Does a society exist for its members or do the members exist for the society? Think of “significance” as the extent or ways in which members feel that appreciation and sense of being part of the group that they make up. The demand for significance have increased.
Wait, no the way significance is manifested have changed. Maybe it was an arms race after all, but maybe, it does not have to be. Members don’t have to be pit against one another for significance, they all can have significance.
So many of our systems have been built by drawing upon the resources and members of a society in order to help govern and maintain the society. These systems reward significance to those who are helping to lead and control (or maybe those people reward significance to themselves); but either way, the people who are ‘managed’ are often mere digits. They are called to work their way up to gain significance, to learn the skills to be a top dog, to lead and manage.
What about a world where all the members of society are rewarded with more significance by the leaders and so the members can themselves attribute more significance to the leaders? Where we as constituents don’t just say people are leaders because they make the cut in competence but above all, they care for the people.
You must be logged in to post a comment.