My Facebook friend James Norris asks: How many of you Singaporean changemakers are on track to create global social impact before you hit 30 ?
His question set me thinking.
It took me until I was about 40 to realize that it’s not really my place to change the world, unless it wants to be changed. I realize now that I wrote a ‘script’ for myself as someone who set out to change other people and the world and that was not helpful.
It wasn’t ill-intentioned and some good things came out of it (like the charity I co-founded) but I came to realize that this script was not a firm foundation for a good life.
Psychotherapy has helped me realize how many individuals, organizations and even governments lock themselves into endless psychological games when they try to change the world by rescuing. For example, I believe that most Arts funding organizations place themselves in the role of fairy godmother and, in doing so, make artists into victims, perpetuating the unhelpful myth that the artist must suffer. There’s a horrible irony in that.
On a day to day level in my work with entrepreneurs, I sometimes meet social-entrepreneurs-without-a-cause. They like the dynamism of the word entrepreneur but they feel guilty about making a profit, and they set up a dichotomy in their head where the two are mutually exclusive. Somehow putting the word social in front makes being an entrepreneur more acceptable to them (“I’m not doing this for ME you know – I’m doing it for YOU – little people!”)
These folk could be great entrepreneurs (and do social good, and stand on their own two feet and stop expecting someone to foot the bill) if they only got rid of their hangup about profit. So I always tell them to call it a surplus instead and let them know they can plough that surplus back into social causes if they want. But for many the logic of that is just too simple … because it’s not about logic … it’s about a script they have cast themselves in as the Knight in Shining Armour.
These are well-intentioned people who, through luck or design, don’t really need to earn a living. Lacking such a fundamental drive in life they endlessly seek out damsels in distress who need rescuing from dragons, underdogs who are being oppressed and causes that need to be championed.
My point is that they are never happy, even when they help deserving people because someone addicted to rescuing needs forever to find (or create) victims. Inadvertently, these help-addicts become like vampires, sucking the self-esteem out of the victims upon which they prey.
None of which is to say that there aren’t some great social entrepreneurs who understand all the above instinctively. I am honoured to call Melissa Clark-Reynolds a friend. Her virtual eco-world for kids Minimonos is a textbook example of how to get this stuff right.
And of course sometimes people (like my 4 year old son) aren’t capable of looking after themselves. It’s my job as a parent to rescue him from harm (ideally, before it happens). Likewise if I see someone knocked over by a bus, I feel an obligation as a humanist to help.
But by and large I have come to believe more and more strongly in the starting point for Transactional Analysis, which is that:
- We are all fundamentally OK.
- Virtually all of us have the capacity to make choices for ourselves
- We can change those choices through life as we grow.
In conclusion, it is a wonderful thing to help other people but only if they ask for help. Each of us makes decisions that impact the world every day. If we start with humble ambitions, do what we can to live a good life that does not harm others, and make life as good as we can for the people who want our influence, we will all be OK.