the good life

September 29, 2008 at 10:54 pm (america, communication, creativity, education, globalization, inspiration, language, people, persuasion, psychology, public speaking, the world, trends, vision and entrepreneurship, writing)

Anyone who has visited this blog more than a couple of times may have sensed my tremendous reverence for Sir Ken Robinson’s speech at the TED 2006 conference in California. A few months ago, JK Rowling delivered another wonderfully inspiring speech at a graduation ceremony at Harvard. This address by the Harry Potteress, if you will, comes extremely close to evoking the resonance created in me by Robinson.

Their themes are similar in part. The overlap lies in their descriptions of how people are typically held back from finding their talents. Robinson talks of how kids are often pushed in to doing things that they are not designed to do. This detracts from their uniqueness and leads to the feeling of having failed from within – no matter how successful they may appear to be from the outside.

JK Rowling speaks of her own experience as a mother in a financially dire situation who finally found the courage required to live her life with authenticity: She said: “So why do I talk about the benefits of failure? Simply because failure meant a stripping away of the inessential. I stopped pretending to myself that I was anything other than what I was, and began to direct all my energy into finishing the only work that mattered to me. Had I really succeeded at anything else, I might never have found the determination to succeed in the one arena I believed I truly belonged. I was set free, because my greatest fear had already been realised, and I was still alive, and I still had a daughter whom I adored, and I had an old typewriter and a big idea. And so rock bottom became the solid foundation on which I rebuilt my life.”

Robinson gave the example of Gillian Lynne, now a British ballerina, who was taken to a doctor when she was still in school for being miserable at her studies. The doctor was wise enough to tell her mother that her child didn’t have ADHD but that she did have the fidgetiness of a dancer. He encouraged her mother to enroll her in a dance school. In Robinson’s words: “Gillian was eventually auditioned for the Royal Ballet school. She became a soloist and had a wonderful career there. She founded her own dance company. She met Andrew Lloyd Webber. She has been responsible for some of the most successful theater productions in history. She has given pleasure to millions. And she’s a multi-millionaire. Somebody else might have put her on medication and told her to calm down.”

Bravo to both speakers!

Rowling took the idea a step ahead. She spoke of how getting in touch with ourselves then helps us to get in touch with others. She talked about how it enables us to use our power of imagination to empathize with those less fortunate than us. That, most beautifully, is her definition of a good life – which is what she eventually wished upon the graduating class of 2008.

I have always thought that “the good life” is not one in which you have acquired material things and been a conventional success, but one in which you have been true to yourself; it is the only way in which you can be true to others. Believe me, I know how tough it is. But I also deeply feel how vital it is, not just for our own wellbeing but also for that of those around us; for our children, our spouses, our families, our employers, our employees, our countries, our world – whether strangers or friends.

Finally, Rowling had an important point to make for the youth of ’superpower’ America – which figures in this moving excerpt from her speech.

“Amnesty International mobilises thousands of people who have never been tortured or imprisoned for their beliefs to act on behalf of those who have. The power of human empathy, leading to collective action, saves lives, and frees prisoners. Ordinary people, whose personal well-being and security are assured, join together in huge numbers to save people they do not know, and will never meet. My small participation in that process was one of the most humbling and inspiring experiences of my life.

Unlike any other creature on this planet, humans can learn and understand, without having experienced. They can think themselves into other people’s minds, imagine themselves into other people’s places.

Of course, this is a power, like my brand of fictional magic, that is morally neutral. One might use such an ability to manipulate, or control, just as much as to understand or sympathise.

And many prefer not to exercise their imaginations at all. They choose to remain comfortably within the bounds of their own experience, never troubling to wonder how it would feel to have been born other than they are. They can refuse to hear screams or to peer inside cages; they can close their minds and hearts to any suffering that does not touch them personally; they can refuse to know.

I might be tempted to envy people who can live that way, except that I do not think they have any fewer nightmares than I do. Choosing to live in narrow spaces can lead to a form of mental agoraphobia, and that brings its own terrors. I think the wilfully unimaginative see more monsters. They are often more afraid.

What is more, those who choose not to empathise may enable real monsters. For without ever committing an act of outright evil ourselves, we collude with it, through our own apathy.

One of the many things I learned at the end of that Classics corridor down which I ventured at the age of 18, in search of something I could not then define, was this, written by the Greek author Plutarch: What we achieve inwardly will change outer reality.

That is an astonishing statement and yet proven a thousand times every day of our lives. It expresses, in part, our inescapable connection with the outside world, the fact that we touch other people’s lives simply by existing.

But how much more are you, Harvard graduates of 2008, likely to touch other people’s lives? Your intelligence, your capacity for hard work, the education you have earned and received, give you unique status, and unique responsibilities. Even your nationality sets you apart. The great majority of you belong to the world’s only remaining superpower. The way you vote, the way you live, the way you protest, the pressure you bring to bear on your government, has an impact way beyond your borders. That is your privilege, and your burden.

If you choose to use your status and influence to raise your voice on behalf of those who have no voice; if you choose to identify not only with the powerful, but with the powerless; if you retain the ability to imagine yourself into the lives of those who do not have your advantages, then it will not only be your proud families who celebrate your existence, but thousands and millions of people whose reality you have helped transform for the better. We do not need magic to change the world, we carry all the power we need inside ourselves already: we have the power to imagine better.”

Hear hear! Powerful thoughts and words indeed.

Permalink 6 Comments

sarahndipity

September 26, 2008 at 6:11 am (america, communication, public speaking, the media, the world)

It is so fortunate that Palin’s mortifying performance at off-the-cuff TV interviews coincides with McCain’s waffling on the scheduled debate.

Hopefully, this is the point at which this outrageous vice-presidential nomination will swing voters to the Obama side. What was McCain’s point in nominating her again: “Look look, America, I found you someone, and a woman no less, who makes Dubya look wise…”?

I’m breathing just a bit easy about the outcome of the election now compared to then. However, I have to remind myself, there’s still time for the votes to be cast. And, bewilderingly enough, there’s still folks out there who think this way…

(Comment on CBS News Video of Sarah Palin being interviewed by Katie Couric)

“So Palin’s not that great on answering questions that she’s been getting crash courses on over the last few weeks. She can’t communicate very well off the cuff. She looks stupid trying to defend her forgein policy when she doesn’t have any. I really don’t care. What I do care about is her record as a succesful governor who faced down corruption, made tough decisions, demonstrated good judgement with the information the experts around her presented her with and maintained the highest approval raiting for any governor in the state. Apparently she has a decent grasp on how to govern and serve the people. Something Obama only wishes he had. Oh wait, he’s running against McCain. Woops, two people with more credentials then he has. Didn’t see that one coming.”

I’m not superstitious but my fingers are Xed for the debates.

Permalink 2 Comments

speak for america

September 4, 2008 at 7:36 pm (america, communication, people, persuasion, politics, public speaking, the world, writing)

I haven’t warmed up to Obama yet, even though I am for the most part fine with his politics. Even so, I resonated with Clinton even less, and was relieved when Obama was the one nominated.

I watched his speech at the Democratic National Convention a few days ago and was not as moved as some of my friends in the US. (Of course, I do not currently reside there, and maybe that partially affects how I received it.) See I thought that while he was good, his speech lacked a real power to motivate the listener. He was too composed and his demeanor was aloof. His words had integrity but lacked drama, an aspect necessary to win this election. Where did his gifted speaking skills go?

In contrast, Palin’s speech at the Republican National Convention was way more dynamic. It drew the audience in with its conviction, humor, and strategy. Kudos to her speechwriters. Don’t get me wrong – it made me continually livid. (For example, when she alluded to the “fact” that even though America is still under catastrophic threat from Al Qaeda terrorists, Obama wants to read them their rights!) The same anger that I felt when I lived in the States not too long ago – at the warmongering that is condoned.

But an impassioned speech or two is imperative to swinging this election! I heard both speeches with a sinking feeling. From a persuasion perspective, I have a strong sense that it is the McCain-Palin ticket that will win this election of ambivalence.

All I can say is: PLEASE VOTE.

Permalink 20 Comments

unbelievable

April 24, 2008 at 6:48 pm (people, politics, public speaking, the world)

Hillary Clinton said a couple of days ago: I want the Iranians to know that if I’m the president, we will attack Iran. In the next 10 years, during which they might foolishly consider launching an attack on Israel, we would be able to totally OBLITERATE them. This DEMOCRATIC candidate’s willingness to be perceived as the next war-president of the US is both sickening and scary. What exactly is going on?!?!

Permalink 2 Comments

HS, LS, and oh yeah, MS

December 26, 2007 at 7:59 pm (entertainment, india, people, public speaking, the media)

Okay, so I seem to be whining exclusively about women today. But how can I help it! See I heard Archana Puran Singh on the radio. She is a sassy actress and comedienne who delivers – in her upbeat Hinglish sort of style – Indian celebrity news. And as she does so, she classifies actors and their acts, whether on stage or off, as “HS”, “LS”, or “MS”. If it has you scratching your head, that’s high society, low society, and you got it, middle society.

Believe it or not, her audience laps it up! India has historically been a country of much hierarchy – from the caste system, to the imperialism imbibed from the British, to the recent-haves and always-hads created by the more recent economic boom. Which is precisely why I find Archana’s system of stratifying Bollywood gossip to be irresponsible. I’m very tempted to label her deejaying as deeply LS, but I’ll settle instead for HI. As in, highly ignorant.

Permalink Leave a Comment

away with words

December 26, 2007 at 12:10 pm (branding, communication, politics, public speaking, the world)

 

Condoleeza Rice at a press conference on Friday: “The United States doesn’t have permanent enemies; we’re too great a country for that.”

No-permanent-enemies is obviously semantic strategy to clarify that North Korea and Iran are indeed enemies until they comply with nuclear demands. It makes little diplomatic sense to refer to enemies – however temporary – as enemies out loud. Okay, so it’s a clumsily put statement, but at least it is honest. 

Now the too-great-a-country bit. It brings to mind instantaneously the fact that truly great countries – if there are indeed such things – should have no enemies! Particularly in the unctuous way the US currently does. What were her speechwriters thinking when they churned that out?

Permalink Leave a Comment

pill bill

October 11, 2007 at 8:24 pm (politics, public speaking, religion, television, the world)

Help!

I am addicted to (gulp) TBN.

Today, I watched Bill O’Reilly in earnest conversation with James Robison. The latter is a regular on the evangelical channel I have become so intrigued by. They were discussing O’Reilly’s latest book called ‘Culture Warrior’  where he talks about some stark divide between America’s “Traditionalists” (Ts) and its “Secular-Progressives” (SPs).

I have watched him on ‘The O’Reilly Factor’, and often been impressed by his ability to think rationally and articulate quickly and succinctly his point of view. What he sorely lacks however is the ability to discern the shades of grey of any issue and therein lies his (fortunate) unpopularity with more than just the “SPs”. I saw the same trend play out in this interview, where Robison asked him to tell “people of faith” in the TBN audience about his book.

O’Reilly spoke of how, in polls, 65% of America was found to be of the “T “variety and how, unfortunately, a liberal media represents the 35% “SP” minority. He went on to beckon viewers of TBN to be a “T warrior” and help to preserve the Judeo-Christian foundation on which the nation has prospered so far. He pointed out how there exists a clear distinction between right and wrong, good and evil, and how this line is sadly made blurry by people who think secularly and progressively.

He claimed to be against the removal of Christian prayers from public school, espoused his clearly anti-gay-marriage view, and spoke passionately about how Ts need to fight SPs from causing furthur deterioration of this nation’s values. “Too many Americans,” he told Robison, “are sitting this one out, when in fact, we need them to go out there and be warriors!” What he means by that is “boycott liberal media” and other things in that vein, but the language is incendiary, to say the least.

Needless to say, Robison was lapping all this up. It seems to me that this “T” state of mind is the internal war – which in turn fuels the external wars – that America is embroiled in. And the same issue seems  to exist worldwide. That Shilpa Shetty would be given such a tough time in India (wasn’t the Shiv Sena involved?), for a little kiss in public from Richard Gere, reeks of the same misguided and arrogant sort of “traditionalism”. 

Well, I’m going to have to avoid getting my daily fix of TBN drivel tomorrow. But I’m afraid that The Bold and The Beautiful will toss me in to the throes of withdrawal.

Permalink Leave a Comment

ken robinson at TED

September 19, 2007 at 5:46 am (creativity, education, persuasion, public speaking, social phenomena)

Listen to Sir Ken Robinson make a marvelous appeal for designing an education system that nurtures creativity. I heard him speak at an Account Planning conference in San Diego recently and he made similar points with respect to organisational innovation. This talk is from TED where some of the world’s most progressive and articulate people share their thoughts. Truly ‘ideas worth spreading’.

Permalink Leave a Comment