I wrote some Notes and Comments on Substack this week that brought a slew of new subscribers to our community. Welcome, new folks! If you ended up here because of some of that but you haven’t yet subscribed, I hope you’ll do that below and come back again.
Who’s afraid of the Big, Bad Wolf?
This week, I came across an article in the New York Times about the reintroduction of wolves in the United States, which I think is worth a read. Some of you may already know that the expansion of human settlements throughout the country led to the near extinction of wolves. Wolves were one of the first animals listed by the federal government as endangered in the 1970s. In the 1990s, the reintroduction of wolves began in Yellowstone National Park, kicking off decades of conflict between environmentalists, livestock owners, and hunters about whether, or how best, to preserve an important species and rehabilitate ecosystems while also preserving people’s livelihoods.
The article is focused primarily on how this conflict has been negotiated, and the author, Erica Berry, noted a term that grabbed my attention. She wrote that successful negotiation had happened between groups on different sides of the debate by applying the Blackfoot Challenges “80/20 rule.” I knew I’d heard that term before but couldn’t remember where, so I went looking, and here’s what I found.
Their use of the term “80/20 rule” is potentially confusing, if only because there is a commonly understood definition that has nothing to do with community organizing. The 80/20 rule, or the Pareto Principle, is a power law distribution theory that is widely applied in business settings. I’m not going to get into the details of it here because it’s not salient to our conversation; I’ve linked to more information if you’re interested.
I can understand why the Blackfoot Challenge co-opted the term, though, because it’s not only poetic (all those repetitive consonants trip off the tongue beautifully) but it encapsulates succinctly the goal of finding common ground across different sides of a conflict. 75/25 is too much of a mouthful, even if it might be in some cases more accurate, and 90/10 is too high of a bar to be useful when what you’re trying to communicate is that making change happen requires working to bring people together who mostly share perspectives. Not that entirely agree with each other, but mostly. Then you build relationships that can hold the tension of the minority of positions upon which the stakeholders disagree.
Berry argues that in our polarized political climate, this approach to navigating conflict and making change is worth our attention. I agree. But while we’re co-opting the term to such useful effect, I’m going to claim it myself to talk about approaching the practice of integrity.
I’ve written before about the perils of perfectionism in practicing integrity, as well as the pitfalls of what is known as the nirvana fallacy— the notion that out there, somewhere, is the perfect relationship/job/life. If we have to work at something, if it has downsides as well as upsides, well then it’s not (or they’re not) the “right” one, and we’re better off cutting our losses and taking off to find the easier one. Perfect must mean easy, right?
Similarly, if we mostly manage to practice our integrity successfully but still struggle with some things, then we can tell ourselves that we’re failing at integrity.
That’s bullshit.
If you’re managing to practice your integrity— live your values, be accountable, meet your obligations, do what you say you’re going to do, speak truthfully, show up authentically— 80% of the time but missing the mark 20% of the time? You’re doing great. Seriously, top marks for you. Nobody is perfectly in their integrity 100% of the time. Nobody.
The trick is to get honest and strategic about how to handle that 20%. If speaking truthfully comes easily and naturally, trust that will continue to be true, and don’t worry much about it. Know that you’ll do it when you have to. But if, say, doing what you say you’re going to do is a struggle, that’s worth your attention.
Currently, that’s my greatest struggle, honestly. I tend to over-obligate myself. I commit to more than I can manage, overestimate my capacity, or take responsibility for things that aren’t rightfully mine to do. Then, I drop the ball, can’t finish on time or forget to do the thing entirely, and feel ashamed. Then the excuses start, or the white lies to hide my mistake. It’s a cascade of suck.
The important thing in that scenario, though, isn’t the screwing up, it’s the shame. Instead of keeping that 20% of stuff I’m often bad at in perspective for the relatively minor proportion it is, when I feel shameful about it (Telling myself I’m bad, rather than Wow, I did that badly.) I blow it way out of proportion. I become the Big, Bad Wolf in my own mind when, likely, all I did was forgot to do something or missed a deadline, not ate someone’s grandma. (I’m really good at the “no murder” part of practicing my integrity. I don’t have to work on that part AT ALL.)
Realistically, there are always going to be aspects of practicing my integrity that are easier for me and other aspects that I often have to work at because of the quirks of my personality or trauma or just because I’m human. That’s why I call it practicing integrity, not having integrity. We’re always working on it, and some days (or weeks, or months, or years) are better than others. There’s no shame in that. It’s just the nature of the beast. Or the wolf, if I’m really going to beat this metaphor to death. (Sorry.)
So, I think it’s worth asking yourself. What’s the 20% of practicing your integrity that you often have to work at? How do you focus your attention on it without blowing it out of proportion? Share your wisdom, please.
I read this wonderful newsletter by Courtney Martin over at The Examined Family this week that I know is related, but I haven’t parsed it all out yet. I think it’s to do with focusing our resources societally on the 20% of our lives and communities where frailty is the rule rather than the exception. I have to believe that if we did that we’d create benefit for everyone, but certainly for at least 80% of us. Which is way more than we’re managing now.
Let me know what you think.
XO,
Asha
I ALSO have the not murdering people part down! Go us!
Every time I allow myself to have Morally Reprehensible Chicken (why is it so good, and why can’t other places be as nice as their people???) (we also call it Right Wing Chicken) I feel I have sinned a great sin. I am an ally, for heaven’s sake. On the whole, though, I probably only eat there 6 times a year. Mea culpa.
"The trick is to get honest and strategic about how to handle that 20%. If speaking truthfully comes easily and naturally, trust that will continue to be true, and don’t worry much about it." This resonates for me. I'd add that I feel the need to keep pushing at that 20% to make it 19 or 18, though rarely with a lot of success.