I think one very important difference between classic philosophy and postmodern leadership thinking is that we’ve lost access to the notion of “destiny”… We’ve forfeited that solemn faith of our ancestors, the conviction that human lives are carried by an intrinsic energy, a spirit, a powerful possibility. The bliss of scientific “enlightenment” was followed by the shadows of metaphysical disenchantment… Today, many of us feel “thrown into a hostile world”, where we are forced to constantly re-adapt and “re-engineer” our self in order to survive and succeed…
Yet, “becoming” in any deeper sense requires a sense of direction. There is no meaningful life without a mature encounter with the ambiguity of our life — as Freud anticipated, healthy development means both joyfully carrying the ‘erotic’ flame of Prometheus, whilst readily facing Thanatos - our own mortality and the yearning for the eternal. We must accept our own demise, like the inhabitants of Camus’s villagers of Oran, and at the same time fashion the courage to live up to our highest potential. Realizing our destiny, then, is the hopeful agency to become who we “are meant” to be… Self-actualisation means vulnerably leaning into our unique human possibility, intentionally seeking a ‘timeless’ potential in every action we take.
Yet, in our scientific and positivistic world there is seldom a place for such “unwarranted” hope. Empirical truth insists on looking backwards — seeking to explain solemnly what is, not speculate what should or can be. It sternly pushes us into a “vicarious” observer position and frowns upon any passionate “irrational” pursuit of utopia, let alone the endorsement of a personal “fate”. Maybe, here the ancient thinkers were ahead of us: they never doubted that also “subjective reality” is truth. Beyond the truth of reason (what we understand), and the truth of fact (what is real) there was always room for a personal and unique truth of self, of who WE are and can be. Objective “realism” leaves little space for personal “telos”: what matters is not who we are, but what we have and how we compare in a “third-person logic” of life. The cost of our metaphysical certainty is postmodern anxiety: the triumph of rationalism is often a “triumph of emptiness”.
It comes as no surprise, then, …
- that we have often lack the “safe base” from where to seek our own unique personal destiny
- that we have become insensible towards our mutual (inter)dependence and unable to “see” and seek each other’s unique spirits, uncapable to collectively advance humanity
- and that we must resort to pseudo-rational rules, rights, duties — and monetary incentives — to safeguard and foster systemic trust where deeper reflexivity and spirit have vanished…
Yet, you might suggest, maybe the post-pandemic winds of change are carrying some hope… maybe we must suffer the cataclysm of poly-crisis to to think anew; maybe we must see desperate injustice before righteous anger will spark the strength to face our fate; maybe decades of moral disengagement can nurture the tender seeds of love and hope that foster our shared humanity…
Maybe. Sadly, in my experience the “we” must always become “I” before anything ever changes. “Choice, not chance, determines our destiny.” We must abandon the convenient safety of those balconies of intellectual observerdom and those fences of cacophonic cynicism; and descend into the dust and sweat of the arena of personhood. As Camus so eloquently writes in his “Plague”, it takes courage to embrace the existential ambiguity of our own life and still commit to a meaningful and transpersonal destiny — like those masons of old who built glorious cathedrals in the full knowledge that they would never live to enjoy their completion. Where to start? Maybe it suffices to stop more often and listen deeply: beyond the noise and rattle of everyday hustle, what is it that wants to come to life through us? What is our unique contribution to a hopeful future? What is the true ‘good’ we serve through our leadership?
Notes:
- Self-actualisation is not “self-realisation”: our essential possibility to be is already real, whether we ignore it or not. It also doesn’t mean maximizing pleasure, but seeking our true “vocation”.
- Spirit — “genius” in latin, “daemon” in greek — is not about (human) rights. It is not about dignity or a right to “pursue happiness”. It is about tapping into a quintessential source of our energy and being.
From: “Sunday Morning Thoughts on LinkedIn” — I will report some of the interesting LinkedIn dialogues here, paraphrased and applying the Chatham House Rule — trying to protect some of the sentiments, thoughts, and above all our stimulating discussions from oblivion ;-)
