Today, I was discussing workability with some of my friends. As I understood, workability is all about looking at things from a different perspective. For example, if there is a clash of egos between two individuals, and both of them are stuck on their stand, then if somebody tries to show them an alternative perspective, say for example that both of them have come together for the organizational welfare, that may help both of them looking afresh and it may resolve the issues. It may work in relations when spouses are fighting their ego battle and somebody makes them realize the larger purpose of the welfare of the kids and they look at their relationship from that perspective and strike out workability.
There appear to be two fundamental assumptions behind the concept of workability. First, there is a hierarchy of the goals in life. Say, for example, in the instance referred above, the individuals fighting in the organization have two conflicting goals viz "to prove to be right", and "to promote the interest of the organization" and the "promotion of the interest of the organization" is higher in the hierarchy as compared to the "proving to be right". The second assumption is that the individuals get stuck on their perspective and somebody may help them recollect the awareness of the hierarchy of the goals and once they become aware of the hierarchy, they will let go of the lower goals to achieve the higher goals.
Accordingly, the concept of workability may work in the case of a husband-wife relationship as well. Both may be fighting each other to "prove themselves to be right" however, once they both are made to see the larger goal of life i.e. to "bring up the kids", they both may set aside their conflicts and live together to take care of the kids.
However, there are two fundamental problems with the approach. Firstly, is there something as the hierarchy of the goals? Does the principle of wider benefit always work? What if the majority is exploiting the minority? That so happened when Jesus was crucified and Socrates was killed by the society. That so happened with Galelio too. In fact that has happened with every revolutionary who tries to wake society up. In that case, how will the principle of workability work? I feel that the concept of larger benefit has its own limitations. In that case, suppose in a family a person wants to move along the path of truth while the rest of the members of the family want to be involved in materialistic pleasures. Should the one who wants to move along the spiritual path give up that path in order to fulfill his responsibility towards the other members? That seems quite workable. But is that the way out? In that case, Buddha would have never gone out of his home for enlightenment. In that case, Rama would have never left Ayodhya because it was quite painful for almost the whole of the Ayodhya.
Workability seems to be based on detailed calculations of what is in the larger interest. There is a fundamental problem with defining what is the "interest of an individual". What is the best interest of Buddha? Whether the best interest of Buddha was to rule the kingdom like an ordinary king and serve the people or to work on his enlightenment and show a path to the entire humanity? Till the time he gets enlightenment, roaming around in the forest looks to be a waste of time. People would say that he should serve the people of the kingdom rather than waste time. What about sending a rocket to the moon or Mars? Why so many resources are being wasted in some pursuits by humanity when so many are dying of hunger? what is in the best interest of humanity? Workability may demand spending more and more resources on the people who are dying of hunger.
Thus, there is a fundamental problem with the concept of workability. It appears to be centered around survival and comfort. If survival and the comforts of the majority are the goals of human life, we may still try to understand the concept. However, human life is there to explore and create. Each one of us may have our own different sets of explorations and creations. That is why thinking of a common hierarchy of goals appears to be quite limited.
Secondly, there is another assumption in the concept of workability that people's perspective is narrow and when we show them the wider picture, they understand and look differently. However, that may always not be possible. Krishna tries to show that to Kansa and Duryodhana. Rama tries to show that alternative perspective to Ravana. However, when a person gets fixated on his opinions and viewpoints, his knowledge and logic start working as his defense mechanism. He starts using his distorted logic to defend his stand. We see that so often in organizations. In that case, it was not possible for even God to change the perspective and He too had no other option other than to fight the battle. Working towards workability may itself be a trap and prolong the solution. Had Rama kept trying for the workability with Ravana, he would have tried the whole of his life.
So, I feel that it is not workability but rather "truth" that should be the aim of life. In a relationship, the moment we are truthful to ourselves, every conflict is resolved. Sometimes we are afraid that if we tell the truth, the relationship will break down. However, a relationship that does not have the capacity to listen to the truth actually never existed. We are just carrying the already dead relationship. We as human beings know very little about this world and it has been our constant effort to know more and more about this world and ourselves. Survival is definitely a priority but the greater priority is exploration. Humanity in the past has undertaken so many missions to the moon, heights of the mountains, and depths of the oceans to unravel the mysteries of nature, Many people have lost their lives in the process. However, had the purpose of human life been just to survive comfortably somehow, we would have been extinct by now as a race. Constant endeavor to explore and create is what makes us human beings. We come together so as to help us survive better, but survival is not the aim rather it is to explore and create.
Comments