ONE’S RECIPES FOR SUCCESS

What is the role of principles?  Are principles just luxuries one can talk about but have little to no effect on how a person leads his/her life?  Yes, one can give them lip service, but life is just too complex, too demanding, and too unpredictable to languish by a set of principles that simply get in the way.  In the way of what?  Of danger, of opportunities, of a whole array of realities that don’t fit a presubscribed notion of how life or social settings should be or can be? 

The successful businessman, Ray Dalio,[1] recently issued a sort of biography that describes his success in the investment business and how having and living – for the most part – by principles was instrumental.  The effect was positive.  Mr. Dalio, through his book, videos, and interviews, is dedicated to sharing what he has learned from his experiences.  Should a civics teacher care?  Well, if part of the message a civics teacher promotes is for his/her students to behave in principled ways, then Dalio might have something to offer that teacher.

This blog, with this posting, will begin to entertain that possibility.  Having read Dalio’s account, this blogger thinks Dalio has something to offer.  This is not a hundred percent endorsement of what Dalio’s book prescribes, but the overall judgement is that that bio has insights that a civics teacher can use to formulate his/her curricular choices.  So, this blog chooses to report what this businessperson has to offer that civics teacher.

And where does one begin?  Well, one begins with a basic definition.  What are principles, according to Dalio, after all?  If one doesn’t accept that writer’s notion of principles, then his bio would be of little value.  Early on – in the introduction – the following definition is identified, “Principles are fundamental truths that serve as the foundations for behavior that get you what you want out of life.  They can be applied again and again in similar situations to help you achieve your goals.”[2] 

This language separates principles from being primarily concerned with esteemed qualities to the more manipulative elements of life.  It is more utilitarian than honorific unless some nuance is added to this definition.  For example, this definition does not, per se, call on people to divorce themselves from such values as honesty, loyalty, charity, or other similar values one tends to associate with morality.  After all, one can see a common notion of morality as the ultimate practical standard by which one should live. 

If one equates morality with such values as empathy and altruism, then acting in ways that advance those values tends to garner the respect, admiration, and fondness of others.  In turn, such a person is apt to form strong and lasting relationships.  One can more readily sell a product to those who admire the seller than to a person the buyer either feels indifferent to or dislikes.  Therefore, to the extent one’s success relies on a positive image, and that’s just about everyone, being moral seems to be practical.  This is such a simple notion, yet it seems to elude so many.

Of course, being moral doesn’t always lead to admiration.  If the moral choice happens to “step on a toe or two,” then those whose toes are hurting are likely to view the “stepper” with less than admiration or, if admired, less then fondness.  But then the practicality for the moral person is to be able to identify the less than moral persons with which he/she is dealing.  And that would identify that person who holds a grudge for an action that is on the right side of a moral challenge. 

A person might discover that key to all this is timing.  Morality usually calls for long-term thinking, while immorality tends to be short-term thinking.  People tend to deal with the immediate and usually from what Jonathan Haidt calls the “elephant” – the intuitive, emotional self.[3]  The reasoned self – the “rider” of the elephant – is usually sleeping on the job. 

This rider must be jolted by some situation that is deemed important enough to engage itself in what is going on – after all, the rider is lazy, and reflection takes effort.  The elephant tends to be short-sighted and deals with what is before it with little to no thought.  It knows what it wants and either the situation before it offers what it wants, or it does not.  “Yes” equals good; “no” equals bad; and the elephant tends to react negatively to the bad – either internally or by some demonstration of anger or disdain. 

Unfortunately, such proclivities lead to a lot of immorality.  But strongly held principles – something that needs to be learned – can be of help.  Principles, even as Dalio defines them, impose a longer time dimension to decision-making, especially when the fate and/or interests of others are involved.

Yes, ultimately one decides to advance oneself; that is baked into any situation.  The question becomes what constitutes advancing oneself.  Again, short term analysis of this question tends to render selfish answers.  Long term, realistic answers tend to render more altruistic answers.  In this, Dalio offers a useful analogy.  One can view principles as a collection of recipes. 

Now, he calls them recipes for success which can be self-centered concerns but – and Dalio seems to agree – they can be mostly centered on others or on we-centered concerns.  Immorality tends to side with self-centeredness, morality with otherness or us-ness.  He goes on to point out that people vary in defining success – that’s good.  But it leads to various sets of recipes and one should be careful in advancing any recipe for others to follow.  Having stated that, Dalio proceeds to do just that with the proviso that what is suggested in his book is his recipes.

In “selling” this view, that writer touts the functionality of principles.  If they are devised and followed, they assist in the challenge of being consistent especially if the “elephant” is riled.  He laments that most people fall short of being principled – for the above reasons – and therefore do not meet with the success for which they strive.  His initial advice for his readers is to devise their principles and be clear to themselves and to others what exactly they are.

---

[1] Ray Dalio, Principles (New York, NY:  Simon and Schuster, 2017).

[2] Ibid., (page designation not indicated in Kindle edition, but at 1% completion).

[3] Jonathan Haidt, The Righteous Mind:  Why Good People Are Divided by Politics and Religion (New York, NY:  Pantheon Books, 2012).

TUMULTUOUS ARENA

This blog has as its main argument that civics education offerings in American secondary schools should utilize federation theory, a mental construct, to guide its efforts.  More specifically, the blog touts the use of the model it calls liberated federalism. 

The reader might question this whole idea of using a construct concocted by some blogger.  Past postings have attempted to ground the elements of that construct with the writings of reputable political scientists such as Daniel J. Elazar and Donald S. Lutz.  It has also cited philosophers such as Michael Sandel and John Rawls, although Rawls’ thoughts cannot be couched in a federalist-communitarian camp.  

There is also Alasdair MacIntyre and Charles Taylor (who has also been cited in this blog) and their writings.  And there are other advocates of ideas one can judge to be if not out and out supportive, conducive.  Heck, in terms of philosophers whose ideas are conducive, one can go all the way back to Aristotle – this blog has.

In the field of sociology there are various writers who can be viewed in this way.  Among them is the often cited, late sociologist, Philip Selznick.  The work of this blogger owes a lot to Selznick.  But one might add Robert Ballah, Amitai Etzioni, and Lawrence E. Harrison.  Harrison can be considered further apart from a purely federalist bent; his views fall more in line with supporting culture as a determining factor for national success.

In terms of sociologists, they would not think in terms of a political concept such as federalism.  But they do use a comparable or near comparable concept.  But before sharing what at least one of the above sociologists calls this idea, a review of that sociologist’s thinking concerning current, dominant view of liberalism – in the philosophic sense – adds context to what follows.  Selznick writes,

Liberal premises are thought to be overly individualistic and ahistorical; insufficiently sensitive to the social sources of selfhood and obligation; too much concerned with rights, too little concerned with duty and responsibility.  These criticisms have brought the idea of community – a core idea in sociology – to center stage.  … I have tried to show that a proper understanding of community, from a sociological point of view, presumes diversity and pluralism as well as social integration.[1]

This movement toward such a sensitivity might be considered a temporary point of interest.  During the nineties, when the above words were published, there was a popular array of books and articles that promoted communitarian ideas and arguments.  While that popularity has not vanished, it does not seem to be so vibrant these days.  This blogger does not welcome this turn.

But that disappointment can be shelved for another day.  Here the concern is how sociology views an idea such as federalism or federation theory.  What is telling in Selznick’s thinking is that he sees community and a people’s concern for it as a striving or a promise to seek and even attain meaningful levels of justice and democracy. 

Oh, that sounds political to this blogger’s ears.  Could it be Selznick is suggesting a line of thinking that aligns with federalist ideas, explanations, and normative biases?  This blogger believes it does.  In this line of thinking, then, one can see a political turn.

He, Selznick, suggests the title, “communitarian liberalism.”  One can judge that term offering a mirror image of a more political idea, liberated federalism.  Is it an exact reflection?  Perhaps not, but it is close.  The sociological take is more, as one might expect, social.  It relates to those social qualities one might see supporting a polity that holds as its basic mental view a viable polity where there is basically a partnership among its citizenry or a federalist arrangement.

So, what does communitarian liberalism mean?  First, Selznick says it means a people believing in and willing to support a robust community.  Now, one might ask:  to what extent?  After all, people do have other concerns in their lives and day-to-day affairs are not zeroed-in on political shenanigans.

Does it mean a disposition to engage in neighborhood activities, to engage in one’s municipal affairs, to attend to and engage in statewide politics, to stay attuned to national developments and a willingness to vote and advocate for various national policy positions, or to seek a role as a citizen of the world.  Yes, to all of this with the proviso that one accents the local over the global.  As for the time restraints, one does the best he/she can.

Starting with a linkage – i.e., linking communitarian values with morality – communitarian liberalism plays a balancing act.  The balance is between community or shared concerns and interests and individual concerns and interests.  This balance begins with the demands on a person’s time as just mentioned.

The thing is:  ultimately, the interests of the community calls for a respect for individual rights as expressed through the individual’s interests, goals and aims, substantive beliefs, and social relationships.  Running rough shod over those factors promises to lead to disruptions and other dysfunctional eventualities.

On the other hand, ultimately, the interests of the individual call for the individual to be cognizant, respectful, and, where possible, supportive of communal aspirations and determinations.  This is not blindly or automatically given, but it does call for a predisposition to support certain biases toward communal interests or what is usually called the common good. 

In either case, as an ultimate value, a commitment to promote and advance the common good must be (or at least should be) the central concern in seeking and achieving the sought-after balance.  And before one is apt to see this as “big brother” at work, one should reflect a bit.

It encourages a voluntary – uncoerced – exchange of ideas and values through the members’ communications among themselves.  Selznick adds, “Pragmatism [offered by another supportive philosopher, John Dewey] is not a tight system, in which ideas are driven by an iron logic to inexorable conclusions.  Such a claim would be foreign to its nature, which welcomes plurality and resists finality.” 

That is, one sees this dynamic as an ongoing developmental politics securely anchored in a social arrangement brewing solutions to the myriad of shared problems.  How can that work?  This blog offers a description of American politics during the 1830s as an example. 

That view from the nation’s early history was described by a foreigner who traveled the then existing nation.  That was Alexi de Tochqueville.  He reports that “… the political activity which pervades the United States must be seen …  No sooner do you set foot upon the American soil than you are stunned by a kind of tumult; a confused clamour is heard on every side; … voices demand[ing] the immediate satisfaction of their social wants.”[2] 

Yes, what is valued is a tumult and, unlike what constitutes a lot of today’s tumults, the players agree to and abide by communitarian guardrails.  Unfortunately, as is the case with current messaging on social media, where public figures are readily threatened with physical harm to themselves and their family members – all in the name of freedom of speech[3] – the tumult has become non-federal, antidemocratic, and unhealthy. 

Civics education today is facing daunting challenges.

---

[1] Philip Selznick, The Moral Commonwealth:  Social Theory and the Promise of Community (Berkeley, CA:  University of California Press, 1992), xi.

[2] Alexi de Tocqueville, “Political Structure of Democracy,”  in Alexis de Tocqueville:  On Democracy, Revolution, and Society, edited by John Stone and Stephen (Mennell, Chicago, IL:  Chicago University Press, 1980/1835), 78-79, 78.

[3] Andrew Marantz, Antisocial:  Online Extremists, Techno-Utopians, and the Hijacking of the American Conversation (New York, NY:  Viking, 2019).