Is 'the system' really broken? Or is it me?

How might we 'change the system'

I love cooking. In a sliding doors moment, I was even offered an apprenticeship at a 2 Hat (Australia’s Michelin stars) Italian restaurant when I was younger. I love having my knives neatly arranged on a rack, a solid mise en place, and cleaning as I go.

So it annoys the living daylights out of me when my mum comes around and insists on re-arranging my kitchen or bringing me new drying racks and kitchen utensils because “isn’t this so much more convenient?”

But in order for me to adapt to these ‘suggested improvements’, I would need to adjust my habits and experiment with new configurations, which is the last thing I want to do after a busy day and just want to cook dinner.

The thing is, sometimes those ‘suggestions’ really are improvements. It might cut down my cleaning time or make it easier for me to reach certain equipment. But because it challenges the way in which my kitchen is structured to suit my way of doing things, I become resistant.

I will actively ignore a clear improvement because it challenges ‘my system’, inefficiencies and all.

What exactly is ‘the system’?

I’m frequently drawn into conversations about the need to ‘change the system’, whether it’s the government, capitalism, the media, you name it. Governments are corrupt. Capitalism is exploitative. Media is biased.

But the more I have these conversations, the more I wonder: “What exactly are we talking about? Is it clear what ‘the system’ is? Which bit needs to change? When? Who? And what does change look like? Over what timespan?”

Merriam-Webster defines a system as ‘a regularly interacting or interdependent group of items forming a unified whole’. To build on this, different systems are set up to achieve different things:

• Business systems are set up to deliver value to paying customers in a way that is consistent, efficient, and repeatable

• Government systems are set up to deliver public good in a way that reflects the needs of society in a way that is intended to be fair, effective, and streamlined

• A library system is set up so that books can be categorised, arranged, and retrieved in a clear and tidy (and quiet) manner

But what strikes me the most about the dictionary definition is that it doesn’t actually say anything about people. People might well indeed be the participants and / or beneficiaries of a system, but the system is just 'a thing’ designed to achieve a particular outcome.

The reason I’m banging on this distinction is because I think part of the problem with calls to ‘change the system’ is that it’s so easy to conflate the two.

The system of news media includes the process by which stories are sourced, vetted, curated, written, and editorialised for publication in a timely manner (which used to be the morning paper) as well as the people running it, the people employed within it, the investors who benefit from it, all of whom have different motivations, incentives, and functions. All of which is to serve the audiences who consume it, across a variety of different media channels, influenced by a mish mash of algorithms.

So when we talk about changing ‘the media’, which bit are we talking about?

Who creates ‘the system’?

Whenever I’m engaged in discussions around how ‘the system is broken’, what I feel like I’m hearing is:

• The system is not delivering the types of outcomes that they want to see

• The system is not changing fast enough to deliver said outcomes

• The system is ‘broken’ or ‘rigged’ because it was designed by certain people to create advantages for some and not others

Well, yes. That’s pretty much the point of any system.

Take a path through a forest. At some point, someone (or something) needed to get from one side to another. To do so, they broke a path. Over time, people started to follow this path, their footsteps compacting the soil and preventing grass from growing, offending branches are broken off. A pathing system has been established.

Over time, this path gets ‘upgraded’. Some adventurous souls found out the hard way that walking off the path led to danger, resulting in ‘There Be Dragons!’ warning signs being erected along the way. More considerate souls installed handrails across slippery terrain to help those less physically able.

Here’s the thing: There is absolutely no rule saying that we must follow this path but I would wager that 99 times out 100, anyone who approaches a forest would immediately ask: “Where’s the path?”

We follow pathing systems because, well, it’s easier to follow. It provides physical and mental signposts that suggest 'safety' or 'efficiency' through an unknown forest, and it’s guaranteed to take you to the other side.

So here’s a provocation for you: What if you learned that there was a more direct path through the forest? Would you say that the existing path is broken? Would you walk off the beaten path? How would you feel taking that first step into virgin undergrowth? What about cutting down a few trees to make it easier to walk through? Maybe clear out some animal habitats? And what about those dragon?

Or would you rather just take the longer, more established path?

Systemic inertia

For me, this is the concept of systemic inertia.

Once a system is put in place and it’s been shown to demonstrate some level of efficiency and effectiveness, it will persist. People will naturally follow these systems because it typically offers the path of least resistance. But the more people follow a system, the more it’s reinforced, along with all the various forces that interact with it.

If we take news media as an example, here’s a variety of forces that might be at play:

• If the media outlet is a publicly listed company, they’re expected to provide a return on investment to shareholders (who might include the very investment funds that manage our superannuation / retirement savings)

• Employees of these media outlets are incentivised to do their jobs (whether they like it or not) because most of them would need a salary to survive

• If the media outlet relies on advertising income, it will be incentivised to create content that attracts eyeballs

• We, as the audience, are those eyeballs. In our distracted lives consuming the empty calories of information, we are the doom scrollers sending endless signals to the outlets saying: “More please.”

Case in point: Love him or hate him, coverage of Trump and the US election has delivered significant profits and audience growth for media outlets across the political spectrum. From 2017 to 2020, the NY Times’ subscriber base grew from 2 million to 7 million. This rapid growth would have sent signals to the NY Times’ media system: ‘People seem to want to read more about Trump. Let’s give them more.’

You can point out that it’s the editors who choose what to publish and that these decisions influence audiences (which is true, that’s their job) but then you also have to accept that editors work within a broader information system where people gravitate towards negative news headlines. What are they going to do? Not publish the headlines that everyone seems to love clicking on?

Hence my argument: The system is just doing what the system is set up to do. What contributes to systemic inertia and what holds systems in place is the people.

The system is us. We are the system

I think part of the reason why ‘changing the system’ is so hard because we’re ultimately asking for people to change, and that’s a far messier proposition.

Let’s turn the spotlight on ourselves a bit:

• Can you avoid reading any negative news coverage for the next year? And only click on positive, constructive news?

• Will you reward a politician for changing their mind and making a compromise?

• Will you seek out alternative perspectives, even if it means setting aside your ego and challenging your world view?

• Will you treat everyone you meet with kindness and patience, even if you vehemently disagree with them? My dear friend and fellow Substacker

  Ian Haycroft
  published a greater article on this topic that I encourage you to check out

• Will you forgive people for making mistakes? Or if they were unkind to you?

• Will you accept that other people might also be equally flawed and messy and fearful and burdened by a spectrum of trauma baggage?

It takes willingness, energy, courage, and persistence to change any system, but these are characteristics that belong to people. And therein lies the key:

If we want to change the system, we must start with ourselves.

I tried looking up Gandhi’s ‘be change you seek’ quote discovered that what he actually said was:

“We but mirror the world. All the tendencies present in the outer world are to be found in the world of our body. If we could change ourselves, the tendencies in the world would also change. As a man changes his own nature, so does the attitude of the world change towards him. This is the divine mystery supreme. A wonderful thing it is and the source of our happiness. We need not wait to see what others do.” – Mahatma Gandhi, 1913

So… is ‘the system’ broken? And if you think it is, what are you going to do about it?

Thank you for reading.

But please don’t change my kitchen, thank you very much.