Why Society Needs Stones

For "fewer resources" read "fewer employees."

 

For how do governments these days cut resources? The same way - by laying off people freezing their salaries (as McGuinty has done to teachers and hopes still to do with all public servants.)

 

Fiscal conservatives in the vein of a Rob Ford or a Tim Hudak think thusly - centralized spending is bad.  Public services are doomed to be less effective that privately offered ones; poor, sick, under-educated and damaged people are chaff that free market competition will separate from the wheat.  But where does the chaff go?

 

Rob Ford would like to see them leave the city.  In reality, they move into slums and onto the street and from there, into hospitals and prisons.  We are all acutely aware of the problems being faced in both those institutions.

 

Here's the thing that nobody wants to accept - fiscal conservatism in the absence of a social conscience doesn't work.  It never has and it never will.  Competition doesn't result in greater opportunity for everyone; it results in those with less scruples getting ahead.  You know who are the real flag-bearers for free-market competition?  Drug dealers.  Smugglers.  Pornographers.  Snake-oil salesmen.  Those who prey on the weak and rely on coercion either by force of words or force of action to keep competition at bay.  It's bread, circuses and alcohol, the tools used by would-be tyrants from Rome through the European colonization.  Nothing has changed, except for those times when we look past immediate selfish gain and think about the bigger picture.

People who get ahead don't instinctively look to give back to society or create opportunity for others; most figure they got where they did through grit and a willingness to step on a few heads, so it's up to others to do the same.  Social success is like a game of asshole; it's more by luck of the draw that those at the bottom get ahead.  I know people at the top and bottom of the economic food chain with the exact same skills and personality; what led them to different paths were life events largely beyond their conscious control.  When you've got to the top, you feel entitled and look down upon those who don't fit within your same frame of aggressive, single-minded success. 

Nobody wants to hire someone they view as a social failure and whoever they bring on, they're going to try and give them as little in return as possible.  The ones that get the decent salaries and benefits are the uber-confident, aggressive types, regardless of skill.  When that trend is followed, you end up with corporate configurations like Goldman Sachs and "successful" politicians like Rob Ford or Tony Clement.  Chris Mazza wasn't an accident - he was a product of our increasingly survival-of-the-fittest competitive society. 

 

The decline starts by limiting hiring; that means less people in the workforce relying on more public services, also suffering the stress that comes with being a nobody in a society that defines personal worth by employment, not ability to contribute.  It also results in the people at the top demanding more and expecting to do less to get it, because they think they're entitled to eat the whole cake.  When the top takes more than its share and the bottom, seeing no opportunity for advancement, starts to give up trying and just survive on what crumbs they can get, economies start to wither.  It's what's happening now and what's leading to these resource reductions in the first place.

 

Trimming back the supports that help elevate all citizens only increases the opportunity divide between aggressive haves and less-confident and less-educated have nots.  When there's no glass floor, crime invariably increases, placing greater demands on reactive social justice services and driving a flaming wedge between social classes - and in communities as diverse as Canada's, between ethnic and religious groups, too.  It's a recipe for all-out chaos.

 

Those aggressive people who are willing to take risks do so at the expense of others, not themselves.  They know they can always strong-arm government into bailing them out or just fire staff and carry on as always.  Those who aren't aggressive are more risk-adverse, meaning they stagnate, leaving society to stagnate along with them. 

 

This is why "every man for himself" simply doesn't work.  People at all levels need to collaborate, to be empathetic to the plight of their neighbours, to be willing to share risk and responsibility to move society forward.  The rise of civilization is the story of centralization and collaboration.  Where this falls, anarchy returns.

So what is it that gives people cause to work together - to feel empathy, not contempt for those of lesser aggression, or to work harder than we might think we're capable of?  Spokes may come together to form a wheel, but it's the centre hole that makes the wagon move.  Society needs a strong centre of gravity, a shared vision of where we can go to bring us together.  This can be religion; the Golden Rule is a universal one for a purpose.  It can be government; when a leader is charismatic enough, when their vision is both compelling and pragmatic enough, they can inspire whole nations to follow them.  

 

There is a lovely little folk tale called "Stone Soup" that tells of a man who comes to a village full of selfish hoarders who don't want to share what's theirs with him, or with each other.  The man produces a stone and proclaims he will make stone soup, the most amazing and tasty dish of all.  As he boils his stone in a pot, others become curious - they want to partake in these riches, too.  The man encourages people to join him and freely offers his soup, but lets it be known that if he had a carrot, or a potato, then the soup would be even better.  It's this motivation - to give a little but get something more, individually, in return - that convinces the villagers to contribute what they have.  In this manner, the man convinces the people through vision, not force or a fruitless laissez-faire approach, to come together and create something greater than they could do on their own.  In this way, the man leads and inspires by example.  When his work is done, people say "amazing, we did it all by ourselves."

 

Time and institutional fatigue have eroded the stones that brought us together - faith in something larger than ourselves be it a god, a nation or a social purpose.  Without this centre, we're adrift.  Pretenders will suggest that it's external threats we need to focus on and in this way, encourage us to abdicate our own responsibilities to each other.  It's an easy message to buy into, but it's not leadership. 

 

What we need today, more than ever, are leaders with the stones to bring people together.  You can go faster on your own, perhaps, but we can only go far together.

Be mindful

Three stories that jump out at me today...

Former Ornge employees have described Mazza as "impressive," "brilliant" and a "visionary," but also a tyrant whose volatile temper exploded when they didn't do what he wanted.

Mazza was on mental health leave until now - psychiatrists deemed him medically unfit to testify.  Of course, there will be those who say that's all just a ruse, an excuse to avoid scrutiny.  They should check out the CAMH campaign around mental illness denial.

"I've travelled across this country and what I've seen more than anything is anger. We have angry people."

Angry people in Canada?  There's a growing trend of this fact making the news.  Of course, it's sensationalist (ie, twigs our emotions) but it's none the less true.  Stephen Harper has been waging a fear campaign for his entire stint as PM and now it's coming back to haunt him.  Harper's a decent tactician and certainly strategized his political rise carefully enough - why didn't he see this coming?

Ford decried the “disgusting act of senseless violence,” but stuck to his mantra that “the best social program around is a job.”

Mayor Ford's solution for gang violence?  Declare a war on it.  A war on war has never been a particularly successful approach, but Ford is certain it will work this time.  He doesn't believe in proactively supporting people to help provide them choices other than violence, though - that's too totalitarian in his view.

Is there a common thread to these stories?  I believe there is.  Until we take the time to understand what makes behaviour tick and consciously wrest control from gut reaction, we will be doomed to repeat history.

What Can ORNGE Teach Us About Proactive Mental Health?

Yachetti said the Star and “others have suggested that (Mazza) is avoiding the process. That is simply not true as it is his current condition which prevents him from participating.”

He left ORNGE on Dec 21 and the now former board of directors became worried Mazza was suicidal. He has been under a doctor's care since then and may be an in-patient at a hospital or clinic in Ontario.

Well, now this is interesting. 

Nationally, there is a call for an expanded, integrated mental health strategy.  By its very nature, this calls for a national general health strategy.  Study after study proves that the socio-economic impact of mental illness is huge – and therefore is contributing to our debt crisis, our training deficit and all other sorts of social woes.  Now, here's further proof of that - a fellow who is on suicide watch appears to have behaved in a socially irresponsible manner without thought as to consequences.  The financial consequences and public trust impacts of ORNGE are enormous - and rightly so, Premier McGuinty is worried about what else might be going on out there. 

It must be asked, as we look at proactive mental health, at improved training and opportunity and a focus on accountability - would a more proactive approach to mental health have prevented the challenges at ORNGE?  Could they have prevented "personality" problems that led to e-Health, or Walkerton, or the death of Dudley George?

There's plenty of evidence to suggest the answer is yes; given the right, proactive accommodations and conscious thought as to consequences, we could have planned better in each one of these cases.  Social-Emotional learning, EQ development, etc. can help foster consciously pro-social development.  But do we believe that, seriously?  Are we ready to accept that difficult personalities (and charming personalities) are reflective of neurochemistry and environmental factors?  Can we get past the “suck it up” and “get over yourself” mentality still prevalent and really invest in understanding who we are and how we exist as a societal system?

My guess is no.  Or at least, not yet.  Most (I say again – most) backroom political operators I know see mental health as a policy widget, period.  They fundamentally don’t believe in “move forward together” – they practice “every man for himself.”  A bit over a year ago, I had a chat with a guy in the know about what the next steps should be on mental health; the reply came back “we already allocated funds” as though that meant the right demographic had been assuaged, so it was on to the next thing.

Problem is, that kind of survival-of-the-fittest mindset is the exact same thought process that landed the system with Chris Mazza.  Mazza, by every account I’ve read of him, is a big-thinker, fast-talker, charming to the nines.  He’s the kind of person you just feel is somehow ahead of the curve – his very demeanour inspires confidence.

What if that demeanour, that behavioural pattern, is the exact same starting point for the mess that ORNGE got itself into?  What if Mazza has, like so many people in politics and business, an undiagnosed “mental health” condition that, because it caused him to excel, people were willing to overlook until the cracks started to show?

Political operatives can tell you countless tales about seeking the perfect candidate and apparently finding them, only to run into a whack of “personality-challenges” down the road.  You could sit in any Legislature in Canada and probably assess rather quickly a number of people who could be slapped with a diagnosis (and some already have one).  The problem is, these manic, delusional, obsessive people – when harnessed the right way – are the ones who move the ball forward.  They are our innovators, our social outliers, the people who think around corners and inspire other to follow.

Conversely, the ones who are quieter, less confident, or seek greater direction are seen as “dead wood” – without consideration ever being paid to the environmental factors of work.  Again, it’s subconscious “survival of the fittest” at play, meaning it’s the most aggressive and competitive, not necessarily the most talented, who rise to the top – until they over step themselves.  Our approach to proactive occupational mental fitness is feeding into our broader health and economic crisis.   It’s like we’re wringing our hands over the complexity and cost of treating lead poisoning without looking upstream for a leaky pipe.

We should watch what happens in the case of Dr. Chris Mazza closely.  How much his case will incite some introspection on the part of policy makers and institutional leaders will be most telling of how quickly we can start embracing the changes our society needs to keep growing forward.