It's good to be back here after an extended summer vacation away from blogging. I've missed this opportunity to think about things philosophically and hear back right away from all my Huffington friends and readers. I look forward in the coming days to many more lively philosophical exchanges over topics that matter to us.
There's an issue that's been on my mind for the entire summer. And I finally want to say something about it. I'd love to hear what you think.
We live in exceedingly strange times. Of course, you didn't need a philosopher to tell you that. But I have in mind a form of strangeness that I haven't heard many people talk about. We're in danger as a culture of allowing symbolism to triumph over substance in a way that's deeply self-defeating.
Right after "The Big Bailout" - the launch of our much-discussed national TARP plan of economic rescue - my filmmaker son conjured up a thought experiment that I found very telling. Imagine, he suggested, a well-known CEO at one of the TARP recipient companies, sitting alone in a New York City restaurant, having a sandwich for lunch.
Scenario #1: Our CEO is drinking a beer with the sandwich. No one pays any attention.
Scenario #2: He's drinking a glass of sparkling wine in a tall champagne flute. Cell phone photos are taken, journalists are alerted, and headlines the next day blare out the egregious injustice of the overpaid chieftain "celebrating" and indulging himself "at taxpayer expense," while his company suffers and employees are being laid off. Fingers are wagged, sound bites are broadcast, columns get written, and letters to editors fly in to papers and websites around the country on the flapping wings of fevered outrage.
Now further imagine, my son continued, that the beer is a rare, expensive micro brew, and the sparkling wine is an inexpensive cava, or domestic wine, much cheaper than the beer. With the "champagne," he is actually spending less money. But the symbolism will end up choking him. Champagne Charlie may simply have picked the wrong beverage, despite how it might have complemented the food. But should it be wrong?
I recently spoke for a prominent company that had a national meeting in a major city. It took place at a very nice hotel, but perhaps not one widely known for luxury. It was part of a great chain that has a solid reputation for comfort and good functionality. The person in charge of the meeting told me that the Ritz Carlton in that city had offered a much better deal, at a significantly lower cost to the company, but that they could not possibly have their meeting in the Ritz, since it's very well known for luxury in a way that could symbolize indulgence and extravagant expense, at a time when that's the last thing their company needed to be associated with in the public eye. So they had to spend more money to look like they were spending less. And a famous hotel chain was basically being punished for nothing other than their excellence, along with the positive public image that this longstanding tradition has created. Should a business ever be penalized for its superior achievements?
This little story is not unique, but increasingly common, and I've heard versions of it many times. It always involves symbolism triumphing over substance in the selection of locations for meetings that are actually being held. But a similar concern over symbolism can stop companies from having offsite meetings at all.
Top executives of big corporations often feel that they can't have the large meetings they need, because of negative public perceptions that could be generated over the symbolism involved. And even small gatherings have increasingly been cancelled for the same reason. Few corporate groups believe they can risk getting away like they have in every other economic environment to recharge their batteries for a few days in anything remotely like a resort setting, despite the unique opportunities that this has always provided for renewing their vision, reestablishing their energy, and taking on new goals. Worries about symbolism are triumphing over substance and preventing what's needed more than ever before in our lifetimes.
Have some corporate meetings in the past gone too far in expense and luxury? Certainly they have - there's no doubt about this at all. A few extravagant gatherings have been well publicized in the media and soundly criticized for their extremes. But they're not typical or representative of the many hundreds of such meetings I've attended over the years as a presenter.
The executives who have canceled all or most their offsite meetings this year know that these events normally more than pay for their cost - in corporate spirit, vital education, enhanced interaction, future innovation, and overall productivity. They are investments in the future that have a rare guarantee of positive return in an overall climate with few such guarantees. But they have unfortunately come to be viewed as symbolic sources of poisonous public perception.
The sad fact is that this sort of symbolism is trumping substance everywhere. I bet you can come up with your own examples of it. Recall our last presidential election, where anything from flag pins to a casual mention of arugula could offer a chance for symbolism to displace substance from the real debate that should have been taking place. The problem is not, of course, unprecedented. Daniel Boorstin warned us long ago about how images were quickly replacing realities across American life, in his groundbreaking 1961 book, The Image: A Guide to Pseudo-Events in America.
In North Carolina where I live, the state motto is: "To Be Rather Than To Seem." Somehow, the events of our recent past, filtered through current media driven public concerns, have largely reversed this adage. When forced to choose, we'd rather seem frugal than be frugal. We'd rather appear prudent than be so. We cultivate perceptions assiduously and too often, as a result, leave reality to its own devices.
One of the earliest examples of the triumph of symbolism over substance in our current economic challenges involved the image of the corporate jet. Is there anyone in America who hasn't actually used one, who would accept for a second the idea that a company plane can be an important tool of productivity? It sounds laughable to many even to suggest this. Almost everyone, it seems, wants to take the cynic's pose here and ground all the high flyers of commerce. The corporate jet, or the private plane generally, is now widely resented and parodied as the ultimate in wild, irresponsible self-indulgence and over-the-top luxury. But, for busy executives, it can make all the difference between business won and business lost, to a degree that renders the expense involved a sound and necessary investment.
As a simple philosopher, the humble servant of ideas and individuals, I've actually had to charter jets now and then to give presentations that would not otherwise have been possible, due to considerations of space and time. Everyone knows that we philosophers need togas, or at least tweed jackets. Beards and beers might also be thought essential to the enterprise. But hardly anyone would guess that an occasional jet could be necessary for bringing people ideas they can use. The symbolism can just seem insane. But the substance involved is quite different.
Three car guys from Detroit famously flew in separate jets to Washington to request emergency federal money for their companies. Could they at least have jet-pooled? In reality, they could have been more prudent, and much more efficient in their travel, and there might not have been such a huge public backlash over their choice of conveyance. I don't think we need to insist that they engage only in long, slow rides in small, compact cars. Their time might be better used in different ways than that - a fact well attested by their balance sheets at that historic moment. We can't let appearances, even extremely ironic ones, dominate our thinking and determine all issues. The realities involved matter more.
Appearance and reality - this is one of the oldest philosophical distinctions. Of course, appearances are certainly, in a sense, among the realities with which we have to do in our world. So I understand the need for careful public relations and the vigilant avoidance, whenever possible, of awkward and inappropriate signals that could be sent out by appearances. But, really, if we as a culture could calm down about matters of symbolism a bit, we might be better positioned to do what's really necessary in order to get the substantial results we need during this historic phase of our national life.
To favor symbolism over substance is to allow the proverbial tail to wag the aphoristic dog. And that's never a good idea. Ask any such dog, but especially a top dog - any substantive or symbolic CEO that you happen to see. Share a beer, rather than anything that sparkles, and you may get an earful about how the current public outcry over symbolism and appearances is causing us much greater difficulty in dealing with the realities we face that alone actually determine our future.
Let's strive to make symbolism subordinate to substance in our thoughts and actions as we move forward into this new century.