We say we want "Balance"

Did you say you want Balance? What type of balance are we talking about?

If you have not seen the TED talk by Nigel Marsh, he suggests it is too important to be left in the hands of your employer. Nigel lays out an ideal day for his idea of balance between family time, personal time and productive work time — and offers some stirring encouragement to make it happen.

"Give it a break, you are dreaming mate." said one of Nigel's mates and I sympathise with his mates view. The ideal day is the same every day. The scene may be the same or different, the weather may be cold, hot either way, it is perfect just the way it is. This notion of work life balance is bollocks in most of life situations. Spreading our time across physical, intellectual, emotional, spiritual, home and work in equal measure is utter rubbish. All the formulas we might use to distribute our time in various way's like, 3 days at home 2 days at work, are all very funny. Where is the balance? "Don't let your boss decide, says Nigel." Now that is even funnier. How about we ask our kids, the dog, our partners and see what they have to say. Now would that be balanced? While Nigel's perfect day is very funny, I am not interested in pursuing it. Well, maybe some aspects but that's another matter. 

Is balance about equal distribution of resources; equal consideration for opposing information or fact versus opinion? Are we dealing with paradoxical realities or can a holistic perspective aluminate a diversity of choices we didn't previously consider?  Is equality advanced by finding an equilibrium? Why should we give equal attention to those that don't share the view of 99% of environmental scientists who are warning us about global warming, should we give equal attention to the 1%?  

There are so many competing philosophies:  Functionalism versus Humanism; Rationalism versus Post Modern Relativism; Behaviouralism versus Humanism/Cognitivism; Rationalism V Post Modern Realism, Nature versus Nurture; Modernity Versus Postmodernism; Individualism versus Communalism; yet so many of these paradigms seem anachronistic ideologies of a past long forgotten.    

History of Balance  

The different meanings applied to "Balance" across time reveals how it has become obscure. Aristotle described a happy person as one who will exhibit a personality appropriately balanced between reasons and desires, with moderation being the desired characterising feature for all. Here he discussed the conditions under which moral responsibility may be ascribed to individual agents, the nature of the virtues and vices involved in moral evaluation, and the methods of achieving happiness in human life. The central issue for Aristotle is the question of character or personality — what does it take for an individual human being to be a good person? He argues that pleasure is not a good in itself, since it is by its nature incomplete and worthwhile activities are often associated with their own distinctive pleasures. Hence, we are rightly guided in life by our natural preference for engaging in pleasant activities rather than in unpleasant ones. For Aristotle it is a simple choice, to find genuine happiness lies in action that leads to virtue, since this alone provides true value and not just amusement. Thus, Aristotle held that contemplation is the highest form of moral activity because it is continuous, pleasant, self-sufficient, and complete. Aristotle like Plato before him did not believe anyone that had a "necessity" for work was truly free and essential, they are like paid slaves.  

Across time various Philosophers have challenged these notions of balance and disrupted the historically continuity of our perceptions. Shakespeare for his portrayal of our raw passions. Rene Descarte for his idea of thought as reflexive consciousness and self awareness and his principles of philosophy; G.W.F. Hegel and his development of absolute idealism as a means to integrate the notions of mind, nature, subject, object, psychology, the state, history, art, religion and philosophy. Marx by founding a purely relational analysis of the social context and highlighting the ideological bias of class and privilege, Nietzsche by replacing original rational foundations with a moral genealogy steeped in our experience; Freud by showing that we are not transparent to ourselves; Darwin and the Origin of Species fundamentally changed the way we understand the origin of humanity; John Locke "An essay on human understanding" realised the essential nature of consciousness as essential to thought and self identity. G.W Leibniz and his discourse on metaphysics with an emphasis on differentiation and integration suggested an infinite degrees of consciousness and unconsciousness; Immanuel Kant's fundamental concepts of structure in human experience, and that reason is the source of morality continues to be a significant factor in contemporary considerations of ethics. Galileo, Newton, Albert Einstein this list goes on through the modern era. Some less known than others. Stephen Hawking is well known for his Big Bang theory yet Alan Turing was virtually unknown till the recent movie, "The Imitation Game"  and yet Turing's work arguable made modern computational technology possible. Foucault by providing a historical and post-modern analysis framework which brings forth the relative nature of our constructs of knowledge and a deeper understanding of power.  What does all this have to do with balance? 

Nietzsche and the phenomenologists suggest that we should aim at a balance between our rationality and our passions. While the logical mind weighs up our options, it is our emotions that inspire us and motivate us to act. It is through our actions that we transform not just ourselves but also the environment through which we move and the space we inhabit. It is a creative act to give voice to ideas and manifest action in the world. Ref.  Dr Laura D’Olimpio  Abc.net.au    

One of the great innovations in the techniques of power in the eighteenth century was the emergence of “population” as an economic and political problem: population as wealth, population as manpower or labor capacity, population balanced between its own growth and the resources it commanded. Governments perceived that they were not dealing simply with subjects, or even with a “people,” but with a “population,” with its specific phenomena and its peculiar variables: birth and death rates, life expectancy, fertility, state of health, frequency of illnesses, patterns of diet and habitation.”
― Michel Foucault, The History of Sexuality: An Introduction: 1

There are numerous way in which we could cast the quest for balance. In Management the person often attributed with founding the Scientific Method of Management, Frederick Taylor was not a great thinker. His contribution to modern management has been venerated by many but even his contemporaries did not afford him the same level of reverence.  George Elton Mayo (1880–1949) was a Harvard Professor who had come from Adelaide University, Australia and his work while far from being perfect, inspired many others who realised Taylor's obsession with efficiency did not adequately address the human perceptions and need for meaning. The balance between work and life swung back towards a greater acknowledgment of human relations and initiated a social movement also inspired by humanism. The quest for balance between Greek philosophies (Hellenism) and the Hebrew (Hebraism) and later Christian ideas germinated during the Reformation was recast in the 19th and 20th century as one between efficiency of the individual and the primary assumption that we all act in our own self interest with one of a Humanist foundation that we are social beings and can act with a collective consciousness to achieve goals.

The uppermost idea with Hellenism is to see things as they really are; the uppermost idea with Hebraism is conduct and obedience. Nothing can do away with this ineffaceable difference; the Greek quarrel with the body and its desires is, that they hinder right thinking, the Hebrew quarrel with them is, that they hinder right acting.”

Hellenism is to follow, with flexible activity, the whole play of the universal order, to be [146/147] apprehensive of missing any part of it, of sacrificing one part to another, to slip away from resting in this or that intimation of it, however capital. An unclouded clearness of mind, an unimpeded play of thought, is what this bent drives at. The governing idea of Hellenism is spontaneity of consciousness; that of Hebraism, strictness of conscience. 

In all directions our habitual courses of action seem to be losing efficaciousness, credit, and control, both with others and even with ourselves; everywhere we see the beginnings of confusion, and we want a clue to some sound order and authority. This we can only get by going back upon the actual instincts and forces which rule our life, seeing them as they really are, connecting them with other instincts and forces, and enlarging our whole view and rule of life.” Mathew Arnold (2001) Culture and Anarchy December https://www.victorianweb.org/authors/arnold/writings/4.html 

The origins of change management approaches that stem from Scientific Management theory are not as clear cut and more divergent with Humanist approaches and the subtle contrasting characteristics are less obvious but non-the-less evident. Lean manufacturing focuses on shortening the time that elapses between a customer’s order and the shipment of the product or the provision of the service that fills the order and Six Sigma "maintains that reducing “variation” will help solve process and business problems." "The Systems Approach offers an ideal way to coordinate lean and six sigma. Using this approach, employee projects can be coordinated with a management oversight function that includes value stream managers and black belts."  Pojasek. Robert B. (2003) In contrast, "Systems thinking focuses on how the individual that is being studied interacts with the other constituents of the system. Rather than focusing on the individuals within an organization, it prefers to look at a larger number of interactions within the organization and in between organizations as a whole." Daniel Aronson  "A learning organisation is one where people are continually learning how to learn together." Peter Senge, 2006

The 5 Leadership Learning Disciplines: Shared Vision, Mental Models, Personal Mastery, Team Learning, Systems Thinking 

The fundamental differences between Scientific Management theory based approaches to change which emphasise process while the systems theory adopts a people centred and cultural context approach to change through Leadership.   

Balancing Power

Emperors, Kings and Queens have not all been despots and exploiters but the aristocracy or ruling class in most civilisations have controlled the balance of power among competing leaders. As history has progressed so to have our ideas about the best ways in which to balance power in our society. Our western democracy can be traced back to the roman empire and our western version of democracy was dramatically influenced by the Magna Carta but the dominance of consumerism as a means to attribute power within our democracy is a relatively new cultural phenomena. 

Alain de Botton talks extensively about the development of our modern day meritocracy and the consequential disproportionate influence of the most wealthy. In his book "Status Anxiety" de Botton writes"

We each appear to hold within ourselves a range of divergent views as to our native qualities.. And amid such uncertainty, we typically turn to the wider world to settle the question of our significance.. we seem beholden to affections of others to endure ourselves.” 

Today's problem is our lack of egalitarianism. We no longer believe that people are worse off because of economic conditions or policy positions. Instead, people who unemployed, disabled, sole parents or from some cultural groups are “losers/bludgers/unproductive/freeloaders/unskilled/making poor choices and not active enough in seeking employment/entrepreneurial opportunities In some way it is their fault. Hence de Botton frames Social Anxiety as an individual feeling and characteristic but also highlights the use of language by the dominant discourse in media which denigrates those seen as failures. He then proposes meritocracy as the source of this social discontent as we struggle to meet the tyranny of popular expectation promoted as desirable. Wealth, opulence and gross conspicuous consumption is used to exemplify the growing disparity between the rich and the poor. The old version of the aristocracy has been replaced by a group of self interest oligarchs who’s only concern is their own self interests. The challenge for anyone looking for potential solutions offered by de Botton is that his books can not really be read in isolation as he does offer other very practical solutions in several other books and his broader social enterprise activities. https://www.theschooloflife.com/london/ 

De Botton's deep passion for history, literature and art offers a platform for genuine familiarity and connection even when I don’t share his excitement for "Bohemians" for example, I have considered these as just his examples of some alternatives.

Throughout de Botton, pulls off a fine balancing act. He suggests how absurd it can be to worry too much about what others think, but knows that we’re trapped. We can recognise the random, contingent nature of status and still want it. And why not? Status anxiety, he notes, produces competition, self-realisation and excellence… Still, it makes you fret. The author admits that in him it takes the form of suffering from “the nasty things that people write about my books”. He needn’t worry too much about that one.

Emotional Balance.

Are we robots and zombies or are we passionate emotional Social and Spiritual humans? To expect that we will alway's be happy and cheerful when interacting is incredible. It is nothing like reality. Surely, we all have the right to express the full range of emotions provided this is done in a manner that does not threaten others and we accept the responsibility of potentially offending others?   

Can we live with our sorrow and be resilient; work through our grief and experience it in respectful remembrance of those we have lost; can we be angry at times when others are being bully's or when we really want to win a fight worth fighting? Are we striving for perfection while we accept the imperfection? Is our search for understand our inner self and desire for emotional balance motivated by fear while ignoring the needs of others, our family and community?

Some say we are either fearful of success or failure and either way we self sabotage. Perhaps we need to find a more resilient and broader definition of emotional balance. One that embraces both the pursuit of happiness and the acceptance of sorrow and pain. But what good would this really serve? 

Rather than seek balance between the extremes of emotional experience it would be beneficial to seek an emotional perspective that transcends the inner emotional experience. In this way transcendence can be akin to a spiritual or transcendental meditation experience but equally it could simply be a matter of perspective. While for most people the idea of meditation and transcendentalism is shrouded in mystical beliefs and mythology which I acknowledge is very prevalent on exploring the practices of such groups, it can also be culturally and functionally appropriate in some ways. For example, the practice of Tia Chi, Yoga and to a lessor extent even Palates all have a requirement for concentration that is meditative. 

Is there really any valid desire for Balance or are we really saying we want the capacity to cope with the extremes? 

The paradox of life and the choices we have to make are often framed in this dualistic manner as a choice between the good and the bad, the black or the white, the hard or the soft, the functional verses the pointless. What seems to have been forgotten is that this dualistic view also contrasts the interests of the individual with that of the Community and in doing so makes the individual responsible for their circumstances ignoring the common good benefits of caring for every individual and ensure none live under the poverty line.  

Angela Ackerman in promoting her books Positive Trait & Negative Trait Thesaurus  suggests that she learned that compelling characters are neither good nor bad, perfect or fundamentally flawed. Instead, they are all of these things. Each has a set of good, admirable qualities, even while displaying frustrating or off-putting flaws. They have strengths and weaknesses in different areas, making them both skilled and inept at the same time." She also explains that: "Some characters are intentionally unbalanced. If you have a character who leans one way more than the other (such as a villain or anti hero) by story necessity, then make sure you also build in something that suggests no matter how flawed or terrible, there is a chance they can change or be redeemed." 

While psychological analysis is very helpful to raise awareness about self it is also important to recognise that our identity is integral and intrinsic to our cultural context. We can not change our cultural heritage and nor should we expect people to deny theirs. 

Conclusion

It is both materialistically and philosophically useful to assign some forms of measurement to different aspects of our lives in order to create a mechanistic account of actual contributions of all parts. In the same way that any given part of an eco system contributes to the whole these could factor in subjective and intuitive measure which raise awareness within a phenomenological study or they may be objective evidence. 

The quest for balance reveals itself to really not be the world of reality but rather a perception of the world which is unfortunately limited by our knowledge, bias perception, systems and contextual circumstances we find ourselves in and are created largely externally. We can influence these circumstances gradually and shape a life in which we can find happiness and fulfilment but in order to do so we must also accept the things we can not change and change the things we can. 

While in this article I'm simply stirring the soup, I hope to expand on many aspect to create a wizards brew. I am seeking abundance in some things, moderation in others. Higher degrees of transparency, ethical, social and community awareness that does not diminish the individual but enriches them. We need the capability to dodge and weave through the traffic sort out the barrage of information ranging from the boring, bullying, humorous and essential messages. We need to stay focused while multi-tasking. Where on earth is this balance? It is a very fleeting a often nebulous concept. I think serenity is a much better quest. 

William Shakespeare said It best: 

To be or not to be, that is the question.
Whether 'tis nobler in the mind to suffer
The slings and arrows of outrageous fortune
Or to take arms against a sea of troubles,
And by opposing, end them. To die, to sleep
No more, and by a sleep to say we end,
The heartache and the thousand natural shocks
That flesh is heir to, 'tis a consummation
Devoutly to be wished."  Hamlet

If the balance of our lives had not one scale of reason to poise another of sensuality, the blood and baseness of our natures would conduct us to most preposterous conclusions." Othello