I was doing some research for the Tap Legacy Calendar and happened upon this picture.
This is a mislabeled photo of the Berry Brothers – Warren and Ananias, who were considered one of the foremost flash acts in the tap dance world of their time. Flash acts, different than other acts, were known for their acrobatic feats – flips, splits, and leaps, all beyond the imagination of the normal human being.
Case in point:
I distinctly remember my own reaction when I first saw this clip. My entire mental model of what was possible had to shift to accommodate the Berry Brothers.
A mislabeling of a single photo from a google search might seem innocuous. Search a little more and you’ll realize that it’s a mistake. But who has the time? Attention is traded at a premium. Good enough is good enough. If it isn’t important or completely failing, there isn’t enough time to make sure it’s right. What is right, anyway?
In some circles, what is right is getting the outcome you want, without any further consideration. In the tech world, a common ethic has been to move fast and break things. That’s all well and good when you’re the one building the replacement or owning the platform, but would you like that ethic in a house guest, moving fast and breaking the things in your home? I don’t think so.
The bull in a China shop is an old analogy, but applicable here. It doesn’t just apply to the systems we use to work, communicate, travel, or trade. It applies to the ways those systems and our part in them affect the development of individual and communal character. The fragility of the ways we relate, and how that very fragility shapes our formation, is worth considering.
Trust is fragile. Without trustworthy relationships the way we relate to the world shifts dramatically. Distrust is a breeding ground for contempt and anger.
If you think that every rich person must be evil, than anyone blessed with riches becomes suspect. If you think you can’t be honest and be in politics, than our entire political system is undermined. Of course, the stereotypes of the evil corporate titan or the slithering political operative come from real experience – but they can’t be the totality of reality.
Good business people who have achieved a semblance of financial success must exist. Honest politicians, who say what they mean and do what they say must exist. If they didn’t the world would be in a worst place than it is.
The ways we interact with information shapes the way with think about information. Information that is necessary for the development of knowledge, for confidence in choices, and ultimately for peace. After all, we make choices based on what we know, and those choices affect our lives. Consider the person that pursues a particular career or relationship only to find out that what they based their choices on were lies – guarantees of employment, who the other person said they were.
It's one thing to make the wrong assumption. It is a completely different thing to be lied to or manipulated.
From a formation standpoint, systems are organized ways that people have chosen to relate. The choices that set the system in motion may not yet be evident, but someone somewhere, at some point in time, decided that this (whatever this is) should be the way. And, notably, others agreed and repeated the pattern until it wasn’t questioned anymore. That is, until one day, someone years removed from the initial setting of the pattern decided to ask, and maybe act differently. In this view, every individual in the system is like a node – a point of interaction in the system – and they have the power to affect the system on the whole.
The affect may not be seen immediately, nor may it propagate through the system quickly, but a single change at one node cannot help but affect the rest of the system. Nodes react to other nodes, people react to other people. These reactions are the effect of change.
So, how do we build trust in an information sharing environment in which speed is more valuable than engendering trust? Where expressing one’s opinion matters more than the ability to clearly articulate the values upon which those opinions are based? Where winning the argument is more important than establishing trustworthy relationship?
Oral traditions have something to say about this.
During my TED Residency (you can see my talk here), I was charged with articulating how oral traditions function. Using tap dance as the model, I learned about some specific rules that governed the way students and teachers would have to interact for the tradition to work. That is, for an oral tradition to form individuals and groups into the kinds of people who exuded particular values, teachers and students had to interact in particular ways. Here are three:
No Rumors, No Gossip
Imagine a community in which rumors and gossip could not live. I was sitting in the faculty room of a prominent dance studio when a colleague of mine entered the room and said, “Did you hear? Bunny Briggs passed away!” My heart sunk and I was struck with severe cognitive dissonance. I was personally in touch with Bunny, had his phone number, and had recently talked to him. Of course I would know if he had passed away or not. I picked up the phone and called Bunny. Right there and then. He answered. I said, “Hello!” He responded. I told him about the rumor. It was actually the second time he had had to deal with someone thinking he had passed away. We ended our conversation and the rumor was quashed. Right then. Right there.
Every rumor or piece of gossip establishes doubt which breads mistrust in the lines of communication that are designed to do the opposite. We are supposed to communicate truth, what is real, what might be beneficial for others to know, so that their choices can be beneficial to them and others. That is how a thriving community actually functions, and that can’t happen with rumors or gossip in the system.
Only Share What You Know
One of the cornerstone rules in oral histories is to only share what you know. None of this, “I think this is what happened.” Either you know, and you can defend how you know, or you don’t. Defending how you know is like providing your credentials. Being able to say, “I was there,” is a high credential. Being able to say, “I was standing right next to the cat,” or “I was the one they said that to,” is equally as high.
Stories about experiences get told and retold all the time. People remember things differently. If we hold ourselves to the standard of memory in community, we’ll have a pretty good shot of holding a story together. We can check one another for the sake of the how the story shapes the community.
Eliminate Hurry
Lastly, I’ll offer this. Ruthlessly eliminate hurry. There is no need, nor possibility I think, of eliminating speed. But speed itself need not cause so many problems. It is the desire to be faster than we are, or can be, at any situation that causes the most trouble. We can act with speed and without hurry rather than acting under the pressure of speed with hurry. Coming from a place of fulfillment, ease, and comfort allows this shift.
Without a core experience of “okayness” hurry can be the natural output. Rushing to finish the thing that actually needs time is a disaster. Reorganizing your life so that hurry isn’t the normal output is key.
Reorganization might look like intentionally carving out time for doing nothing. Learning that your world will survive without you doing everything to hold it up. Encountering the reality that rest is function of what you rest upon as much as it is a function of the stopping of work.
Finishing the Work
There are more practices, of course, but the core is important. Do we care enough about the things we share to get them right? We won’t always get everything right, but when we do, we can apologize and correct ourselves. There is a pathway toward redemption and reconciliation even when trust is breached.
However, the way we approach the smallest endeavor is a witness to the way we will approach the larger ones. Something as small as the mislabeling of a photo says volumes. It goes the other way, too. If you have taken care to notice the details and work them out, you will be in a good place when the larger responsibilities come. You will be more likely to carry them without haste, with confidence in what you know, and with the ability to avoid destructive patterns.
Share this post