We’re not gonna take it
No, we ain’t gonna take it
We’re not gonna take it anymore
We’ve got the right to choose, and
There ain’t no way we’ll lose it
This is our life, this is our song
We’ll fight the powers that be, just
Don’t pick on our destiny, ’cause
You don’t know us, you don’t belong -Twisted Sister, We’re not gonna take it, 1984
Several weeks ago, I had the pleasure of participating in a Zoom call with Professor Kate Maguire from the University of Middlesex, London. As is often the case with these types of conversations, it was a thought-provoking and engaging exchange that left me feeling mentally exhausted but inspired. During the call, we discussed the topic of innovation in hard structures, specifically in the context of bureaucracy. Professor Maguire noted that many leaders are merely instruments of the system and not true agents of change. It became clear that in a hard structure, we need both types of leaders, or the system will ultimately fail.
The issue, however, is that many leaders fall prey to the epistemology of ignorance. This refers to a willful ignorance, where leaders see problems but choose to deny or ignore them rather than address them. This type of ignorance is dangerous, as it can lead to systemic problems that go unaddressed and perpetuate over time. Professor Maguire argued that self-awareness and a consciousness focused upward can help leaders avoid this pitfall and become more effective agents of change.
After the call, I delved into further reading on the topic and came across the work of Michel Foucault.
Michel Foucault was a French philosopher and social theorist known for his work on power, knowledge, and the relationship between the two. One of his central ideas was that power is not just held by individuals or groups, but is embedded in social institutions and practices. I am curious what Foucault might say about being an instrument of the system vs an agent of change, how the epistemology of ignorance might be viewed in this context, and how self-awareness can assist in navigating the system.
Being an Instrument of the System vs. an Agent of Change
According to Foucault, power is not just something that is held by individuals or groups, but is embedded in social institutions and practices. This means that power is not just something that is imposed on us from the outside, but is something that we are all implicated in. In other words, we are all both subjects and objects of power. This has important implications for the question of being an instrument of the system vs. an agent of change.
Foucault would argue that there is no easy answer to this question. On the one hand, we are all implicated in power relations and social institutions, whether we like it or not. We are all products of our social environment and are shaped by the institutions and practices that surround us. This means that we are all to some extent instruments of the system.
On the other hand, Foucault would also argue that there is always the possibility of resistance and change. While we may be products of our social environment, we are not simply passive recipients of its values and norms. We can also challenge these values and norms, and work to change the institutions and practices that perpetuate them. In this sense, we are also agents of change.
For Foucault, the key to understanding the relationship between being an instrument of the system vs. an agent of change is to recognize that power is not just something that is imposed on us from the outside, but is also something that is internalized and embodied. This means that we are not just passive objects of power, but active participants in its reproduction and transformation.
The Epistemology of Ignorance
Another key concept in Foucault’s work is the epistemology of ignorance. According to Foucault, knowledge is not just something that is neutral and objective, but is always shaped by power relations and social institutions. This means that there are always forms of knowledge that are excluded or marginalized by dominant power structures.
Foucault would argue that the epistemology of ignorance is not just a matter of not knowing certain things, but is also a matter of actively excluding certain forms of knowledge from the realm of the legitimate and the knowable. This exclusion is not just a matter of individual bias or prejudice, but is embedded in social institutions and practices.
In the context of being an instrument of the system vs. an agent of change, the epistemology of ignorance can be seen as a way in which dominant power structures perpetuate themselves by excluding alternative forms of knowledge and ways of being. This exclusion serves to maintain the status quo and prevent the emergence of new forms of resistance and change.
The issue, however, is that many leaders fall prey to the epistemology of ignorance. This refers to a willful ignorance, where leaders see problems but choose to deny or ignore them rather than address them. This type of ignorance is dangerous, as it can lead to systemic problems that go unaddressed and perpetuate over time. Professor Maguire argued that self-awareness and a consciousness focused upward can help leaders avoid this pitfall and become more effective agents of change.
The epistemology of ignorance, as Foucault would see it, is a manifestation of the broader distribution of power in society. When leaders deny or ignore problems rather than address them, they are exercising a form of power that perpetuates the status quo. To challenge this, it is necessary to bring awareness to these power structures and to develop a self-awareness that allows leaders to see beyond the surface-level symptoms of problems and address the underlying issues.
Self-Awareness and Navigating the System
Given the complex relationship between power, knowledge, and social institutions, navigating the system is a challenging task. However, self-awareness can be a powerful tool for individuals seeking to resist dominant power structures and work towards change.
According to Foucault, self-awareness involves recognizing the ways in which we are implicated in power relations and social institutions, and actively working to resist these structures. This means recognizing our own biases and limitations, as well as the biases and limitations of the social institutions and practices that surround us.
Self-awareness can also involve actively seeking out new knowledge and perspectives that challenge our existing assumptions and beliefs. This can be a difficult and uncomfortable process, but it is essential for those seeking to be agents of change within bureaucratic structures.
In addition to self-awareness, consciousness focused upward can also be a powerful tool for challenging dominant power structures within bureaucracies. By directing our attention and energy towards those in positions of power, we can disrupt the status quo and push for change from the top down.
However, it is important to note that simply focusing upward is not enough. In order for real change to occur, those in positions of power must be willing to listen to and engage with those seeking change. This requires a willingness to acknowledge and confront the epistemology of ignorance, and to actively work towards dismantling the power structures that uphold it.
In many ways, the concept of being an instrument of the system vs. an agent of change is intimately tied to the idea of the frozen middle. The frozen middle refers to the middle management layer within bureaucracies, who are often resistant to change and more concerned with maintaining the status quo than pushing for innovation and progress.
The “frozen middle” can be seen as a manifestation of this broader distribution of power, as mid-level managers and supervisors are tasked with implementing and enforcing these rules and procedures.
From this perspective, it is not necessarily the individuals within the “frozen middle” who are the problem, but rather the broader social and institutional structures that shape their behavior. To challenge the “frozen middle”, it is therefore necessary to address the underlying power structures and knowledge systems that shape bureaucratic behavior more broadly.
However, it is important to recognize that the frozen middle is not a fixed feature of bureaucratic structures. Rather, it is a result of the power dynamics and social institutions that shape these structures. By working to challenge these power dynamics and institutions, we can begin to thaw the frozen middle and create space for innovation and progress.
In The End…
Let’s be real here, the reality is that we are all, to some extent, instruments of the system. However, as Michel Foucault reminds us, we must not forget that we are also agents of change. We have the power to resist the system, to subvert it, and to transform it from within towards the greater good.
To do this, we must first acknowledge the epistemology of ignorance that often pervades bureaucratic systems. We must recognize that knowledge is not neutral, but rather shaped by the power structures that underpin the system. We must be willing to question what we know, to challenge assumptions, and to seek out alternative perspectives.
But self-awareness is also crucial in navigating the system. We must be aware of our own biases, limitations, and blind spots. We must be willing to examine our own role in perpetuating the system, and to hold ourselves accountable for our actions.
So, to all those working in a bureaucracy, I urge you to take action. Don’t be content with being just an instrument of the system. Be an agent of change. Challenge the status quo. Speak truth to power. And most importantly, never forget that the power to change the system lies within each and every one of us.
Mastermind Century Group 