About We
Whatever
happened to “we”?
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
For centuries,
our understanding of personal and individual rights,
responsibilities and values have deepened and developed. The
vast majority of us are well schooled in the benefits, the
necessities and the dilemmas of individualism.
Yet, as the
world transformed from one where place powerfully determined how
individuals connect to other individuals to one where such
connections primarily happen in markets, networks,
organizations, friends and family, our experience of “we” has
shifted dramatically.
We’ve lost
touch with “we”, especially when any group of us are a
thick we who share fates and purposes in tangible, gritty and
every day ways.
Look closely at
the headlines: The “we’s” described are too often thin
and abstract instead of thick and meaningful.
A “thick we” is
a group of people who meaningfully and tangibly depend on one
another. They share fates in real, demonstrable ways. Families
are thick we’s. So are friends. But beyond family and
friends, the most powerful thick we’s in your life happen
in organizations -- not places.
Thin we’s are
abstractions. They may arise from broad national (“Americans”)
or religious (“Muslim”) or ethnic (“Hispanics”) qualifiers. Or,
they may reflect common interests, motivations, demographics and
psychographics (“NASCAR Dads” and “Soccer Moms”; “Yuppies” and
“Couch Potatoes”; “Red America” and “Blue America).
Thin and
abstract we’s matter -- a lot. But thin we’s are actually
collectivities of individuals. Unlike thick we’s, thin we’s
bear no every day, tangible and meaningful responsibility or
interdependence with one another.
Thin we’s
(“All six billion people on the planet”) share fates and
purposes only in the most abstract way. The sole
responsibilities emerging from thin we’s are individual
responsibilities -- not group responsibility to take action
together in coordinated, purpose-driven ways.
Critically,
only thick we’s must take responsibility for the choices they
make together. Thin we’s can vote this or that party in or out
of office. Thin we’s can support this or that law, this or that
cultural expression, this or that product or service.
But thin we’s bear no responsibility for
implementing the choices they make.
Thick we’s
cannot afford limiting themselves to individualism. Whether in
family, among friends or in organizations, thick we’s must
implement choices. If a thick we in an organization chooses to
outsource jobs, they must live with the consequences. If a
thick we chooses to cut out health insurance or reduce the
hourly rate for the lowest paid to below a living wage, they
must live with the consequences. If a thick we chooses to avoid
federal taxes even as they wave the flag to attract customers,
the character -- the values -- the character of that thick we --
their values -- are reflected.
Individualism
is a glory of our new world. It embodies much that is best
about the liberties and opportunities won at such cost over the
centuries. Yet, individualism is not enough for to support
either a good living or a good life.
We matters,
too.
And so, each of
us must answer for ourselves and others:
What ever happened to we?
Look closely
and you can see the answer: “We” shifted from being thick we’s
in places to being thick we’s among family, friends and in
organizations.
If we wish to
join our concern for value with our concern for values, then we
must do so both in the thick we’s within whom we share fates and
as individuals in the thin we’s in which are represented.
We must
integrate our concern for value with our concern for values in
the purposes we pursue both as individual consumers,
voters, investors and networkers and as family members,
friends, employees, volunteers, students, and believers in thick
we’s of family, friend, and organizations.