Thoughts on political neutrality
The intersection between power, perspective, and flourishing is complicated. It is further complicated by the level at which we consider it, ranging from the individual, to the group (of which members may be like-minded or diverse1) to the organization2 (which in some ways behaves as an individual and in others as a group), to a community or nation.
Particularly at an organization level, some have advocated (most notably the University of Chicago) for concepts like political neutrality to ensure that the perspective of those in power ensures the flourishing of all of its members. While the University of Chicago’s thoughtful statement on political neutrality is clear to distinguish that they believe that individuals should be able to have clear political perspectives even if organizations shouldn’t, the question is worth posing at the individual level too: if an individual is in a position of power and has a perspective that differs from others, what considerations should they have in sharing that perspective as it pertains to the flourishing of others who disagree with their perspective?
Some would say that good organizations, good leaders, good journalists should be unbiased – that they should set aside their own stances on contentious topics and use a principled, unbiased approach. In my own experience proponents of this stance tend to, at least informally, align with philosophies such as positivism (the belief that our society’s knowledge accumulates over time), and absolute truth (the belief that truth exists independent of human perception or belief). In contrast, those who align with more recent philosophies, including those that endorse relative truth (the belief that truth depends on our frame of reference) or post-critical philosophies3 (the belief that truth is absolute but held with personal commitment), tend to think it is important to be open and transparent about their biases.
This approach of calmly and transparently acknowledging your perspective without letting it rule your relationship with others reminds me of the practice of mindfulness4, in which we acknowledge our emotions rather than ignoring them, but without letting them control us or get between us and others. Indeed, mindfulness is an approach that can lead to flourishing within yourself or between yourself and others, and the reflective practice seems an appropriate framework for the thoughtful environment we seek to foster in which everyone can flourish.
I am accordingly comfortable taking a principled approach in which I openly share my political thoughts, so long as my intent, my process, and my actions foster an environment in which everyone can flourish. And I encourage others at the individual, group, corporation, and community / nation level to reflectively examine the intersection of their own ways of knowing as it pertains to communicating from positions of power. We will likely land on different positions (which makes sense, because we’re in different positions), but the exercise itself, regardless of the outcome, helps to ensure that not only our stance but also our process and actions lead to mutual flourishing.
Notes: