I've always been fascinated by the extent to which our internal, ‘subjective’ experience determines our apparent ‘objective’ perception – especially since I discovered my own!
What we don’t want to accept in ourselves we project ‘out there’ and then proceed to spend our life energy struggling with those projections.
We can't help but notice those situations that touch our own ‘stuff’, far more often than other things - and we even notice them when they’re hardly there at all!
Nowhere does this seem more evident than in politics. Perhaps it's because the process of politics takes up so much of our day-to-day environment and thus provides a broad and colourful canvas for our projections.
I have always taken pride in being a ‘swinging voter’ – not being embedded in one ideology or another – even though that actually makes little practical difference, since I reside in a ‘safe’ seat that consequently gets little political attention.
While we each have our own story, we share common areas of projection based on our common human nature. Broadly those areas of projection are:
- How people should be treated, lit up by personal issues around self-worth
- How things should get done, lit up by personal issues around personal power, and
- How information should be processed, lit up by personal issues around intelligence
Projections around self-worth may cause us to see ourselves and others as victims of uncaring authority figures, and so we see a world filled with struggles against unfairness, injustice and inequality. We see solutions in upholding people’s inalienable ‘rights’. So naturally we identify with the underdog, we join unions, and we develop a lean to the left in politics. At the same time we remain blind to the fact that rights don’t come without responsibilities, that underdogs need to learn about personal power, that unions need to learn responsibility instead of resistance, and that the political left are typically hopeless managers.
Projections around personal power may cause us to see ourselves and others as competitors in a never-ending win-lose battle, and so we see a world filled with the challenges of responsibilities, achievement, independence and personal freedom. We see solutions in going to war – against poverty, cancer, the evil doers etc. So naturally we identify with the battler who finally succeeds, we become independent professionals or entrepreneurs or rebels and we develop a lean to the right in politics. At the same time we remain blind to the fact that ‘war’ is a non-workable analogy, that not everyone started on a level playing field, that independence often comes at the cost of depth in relationship, and that the right in politics are typically arrogant and out of touch with the masses.
Projections around personal intelligence may cause us to see ourselves in a permanent classroom where our report card is constantly on public display, and so we see a world filled with the need to understand, win arguments, fashion ideals and to convince others of the validity of our views. We see solutions in consensus-based, clear conceptual frameworks. So naturally we identify with the thinkers who can hold the bigger picture of the future, who can fashion ideals for the whole of society, who can present academically sound, well researched arguments – and if we are pure in that view – we find little on offer in either the right or the left in politics. So we would have found the Australian Democrats appealing, or perhaps the Greens depending on our deeper projections. At the same time we remain blind to the fact that most people don’t have ability or interest in higher concepts, and that most decisions are emotionally based, and that in the world of competition the imperative is always on short-term goals over long-term ideals.
Now each of these paradigms produces results that are both positive and negative – none is either good or bad in its own right. Given even a moment’s thought, it seems obvious that all three paradigms are essential to our common prosperity.
But when one side of politics gets in with a strong margin, they set about implementing everything they see as positive while ignoring their blind spots, to the detriment of the majority. So at the next opportunity the electorate swings to make up for those deficits and the cycle continues! Maybe we do get the governments we deserve.
So it might be a good thing, and it's certainly seems inevitable, that over time the difference between political parties must diminish. That allows the possibility that we could define the best common vision, and implement it with the best managers, for the greatest common good. In other words it would be inclusive of all views rather than arguing for one at the expense of the others.
Yet, while a government with a small majority could theoretically be a good thing, instead it seems to become self-destructive when strong egos can't point to the chasm between opposing views. And instead of a well-managed vision of common prosperity we get arrogant, hopeless leaders with no clue about longer term futures – the worst of each paradigm.
So what I'm asking is that you consider your own projections. How do you tell the difference between a projection and a considered opinion? By the amount of energy that you find drives you to justify yourself. The more energy that comes from you automatically, the more it’s your stuff! If you consistently vote for the same party then you should consider those projections in even more detail.
Do you really want a government that offers to protect you from your own unintegrated personality? Most people do!
Of course the big opportunity here is to discover your own projections and leverage them for your own personal development. Life without projections is free from those deficit passions, from compulsive responses – a life where you're free to choose emotions, actions and thoughts and where not being involved at all holds the same excitement as arguing for your own limitations. But then there’s no one to blame!
How to get there? Naturally we recommend VitallyMe for self-managed development, and its big sister Q12 for coaching with a professional. We also recommend Narrative Coaching as a professional group, or if you prefer a workshop environment, then we highly recommend Keep Evolving.
Are our collective limitations running the country? What do you think?
No comments:
Post a Comment