On politics and software
Being political is part of being human, but it's not healthy as a primary fixation.
While talking politics is totally avoidable in social and work settings, being political is most certainly not.
What I mean by “being political” is effectively something like, “consciously or unconsciously navigating interpersonal trust/power dynamics”. Any time two or more people interact, there are trust/power dynamics at play in their interactions. With social interaction being critical for building and maintaining good software, software development cannot be free of such political dynamics.
Why does it feel so gross, even immoral, to talk about trust/power dynamics though? Maybe it’s just me, but I’ve always felt that way. How do we deal with those trust/power dynamics in a healthy way when working with others? And how does one think of and navigate such trust/power dynamics in the tech space specifically?
There’s a philosophical paradigm I picked up in my journey that I find quite valuable in helping answer these questions.
The Metaphysics of Quality
This paradigm comes from two of my favourite books: Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance and its lesser-known sequel Lila, by Robert Pirsig.
From my own reading of it, the central thesis of ZAMM appears to be that what we call “quality” (or “value”) is all that there really is - it’s the only thing that can be considered a noun in the universe. It’s our name for the intuitive sense we have for that which is the driving force behind evolution. It’s not just an attribute of objects or a perception by subjects - it is the force that progressively gives rise to subjects and objects over time.
Pirsig then goes further to develop the beginnings of a “metaphysics of Quality” in Lila, where Quality can be broken down into:
Dynamic Quality, which Pirsig equates with the Tao from the Tao Te Ching (“The Tao that can be named is not the eternal Tao.”). It is the “bleeding edge” of the here-and-now. By the time you talk about it, it’s already moved on, so nothing can ever be said about it and it can only be experienced by “I” (see Mead’s “I and me”).
Static Quality, which is all the “stuff” in the universe. It is only ever temporarily stable before collapsing back into dynamic Quality. One can think of static Quality as, for example, ripples in water. Pirsig talks about there being at least four “levels” to the patterning in static Quality:
Inorganic patterns, like electromagnetic waves, elementary particles, molecules and ultimately inorganic matter like stars and rocks, water and air.
Organic patterns, like cells, tissues and organisms. Between inorganic patterns and organic ones lies the transition between what we call death and life. Organic patterns can only arise from inorganic patterns (one cannot have cells without molecules), so inorganic patterns form a substrate for organic ones.
Social patterns, which emerge when organisms interact with one another. Organic patterns form a substrate for social patterns (one cannot have social patterning without organisms). This is where trust and power/influence dynamics come into play, along with all forms of signalling that organic entities perform to each other (i.e. communication).
Intellectual patterns, which arise when other patterns are “internalized” by sufficiently complex social + organic organisms. Social + organic patterns form a substrate for intellectual patterns. Concepts and ideas are effectively intellectual patterns.
Morality
Pirsig then goes further to say that we intuitively understand this movement from inorganic through to intellectual patterns as what we call “moral”. Life is more moral than death, so we invented medicine to pursue life. Healthy social dynamics are more moral than unhealthy isolation. Prioritizing the dissemination of good ideas (intellectual patterns) over politics (social patterns) is what we’d consider to be “moral”. Stories throughout human history are full of dramatizations of the undesirable outcomes when we prioritize the “lower” levels over the “higher” ones.
From what I can tell so far in my personal experience, too much of a fixation on lower levels of patterning generally results in an unhealthy life. For instance, if you fixate on taking care of your body at the expense of your personal relationships, you and those around you suffer. Similarly, if you fixate on power and influence at the expense of the adoption/implementation of the best possible ideas, you and those around you also suffer.
Is it true, unique, complete?
Is Pirsig’s framework “true”? In other words, does reality really work like this? I have no idea. It does seem to be a fairly useful lens through which to look at the world though, at least in terms of its explanatory powers.
Is it unique? Most likely not. Pirsig was heavily influenced by both Western and Eastern philosophy in developing his framework. He himself was a student of philosophy before deciding to leave formal academia.
Is it complete? Certainly not - Pirsig himself wrote in Lila about how others would need to expand/refine his framework in future work. It’s also not the only useful lens through which to look at the world, but I find it fairly comprehensive so far due to its simplicity. I also find it helpful to supplement this paradigm with those proposed by others, some of which I may cover in future posts.
How is it useful?
I say it’s a useful lens in that it explains and gives structure to a bunch of things for me, including this feeling I have around why focusing too much attention on politics and power dynamics feels gross, even immoral.
Politics and trust/power dynamics are a lower level of patterning that, just like our bodily dynamics, are a substrate and necessary prerequisite for human social life. But how much attention do they deserve? Just as better bodily health facilitates better social patterning and thinking, so does our social patterning need to be kept healthy in order to help facilitate the “higher” level patterns.
Power and trust
What does it mean to have healthy social dynamics though? Psychologists and sociologists have written volumes on this, and perhaps I’ll try exploring some of their ideas in future posts.
In the meantime, I’ve found it far more useful to think of social dynamics using a lens of trust than power. It places the locus of control back within the sphere of the individual, whereas the notion of power places it outside of the individual on those who must be controlled or influenced - not a healthy situation for anyone involved. Ultimately, adopting an internal locus of control seems to result in a healthier, happier life, so it seems like a better paradigm to adopt.
Trust and software development
How is this relevant to software development? Again, since software development is generally a highly social activity, I find it worth occasionally reflecting on trust dynamics between people with whom I interact.
Especially the question of: how much trust do I give others? Generally, if I’m not dealing with a narcissist, the more I give the more I get in return. I always try to trust that people have good intentions, regardless of outcomes. This ultimately leads to a healthier work/social environment.
Then there’s also the question of: whose idea ends up being implemented? Is it mine because I’m the person in charge, or is it that of the junior engineer who just joined the team because their idea is better than mine? If I have decision-making authority, I try to prioritize the best idea, regardless of from whom it came. This sort of valuing of the best ideas, the best person for the job, etc. seems to generally work well for society when valued as such. Other approaches, like nepotism or cronyism, tend to result in suboptimal outcomes for society.
There’s much more to be said about trust and influence in the work context, especially the relationship between formal and informal influence, but I’ll leave those explorations for future posts.
The flow of ideas
More broadly, this paradigm also has interesting implications for the flow of ideas in society. Applying it, I hypothesize that ideas flow along lines carved out by trust/influence dynamics between people. Healthy lines of trust/influence facilitate the dissemination of good ideas far and wide, whereas unhealthy ones stem that flow. Sometimes healthy lines of trust/influence can also facilitate the dissemination of unhelpful or even harmful ideas, which is ultimately unhealthy for society.
I don’t have any strong recommendations as to how to fix an unhealthy flow of ideas. It’s a hard problem to solve. In recent years many have tried to stem the flow of misinformation, for example, but that still comes from a place of trying to control people as opposed to empower them to distinguish for themselves - a sign, for me, of an external locus of control, and acting from an unhealthy place like that rarely results in healthy outcomes for others.
The best (and healthiest) thing, I believe, that we can do in the face of constant misinformation and disinformation is empower people with the appropriate tools (psychological and technological) to discern for themselves what’s worth paying attention to and what’s worth disseminating to others.
Conclusion
Pirsig’s “metaphysics of Quality”, for me, provides a useful lens through which to look at the world. It shines a light on how being political is part of our human reality, but also that being political is not the end goal, nor should it be our primary fixation - in fact, it’s innately and intuitively immoral to do so. It helps me ask questions that I’ve found to be quite impactful in my life, and in the work context as a software engineer, team lead and engineering manager.
It’s certainly not the only useful lens out there, but it’s one that I personally like to use quite frequently, supplemented by those of others whose paradigms I’ve found to be useful.