1 Explanation of the General Qualities

To construct an institutional compass, it will be important to thoroughly understand the three qualities: what they are and how to think about them.

We look at the qualities more systematically. There will be some repetition of what was said before. We start with three very general qualities: harmony, discipline and excitement.Footnote 1 These are translations of: sattva , raja and tamas , respectively. They are the three gunas of Jain, Hindu and Buddhist philosophies. In these philosophies, they are spiritual virtues. People will exhibit one more than another. Some people are harmonious and content, others are showy and energetic, others are disciplined, serious, dark or gloomy. In these Ancient traditions, spiritual guidance is given to re-adjust a person with respect to the virtues. A meta-attitude is taken within each tradition: to seek balance between the three, to favour one over the others and to favour one to a greater or lesser extent at different phases of life.

Following Kumar (2007) we put aside the spiritual interpretation of the gunas and treat them simply as general qualities that can be applied to the non-spiritual: to objects or institutions. What is important for us here is that each of these general qualities has sub-qualities. Those of harmony are: pure, good, constructive, respectful, pleasant, soft, easy, light, natural and seamless. Examples of sub-qualities of discipline are: dark, destructive, harmful, serious, painful, stinky, suppressive, abrasive, constricting, despotic, putrid, diseased, depressing, morbid, violent and invasive. Examples of sub-qualities of excitement are: active, plush, lively, confused, regal, sensational, sharp, hilarious, perfumed, exotic, brassy, colourful, showy and spectacular.

For people who are not acquainted with the Oriental traditions, it takes time to become used to the three qualities, and they bear discussion. Reading Kumar’s book will give a strong impression and grasp of the qualities. I recommend it highly for anyone interested in adopting the method.

  • Claim 4: One importance of the three general qualities is that, on considered reflection, almost every object, event, institution or society will have one that predominates.

For example, time has the three qualities. “Living in the here and now, acting spontaneously and unselfconsciously, responding to a situation as it is and seeing the present moment is sattvic” (Kumar, 27). “Dwelling on the future is rajasic [especially when] … we become involved in exciting projects” (Kumar 28). “Living in the past is tamasic: Why did you do that? Why didn’t I do that? You shouldn’t have done that! We complain and moan” (Kumar 29). Food has the three qualities: sweet and light food is sattvic, spicy food is rajasic and heavy and stale food is tamasic (Kumar, 30). Buildings have these qualities. Houses are sattvic, palaces are rajasic, prisons are tamasic (Kumar, 34).

Try the following exercise: compare a plastic flower, a flower in a field and a cultivated cut flower for indoors. The plastic flower falls under ‘discipline’ because it is dead and cynical, is made of plastic which is made from fossil fuels, plastic flowers are often dusty. The flower in the field falls under ‘harmony’ since it is alive, natural, pleasant, plays a role in the local ecology, brightens the landscape, helps living organisms and so on. The cultivated cut flower falls under: ‘excitement’, since it is usually larger and more extravagant than natural flowers, it is cut and taken away from its natural surroundings, so no longer contributes to the ecology, but adds beauty to the household. The cultivation of flowers for cutting shows mastery over nature, an enhancement of nature.

Try another comparison; this time one that is more institutional. Compare a primary school, a prison and a world-class sports team. The primary school falls under: ‘harmony’. This is because it is normal for children to receive a primary school education. This helps to unite the society, giving the students social skills and literacy in numbers and letters so that they can communicate more widely. The prison falls under: ‘discipline’ since prisoners are restricted in their movements, have little control over their daily routine, are punished for disobeying rules and are constantly watched. A more enlightened prison aiming at the re-integration of prisoners in society when they leave the prison will still fall under discipline, but, if the techniques used are relatively kind and constructive, it will show more of a tendency towards harmony than that of a retributive prison. The world-class sports team falls under ‘excitement’. The team members show outstanding physical ability, are matched only by the best in the world, bring pride and excitement to those who follow their results and they might enjoy a high degree of publicity.

We should be careful about attributing qualities to objects. First impressions can mislead.

  • Claim 5: Outward appearances and first associations might be deceptive.

A person might be very wealthy and live in a rich dwelling, so we would suppose that person to be rajasic or lead an exciting life, but spiritually, he, or she, might be serene and modest and so sattvic or harmonious. In contrast, a person might appear modest and unassuming because living very modestly, so appear sattvic or harmonious, but on a spiritual level be full of rage and greed, and so is more tamasic, or disciplined (Kumar, 2007, pp. 38–40). For entering data on the table, it is better if we are sensitive beyond mere appearance.

Notice that in working through these examples, I added an explanation as to why I thought that the objects and institutions belonged predominantly to a particular quality. The extended qualification explains why we think that the object or institution has a particular quality that dominates. There are three lessons to learn from this. One is that:

  • Claim 6: We see institutions, events and statistics from a perspective.

That perspective can change, even during the very exercise of constructing a compass. This is part of the feedback loop that attends construction. We should be aware of our perspective. The perspective is subjective, but the awareness of it, means that we can “correct” for it to fit with other people’s perspectives. The awareness of our biases makes it possible to think objectively about them, since it gives us some conceptual distance from the bias and highlights the different perspectives of those analysing data. Declaring one’s biases or ideological orientation explicitly is one version of the turn from norm to description as mentioned in Sect. 3.6.

Second: remember claim 3. We include the norm as a description, as a fact. People hold this norm or standard with respect to this institution. This should be taken into account when making policy decisions.

This is a little different from the previous point. A norm is something we feel. We are rarely explicit about what norms we hold, since they go unnoticed, until they are challenged. Here we are explicit and transparent about the norms we hold and how they affect our analysis of data points. In being explicit, we turn the norm into a description of what it is that we hold to be true of the world, as it relates to the data point. This is sometimes referred to as “seeing as”. We see one object as threatening, and another as beneficial, and this is subjective in the sense of differing from one person to another. By adding it to a description, as a justification for attributing a quality to an object, the norm is then exposed for others to criticise or react to in their turn. This adds to objectivity in the sense of turning a feeling into a fact. We declare openly: “I do not approve of your conduct.” This is very different from simply ignoring it, or shunning the person without giving an open explanation. In lived situations, it is not always desirable, or necessarily a good idea, to be so open, since sometimes this is received as being offensive or aggressive. However, here, we are trying to be scientific, to add clarity. The third lesson is that:

  • Claim 7: One of the virtues of compass construction is to draw out debates about qualities and perspectives.

This is only healthy and democratic. It is better to have a debate than to allow misunderstanding to fulminate and lead to violence. Through such debate, we learn about other people’s perspectives. We can then understand them better, and so maybe not agree, but to some extent sympathise. We can also anticipate other’s reactions in novel situations, hopefully providing the means to stem emotional escalation.

Not only might outer appearances be deceptive, but institutions and people change in their general qualities. For example, a school might change over time. It might start as harmonious in its first years, then it might move into the general quality of excitement as it gains a reputation for academic success. In an attempt to protect the high reputation, the school might become more disciplined: with more rules, high standards (so failing more students) and an increase in ruthless measures taken to remove students who disrupt the flow of teaching, and mar the reputation. So:

  • Claim 8: The general qualities of an institution can change over time.

We can use the compass to track such changes by looking at the statistics that separately indicate the general qualities at different times. Some of the indicators will be ones we want to watch over time. The final arrow on the compass will change over time as an institution develops and changes. Comparing compasses is an instructive exercise and helps with another feedback loop – the assessment of the effectiveness of past policy decisions. With that assessment, we become more responsible for our past policy decisions. We can track the qualitative effect of policy.

2 Attitudes Towards the Qualities

We can take different (meta-)attitudes towards what the qualities indicate, and we can be more or less subtle in our policy decisions. In Ancient Indian philosophical thinking, sattva , or harmony, is the path of wisdom. So, we re-balance a person or an institution by guiding him, her, towards harmony. In Western and Modern thinking, where we seek indications of ‘progress’, we tend to be attracted to excitement in an institution. According to ancient thinking there is the danger that excitement falls towards discipline rather than leading back to harmony.

Return to our school example, this time as school policy makers who want our school to be exciting. In so doing, we are under the threat of the arrow moving too much towards discipline. We then can make a choice about which meta-attitude to take: to align policy with Ancient Indian Philosophy and follow the path of wisdom, or we can align it with more Modern thinking and risk having too much discipline. This is a philosophical choice that we make, and we should do so consciously, that is, conscious of our having made this choice. Having us examine and make explicit our conscious choices concerning favouring one quality over another for our institution is another strength of the compass construction exercise.

  • Claim 9: The arrows can rotate in both directions.

Excitement can rotate towards harmony, as the institution settles and what was taken to be exciting becomes normal and is part of that institution. The academic excellence of the school can become part of that school’s identity, as opposed to the ambition of the school. This happens when the school sustains the excellence – in comparison to competing schools.

Harmony arrows can rotate towards discipline by being too boring or stultifying. When everything works too well, there is the danger that we become under-stimulated. We can become dull, unimaginative and slovenly. We then slip into rigid routine and discipline, especially when we protect our inactivity, or become physically more limited - less flexible and adaptive. We then have a rigidity of institution based on inertia.

Similarly, discipline arrows can rotate towards excitement or harmony by supporting or emphasising what brings those qualities to the institution and by removing or dampening the effect of what it is that brings discipline to the institution. To deepen one’s understanding of the three qualities as they are being considered here, and to better grasp the meta-attitudes, again, I highly recommend Kumar’s Spiritual Compass as an accompanying book to this. It is a pleasant and easy read.

Institutions are dynamic. When the internal inertial forces are not strong, they change from within. When the inertial forces are strong, change has to come from outside.

  • Claim 10: Keeping an institutional arrow in the same place on the compass requires vigilance and constant adaptation.

This is because the context of an institution changes. It changes in alignment with, or in reaction to, an institution, or it might change quite independently of the institution. Climate change affects the context of institutions, the responsibility for climate change is shared by many institutions and distributed amongst them.

Since we can take different attitudes towards the qualities, favouring one over others, or favouring balance, and since we are advocating ideological transparency, we can represent the attitude on a compass. We construct a “wish spot”.