What Is "The Aim Of Public Life?"

This quote is from Simone Weil, apparently:

It is the aim of public life to arrange that all forms of power are entrusted, so far as possible, to people who effectively consent to be bound by the obligation towards all human beings which lies upon everyone, and who understand the obligation.

Nice. Very nice.

Obviously it’s near impossible in the modern age to “arrange that all forms of power are entrusted” to anyone, because money talks and bullshit walks. Sorry Simone. A lot of people who become powerful are “powerful” largely because they control assets, processes, or underlying companies — and that’s what makes them powerful. It’s not a form of “respect” so much as a form of “I must listen to this person because he (usually a “he”) controls the outcomes and purse strings.” It’s hierarchy driven by fear and asset control, not any form of the various bullshit leadership terms we keep enacting, i.e. “servant leadership.”

I don’t know very much about Thomas Jefferson and I was possibly getting stoned several blocks away with kids I don’t talk to anymore when we learned about Jefferson in high school, but … my vague understanding of Jefferson was that he viewed politicians as this:

• You create a business in the community, i.e. welding.
• You do that for 10–20 years.
• You raise a family.
• You attend community social events.
• When you are done with those phases of your life, you can become a public servant.

I think that was the idea.

Now we have “career politicians” — one is currently in the White House — and that frustrates tons of people, and it’s not the “entrusting of power to…” A career politician has no context for how real human beings live day-to-day or what challenges they face, either because he/she is on the corporate payroll or they’ve just never had to search for work, stack boxes, push spreadsheets around all day, etc. They just don’t know.

Yes, you can argue that they must run for office, and that’s challenging, but it’s also a process imbued by gladhanding and billions of dollars, and most incumbents don’t lose. Some do, yes.

It’s sadly the same with work. People become higher-ranking at work for one of these reasons:

• They sell well.
• They ship well.
• They have been around for a long time and there is nowhere else to put them.
• They are related to those in power.
• They are close to the power core in some other way (usually because of the first two bullets).

Notice what’s not on that list:

• Respect
• Accountability
• Empathy
• Compassion
• Etc.

Now, could someone that sells well also have empathy and compassion? Absolutely. That’s very possible.

Is it common? No.

Usually the people that rise up in an organizational system are the most adept at playing the game which that system values. Here’s one way to think about it:

Here’s another way, per Gary Hamel:

“Bureaucracy is a massive, role-playing game. If you’re an advanced player, you know how to deflect blame, defend turf, manage up, hoard resources, trade favors, negotiate targets & avoid scrutiny. Those who excel at the game, unsurprisingly, are unenthusiastic about changing it”

See also.

These things — politics, work, and sadly often even love — are games. They have real moments of beauty (action on climate change, a huge project, a child) but they are inherently games. Women want kids and men want relevance; neither side wants to struggle as a single in the modern economic climate. Bosses want prestige and deification; workers want a paycheck. Politicians want envy and kickbacks; corporations want less regulations. It’s all a game.

The aim of public life, to answer the question at the top of this post, is simply to do your best at playing the game, which can mean:

• Money
• Kids
• House
• Trappings
• Volunteer work
• Faith
• Art

Etc, etc.

The goal is to win some version of the game, or rationalize that you did. It has very little to do with “empowering” such-and-such to do what’s-it-called. It’s about finding a path where you did well at the game.

Right?