If ever there was an overused phrase in modern American life, it has got to be "think outside the box." This mandate has become so tired and empty, it is utterly devoid of meaning at this point. Have you ever stopped and asked yourself what that phrase even means or why people use it so frequently? How many times in a given week do you hear people say things like..."That Steve Jobs really knew how to think outside the box" or "What we need you to do right now, Jenny, is think outside the box..." It is hyperbole upon hyperbole. A mindless mantra that is chanted to the masses in the hopes of inspiring some sort of action. The question is: what kind of action does the person using this term actually seek to inspire?
If you break this idea down, one thing becomes clear. Use of the word "box" serves as some kind of metaphor for what ever the defining norms of a situation are. The "box" is societal norms. It is religious norms. It is governmental norms. It is corporate norms. It is something that confines you. Constricts you. Apparently, it keeps whoever is in it, from thinking creatively. It keeps that person from excelling. It keeps that person from achieving. So whatever you do, according to this mandate, you need to make sure you are doing it OUTSIDE the box. That much we know.
Here comes the confusing part. What, exactly, does it MEAN to be outside? And how far outside does one need to be? People who abuse this phrase love to use examples of successful endeavors that ostensibly came from "out of the box" thinking. Jefferson and The American Constitution. Kennedy and space exploration. Al Gore and the internet. (Ok, maybe just the first two). These represent new frontiers pioneered by people who didn't allow norms to keep their ideas from reaching fruition. And when you focus on those kinds of accomplishments, it would seem that the sky is literally the limit. That there is no way to be too far out of that suffocating tomb of a box. That norms can be stretched, redefined, remastered into new and better ways of living. But wait! If you stop and think about it another way, guys like Charles Manson and David Koresh were ALSO thinking outside the box. They didn't care about societal norms, nor government or religious standards. And they were able to convince other people to go along with their ideas. That's kind of upsetting. So taking their behavior at face value, it would appear that one can, in fact, be too far outside the box. Then, if you think about it yet another way, while these two may outside YOUR box, from Stalin's point of view, they were aiming pretty low, and are still firmly entrenched inside his box. And for that matter, didn't Jefferson own slaves and encourage mass slaughter of Native Americans in his quest to ensure "freedom"? So really, what kind of box did he have in the first place? When you put this kind of thought into these examples, you realize that, like anything else, thinking outside the box is a matter of context. The context of Jefferson's life is not the context of today's world. So it is impossible to know exactly what a person means when he encourages you to think in this manner. Which is why it has become such a meaningless thing to demand.
Lets say that you are in a sales meeting, and your boss tells you that you need to think outside the box in order to increase your productivity. Are you going to come back to him a few days later with some extra cool (but safe) sales pitches? Or are you going to suggest some kind of major overhaul in the organization that would allow autonomy, decentralization of power, and a potentially different compensation structure? And if you DID do the latter, would anyone at your job even take those suggestions seriously? Or would your manager be threatened and say "Wait a minute, Doug. That isn't what we meant when we said "out of the box." We just wanted you to think of a few nifty sales promos we could tie to our latest product launch." Would you be rewarded for your creativity or would you be shut down because you took it too far?
Therein lies the inherent problem with organizations and groups. In order for the group to remain powerful, it requires allegiance and loyalty. If too many people start to think for themselves, the group becomes fragmented and loses its authority. This is true of small groups, such as a clique of teenage girls who gain power by bullying other girls into conforming to their methods; and large groups, such as political parties who undermine new and modern thinking by bullying news organizations into keeping the focus on issues which they deem appropriate. If you hear a political candidate suggest that he will think "outside the box", do you take that to mean he will lower corporate taxes instead of raising them? Or does it mean that he will overhaul the entire tax system? When you see the Tea Party demand accountability in Washington, do you find that they are asking for an actual structural change that might result in a lower incidence of legislation? Or do you believe that they just want to gain power in the status quo system and utilize that power to achieve their own agenda without making any meaningful adjustments? One thing that is particularly telling, is that whenever groups such as the Tea Party or Green Party gain notoriety, they are immediately categorized by the media as offshoots of the right or the left, and subsequently claimed by the two existing parties in an effort to keep their death grip on the populace firmly in tact. These fledgling parties are never just taken at face value based on whatever their own tenants may be. There is always qualification.
To wit: "Well you know, Bob, the Tea Party is really just a bunch of angry white Republicans who want the party to lean further to the right."
"Yes, well, Susan, I did know that. That reminds me of the time the Green Party cost Al Gore the 2000 election, which was so unnecessary because when you stop and think about it, the Green Party is really just a bunch of angry hippies who want the Democrats to lean further to the left."
This is the rhetoric. This is the way the mainstream marginalizes the important message that potential third parties can deliver. The media claim to be frustrated with the state of the economy, gas prices, unemployment, and any other issue that effects voters. Yet when enough people get together and try to think of "out of the box" solutions, all anyone with a public forum can do is immediately place those people within a known context of the existing two party system. In this way, it becomes increasingly difficult for any truly unconventional thinker to gain traction. For a recent private sector example we can look at Facebook's acquisition of Instagram. Why deal with a competitor who is a little edgier than you are when you can simply make them so much like you that you no longer have to be edgy? So in that way, Facebook becomes like General Motors. They cease to be the next big thing and become the norm. They go from being out of the box, to BEING the box. That is why change in this country is so incremental. The forward thinkers are either marginalized out of existence, or bought and paid for by existing entities.
Until the next person comes along and pushes boundaries in a way that is provocative or lucrative enough to make a difference. Change is slow. But it happens. Progress requires the dismantling of outdated systems and thoughts and the nurturing of more modern ideas. This applies to all areas of life. Don't let your progress be dictated by other peoples intellectual laziness and mental sluggishness. Don't become marginalized just because it is easier to be part of a larger group than it is to remain true to your ideals. I'm sure Instagram once had its own business goals that had nothing to do with Facebook. And Ariana Huffington is finding out the hard way that even $315 million isn't going to get her editorial control at AOL.
Perhaps the best way one can truly attempt to think outside the box, is to remember that the goal is to not eventually become the box.
BB
No comments:
Post a Comment