“Empathy is luxury. Think about it. If you have the time to read about other points of view, you have the luxury of time, that you can spend on reading other perspectives and build empathy.”, said my interlocutor, an entrepreneur building a platform for contrarian views. I am paraphrasing a bit but we had been talking about how to break the filter bubble that the liberal metropolitan elite inhabit. Better people than I are already exploring how the word “elite” came to be associated pejoratively with liberal, metropolitan persons.
Research evidence from the USA and the UK however shows us that the poor, who do not have spare time since more time spent working is more money, are more charitable and more community minded. In other words, the poor display more empathy. How can empathy be a “luxury” then?
I believe in the essentialness of empathy though I arrive at it from another perspective.
I see myself as a part of a whole, whether that whole be our neighbourhood or the planet. As such my being empathetic is nothing more than my honouring my self.
She wasn’t convinced.
Further expounding on how I got to this framing of this world, I found that it may have come from imbibing some of the Hinduistic philosophical and cultural values amidst which I grew up in India. The idea of the unity of the macro- and the microcosms of our being is embedded in Aham Brahmasmi, “I am the infinite reality”. The idea is also embedded in the greeting Namaste, “I bow to the divine in you”. The idea of consequentiality of our actions naturally follows, often stated controversially in the western world as “Karma is a bitch”.
It is trivially evident that neither business nor humanity can act as if their shared linkages and connectivity do not matter, and as if they can thrive or even survive without one another.
Both spiritually and rationally, empathy is therefore not a luxury in my view.
The idea of luxury as empathy however appeals to me. More on which, later.
Those are great arguments; indeed they are in line with the “we have heritage” argument that keeps many a luxury brand in that strange place where they are simultaneously desirable and at the risk of going out of business very fast. Those are also arguments that arise from a steady state style of thinking applied to the stark challenges faced by luxury businesses.
The challenge is altogether different. Existential, in fact.
As autonomous vehicles get on roads outside the Bay Area, indeed here in the UK not far from the Aston Martin Headquarters, the existential crisis facing luxury marques in cars is too urgent to ignore. They overwhelmingly pitch their cars as being about the pleasure of owning and driving a car as beautiful such as the Vanquish (I have my preferences but please feel free to imagine the marque that makes you go weak at the knees here!). There is a primal connection between the man and the (stunning) machine that is at the heart of the purchases of such cars.
With autonomous cars around the corner, the makers of such luxury cars may go out of business altogether.
What will be their offering, their raison d’être?
What deepest desires in our hearts will they be appealing to, with their beautiful — but self driving — cars?
Yes, I hear you cycling through Kübler-Ross. I am doing it too so you are not alone.
Meanwhile, let’s not pretend that the Aston Martin AM37 powerboat is only about the financial bottomline. There are existential choppy waters ahead. Aston Martin has found one way to navigate them. Unlike Bond, makers and purveyors of such luxury vehicles may not live to die another day. They have to think fast to remain relevant and in business at all. More previously unthinkable business models may be forthcoming from luxury car makers.
Mr Broughton meanwhile can perhaps take solace in the possibility of the next boat chase on the Thames featuring an Aston Martin! Bond’s heritage may be alive and well. For the time being.
Alicia Keys, the talented musician and singer, was in the news recently for having chosen decidedly to eschew makeup. In a monograph in a newsletter, she said she feels no need to cover up any more. She talked about her journey to self discovery and finding her authentic self which did not need to be hidden under layers of makeup.
Ladies & Gentlemen, authenticity is now on trend, and branded.
In a related development, one of my favourite web friends, Jackie Danicki, has started writing Burned Out Beauty, a beauty blog which is my new not-so-secret indulgence. She was the original beauty blogger in 2004 on the world’s first beauty blog Jack & Hill.
Jackie is not being a contrarian. She took a break, so to speak, and she is back doing something that she loves, enjoys and is knowledgeable about. Jackie is authentic.
The good thing about being authentic is there is no need to be contrarian.
But how can brands find where their authenticity lies? Indeed what is authentic and what are the sources of authenticity?
Eagle-eyed readers will remember my agonising over the “authenticity” of the Porsche symposer some time ago. I ruminated on it a while. After all the car is man-made, as is the symposer, and it is humans that manifested the Porsche vroom in the car’s engine as well as the symposer. It is not about the engine, it is about the sound. Once I had reached that essentialist unifying thread, I was at peace.
Where a sensory signal is not the only or the main signature of the brand, a brand may have to work a tad harder to define what it stands for, what its authentic self is.
A beautiful and effective tool is to be found in a Vedic method of inquiry.
What the essence of something is is often arrived at by answering what it is not.
Unlike other fixed signals of authenticity, the process of Neti-Neti also accommodates indeed nurtures growth and reinvention. If we are no longer something, if we no longer stand for something, we are one step closer to being our authentic and whole self.
So with brands.
When luxury brands with deep heritage struggle to reinvent themselves and their relevance in a world with modern technology and newness, they can choose to look inward and answer what they are not.
Similarly MOOCs assume that a highly motivated and self-driven student is the only kind around. A self-motivated student will benefit from auto-didactic methods disproportionately more than a peer who isn’t so driven. As a teacher, I can attest to these phenomena too: students have variable levels of motivation, cognition and learning capacity; they may or may not understand the sequentiality of learning certain modules i.e. prior art in a field, which, of course, is more essential in some fields than in others; they may not understand some content and that can be demotivating in itself; they may not have the time or dedication to complete assigned readings; and last but not the least, they will always have have questions and if not, a facilitator teacher can make them question their tightly-held beliefs in a setting that makes them think.
In other words, willpower depletion, by the many demands made on us by life, is a real phenomenon.
The design problem that technology entrepreneurs keep dreaming of does not have to bring about “disruption”. It is more complicated than that.
The design problem is to keep people with varying motivations involved, and progressing.
If at all we achieve step change or “disruption”, the design challenge is to do so the existing tools of facilitation and enabling, along with new tools of technology and emergent social contexts, to address the same problems of variable motivation, cognition, and commitment to learning.
A designer assuming a bottomless pit of self-motivation in its audience sooner than later discovers the ordinariness of the human condition.
Last week, I attended a workshop on movement building for social change.
One of my breakout groups was discussing “shared purpose”. I used the word “asymptote” to make the point that with the best shared purpose, we need to know we only make dents and some progress, and although we never fully bring about the exact change in the exact format we want, the movement gets closer and closer to our purpose over time. It caused some mirth in my breakout group.
Later in the morning, I caught myself likening the ideal scenario of the broadening of the appeal of our vision, our purpose, our movement to “fractalisation“. Both terms were, in my view, efficient, succinct, and the best explanations for what I was aiming to say.
The giggles caused by both set me thinking about the other terms with very specific meaning normally used in maths, physics, communication theory, political science, economics that I often use in specific discussions in business. Some are from secondary school maths and physics, the others from further education. A non-representative list of such words would include vector, variable, f(X), non-trivial, calculus, parametric, SNR (signal to noise ratio), transmission error, attenuation, but also words such as equity which may need to be understood in context.
I asked some of my friends, accomplished in law, business, design and academia, if they found the use of secondary school maths and physics terms odd in a business setting with educated colleagues.
A few admitted they did not know some of the terms. Some friends said they would use plainer words. Another said as a data scientist, she aims not be misunderstood. Yet another, who is the most well-informed social justice aware person I know, pointed out that oversimplification can run the risk of the person oversimplifying being seen in devalued terms. And finally, one friend encouraged me to “go Gurl!” because she is of the view that these terms can often explain business models, industrial design, UX, customer behaviour and other insights well.
I then ran a poll on Twitter and an encouraging 56% of respondents said they understand those terms, and a full 19% said that they would mock such a person.
Interesting discussions followed.
Do we mock out of fear instead of curiosity, or do we mock for broader social acceptance rather than standing out as a nerd?
Do we use specific terms to look impressive, or do we actually know what they mean?
Do we use these terms to establish superiority, or to create a shared understanding in the group, explaining with patience and genuine empathy when asked, to move the discussion forward?
Is such language isolating and credentialist, or broadening and embracing of diversity?
Before you dismiss this as an academic navel-gazing exercise, I should add this thinking was propelled by a digital insights event I attended earlier in the week. A futurist on the panel said multidisciplinarity was the future (she also had other predictions about future careers).
If we are to get to that multidisciplinary future, are we really serving ourselves, building our movement, making the right strides toward it, if we like to keep precise terms in their own disciplinary silos behind tightly drawn boundaries?
Why are we not asking to be explained by — and indeed why are we mocking — those, who let these specialty-confined words loose in other contexts, where they may fit and may indeed enrich the shared understanding of what we are building?
History shows that innovation does not always come from those deeply embedded in the specialist disciplinary networks they belong to. It comes from those who are on the edges of their discipline(s), bumping against the others on the edges of their discipline(s), or looking above the parapet to peek into what others are doing, and forming multidisciplinary teams to have a crack at a problem that one discipline alone cannot solve.
Whether leading a team, building a startup, or growing a business. what are you doing to bring that multidisciplinary thinking on board?
How are you building your movement towards the future?