In our little book republished as The Myth of Nine to Five, the late Dr Phil Harker and I argued that despite the illusion we have of free will, in fact the only real choice human beings have is whether to choose to live with a worldview of fear or a worldview of love.

(If this sounds a little radical you might choose to read our book!)

Now whilst this may seem to many a an unorthodox choice, it is rendered more confusing because of our ambiguous notions we have about love. In this essay I will attempt to clarify what we mean by “love” in the context of this fundamental choice..

Some years ago someone shared with me a tape of Anthony de Mello running one of his famous workshops.

Anthony de Mello was an Indian Jesuit priest and psychotherapist, a teacher and public speaker, De Mello wrote several books on spirituality and hosted numerous spiritual retreats and conferences. De Mello’s most famous book was called Awareness and I used it extensively in my career as an executive coach.

The tape in question was a verbatim recording of one of De Mello’s workshops.

My recollection is a little hazy but part of his presentation went something like this.

He asked someone, “Do you love your spouse?” The person replied in the affirmative saying they loved their partner very much.

“What would happen if your partner came to you and said, ‘I am sorry but I don’t love you anymore. I can no longer be happy in this marriage. I want you to let me go.’ How would you respond to such a request? Would you be prepared to let them go?”

“Oh no, I couldn’t bear to let them go.”

“Even though staying together would cause your spouse pain and no doubt as a result you would also be unhappy?”

“Oh no, I love my partner too much – I couldn’t possibly contemplate their leaving.”

De Mello turned to the audience and said, “Isn’t that wonderful! Two unhappy people – but long live love!”

What de Mello did was give a great example of attachment. When I believe I can’t be happy without another that is not love – that is attachment. Underneath this delusion I am actually a parasite, believing I can’t be happy without my partner. I erroneously conclude I have to derive my emotional well-being from them. My concerns are selfish ones. If I love my partner I will do what I can to progress the well-being of my partner, not to pursue my own selfish needs. What’s more, those under the thrall of such attachment are likely to use their own misguided suffering to manipulate their partner which further degrades the relationship.

Our society depends on the interdependence of its members. We all play a role but rely on others to play different roles that complement our own. I sit here in front of my desk obviously dependent on those that make computers, those that construct furniture, and those who write and publish books, those who generate electricity, and those who provide telephone services and so on. And all that is well and good. But a mature adult cannot afford to be dependent on another for their psychological or emotional well-being.

Once I believe another is responsible for my happiness, I am immediately vulnerable. Therefore in my wrong-minded attempt to ensure my happiness, I will attempt to control that person – I will have expectations about what they need to do to make me happy. By constraining that person and curtailing their freedom I am not exemplifying love at all. I am merely d demonstrating my own fear – fear that I might lose or be deprived of what I erroneously believe my happiness is dependent on.

Now the love that I am talking about I have elsewhere defined as “the dissolution of separateness” Such a love allows me to stand in your shoes and as near as possible experience what you are experiencing. It is the enablement of empathy with you. The ancient Greeks called such love Agape. This form of love is a demonstration of a deliberate choice to have concerns for the well-being of others without expecting anything in return.

In a personal exchange my late learned friend Dr Phil Harker pointed out to me that one of the difficulties we have discussing “love” is the paucity of the English language. He explained that the Greeks had three terms for love – Eros, Philia and Agape. In a long-term satisfying relationship with a spouse or partner all three types of love have to be present.

Let me quote a few paragraphs from him.

“[Initially when Eros is dominant] the individual becomes extremely possessive and desiring of this ‘one and only’ who has taken on the characteristics of a ‘God’ or ‘Goddess’ in their emotional driven mind – this is all well and good in fulfilling its purpose. Of course the intensity of the feeling tends to fade reasonably quickly even though the memory of this ‘possessive’ love feeling lasts a long time and becomes associated with his or her concept of love for this person – even when it is quite obvious that they pretty much can’t stand each other anymore – so what has happened.

Well, they didn’t realise that the great secret to any lasting relationship is not possessive love or even great intimacy, but great friendship – why is friendship so important and yet so alien to many marriages? It is because ‘great friendship’ cannot be associated with any form of possessiveness.

What is it about friendship that we enjoy so much and what keeps it fresh – in fact improving – over time?

Well, the first thing is that good friends have respect for each other’s freedom – and yet still find things in common that allow them to have a common theme in ‘conversation’ with each other.

Secondly, in good friendships we generally express our opinions, but don’t require the other to agree or even accept our opinions – and that is why people often listen more attentively to their friends than they do to their partners. I have heard people talk to their marriage partners in ways that friends would never do – why? Because they assume that ‘marriage’ gives a person the right to take away the rights of the other and bring them under control. This is a disaster in the making!

Thirdly, good friendships are voluntary – even if they have been established over many years – the obligation to the friendship is generated internally and not through external pressure. The motivation for good friendship is intrinsic, not extrinsic, and therefore there tends to be a great deal of mutual respect between friends. And it is this intrinsic motivation that keeps the relationship healthy.

However, even friendships break down – because sometimes they have not grasped that there is an even deeper form of love that also needs to be involved and this is the love that we need to have towards ALL people. It is a love that arises out of a clear understanding of what it means to be human – that we are connected to all in a common spirit and need to forgive everyone everything. And to do this we need to start with ourselves!

To get along with all people we need Agape– unconditional love – freedom from blame and no desire to control.

To have lasting friendships we need Agape and Philia – Freedom from blame and no desire to control & Common conversation/common interests.

To have a lasting marriage [or a long term intimate relationship] we need Agape – Philia and Eros– Freedom from blame and no desire to control & Common conversation/common interests and a desire to make this person special in the intimate sense!”

You might then compare attachment with love as defined by Phil.

Attachment results in:

• A tendency to blame the other when my needs aren’t met.
  • A likelihood that I will try and control the other to try to compel them to meet my needs.
  • Less chance that we can find common ground because I am putting my needs before my partner’s.

Thus in a loving relationship we give unconditionally to the other. As Phil says, “Give without a balance sheet to get ‘fairness’ – give wastefully!”

You might ask, “But what about me – what you are talking about here seems to be a one-way street where I have to do all the giving and don’t benefit from any of the receiving?” Well, if you truly love someone else, don’t you want to give to them? If you only give with the expectation of something in return that’s not love but a form of barter! And if I give with no expectation of something in return I truly appreciate what I get in return. And guess what? This sets up an environment where the other is much more likely to want to give.

Quoting from Phil again:
“There is nothing wrong with seeking your own happiness and joy in a marriage relationship – selfishness is good so long as it is enlightened selfishness. Most people practice unenlightened self-interest by thinking that others can make them happy or unhappy – this is simply unenlightened…..”

So there you are. Loving relationships can contribute substantially to our sense of well-being but only if we don’t believe our happiness depends on them. As I have mentioned before, the literature on happiness brings with it the caution that happiness cannot be pursued directly. In relationships it seems that as soon as I believe my happiness is dependent on my partner and I need to have my partner to be happy, the outcomes for both of us are compromised. When I enter into a truly loving relationship where my concern is to advance the welfare of my partner, paradoxically we both are better off! Obviously if all the elements of Agape, Philia and Eros are embedded in the relationship, I have the best chance of an enduring, satisfying relationship.

Now if you go back to my opening remarks, when we (more than likely unconsciously) make this fundamental choice between Love and Fear, it is immediately obvious that the love we are referring to is Agape, the unconditional love of others – the love that leads to empathy and the so-called “Reciprocal Rule, the injunction to “do unto others as we would wish them to do unto us”!

[I wrote an essay once which I titled “Love Makes the World Go Round”. My late old friend who wrote under the pseudonym of “Father Robin” was quick to respond that “Fear makes the world go pear-shaped!”]

 

And Another Thing!

The Changing Demographics of the Workforce

As someone who devoted much of his career in efforts to create more productive workplaces, having the right skill sets in the workplace was always important to me. Over the years I have seen many changes in the composition of the workforce.

When we were teenagers my father advised my three brothers and I to take up an apprenticeship and become a tradesman. If we did so he assured us we would have “a job for life”! Two of my brothers took that advice and indeed they prospered with their trade credentials allowing them to pursue successful careers.

I subsequently went on to do a degree in electrical engineering. I had a cadetship and my employer provided work for me during the university vacation periods. I was very grateful for this because I could top up my income to supplement my meagre cadetship stipend. I knew I had to be financially self-reliant because my parents did not have the wherewithal to support me financially.

Some of my placements as a cadet engineer were in power stations. In those days power station workforces were not only large but dominated by tradesmen and their assistants. In their maintenance workshops they employed electrical and mechanical tradesmen, plumbers and boilermakers. When I worked at Townsville Power Station they even employed a blacksmith!

They were no doubt skilled people, and being someone who had quite limited practical skills, I admired their proficiency.

In those days such skilled tradesmen manufactured new parts to replace those worn out in the extensive machinery in power stations. The electricians were valued for their capacity to investigate and remedy faults in the circuitry. Plumbers maintained the extensive pipework and were even required to “lead wipe” which was a procedure necessary to repair and join paper insulated power cables..

But over the years that I worked in power stations, maintenance requirements changed significantly.

For example in the old days machine components tended to wear our or get corroded and tradesman with great skills as machinists manufactured new parts. As the years progressed advancements in materials technology resulted in parts that took longer to wear and that didn’t corrode. As well most machinery manufacturers provided replacement parts so that worn and corroded parts were discarded and replaced with new ones purchased “off the shelf”.

Plumbers who once had to be skilful at lead wiping and welding and soldering now faced a situation where most pipes were now plastic and merely required gluing together.

In power stations electricians were highly valued who could “fault find”. They had the skills to investigate and repair electrical faults. But as the years progressed computers became prevalent in the control of powerplant and these computers had the capacity to highlight to maintenance staff where electrical faults were most likely to be.

These and many other trends I could mention led to a diminution of the percentage of the workforce that were tradesmen. The percentage the workforce made up of tradespeople has declined from something like 30% of the workforce in the 1960’s to something like 14% today.

Other trends of course contributed to this decline. In the 1960’s and 1970’s Australia still had a large manufacturing base which also led to the recruitment of trade staff. With the decline in manufacturing over recent decades the employment of tradesmen also decreased.

From time to time we have faced shortages of tradesmen. There are always calls for more skilled migration and more apprentice-training. But these are generally short term perturbations and the inexorable trend to employ fewer tradesmen is soon re-established.

Over the years we have had, more automation, more computers and other advanced technologies which compelled us to seek out new skills in our workplaces, now we are facing a new wave of technological advance in the form of AI.

In retrospect it has largely been technological advances that have enhanced our productivity and increased our standards of living. Technology, in the end, doesn’t reduce employment it merely increases employment for those with other skills sets. If our fears of employment dislocation delay the application of new technologies we can miss the productivity advances and fall behind in the enhancement of our national wealth. The union movement has often put a brake on the take-up of new technologies in a misguided belief they are preserving jobs. This is short-sighted and has often led to embedding long term disadvantages for us all.

Note

Up until the 1960s those with trade qualifications were predominantly male. Since then more and more women have sought and acquired trade qualifications. In the above discussion where I have used the term “tradesman” or “tradesmen” I have done so generically and have meant to include both genders.