The High Ground

The best advice we receive is often to stake out the high ground.

It starts as children. If we are in a fight and screaming at a sibling, our parents will tell us to calm down, stop fighting and eventually to say sorry, whether it was our fault or not. Part of this process is an acceptance of the other party, recapturing some respect for them. We are ready to accept their side of the story and to move on.

It is powerful therapy. Not only does it cease hostilities, but all the parties come to feel better about themselves and the ground is laid out for a more fruitful relationship. Well, at least until the next fight.

Much of modern psychology follows the same principles. If we are angry, we should accept the anger, recognize it then move on. If we feel hard done by, well that is all very well but it will help us if we can banish thoughts of revenge and replace them with living in the present and trying to rebuild relationships. If we can find respect for the other parties and even actively forgive, so much the better.

This approach has stood the test of time because it works. It is shared across many religions. In Christianity, common themes in the Gospels are respect for others, forgiveness and reconciliation. The various twelve step programs borrowed the same principles. The early steps are broadly about working through anger, the middle ones are about forgiveness and the last ones about sustainability.

One part of religion that many of us find hard to accept literally but can still help the process is acceptance of God, or some higher power. If we read carefully, God is not there to help us win fights. But consideration of a higher power helps us to see ourselves in a wider context, to see how small we are, how powerless. Even for non believers, it is a useful construct, for no one can deny that we are small and powerless relative to everything around us.

One way to describe the overall technique is to look for the high ground. When tempted to wade into the swamps, climb out again, reflect and move on. Of course a corollary is to avoid those swamps in the first place. If our actions and thoughts can start from a place of context and respect, so much the better for ourselves and for others. We also learn over time that the main beneficiary of a generous high-ground approach to life is ourself. 

This is all well-established when it comes to individuals, even if many of us find it hard to follow in our everyday lives. But the theory applies just as well for institutions too, which, after all, are made up of people.

Most obvious are families. The parenting example applies to adults as well. Sadly, most families have simmering wars and estranged elements. Smart families will work to eliminate those. It also makes a lot of sense to try to get on with the neighbours.

Alliances sometimes occur within extended families. One branch might stick together and try to score points from other branches. Some parents even have favourite children. But we learn quickly, so long as we are not mafiosi, that this approach goes against all good high-ground principles. As soon as our mindset is of us against them, the high ground has been deserted.

A good test of any religion is how it interacts with other religions. There seems to me to be a fundamental mismatch between the teachings at the heart of all religions and an attitude of intolerance to other religions. I always balk at the prayers in Catholic services, where we first pray for other Catholics and Church leaders before moving on to the leaders of our nation. Why not pray for all humanity? I like to hope that our new Pope is doing exactly that. In the US, the Episcopal Churches appear admirably inclusive. Note how in general the larger and more powerful an institution is, the harder it tends to be to reach for higher ground.

Of course, the opposite attitude continues to be a prime cause of war even today. We are widely told to believe that Islam is somehow a threat to our world. I refuse to accept this. Of course, some Islamic clerics spout dangerous nonsense, and even some mainstream Islamic teaching is tough to accept, on the role of women for example. But Christians are hardly spotless. If we start by seeking high ground, we will make more progress.

Turning now to corporations, there is more good news than you might think. Well-run companies actually follow the logic of the high ground in many ways. Lasting success comes when authentic common cause is sought with customers, and with suppliers. The very best achieve the same with their staff as well, though the degree of true staff engagement within companies falls way short of where it should be. Even competitors receive some respect – perhaps an unintended positive consequence of strong anti-competitive regulation.

Companies acting otherwise tend not to survive. Enron thought they had a winning formula for a while. Look out for unacceptable attitudes to staff, suppliers or especially customers – these are strong warning signs. Goldman Sachs has only survived its “muppet” comments because its entire industry is as sick as they are. If the whole point of an industry is to act as parasites, there is not a lot of high ground to find.

Now, the institutions having the greatest effect on all of us are nations, and here the concept of high ground is sadly absent. Listen to the language used by nations. Allies and foes. Strategic interests. Defending our people. It is tragic, and it holds up global progress.

After the world wars of the twentieth century, some attempts were made to set up bodies to represent the global high ground. Quietly, the UN does some wonderful work. Whenever I see a UN report, I tend to pay it attention, since it is usually relevant and balanced. Yet, almost from its inception, the UN has been undermined by nations putting narrow interests above global priorities.

A good place to start for anyone seeking higher ground from their own nation is to look at UN agreements that have not been ratified or have not been enforced. I read this week that the UK has still not ratified the international agreement about protecting a cultural heritage. Seemingly embarrassment (and presumably legal fear) still weighs heavily after Dresden and other 1945 acts of the RAF. But isn’t that a national disgrace?

Once again, the bigger the nation, the harder it seems to be to find high ground. Within the US, the UN is almost seen as an enemy, with congress regularly blocking funding and support from any leader akin to political suicide.

It is worth going back to the basic logic of high ground and recalling that the beneficiary is the one being generous. It is not hard to observe the cost of US intransigence. Broken budgets, a swollen military, unaccountable covert operations, and loss of trust and respect all come from the prevalent tribal attitude. The free internet looks like being the next casualty. It is galling to hear Putin justifying his actions in Ukraine by quoting equivalent US actions in the past.

China’s attitude in the next thirty years will have a key bearing on the progress of our race. The signs are mixed. It is sad to see the new belligerence in the South China Sea. Hiding behind a doctrine of non-interference is also not good enough over Ukraine. But there are also encouraging signs, not least a more responsible approach to global warming. As the next hegemon, it is a shame that the example of the current one, and, to be fair, all past ones, is so poor.

We have learned that our personal behaviour will lead to a more fruitful life if we can seek out high ground, even if our practice usually falls short. One thing we can usefully do as global citizens is to old our institutions to the same principles, starting with our nations. In the end, nations are made up of people like us, so we have it in our collective power. Instead of judging others, let us start with ourselves.