A Question of Perspective?
One topic. Another topic. Yet a third topic.
This is the North Entrance to the Indian Peaks Wilderness. To the left is the Roaring Fork drainage and to the right is the Doe Creek trailhead. Dead ahead, up the trail about 2,000ft higher in elevation, is Crater Lake. This area is a short drive from my current house and the picture is taken from the dirt road that goes into where some day my new house is going to be. (Just so you know where you are...).
These are trails I take the pups on pretty much every other day during either our shorter walks or longer day hikes. When you go out up here, you have the choice of either staying on the trail or cutting cross-country, and I often find myself standing somewhere in the woods or on a ridgeline, thinking about how odd it is for me, having spent decades in major urban areas, to find myself standing alone in the woods, just thinking, while the world out there beyond the ridge lines spins on...
When you live in a city you know, you learn to anticipate things...You know that at the corner of 12th and Main is the drug store and as you turn the corner of 11th and Main, you can look up to see the sign and approaching storefront. When you walk trails you have walked before, you can kind of get into the same mindset--there's the rock outcropping, here comes the creek...But when you go off trail and cut cross-country, no matter how many times you do it, you find yourself continually shifting perspective, having a new take on things you "know" and experiencing things you weren't ready for.
Last summer, I took the pups for a day hike up the Roaring Fork drainage. I like that trail since the first mile or so is pretty much straight up hill...it is pretty brutal and so most folks who don't know the area don't go there and settle for the easier trail around Monarch Lake or others nearby. As you get in there a ways, the trail splits off from the creek and heads up over a ridgeline, toward Stone Lake. I had seen some other hikers earlier and knew there were people somewhere on the trail ahead. (Okay...so when you live here, you get a little persnickety about wanting to have an area to yourself!!). Instead of staying on the trail, we continued to simply follow the creek...up and up...climbing over rocks and stepping through underbrush, getting higher and higher with each step and (very much...) labored breath.
Several things happened to me on this hike that gave me pause:
first off, we're running right along the creek which, while small, is still ripping along at a pretty good clip and making a, uh, roaring noise that is pretty loud (people who name things tend to be pretty straight forward...Roaring Fork Creek...Gravel Mountain...I like that kind of simplicity in naming things!), and so the pups and I step out of some brush into this opening next to the creek and I look up and BAM--there's a buck walking down toward us from somewhere up above. He is good sized with a compact, though impressive, rack...And so we just stop. But he keeps coming, kind of looking down as he's picking his way along, until he looks up and sees us. Pearl and Rasta are stopped next to me, sitting at my side, the buck is at this point less than 20 feet ahead of me, he stops short, turns his head and we lock eyes....
I'm not sure how long it was...couldn't have been more than a few seconds, but it felt like minutes... we just both stared at each other and waited for the other to move, which the other didn't... finally, he turned, took a few jumps and was off into the brush...
Secondly, I'm cruising through the woods along the creek, the dogs bounding off to my right and left (I always keep them kind of close, in case we run into a moose or like the deer above...), and I'm cutting up a small hillside, looking down to make sure I don't stumble on a rock or something, and I am lifting my foot, just about to put it down and BAM--there's a ptarmigan roosting right there, just under my foot and I'm about to crush it! I jerk myself over to one side and almost fall over and yet, here's this bird sitting on its nest, protecting its eggs and not about to move for anyone. I took a few steps to the side and just looked at it, since I'd never seen one so close up before (they usually blow-up into the air in a big explosion of feathers and weird ptarmigan noises as soon as you get near...). It was totally camouflaged, speckled brown and white with flecks of black and totally unseen, sitting there on the open earth...
Thirdly, I come up over this ledge, the creek now just a little dribble, and the space above the ledge opens into this high country meadow--wide open, lush and green, with wild flowers and big chunks of rock scattered about, warm from the sun and all of it just resting at the top of the world. I pull myself up a ridgeline that kind of runs around the meadow and turn around and there it is, BAM--the whole drainage, just laid out ahead of me, spreading out down below, no trail, no people, just expanse and openness, with this deep blue sky above, a breeze like a warm breath moving over my skin and the hard, warm rock beneath me.
And I am just, you know, there...feeling still fully connected to the buck somewhere off below, the bird on her nest and the earth warming my butt as I sit propped on the rock, still...
Perspective.
I used to think that I was pretty well connected and had the "right" take on most issues of the day, that I had a good perspective on things. And I still think that I have a good set of values that screen my world and help me interpret what is righteous and what is not...
But I wonder how many of our problems are created by the fact that we build worlds around us that help make it easier for us to exist (after all, one can't spend every second of every day contemplating the deeper meanings of each element that presents itself to you!). Yet, I also think we need to forcibly break out of our heads, break down our world views and attempt to regain a greater perspective of where we are, how we are connected to others and the planet and what this whole thing is about...
But for the most part, I don't see that...
I see people convinced of their own righteousness and world view and, having set a course for "projects" to be completed within "this" time frame, they plow right ahead, toward their goal.
Even the so called "thought leaders" are locked in their own "progressive track" of attempting to out do each other and be viewed as more visionary and deeply insightful than others.
You see entrepreneurs (both social and traditional) who begin with a vision and passion for some deeper truth or opportunity and then they end up creating a business or NGO with a budget and agenda and need to be fed regularly and they end up defending that beast against all others, so that they can barely celebrate the victories of others in their space, since to see others advance feels like they are being left behind, because, at the end of the day, they have lost perspective...
And you see wealthy folks who were once "normal," who now have confused financial success with real life wisdom or deeper knowledge and seem to think that they are actually smarter or something than others and now that they have ended up surrounded by folks who schmooze them and want things have come to actually believe they ARE smarter, better looking and funnier than god knows they actually are...
For the most part, all these people (each within their own space and world) are what I think of as "path people," meaning they stay on the trail and plug on, step after step, moving toward their goal, but missing the larger picture and experience of what all is actually around them.
Now, don't YOU go get all judgmental on me...
I'm not saying that MY perspective and current lifestyle is the ONE and these other folks aren't doing good things as well...
but what I get continually surprised by is how many of these folks don't seem to be fully conscience of the fact that they are there--positioned on the trail--and remain largely unconnected to the space and time around them. I can't help feeling that somehow the value of whatever they are doing, the full value of their life time spent in pursuit of whatever it is they are doing, isn't somehow diminished as a part of their having such a narrow perspective on their position in the world...
I was just at a meeting hosted by the World Economic Forum (http://www.weforum.org/) in Geneva, and met a new friend who is a great guy by the name of Hylton Appelbaum, from South Africa. He is a funny guy who, it strikes me, has the right perspective of humility in the face of true challenges. He works with the Nelson Mandela Children's Fund ( http://www.mandela-children.ca/) and in closing one of his emails to me he said that he looked forward to continuing our discussions and that, "perhaps, we might actually be able to do something to help the victims of our benevolence."
That, it strikes me, is an example of the correct perspective to take to our work...a sense of vision and hope for creating positive change in the world, yet a knowledge that in our "good works" we may also carry the seeds of destruction...
...and that we must tread lightly, lest we miss seeing the buck, or risk crushing the roosting hen or, equally worse, lose sight of how all these smaller experiences are part of one larger world that is, at its core, whole and connected to all its parts, of which we are just one...
So, what do you think?
How does perspective shift?
Can we force others to see things they do not want to see?
How does the "right" perspective change over time and does that mean the perspective we had is less than the one we're evolving?
Is there a way we can maintain what I would call the passion of full perspective that affirms the blend of our lives and at the same time can focus us enough to actually get something done in the course of a day?
These are just some of the things I'm mulling over as I start my day...
time to take the dogs for a walk in the woods...
off the trail!!
best to you,
jed
6 responses. (Add yours.)
Sam Shiroff — Nov 6 2005 03:28 AM
Perspective is, by definition, never objective. Thus, what you describe is merely a reflection of what you brought into each situation.
The comparison between the city and the country needs to be taken to a different level. The comparison is between a known city and a known trail in the country. Just as the trail provides familiar scenes because it is oft traveled, there are few who find themselves consistently in all parts of a city. Move off of your "trail" in the city and you might find different, unique and perhaps dangerous places as well. Concurrently, one might also address the more general aspect of being in any city or in any natural setting. In fact, one might have to qualify the type of city, say a Western city and the type of natural setting - clearly there is a difference between mountainous terrain and a swamp.
But, a person who knows how cities function will know what to expect regardless which he/she is in. The same is true of that natural setting. Just as you might enter a city and know that a drug store, bank or restaurant or hotel will be somewhere if you look in a residential or commercial area (the fact that you can identify a residential or commercial area is pertinent, because you know that cities have zoning) a person accustomed to a natural setting would be fully aware that a birds nest is likely to be placed in a given area, and be conscious enough to avoid stepping on it (or deer, moose or other creatures favorite places to be). Thus, the comparison made is merely a reflection of your perspective and could easily be reversed.
Ultimately asking people to move off of the trail or think out of the box is probably beyond the capacity of most (and thankfully so). As much as we perceive ourselves as individuals and value our personal freedoms, we concurrently crave acceptance and communal experience. Whereas the Japanese say "The nail that stands up gets hammered down" and Americans will claim that “the squeaky wheel gets the oil" both have a homogenizing effect. Two cultures with opposite perspectives on individualism - same effect. We are social creatures and meant to follow the lead.
Leadership is therefore the key; progress is made through innovation. And innovation is not about following the beaten path. As Thomas Carlyle rightfully said, "History is the biography of great men (and women"). What we really need to encourage are the few who are capable of that different perspective to cut new trails along which others can follow.
People want to be happy. The West's definition of successful somehow seems to equate monetary wealth with happiness. However, numerous studies have shown that great wealth is not a prerequisite for happiness: http://www.gs.com/hkchina/insight/research/pdf/BRIC_Layers_03-01-05.pdf (take a look at page 4). Of course extreme poverty is generally a recipe for unhappiness. The point is thus to find a golden middle that allows as many as possible to reach the top of Maslow’s hierarchy and to deny the possibility for those incapable of reaching the top of the pyramid from setting the agenda from their very large foundations.
To return to the main question of whether it is possible to maintain a fuller perspective, I would answer that humanity has only had different perspectives, never fuller ones. If it weren’t for the narrow-minded focus of thousands of scientists, we would never have the full perspective of the earth that satellites provide us. Nor would we fly around the globe in jet planes, nor see pictures of anywhere on earth on television. Indeed humans once lived in greater harmony with nature, but only in the condition of isolation. We are now a global species. Many have a global perspective. We simply need to marry this new consciousness with the fact that we remain part of nature, not its master.
It is necessary to recognize that perhaps the path that got us here is no longer taking us in the right direction. For that we require leaders and examples and innovation to help build alternatives.
Of course, if the current path is a destructive one (which I believe it is) we are required to find alternatives. Otherwise, the alternatives will find us - and that could be very unpleasant indeed.
Tony Deifell — Nov 6 2005 04:26 PM
I used to teach photography to blind students - and they taught me a lot about perspective.
I never noticed the cracks in the sidewalks at the school where I taught these students. But the cracks were dangerous for one of my students named, Leuwynda, since she use a white walking cane to guide her and she struggled with keeping balanced.
So, she decided to photograph them and sent them to the superintendent as “proof” of the damage. She included a letter asking for them to be fixed. “Since you are sighted,” she wrote, “you may not notice these cracks. They are a big problem since my walking cane gets stuck.”
For years, I thought about Leuwynda’s cracks – and particularly the fact that I had not noticed them. I wondered what other cracks I had been walking over without noticing. The more I paid attention, though, the more I noticed other cracks – the prejudice I still have about cultures I don’t understand, the privilege I have by virtue of my skin color, gender, and education, and the arrogance that I know anything with certainty. Sometimes the cracks seem small – saying people’s names wrong, not giving thanks before dinner for all that made the meal possible, and being too judgmental of others. Sometimes the cracks are big – racism, sexism and classism. What I learned from Lewynda is that I can see the cracks better and potentially bridge them if I am connected to other people who are different from me, and if I pay attention.
When I think about the larger metaphorical meaning of “blended value” it reminds me of this story. Blended value is partly about bridging the cracks between different worlds. This is partly why I’ve focused my work in some small way to bridge fault lines – particularly those of racism, religious divisions, and the gap between the for-profit and non-profit sectors. And, in part, this seems to be the spirit of your work, Jed.
[In spring 2007, Chronicle Books will release a book entitled “Sound Shadows” about these unlikely blind photographers. For more info: http://www.wdydwyd.com/soundshadows.html]
Jacqueline Novogratz — Nov 9 2005 01:00 PM
Dear Jed,
Thanks for starting this blog. Yours is an important voice in a world in need of leaders that can rise above themselves.
Blended value, the non-divided nature of it, a world connected, a perspective of the whole. I agree with you. I also understand your emphatic focus on language – it does communicate who we are and who we want to be – or who we think we are. At the same time, this is a moment where we need more people to put a stake in the ground. We have no great measures that provide a real understanding of how best to blend financial, social and environmental returns on investment. What is really needed is a community willing to do the work, let it teach us, share our lessons, our insights, our failures and our victories.
At Acumen Fund, we are working on a concept called Best Alternative Charitable Option (or BACO). It attempts to measure the actual costs of delivering critical goods and services in one of our investments and compares those costs in a particular company or NGO to the best alternative means of delivering the products through charitable efforts. It is a start and provides significant insights into the choices we make. We then compare costs to social outcomes - at least the outcomes we can measure. For instance, we can measure the number of malaria bednets we produce, the number of jobs created in manufacturing the nets, the additional wages generated. We can determine the costs of delivering those nets to the poor and compare those costs to those incurred by other organizations with similar goals to determine which approaches are relatively more or less cost effective. This, we believe, is an important start to getting metrics right. Measuring everything you can measure - at a cost that makes sense - must be where we start.
We are also looking at building financially sustainable and scalable institutions, so we try to look at time zero, before our investment, what is the quality of the institution that we are about to partner with: is it financial sustainable, how much is it producing, what is the quality of the management team, does it have a national or international voice as a model? This bundle of qualitative and quantitative measures not only helps us understand the risks facing the venture, but sets our management agenda for the five to seven years that we work with the organizations, and allows us to look at the increase in organizational capacity over time. If we are looking at finding blueprints for delivering goods and services to the poor, its not just about greater cost effectiveness, but also about building sustainable institutions.
Finally, With greater resources -- or better, in partnering with other organizations who would bring skills and resources--we could really hone in on measuring on the ground impact, such as measuring the number of children now going to school or the new houses built as a result of increased incomes to the women employees. We can also tackle the more difficult things to measure like the level of disease prevented and the cost savings to productivity. We currently estimate these outcomes based on assumptions around usage of the nets and average disease levels in areas without nets, but need to start studying the real on the ground impact, both intended and unintended.
All of this is meaningful for longer-term policy decisions -- and these less tangible but potentially most important metrics speak to your thoughts that value is indivisible, that we ultimately are looking at whether we are enhancing lives. We may get there, but in the short-term what Acumen Fund needs to focus on is starting with a stake around what we can measure, what we do know. These metrics enable better, richer discussions about how we ultimately allocate scarce resources and what is really happening around the investments that we make. The work then teaches us how to create better measures to elucidate the value of the work, of the investment. So this is where we start, and I do believe we are taking positive, productive steps to contribute to the field
I also am certain that no single organization will figure out the best measures of social returns. This also is a process – and one that you can continue to help build and shepherd by pushing the questions and not accepting easy answers. Those long walks with the dogs probably help…
Brian Trelstad — Nov 10 2005 12:17 PM
Jed,
Thanks again for convening this great thread, if virtually. Would love to continue these conversations in person, preferably closer to the Roaring Fork than the Hudson River! In addition to the thoughts shared by Jacqueline and others, one of the things that we wrestle with at Acumen Fund is how to disaggregate the blended value and come up with meaningful quantitative and qualitative measures of non-financial capital.
Acumen Fund often talks about contributing financial, human and social capital to entrepreneurs looking to create market-based solutions to the problems of poverty. In the process of working with entrepreneurs who are solving health, water and housing problems (and increasing the stores of physical, natural and health capital in their communities), we often realize that the most valuable transfers of value are human and social capital, not financial capital. The money is less valued than the managerial assistance. And more importantly, these flows are reciprocal! We learn as much as we are teaching (we certainly know we are learning a ton, and hope we are teaching some).
The question is how to take reasonable stock of what we know (what is our human capital at time zero?) and how to measure it as it changes over time? This need not be some pre-and post-IQ test, but some reasonable self-assessment of what we have learned and how those lessons can accumulate and be shared by Acumen Fund over time. The same challenge exists with social capital—we have a terrific network of partners and advisors, but how do we think about building that stock and sharing it with others?
The most important challenge here is not conceptual, but operational. You may or may not disagree with what I wrote above, but assuming you agree, finding ways for teams stretched thin to understand and measure this, at least directionally and to an order of magnitude, is what interests me. The answer is not going to be in quantifying everything (“not everything that counts can be measured, and not everything that can be measured counts”) but to develop a shared language around meaningful changes in these hard to quantify stores of social and human capital.
I look forward to continuing these conversations and to seeing you soon,
Brian
Linda Kaufmann — Nov 28 2005 12:09 AM
Here goes. I am Sam Shiroff's mom. He is very eager for me to post on this site. And so as to not disappoint my baby, I will make some comments. I believe that most people are so involved with the minute details of their boring lives that they have no time to consider anything else. I know that sounds harsh. However, if you are a young, married parent (or a single parent) living in the US, you spend most of your time earning a living and trying to find some time for your children. There are few holidays, little sick time and lots of responsibility. People in other countries often envy us in the United States because we have so much stuff. Stuff does not make up for insufficient time to spend doing what needs to be done with your spouse, your childen and so forth.
Since I am oldish, I remember a time when at least the dream of family life was a possibility. Young people in the US don't even have those memories. Until the young people in America become less self-centered, I doubt that the noble concepts espoused by the sustainable development movement will make any headway.
I have always considered myself to be a child of the 1960's. If they come back, I am ready.
Bnfcritw — Dec 6 2006 04:07 PM
Very nice site. Thanks for your hard work in this site. I m glad I stopped by and will again many times.