problems and exist only in the context of the problems to which they apply. They have no independent existence. A solution is simply a reaction to a problematic event – the result of a reactive paradigm.

​

Reactive, solution oriented paradigms have dominated civilization since its inception. Although some individuals and groups throughout history have made strides toward empowerment, their ideas have rarely been accepted by society, and even more rarely practiced. Society itself, along with the vast majority of people and institutions that comprise it, has remained reactive.

​

But it's not about reacting to the past...
It's about acting to create the future.

​

Empowerment is active. It models a desired condition of both self and environment and works to achieve it. By focusing on self-designed ideals that are relatively independent of current circumstances, the empowered tend to initiate rather than react. Empowerment looks to the future and present rather than the past. The impetus to act is based on an internal desire to improve one's condition and the condition of others rather than a desire to change the effect of an external event.

Another difference between our current paradigm and empowerment is that, while reactions may be externally motivated they are internally focused. Environmental events are given significance primarily based on how they affect the one who perceives them, with only secondary concern (or no concern) for how they affect others. In other words, reactive paradigms are self-centered, or subjective. They tend to focus on others as objects to be manipulated rather than people with whom to interact. Manipulation – controlling the actions of an object as if it were an extension of your self – is easier than interacting with that object as an independent entity. Therefore from a subjective viewpoint manipulation is the most desirable mode of interaction.

​

The focus of reactive paradigms on objects and manipulation explains the desire of reactive people and institutions to acquire and control as much as they can. It also explains why leaders, managers, and governments often make decisions that are harmful to the organizations, societies, and other institutions they are supposed to help. Decisions are based more on the leaders' hunger to exercise control than on their desire to help those they manage. Even if their desire to help others is genuine, a subjective viewpoint will invariably impede its realization because subjectivity is by definition self-centered.

​

It's not about me...
It's about us.

​

The empowerment paradigm is more objectively focused than reactive paradigms. It focuses on interaction, not just reaction. To understand these interactions we must consider the perspectives of all those involved, not just our own perspective. This objectivity engenders a more systemic orientation than does subjectivity. It leads us to focus on interacting with those around us to our mutual benefit rather than subjectively treating others as objects to be manipulated.

​

Manipulation of those that can exercise initiative, be they individuals or organizations, suppresses their ability to initiate – to act creatively. In fact, that is the whole point of manipulation – to bend the will of others to your own will rather than motivating them to think freely and clearly. Power in the traditional sense might even be defined as the ability to manipulate the environment – to control the actions of the people and objects around you.

​

But it's not about controlling others...
It's about controlling ourselves.

​

The empowered seek self control and self development rather than control over others. This gives them the ability to motivate others to develop and control themselves by giving them an example to follow. In other words, the empowered interact via leadership rather than manipulation when dealing with other people.

​

Without discipline – self control – control of the environment only changes the external stimuli that we react to. It in no way improves our ability to govern those reactions or initiate our own actions. Even the technological advancements we have made over the past few centuries have been empowering to only a very limited extent because they have focused on controlling and developing our environment rather than ourselves.

​

On the other hand, a high degree of self control renders environmental control almost insignificant. If we are happy with the state we're in and confident of our ability to deal with whatever events the environment may throw at us, then why waste time and effort trying to control that environment?

Ironically, those with reactive paradigms, by focusing on controlling the environment, end up being more dependent upon it and thus more subject to it than are the empowered. By focusing on self-development the empowered become far more adaptable to environmental changes than are the reactive. In short, they have greater control over their interactions.

​

This is not to say that manipulation is not a valid form of interaction for the empowered. It's just that it is only appropriate when interacting with objects that are not sapient, and then only when the objects or situation do not permit more cooperative forms of interaction. Empowerment eschews manipulation of people because building a better future requires making the best use of the talents of all involved in that future. This in turn, requires stimulating them to creatively exercise their initiative rather than trying to suppress their initiative.

 

We can empower neither ourselves nor others while using power to suppress the initiative of others. In fact, an important aspect of empowerment is the consistent, objective exercise of initiative and self discipline, as well as the encouragement of this exercise in others. Manipulation limits the initiative, vision, and other abilities of a system to that of a single part – the manipulator. This severely impedes the empowerment of the organization and its members. Unimpeded interaction integrates the initiative, vision, and other abilities of all the members of an organization or society. This empowers the system and creates an environment conducive to the empowerment of all of its members.

As mentioned earlier, when we hold a reactive paradigm we generally try to acquire as much as possible. The concept of ownership implies control over the objects owned. The more we own, the more we control.

​

But it's not about quantity...
It's about quality.

​

The empowered are less concerned with how many resources they control than with how productively they can use those resources. The purpose of resources is to enhance the quality of our interactions and of life in general. Therefore, from an objective view point, resources should be made accessible to those who can most effectively use them. Our efforts should not be spent as much in trying to acquire resources as in developing ourselves so that we can make the best use of whatever resources we have access to. This is another reason why the empowered value self control over control of others. From an empowered perspective quality of life is paramount and this quality depends more on quality of interactions than on quantity of possessions.

Yet another advantage of empowerment over reactive paradigms is that it has a more positive outlook. Since a solution is a fix to a problem, it focuses on the problem – something that we perceive as wrong with our environment or ourselves. By definition, a negative outlook is one that looks for what is wrong with an object or situation. A solution oriented paradigm can't survive without this negative outlook, at least to some degree. This is not to say that all those who hold a reactive paradigm are pessimists. A reactive optimist may look for what is positive in their environment, but their interactions are based on those aspects of the environment that they perceive as problems. The attitude is positive but the outlook – the premise on which their interactions are based – is negative.

​

But it's not about fixing what's wrong...
It's about building what's right.

​

When we hold a reactive paradigm we tend to have a negative outlook because our primary motivation is avoidance of the undesirable. The primary motivation of empowerment, on the other hand, is achievement of the desirable. This engenders a more positive outlook. We look forward to what we want rather than trying to avoid what we don't want.

​

Just as reactive interactions must be based on a negative outlook to find solutions, empowered interactions must of necessity be based on a positive outlook. Effectively designing an ideal future state requires defining what we want rather than trying to eliminate what we don't want. We must determine how we can build the best possible future by envisioning what is good rather than avoiding what is bad. This essentially defines a positive outlook.

​

While it is possible to have a reactive optimist, it is impossible to have an empowered pessimist. This doesn't mean that the empowered are blind optimists. They don't ignore problems. However, without a reasonable degree of optimism we simply can't see past all of our current problems to envision a better future. The empowered preferentially deal with problems by redesigning the system that has the problem rather than by trying to solve the problem within the existing system, at least in the case of major problems. They don't just solve the problem; they dissolve it. The problem simply doesn't apply to the new system.

And now we come to what is perhaps the most critical aspect of any paradigm: motivation. The most direct motivational principle of reactive paradigms is this: maximize pleasure and minimize pain. This motivation is common to all sentient beings. For the vast majority of us it is the dominant directive governing our choices. All animals and most people base their choices primarily on the maximization of pleasure and the minimization of pain, although we are also motivated by other internal directives. Most organizations are also motivated primarily by pleasure and pain, although pleasure and pain have a different meaning for organizations than for people. Ultimately, however, all who are motivated primarily by pleasure and pain have one thing in common: they hold a reactive paradigm.

​

Pleasure and pain are by definition reactive. We experience them as a result of some external or internal stimulus and then react accordingly. Therefore it is not surprising that pleasure and pain are the dominant, often virtually exclusive motivation for reactive people and organizations.

​

Further, pleasure and pain are subjective, or personal. We may sympathize or even empathize with the pleasure and pain of another, but we cannot actually feel what they are feeling. Even if we experience the same stimulus our different perspectives and physiological structures often result in differences in the pleasure / pain experience. For example, we may all experience pain if burned, but some have a higher tolerance for pain than others. Similarly, a depressed person often does not derive the same pleasure from a tasty meal as do others. In fact, pleasure and pain are probably the biggest reasons why it is so hard to transition from a subjective, reactive paradigm to an objective, empowered paradigm. People may develop other motivations, but those motivations will usually be overridden by a sufficient degree of pleasure or pain. Only the most empowered can truly subvert pleasure and pain to higher level motivations.

​

It's not about pleasure...
It's about happiness.

​

Pleasure and happiness are not the same thing. Pleasure and pain are sensations but happiness and unhappiness are emotions. Pleasure and pain are generally less stable, shorter term states than happiness and unhappiness. As sensations, pleasure and pain are extraordinarily difficult – although not impossible – to control. As with all emotions, happiness and unhappiness are under our control to a certain degree, and with diligent practice we can greatly increase that level of control. Although not easy by any means, controlling emotions is orders of magnitude easier than controlling sensations.

Pleasure and pain are motivations for choosing a reaction to an external stimulus and are therefore reactive. Happiness and unhappiness are motivations for improving our condition and as such, are active. Although pleasure and pain affect happiness (it's hard to be happy if you're suffering), they are not the most important factors. A sense of fulfillment, peace, and satisfaction with our relationships is at the core of long term happiness. Empowerment contributes to happiness and a sense of fulfillment more effectively than a reactive paradigm. Further, the process of empowerment must offer a clear path to this happiness and fulfillment or we will not be motivated to make the sacrifices required to pursue empowerment.

​

This pursuit is not that difficult once we begin to experience the happiness and other rewards of empowerment because it is a deep, abiding serenity. The satisfaction of the reactive, on the other hand, is transitory. It fluctuates markedly based on external conditions. This is why gaining control over those conditions – the environment – is so important to the reactive. Pleasure and lack of pain are the most important contributing factors to their satisfaction. That is why standard of living is the yardstick they typically use to measure happiness.

​

This holds true for all reactive entities, not just people. Although we don't usually think of happiness as applying to organizations, they have an equivalent atmosphere that tends to motivate them similarly to the way happiness motivates people. Reactive entities, be they people or institutions, derive contentment primarily by increasing their perceived control over their environment. This means that their happiness is proportional to the quantity of resources they believe they control and on the degree to which they believe they can manipulate others. The actual level of control or influence is almost irrelevant. A person who has a given standard of living may be quite happy with it until they find themselves around people with a higher standard of living. It is the perception of control that fosters happiness, not the control itself.

​

But it's not about standard of living...
It's about quality of life.

​

In order to promote a stable, long term sense of happiness and fulfillment, empowerment must focus on interactions, not objects. True happiness derives from a belief that others, as well as ourselves, are benefiting from our interactions. The sense of fulfillment we feel from believing that those with whom we interact are better off because of that interaction becomes more important than personal pleasure. Quality of life depends far more on good relationships and a feeling of self worth than it does on material wealth.

​

The empowered do not derive happiness from control of resources. They derive it from their ability to make the most effective use of whatever resources are available to improve quality of life for everyone. In other words, the empowered are happiest when developing competence and when contributing to that development in others. Building relationships is more important than acquiring objects; developing more important than growing; quality more important than quantity; mutual competence and cooperation more important than control. Since we generally have a lot more control over ourselves, our personal development, and the way we act on our environment than on the way our environment acts on us, happiness becomes a more consistent state. It is more under our direct control and less subject to fluctuations in our environment.

​

Further, empowerment, happiness and fulfillment stem from the effort to realize our ideals rather than just the achievement of them. We must view empowerment as a process to enjoy rather than a state to be achieved. In fact, if the empowered ever fully realize an ideal they must refine it so that they will continue to have something worthwhile to strive for.

​

We now have some reasons to further explore empowerment. However, before we can examine the empowerment paradigm itself we must understand some related concepts. so let's take a look at some of the Fundamentals of Empowerment.