The Culture of Law (15):  An Antidote for a Left-Brain Dominated World

The last of Iain McGilchrist’s predictions:

“We would expect there to be a resentment of, and a deliberate undercutting of the sense of awe and wonder.

“It would become hard to discern value or meaning in life at all; a sense of novelty and boredom before life would be likely to lead to a craving for novelty and stimulation.

“There would be a … downgrading of non-verbal, non-explicit communication. Concomitant with this would be a rise in explicitness, backed up by ever increasing legislation.…

“Visual art would lack a sense of depth, and distorted or bizarre perspectives would become the norm.

“Music would be reduced to little more than rhythm.

“Technical language, or the language of bureaucratic systems, devoid of any richness of meaning, and suggesting a mechanistic world, would increasingly be applied across the board, and might even seem unremarkable when applied to descriptions of the human world, and human beings, even the human mind itself.”

And then, after all this, McGilchrist makes one last, entirely understated observation:

“This is what the world would look like [under left-brained dominance]. It’s hard to resist the conclusion that [this outcome] is within sight.”

Lawyer brains are trained to argue both sides of an issue, and to be dispassionate about it. We can regard McGilchrist’s analysis and predictions that way, but I have to say that, now that I know about brain-based culture as I’ve been describing it in this Culture of Law series, I personally find them chilling — mostly because I wrote a whole blog series on the Future of Law earlier this year which revealed them already playing out at a runaway pace.

McGilchrist published his predictions eight years ago, but spent twenty years researching them before he did so. I hadn’t read them before I wrote the Future of Law series. Now that I have, I see them reflected over and over in that series, in concepts such as the commoditization of the law, the new legal experts, law by algorithm, the focus on task- and systems-oriented expertise. the unmanageable (except by technology) proliferation of law “data,” the predominance of technology as a change agent, the acceptance of technical language as normative, the proliferation of bureaucracy and its endless rules and regulations… and so on and so on.

It seems lawyers, the legal profession, and most importantly the law itself stand to lose a significant “richness of meaning” if these trends are not accompanied with thoughtful reflection on what professionalism means in today’s New Economy. (I wanted to include a link to that term here, but I Googled “new economy” and ended up frozen by the extent of the results;  none rose above the others as fully representative. I therefore invite you to make your own search.)

The future is not a given. The best way to predict the future is still to create it. And the best way to create it is to deliberately, consciously create a newly responsive and sustainable law culture based on thoughtful, whole-brained, human guidance.

Creating the future of law by recreating its culture will require a daring new kind of leadership that will appear at first to be subversive in nature. It has to be that way, because in the absence of subversion, the brain (where culture originates) simply will not depart from its default evolutionary path or risk undermining the cultural vision it already holds as status quo.

We’ll look more at subversive change next time.

The Future of Law (20): Some Final Meta-Thoughts

The “meta” of something is its higher abstraction, the bigger picture behind the smaller ones. In scholarship, a meta-analysis is an analysis of all the analyses of a topic. Each separate analysis collects and analyzes data. The meta-analysis analyzes all the analyses.

Now that we’ve looked at various individual current trends and projected them into a vision of the future of law, what’s the meta of them? What’s the big picture?

Our futurist approach has been mostly based on trend analysis:  seeing what already is, then guessing where it’s going, meanwhile keeping in mind that we are not passive recipients of the future, but powerful agents of its creation.

If we want to be, that is. If we make the effort.

Some of us want to be, and will. People in this group will engage with the dynamics of change deliberately, consciously, intentionally, mindfully — taking action to shape current trends into the future they want.

Some of us don’t want to be, and won’t. This group will be the change resistors, daring those responsible for disruptive innovation to prove that the trends represent change for the better as the resistors judge it to be.

The first group will feel the energy of personal and cultural transformation moving through themselves and their lives. The second group will wonder what ever happened to the world they once knew. Together, both groups will create what Thomas Kuhn called the state of incommensurability between old and new legal paradigms

Regardless of our response, the future is ours, whether we choose to advance or resist it.

All this will happen on countless individual stages, but what’s the big show that will play out on the biggest stage? What’s the meta of the future of law?

The answer lies in the nature of the law itself. The law is itself a meta-reality — one of those gigantic, archetypal organizing principles of human life. The law enfolds and expresses our humanity, creates cultural and societal and national context. Those who live and work in the law are unavoidably its guardians and tutors, stewards and caretakers. We will create the law’s future, one way or another.

When we create the law, we shape and guide our humanity.

When we do that, we create our world.

And most of all, we create ourselves.

The law:  our humanity, our world, ourselves. There’s a lot at stake here. May we craft the future with care.

The Future of Law (19): Don’t wait, create!

“The best way to predict the future is to create it.”

The quote has been ascribed to a lot of different people, including Peter Drucker and computer scientist Alan Kay. But according to the Quote Investigator,

“The earliest evidence appeared in 1963 in the book “Inventing the Future” written by Dennis Gabor who was later awarded a Nobel Prize in Physics for his work in holography:

“We are still the masters of our fate. Rational thinking, even assisted by any conceivable electronic computers, cannot predict the future. All it can do is to map out the probability space as it appears at the present and which will be different tomorrow when one of the infinity of possible states will have materialized. Technological and social inventions are broadening this probability space all the time; it is now incomparably larger than it was before the industrial revolution—for good or for evil.

“The future cannot be predicted, but futures can be invented. It was man’s ability to invent which has made human society what it is. The mental processes of inventions are still mysterious. They are rational but not logical, that is to say, not deductive.”

I.e., we can speculate — as we’ve been doing in this series — about where present trends might take us, but it’s useful to remember that “we are still the masters of our fate.” We can shape where those trends take us by engaging with them, and thus we can invent the future — the future we want, not just the one that will happen to us.

As Dr. Gabor points out, the process by which we do that is “rational but not logical.” We looked at the mindfulness trend earlier In this series. In that spirit, how about we might try a mindfulness approach to creating the future for ourselves? If you’re game, here’s a simple exercise in four steps:

  1. Pick one of the predictions I’ve made. Go ahead, we’ll wait. Is there one in particular that has a lot of energy for you, so that when you read it you say, “Oh yeah!” Or if there are several, is there a theme that runs across them? Don’t over-think – just go where you feel a tug – the stronger the better.
  1. Express it as a goal or intention — something you are committed to making happen. Complete this sentence, filling in the blank: “My response to this prediction is to create ________________.” Maybe it’s a career or practice shift, or something personal. It doesn’t matter what your goal is. What matters is your commitment to it.
  1. Beatify it. Yes, you read that right. No, we’re not making anyone a saint here, we’re using “beatify” in the sense of “extreme blissful happiness.” Yes, you read that right, too. What we’re after here is to take your goal/intention and take it to an extreme level of emotional reward/satisfaction. What would creating it give you that you don’t have now and would really like to have? How would it revolutionize you, your career?
  1. Watch where your thoughts go with this. What ideas and feelings come up?. Be prepared to write fast and take good notes — the energy of the idea that grabbed you plus your commitment to it will pop the cork on your creativity.

That’s it. Have fun with it. Use it for as many predictions as you like. And then…

Welcome to the future — the one you’re creating.