by Ethan Johnson
August 21, 2006

Whenever an online brouhaha breaks out and rises (or sinks) to the level of my attention, it amuses and saddens me somewhat to read "facts" about a given topic that really boil down to "beliefs about reality". They read like the text in my mother's King James bible: Life is unfair. Markets are conversations. Branding is dead. Pink is the new orange. Write enough of these down in calligraphic script and have a chorale of millions sing them, and you've got yourself some Hard, Undeniable Facts™ (HUFs). Eventually, what is proffered with caveats soon become "pure" HUFs with no room for debate, discussion, or dissent. Life is unfair, pink is the new orange, and that's that.

To borrow from the Marx Brothers, HUFs remain rigid the same way that Chico Marx charged a $1 "delivery charge" for a book he was handing over at arm's length. Groucho asked if he could "stand over here and make it 50 cents." No, because Chico could stand over there and "make it a dollar just-a the same." Thus, life will remain unfair, and that's that. For every person who ever got an even break, there's a sucker who got screwed twice over.

"Life isn't fair" is apparently in vogue these days. Life is empirically unfair, after all. Why, whoever got an even break or came out ahead, ever? Nobody, that's who. Or if anyone did, it was because the fix was in and somebody got it in the shorts. It sounds plausible, there is certainly enough anecdotal evidence to support it, and thus the Law is written.

Maxims like these seem harmless enough, but they condition us to accept the status quo and reduce or eliminate our interest in effecting positive change. Life isn't fair, says who? And why? Is the mere act of living unfair in and of itself?

Semantically speaking, of course, the "fairness" of life (with thanks to Dave Rogers for seeking clarification on this point) is a question of how "fairness" is defined. For the purposes of this article, let us define "fairness" as "parity": If A gets a free bag of lemons when A shops at FoodStoreX, then B does too. A and B are unique, yet each gets the same treatment, pricing, shopping experience, and service as anyone else who shops at FoodStoreX. When we say "life ain't fair", I suspect that this means that the interactions between each of us will not be shining examples of parity, but rather of bias. A prefers B, and not C. Viewed through this lens, C will always "lose" to B. B may be oblivious to the bias against C, and believe that everyone's interactions with A are on an equal footing. Not so, in this example.

In this way, B may go through life believing that everyone gets a "fair shake" and gets by purely on merit, skill, hard work, luck, and talent. C, on the other hand, may believe that "it's all in who you know", that [other people] get all of the breaks, that [people like C] "always get screwed", and that nobody is looking out for the little guy, thus life ain't fair. In terms of C's interactions with A, this point of view is arguably justified, if not universally accepted. Why bother trying, because a mallet is ever present outside of the mole hole, eagerly waiting to beat down the first idealistic, rose-cheeked head to pop out.

If C has enough ill dealings with enough people, then C's worldview is backed by Hard, Undeniable Facts™ and there is little hope for ever breaking through the layers of protective coating that C has built up over time. C expects rejection, therefore C doesn't ask anymore. C got screwed the last 10 times someone suggested that idea, and the 11th time won't be any different. C was sold a bill of goods by some two-bit hustlers and bought it hook, line, and sinker, and ended up paying for it for years. C applied for transfers to interesting, challenging departments and got passed over in favor of someone less qualified yet more "connected", and therefore is resigned to riding out the rest of C's career in a dead-end, soul-sapping job. C used to dream, now C just passes out and curses the dawn.

B, on the other hand, has influential and well-known friends and colleagues who "just happen" to offer B opportunities that nobody else seems to catch wind of. B has sterling credit, and was able to buy B's first car on minimum wage, and got the loan approval on the sheer strength of B's character and track record, and certainly not the co-signature and backing of B's financially comfortable (and/or creditworthy) parent(s). B gets nearly everything that B wants. B travels extensively, and from time to time looks down at the "flyover states" and wonders what sort of people are dumb enough to live there, when all of the "action" is on the coasts. B hears sob stories about people who can't afford to eat at fancy restaurants or "early adopt" the latest expensive gadgets and dismisses them as shiftless, lazy bums who never worked an honest day in their lives. B assumes that if a given group of people are not present or adequately represented in any given environment or situation, those people opted not to be there and have no-one to blame but themselves if their interests were not spoken for and served. B has built up protective walls too, only where C's are meant to keep things out, B's are designed to keep things in. C's walls isolate, whereas B's walls insulate.

Over time, B and C amass enough HUFs that on balance, both will be correct, in their own way. Life is good for B because life is good to B. Life stinks for C, because life stinks to C. Neither can empathize with the other, because each has a solid foundation of HUFs that justify one's point of view, and nothing can penetrate the protective layers of either one and provide an alternate perspective, or indeed, a "new lease on life". B has a social infrastructure that is designed to reinforce and reward B's worldview. C has a worldview that inhibits or prevents C from receiving any joy, parity, or justice from any given social infrastructure, with the exception of receiving the satisfaction of knowing that once again, C got it in the shorts, same as always.

Thus, B and C rely on maxims to speak to and reinforce their respective points of view. B sees a bumper sticker that says "he who dies with the most toys wins" and nods appovingly. C sees a t-shirt that says "Shit Happens" and says, "that's right, brother." B and C differ extensively on what maxims best define the meaning of life, in their terms, but ultimately, each has accepted beliefs about reality and cemented them as fact.

To address one of the recent online flare-ups, one side sees "the best and the brightest", which is an ever-changing mass of "movers and shakers" who rise and fall from "the top" purely on merit, and in direct proportion to the amount of hard work that these people were willing or unwilling to invest. The other sees a black wall of "gatekeepers", unearned privilege, and self-reinforcing echo-chambers that reward certain behaviors and actively or passively punish the rest.

And it is to these arguments that I myself speak to with a maxim of my own, or in this case, borrowed liberally from Shakespeare:

There are more things in Heaven and Earth than are dreamt of in your philosophy.

Where the Golden Rule dictates ideal social interaction (and the consequences thereof), the above dictates the care and feeding of one's worldview. To live is to grow, to learn is to teach, and to err is to apologize, adjust, and rebound. There are always bigger ideas than the biggest that you will argue for and defend to your very death.

When I was young, I concerned myself with matters of Youth.
When I was an artist, I concerned myself with matters of Art.
When I was a musician, I concerned myself with matters of Music.
When I was a student, I concerned myself with matters of Study.
When I was a warehouseman, I concerned myself with matters of Warehousing.
When I was a Process Manager, I concerned myself with matters of Process.

These activities and interests shaped my experience, and colored my outlook for good or for ill. They are as real and as freeing or as binding as I choose them to be. What pleases me may give pain to another. What I prefer may disgust another. The apex of existence, as I believe it to be, may fall well short of the experiences of others. In the days when I maintained a blog, I spoke out against what I called "defining the box". And yet, we define our own boxes every day. My hope is that we may observe, question, and challenge the maxims, beliefs, and attitudes that define our very existence. And having done this, effect positive change. <EM>