The Shirkey Principle (or Why You’re Not Just the Solution but the Problem)
Two people whose brains are bigger than planets and will help you understand the shifting forces of our society today.
1. Kevin Kelly, founding editor of Wired Magazine and author of a number of excellent blogs, not least The Technium and Cool Tools.
2. Clay Shirky, author of Here Comes Everybody: The Power of Organizing Without Organizations
So when Kevin quotes Clay, you know something exciting is going on. Here it is:
“Institutions will try to preserve the problem to which they are the solution.”
~ Clay Shirky
I’m still having this rattle around my brain to figure out the full implications. It’s connected to my belief that Great Work is a fundamentally counter-cultural act. But it goes deeper than that. It means that to do Great Work, you may need to rediscover and rearticulate the challenge your trying to solve.
Perhaps.
What do you think?
You can listen to my Great Work Interview with Clay here.
- Great Work Interviews – Clay Shirky
- Great Work Interview: Kevin & Melinda Berg, disability champions
- Great Work Interview: Kevin Cashman, author of Leadership from the Inside Out
- Great Work Interview: David Rock, author of Your Mind at Work
- Great Work Interview – Kevin Wilde, CLO of General Mills
Tags: Clay Shirky, Kevin Kelly
Michael, This is such a wonderful observation and I totally get it…now…The first time I ran into this idea was talking to a professor whose whole line of research had to do with homeless issues. A very committed fellow. But at one point, he started running into tremendous resistance when he proposed analytic approaches to help identify people *before* they lose their homes and end up on the streets. The resistance, strangely enough, came mostly from those running homeless shelters; even though non-profit, they saw this as a threat to what they do.
Took me a while to get my head around that and in some ways I am still working on it and perhaps my day job is providing an ongoing tutorial. Have been working the last few years for the Federal Government and like so many everywhere nowadays, we are facing the challenge of addressing massive changes that (looking internally) may lead to a reconfiguration of our various agency missions, in some cases perhaps meaning big changes, ‘losses,’ etc.; so, even well-meaning and committed individuals toggle between just considering the issues and um also the implications.
Me, I am replaying Doris Day in my head (“Que Sera, Sera”?) and sticking to my guns that we are there to serve the public though the details of how that works may change substantially.
Thanks always, for providing a continuing source of inspiration! Arlene
“Institutions will try to preserve the problem to which they are the solution.”
~ Clay Shirky
Michael:
Your rattling became contagious and made me think:
Economical Institutions, and States in particular, are supposed to Push Society towards the Good of All, however, they keep on pulling it towards the good of a few.
Political Institutions, and Governments in particular, are supposed to Drive Society towards the Good of All, however, they keep on driving it towards the good of a few.
Social Institutions, and Social Groups in particular, are supposed to Drive Society towards the Good of All, however, they keep on driving it towards the good of a few.
Cultural Institutions, and the People (All Us) in particular, are supposed to Pull Society towards the Good of All, however, they keep on pushing it towards the good of a few.
Therefore, I believe that:
Doing “freelance or institutional Great Work” has to do, more than the Work itself, with Working for the Good of All thus being part of the Solution.
THANKS for the post and the Challenge.
My best regards to Kevin and Clay.
Hi Michael
I don’t always read your thoughts and am so glad I did today. I have yet to work out how I might be preserving the problems that I enjoy working with others to resolve! i know that since I have decided to work with values in a more proactive way, I am far more aware of the contradictions and inconsistencies in my own practice of my values!
WOW!!! That is such a big concept!
It applies across the board. In societal, interpersonal, and personal realms we tend to “love the devil we know” rather than fix the problem and go on to fight the next battle.
Now you’ve got me thinkin’.
Hi again, have been seeing these wonderful follow-up comments and Sanford’s in particular really made me realize oh my! that this could certainly apply as well to those sticky relationships including perhaps with a Difficult Colleague?! One that perhaps makes you feel like the 2 of you have been fighting thru the last 3 millenia with each new reincarnation ??
And btw, this discussion comes at such a good time, makes me feel so hopeful now, as I just ‘got permission’ to go on to my next battlefield in the form of a very unexpected invitation to work ‘upstairs’ for a few months. Even better, it will involve writing–my first love–and also, helping I hope with some small efforts to improve communications within my organization…?! And you know, I’m feeling a wee braver about what is actually a pretty big change since subscribing to your blog, Michael :”}. Especially today’s entry!! Keep them coming!!
Arlene – the comments on this have been wonderful. It seems to have struck a nerve. Bravo to you for the next big step ~
It’s sneaky, isn’t it Sanford? Kind of creeps up on you and rattles you around.
Great stuff, Helen. The question, “what’s my role in this?” is a very powerful one.
Great big picture thinking, Jose
@Michael – Yes it is sneaky. Often, we say we “choose our battles”, but we choose the battles that make us look and feel strong. We don’t pick the bigger problem within ourselves which gives the “foe” their power. Or negotiate with or attempt to educate others in a way that might lead to resolution.
It is harder to pursue the ultimate goal and not be distracted by the “noise” along the journey. Or, maybe, it is easier to take on the symptoms because killing the disease would mean that we had nothing left to do.
Still thinking on this. I think there is a truth-full paradox here somewhere.