4. Two Extremes
In a previous essay, I wondered what aliens would want to know about us if they arrived. I suggested they would want to know what our values are and how we engage with one another, our codes of conduct. Values are the underlying ideals or principles. Codes are the stated dos and don’ts for people to live by that support those values.
Willingness to follow rules varies from person to person. We all dabble in both approaches from time to time, but I think it is an interesting exercise to look at these two types of tendencies as if they were opposites. Assume there are two fundamentally different ways of seeing the world. One approach cares a lot about personal power and individual achievement and cares less about acting in compliance with rules. Call this the “Dominator” approach. The other approach values society’s guiding structures and takes comfort in society’s laws and norms. Call this opposite approach the “Participant.” Go with me on this so I can illustrate some points about values and rules.
1. Dominator—Think of a bully or tyrant as an example of this type. This person has high personal power and is outcome-focused. For this person, “Might makes right.” This person is an action-oriented change agent who will break the system if it is limiting. This person shuns personal restraint and will do almost anything to achieve a goal. They see the world in a zero-sum way. This means that they can’t win unless someone else loses, and they are fine with that. Winning matters; that’s it. Domination through personal power is the key value. Sees self as tough, and real. This person will not defer or submit to another person, to a rule, or to contrary evidence on an issue. Taken to the extreme, the Dominator does not defer to conflicting facts or concerns of truthfulness.
2. Participant—Think about a team player or business administrator for the image here. This person is comfortable with processes and works within the system. The Participant seeks mutual benefit and stability. They draw their power from structure and work within the system, seeking consensus wherever possible. Respect for others and acceptance of structure are their key values. Sees self as a righteous and principled part of a working order.
One might say the Participant is more traditional or more democratic and the Dominator is more authoritarian. These two approaches extend into many areas of leadership and human interaction, including the business world and sports world, as well as organizations everywhere—any situation in which multiple people are trying to function together and are working to improve results.
Think about the business leader using the old phrase about if it is not broken, break it. This is not bad; it is just more of a Dominator style. Think about the coach who wants to win so much that they may say the obnoxious phrase about not cheating being equal to not trying. This is bad, hopefully not very common, but it illustrates my point. This coach is a Dominator. Contrast these examples with the businessperson who seeks to lead the firm to spirit-of-the-law compliance or the coach who sees the benefits of a simple game of catch, a game in which both participants gain skill and confidence.
It would be simple, but not accurate, to say that the Participants are good and the Dominators are bad. This is false. I don’t suggest that conclusion. There are benefits to code compliance—following the rule according to higher law as exemplified by approach 2— but not all norms, expectations, rules, and sometimes even laws should be followed 100 percent of the time. Unjust laws need to be protested and changed. Acceptance and compliance are not always appropriate.
The Participant may be too accepting. They err by being too easygoing, overly agreeable to the rules and laws set for us. We should challenge rules when they conflict with a more important underlying value or code. Unlimited compliance enables a host of unjust, inefficient codes to continue unchallenged.
Recently, I reread some writings by Henry David Thoreau. In “Civil Disobedience,” he says,
Must the citizen ever for a moment, or in the least degree, resign his conscience to the legislator? Why has every man a conscience, then? I think that we should be men first, and subjects afterward. It is not desirable to cultivate a respect for the law, so much as for the right.
I think Thoreau means he will deviate from the law if need be to adhere to his value of what is right, to his conscience. He aligned with a value that was above or more primary than that of the law. The core value must take priority over the specifics of a societal code.
Dominators do not get a pass. They scare me the most. The trap they fall into is inappropriately asserting personal power. Taking outcomes into their own hands, in ways that ignore the rule of law, damages societal ties. Think of the bully, the mob boss, the king or dictator asserting extreme amounts of personal power while ignoring proven rules and conventions that are widely regarded and agreed upon by others. They may get things done, but there are probably plenty of casualties along the way. The rules that enable society to function and thrive get diminished, even trashed.
This Dominator type sees the end outcome as the top priority, with little or no need to restrain themselves. There is no need for consideration of others. They just want to achieve the desired outcome. It may be a selfish goal or a benevolent one, but they pursue that aim by going through others, not joining with them. They will do whatever it takes to get the thing done.
How the two approaches see others is a huge differentiator here. It comes down to kinship or connectedness. I believe the Participant type is more likely to see something of themselves reflected in others and recognize some level of connectedness. Participants are more inclined to recognize intrinsic worth in others. They acknowledge the inherent worth, dignity, and self-determining rights of others. They see basic humanity and essential freedom in all. This fosters a basic level of respect. There is a big we and an our in their worldview. Rules and structure protect people from abuse. This kinship is essential. It provides a limiter or check on potential actions that could cause harm.
For Dominators, there is no comprehensive we or our, there is only me and you. They shrug off thoughts about the intrinsic worthiness of others or connectedness. No kinship or commonality. For them, this value is nonexistent. Accomplishments, advancement, achievement is it, only it.
If you tend toward being a Dominator, check yourself. Think about how your exercise of personal power may harm and destabilize your community. You may destroy more than you want to if you are not careful. Ask yourself what you value and how you see your relationship with others. Ask yourself whether there is anything you won’t do, and why? What would you put ahead of your own interests? Would you acknowledge facts that go against you, or would you blast through the facts and try to dominate by deceit? What would you voluntarily refrain from doing? Where is the line you won’t cross?
If you tend toward being a Participant, challenge yourself to ensure that the rules you follow are truly in line with your core values. Don’t just be complacent. Find the underlying value that really matters and push back when circumstances conflict.
Currently, the Dominators are dominating. It does not need to stay this way. There is a path forward, a way to shift away from the sole value of maximal personal power. I think this is our task now. We need to recognize destructive, rule-breaking actions for what they are. If these rule-breaking actions conflict with our core values, we need to call them out. We need to call a foul on the rule breaking because it could be something worse. It may be more than rule breaking; it may be values breaking. We should challenge actions that are counter to our values.
