Solidarity

I forgot for a few days that I was still working on this project. After all, I skipped the chapter on Derrida altogether and then advised everyone to ignore what Rorty says about using Nabokov and Orwell as guides on cruelty, use Montaigne instead. And then I returned to my Montaigne project as if I never left.

But there’s still one chapter left in Rorty, so it would be foolish to abandon ship now. It’s a short chapter and an awkward one. Rorty attempts here to make a case for human solidarity in the face of evaporating universal values. He believes that we need to stand up against human suffering in all of its forms in a universal way, but in an untethered way, not based on a belief in some core goodness or need to support human rationality.

I want to make a similar case to Rorty, but to take it from the other direction. I’m more concerned with human thriving than I am with suffering. Yes, there are always ways of making better the ways that we deliver care and services to people suffering, and there is a path to improvement. But I’m not particularly worried about it, there are enough smart, determined people dealing with this side of the human experience that I have confidence they will continue to get better at it.

I focus on thriving because I don’t believe we do a good job of harnessing the best of humanity to do things that broadly benefit people. We tend to let a narrow band of people benefit wildly from innovations and investments, then return later to the question of redistributing the wealth to make sure the worst effects of change and the greatest suffering is addressed.

This happens because we are still tethered to a belief in the genius individual, the singular heroic figure who starts the company, wins the election, or writes the world changing book. We all know that this is a fiction, that no one person ever changes the world as dramatically as publicists would have us believe. Start ups are built by teams of smart people, not one. They are supported by investors. They advance because the public embraces an innovation and makes it their own.

Electoral victories require hard working, talented staff, people willing to donate their money and time, and voters willing to take a chance on someone. Even books are anything but works of singular achievement. They require collaborators, editors, agents, marketers, critics and readers. Every path to human thriving involves an ecosystem of support.

When you appreciate all it takes to create and sustain success, you also appreciate how important it is to be open and appreciative of people completely unlike you. To sell a product in new markets, you need an understanding of different cultures. Being appreciative of the contributions of traditionally overlooked people makes it possible to expand reach beyond the markets everyone else is hitting.

I’m of the belief, for example, that every person listed in the credits of a movie deserves to be on stage when an Academy Award for Best Picture is handed out. They all contributed to the success, not just the two money men who held the studio’s hand through the project. Every member of a political campaign is selected when a vote is cast, every employee of a corporation is responsible for the sales of products.

This is not to make a case for equal distribution of resources, although I certainly do believe that executive pay is outrageous and counterproductive to a thriving culture. Rather, I believe in a culture of appreciation and shared success.

And I believe, this is the only way to break down our human instinct towards tribalism, towards favoring people most like us. It’s when groups are set off against each other that messiahs are sought out to deliver their group to victory. Often the person chosen to deliver the group from oppression is the same one not sharing any level of success with others, acting like a solitary, unique “stable genius.”

It’s our fear of others and need to punish other groups to make up for the unfairness inherent in our own clans that leads to the greatest human suffering. So, yes, I do believe in a kind of solidarity, with Rorty. And like Rorty, it’s not based on us all being the same. It’s based on us all having unique talents and gifts that, together, are worth far more than any one genius could deliver.

Michel de Montaigne feared novelty and was conservative in numerous ways, but he did articulate one important human value that I believe is crucial to achieving this kind of solidarity. Montaigne expressed interest, and sometimes awe, in the diversity of the world, the odd human cultures, the behavior of animals, and the ways people can break out of their expected roles when presented an opportunity to engage with other human beings directly.

Last night Kamala Harris delivered a strong acceptance speech at the Democratic Convention, but I felt like she missed a big opportunity. Her speech succeeded because dozens of speakers before her set the stage of the message she delivered. They succeeded because the amazing DNC staff turned on a dime with four weeks before the convention and radically reshaped something they’ve been working on for at least a year. They succeeded because regular people across the country donated to the campaign and made it possible to hire the necessary talent. What I wanted Kamala Harris to say yesterday is that, if you elect me, you get the whole team. You get everyone who made this possible.

Contrast that to a party based on the supposed genius of one man, supported by people who must show 100% fealty to him, a man who will not take campaign advice, won’t read most intelligence briefings— and won’t keep secret the ones he does read. When you consider the absolute nut jobs who glom onto his team and compare them to the incredible, talented professionals on the other side, how can any rational person believe that the power of one exceeds the power of millions?