In an
analysis of morality and an examination of ways to promote virtuous actions,
Chuck Colson, Robert George, David Miller, Michael Miller, and Glenn Sunshine
came together for a panel discussion on the topic. An extension of The Colson
Center, the five panelists were ultimately dealing with the grand topic, “Doing
the Right Thing.” Addressing the moral failure of individuals and how decisions
come to be made, the panel spent some time on C.S. Lewis, the prison system,
the differences between loyalty and integrity, the family, churches, and the
educational system. Their discussion moved from a lofty philosophical
recommendation into more practical application in today’s culture and addressed
the paradox between making individual decisions while considering the
collective cohesiveness that is needed. The discussion was enriching on several
levels and the student questions demonstrated perceptiveness and appropriate
concern for how to make ethical decisions.
The
admonition to use the head to govern the heart is a good one and is actually an
extension of many of Plato’s ideas on the role and problems of the emotions in
making logical decisions.[1]
Plato regarded music, laughter, sorrow,
and many other emotional responses as being worthy events in many ways but not
entirely beneficial to society, preferring wisdom over emotions. He recommended
that artisans and people who live in emotional type disciplines be rejected
from the city of leadership. Enjoying an aesthetic perception of the world,
Plato continued to believe beauty was valued but not essential to great
thinking and philosophical wisdom. He regarded human appetites as real but
preferred the idea of leaving the artisans and those involved in emotions out
of the true city. Beauty and music are respected but also dangerous in that a
person, who lives within those disciplines, cannot be trusted with accurate
judgment. With his recommendation we see centuries of mistrust and suspicion
for anything connected to emotions, to beauty, to art, to music and,
ultimately, to creativity and imagination.
But
what if Plato were wrong, or at least not entirely right? What if he stepped up
to the plate and instead of delivering a philosophical homerun that won the
thinking game for centuries, he, instead, hit a bunt and just barely got on
base? In other words, if we accept only a little of Plato’s ideas, it is
possible we will find greater insight and comprehensive truth by giving
emotions greater credence in shaping thought and actions. If we put in doubt
Plato’s conclusions, then we inevitably begin to question C.S. Lewis’ position
on the head, chest, and belly. As these theories fall apart in light of an
opposing or at least enlightened and broad view, we may begin to see that
emphasizing emotions are in fact beneficial and essential to proper behavior
and logical thought.
In an
examination of ourselves and of society on the whole, we often read and perhaps
even experience a type of unhealthy giving in to our passions and our momentary
lapses of judgment. When we hear about a mass shooting or an adulterous affair
or larcenous actions or unbridled greed, we immediately conclude that another
person has subjugated his logical thought with poor emotional reactions. We,
sadly, acknowledge that Plato, C.S. Lewis, and the Colson Center are once again
correct that reason was replaced by the absurd enslavement to the uncontrolled
emotions of the individual. The myriad mosaics of “mistakes” that people make,
particularly in the business world, are shrugged off as examples of yet another
fool acting without logical reason and purpose.
To be
fair, on the surface it does appear as though most actions are a result of poor
emotional behavior and are not derived from logical thought. It makes sense to
teach and to strengthen the mind rather than the heart in order to avoid the
vicious trappings of an emotionally charged process. How many of us have wished
for a personal muzzle when we find ourselves saying things in public that
simply were not intended? It does seem that we deal with our own and other
people’s emotional problems much more often than their mental ones, and there
is little doubt that most corruption in the world is a result of heart led
decisions over the mind.
But
where I take issue is not necessarily in placing the mind over the emotions
but, rather, in trying to diminish their importance in making proper decisions.
I contend that is the heart that makes the best decisions and that great
judgment comes not from cold, logical reasoning but in an application of the
heart, of sensitivity, of emotional strength, of courage, and of stability. Our
academic world, from the beginnings of learning through college and beyond, should
not be about reducing the emotions and strengthening the reason but should be
about strengthening and amalgamating the emotions with the mind. This absurd
analogy of making the heart less valuable than the mind needs to be eradicated
from our educational system. Both are essential and both need development. Let
us look at this issue from another angle.
Is it
possible that this issue is a result of a male dominated worldview that is
continually propagated in our educational system at all levels? If so, it is
time to consider the strength and power of a more feminine position in business
and in education. A little story: when my wife and autistic son named Joel
visited me in London, I spent considerable time teaching them about the London
culture and the transportation system in particular. We navigated through the
oft frightening intersections, took the escalators up and down, rode the tube,
and took the buses all over the city. The double decker buses are fun but
drivers only allow a short time to enter and to exit each bus. We enjoyed
riding on the upper deck but when it was time to exit, we had to move quickly
or get left behind. Each time leaving, we would hurry our autistic son so as
not to get left behind. But one time in particular 2 people got between us and
him and the doors closed with us on the footpath and Joel in the bus.
My
self-acknowledged logical mind quickly assessed the situation, and I decided to
send him a text message to get off at the next stop, wait for us, and we would
meet him there. Sounding easy but aware of the many things that could go wrong
with my plan, I was surprised to see my wife grab the doors of the bus and pry
them open as the bus was pulling back into traffic. What she was doing made
little cognitive sense in light of the impossibility of pulling open doors on a
moving bus in London. Yet my shock increased when I saw the doors partially
open and the bus quit moving. The driver, probably more surprised than I was,
stopped the bus, opened the doors, and allowed Joel time to get off the bus and
into the arms of his parents.
A heady
approach to the problem, such as I proposed in my typical thinking way, may
have had positive results but also had potential for serious problems such as a
lost or confused Joel. My wife’s “heart-based” solution could have had
consequences to her body but did provide an immediate solution. In this case,
the heart was much wiser than the head. Obviously, this illustration displays
the selfless power of a mother’s love for her children along with a dedicated
courage that accomplished the goal; but it also shows the fallacy of always
relying on the head to squelch the heart in all decision making. Plato may have
concluded that my wife’s emotions did not belong in the city, but I think I
will keep her in my personal city!
To
reject emotions as being a vital part of the human experience is a flawed
approach to correcting behavior or “fixing” the social ills of our culture. Little
doubt remains that emotions have the potential to override intelligence in
situations, thereby resulting in poor judgment, but so also does cognition
devoid of emotions have the potential to cause poor decisions. Marketing and
advertising are reliant upon the emotional reaction leading to purchase
decisions by the consumer. A superficial glance at successful businesses may
seem at first to be achieved by logical steps and sound financial decisions,
but a closer look will often reveal a person or persons who dreamed and
imagined and gave in to his or her passions and emotions in order to achieve
the vision. When Benjamin Franklin curiously encountered electricity, it was
his heart that got excited about the potential for harnessing the power, and it
was his head that organized the steps toward devising its usage.
When
Martin Luther bucked the papacy through his 95 Theses, he was driven by his
passionate urge to end the corruption and represent the people. He applied
cognitive reasoning in his argument but it was heart that drove him to use his
reason. When Victor Hugo wrote his masterpiece Les Miserables, he focused his
anger at tyranny and the corrupt justice system to transform the thinking
through literary means. His desires for change came before his actual
production of his work. He used the heart to govern the mind and used his mind
to focus his heart. Both worked in conjunction with each other and both worked
congruently to effect change. One could make the assertion that in these cases,
the heart, thankfully, ruled and necessitated the activity of the head.
True
that many a leader is destroyed by his or her passions, and we read nearly
every day about fraud, larceny, adultery, and theft by CEO’s, by politicians,
by businessmen, church leaders, and various institutional leadership. We
quickly assume, and often correctly, that these people gave in to their
emotions, to their passions, and their judgment was adversely affected by their
lack of objective reasoning. In some ways it then makes logical sense to
encourage a diminishment of the heart and a strengthening of the mind, the
conclusion of many great thinkers throughout history. As we form a society of
great thinkers who put aside their passions and replace them with objective
reasoning, we hope to achieve a culture of…computers and robots? Is that the
plan?
Obviously
the other extreme is equally undesirable, to have an enculturation in the world
of total emancipation of the emotions. While it could result in a nice open
expression of joy and love, the result could just as likely be some kind of
emotional anarchy and an opening of Pandora’s box of evil. There are several
problems with each method of making decisions, problems that contribute to
unethical behavior, poor management, failures, and great mistrust within
organizations. Connected to these extreme issues is the balanced managerial
need to encourage trust, act with integrity, and be entrepreneurial in business
development. Trust is an especially valuable quality that is eroded through an
excessive use of science and objective reasoning. A matter of honesty and
people skills, trust can neither be clearly codified nor displaced with some
other system. Trust is an essential part of a manager’s responsibility and
requires a clear understanding of the role of empathy, compassion, and
sensitivity to people in all their complexities. “Whereas cognition-based trust
involves a calculative and instrumental assessment, affect-based trust involves
empathy, rapport and self-disclosure.”[2]
Trust
needs in management require a healthy balance of head and heart with more
emphasis on heart in most situations. Trust and judgment, however, often work
together to create situations that are untenable and mysterious. People tend to
make decisions that are illogical, based on their on perceptions rather than
reality, often relying solely on emotions rather than accurate cognition of a
situation. In light of this information, the admonitions of Plato and C.S.
Lewis seem to bear fruit in correct judgment and objective reasoning. The
resistance of the “magical” or non-objective decision by applying careful
cognition is supported by the head over heart people. Yet, a closer look
reveals, once again, the role of the heart in most decisions. While the heart does
seem to rule the day, when money is involved, the head will take over and cause
judgment to be more rational. One study of the “magical” concluded that
subjectivity and irrational responses caused decisions to be more objective and
rational. “We report in this study that American adults and undergraduates are
substantially less likely to acknowledge magical effects when the judgments
involve money […] than they are when using preference or rating measures. We
conclude that in “head-heart” conflicts of this type, money tips the balance
towards the former, or, in other words, that money makes the mind less
magical.”[3]
In this
respect, it seems as though an outside and measurable influence results in
greater objectivity in final decisions. But as interesting as this is, it
brings to mind the problem of personal responsibility in making decisions. Our
personal choices force us to bear the consequences of our decisions making us
accountable for our own responsibility. Responsibility is a form of
accountability meaning that irresponsible actions are our own in spite of
evidence to the contrary. In many situations such as not wearing a helmet while
riding a motorcycle, getting injured, and subsequently suffering the effects of
the injury, our irresponsible choice is our own. And yet if being responsible
has a greater societal demand, then our choices are not as self-determined.
Indirectly, or in many cases directly, society bears the brunt of poor
decisions regardless of whether those decisions were made from the head or the
heart.[4]
When we
give due acknowledgement to the greater societal good of all decisions, then
the discussions of head versus heart become moot and unimportant. This does not
address which is the preferred way but does give consideration to the consequences
of all actions. In light of this broad approach to judgment, we must say that
the head should overrule the heart as it considers all facets of all decisions.
Yet, in a deeper sense, once again, the heart jumps into the mix as we give
sincere credence to how decisions affect all people and provide a profound and
comprehensive compassionate process to the result. In this instance, as we
consider the benefits to all people, the heart ultimately wins as reason
determines the final outcomes for all situations.
The
problem of responsibility and how to make good decisions is an individual
process with collective ramifications. When we act on principle, as suggested
by Aristotle, regardless of the circumstance, we give power to the will and to
the reason. But reducing the impulse to act according to the circumstance is
predicated upon all events to be clearly defined by principles of right or
wrong. This assumption makes decisions easy without the kind of ambiguity that
unfortunately accompanies most situations.[5]
When we predicate all philosophy and subsequently all decisions on the theory
that principle should be the governing force behind actions, then we can
clearly rule out the heart as playing any kind of role in judgment calls. Responsibility
to principle is an ideal concept that is effective in determining right from
wrong and in placing actions from the heart at a lower level on the decision
ladder, regardless of reality or utilitarian circumstances.
We then
have the question of how an advanced sense of responsibility growing out of an
adherence to principle helps contribute to development in business and in
entrepreneurship. Study has been made as to the motivations of entrepreneurs
and most people point to a driving demand for self-fulfillment as the primary
motive for achievement. But a closer look reveals yet another level, a level
that is unquestionably equal in character to personal achievement. This is the
desire for social transformation through compassion. The article in the Academy
of Management Review titled: Venturing
For Others With Heart And Head: How Compassion Encourages Social
Entrepreneurship demonstrates a direction application of heart in initial
imaginative thinking that leads to entrepreneurial ideas. Entrepreneurs often
show a healthy concern for other people, making the previous idea of
self-oriented motivations less pronounced than previously thought. [6]
In a
study of the arts, we find a grand discipline that encourages and advocates for
emotional strength and imagination, two defining traits that are often
forgotten as necessary for entrepreneurship and personal achievement. The arts
serve an indefinable role in providing for emotional stability and cathartic
opportunities to deal with the complexity of the human spirit. It is through
imagination that we develop the desire to make a difference in the world and to
do the right thing in the right way. Decisions are rarely about objective
cognition of the facts. Most decisions involve an amalgamation and blending of
reason and emotions acting in concert toward goals. To denounce the role of the
heart in doing the right thing comes close to eradicating the very core of what
it means to be human and to make correct choices. At the risk of sounding
discriminatory, this type of thinking could again be an example of male
dominated application to problems of society and may require greater
consideration of the arts and of feminine compassion. Yes, this statement is
full of questionable theories easily refuted by evidence, but, at the same
time, it is worth giving thought to how to improve our analysis of how people
come to make decisions. If nothing else, it would be beneficial to seek a
broader constituency, including women, in receiving a response to the question
of how and why we respond the way we do and how to prevent poor decisions.
Regardless
of who is questioned, all these examples and more refute the idea that the head
should always rule the heart as a way of ensuring moral behavior. The theory is
not entirely wrong and there is no question that many people do need to
practice the discipline of applying objective reasoning over emotion-based
reactions in particular circumstances. But to insist this is the only way to
achieve moral behavior is a myopic and partial truth at best. Plato, C.S.
Lewis, and our esteemed panel at the Colson Center are to be studied and
acknowledged for their brilliant contributions to social thought and desire for
change, but in this discussion of head versus heart, they may have found a few
pages of the truth, but not the whole book. They spoke the truth, but it was
somewhat disordered and did not tell the full story.
It is
essential that we learn from and never underestimate the power of the mother
who cares for her children. Maybe if we took this practice and widely
distributed it throughout culture, allowing the power of the heart to multiply
freely in all of society, we would then see a transformation of behavior and
love never before experienced. Virtuous behavior can be achieved individually
and collectively when we embrace the totality of the head and the heart rather
than the erroneous theory of the head against the heart. It is time to imagine
a better world and to act upon our imaginations and upon our artistic emotions
in socially transforming ways. We will then learn to do the right thing.
[1] http://members.pioneer.net/~tkerns/waol-phi-website/platosite/3schart.html, accessed on 2/13/2013.
[2] Chua, Roy Yong Joo, Paul Ingram, Michael W.
Morris. From the head and the heart:
locating cognition and affect-based trust in managers’ professional networks,
Academy of Management Journal, 2008, Vol. 51, No. 3, p. 436
[3] Paul
Rozin, Heidi Grant, Stephanie Weinberg, and Scott Parker. “Head versus Heart”: Effect of monetary frames on expression of
sympathetic magical concerns. Judgment and Decision Making, August 2007, Vol. 2, No. 4, p. 217.
[4] Greenfield, Kent. The
Myth of Choice: Personal Responsibility in a World of Limits. London: Yale
University Press, 2011, p. 148.
[5] edited
by Jeffrey Poland and George Graham, Addiction and Responsibility.
Cambridge, Massachusetts: The MIT Press, 2008, pp. 73-76.
[6] Toyah
L. Miller, Matthew G. Grimes, Jeffery S. McMullen, Timothy J. Vogus.: Venturing for Others with Heart and Head:
How Compassion Encourages Social Entrepreneurship. Academy of Management
Review 2012, Vol. 37, No. 4, p. 616.
No comments:
Post a Comment