Naked Emperors & Legless Chairs
Why it's somehow both everyone's and no-one's fault when institutions don't change for the better
This week I read the article The Clothes of the Empire: an Active Inference account of identity capture by Kairos.
The Analogy of the Naked Emperor
This article was written as a response to one of my favorite books, Elite Capture by Olúfẹ́mi O. Táíwò. I like it because it clarifies the idea that institutions can limit the power of their people while genuinely believing their people feel empowered.
The parable Táíwò uses to illustrate this phenomenon is the story of the Emperor’s New Clothes. In the story, two tricksters visit a town and convince the Emperor that they have an exclusive new robe for him that appears invisible to anyone who does not have the intelligence to see it.
As he parades across the town, none of the citizens admit that they see the Emperor’s bare behind… because that would be admitting their own stupidity to the Emperor.
Táíwò argues that these people remain silent not because they believe the emperor is wearing clothes, but because they cannot financially or socially afford to say it out loud. Therefore, they’re not being fooled; their power to speak has simply been captured by power (not necessarily the person who holds the power; but the atmosphere that power creates). It’s like a magic trick that no one is in on.
How does identity capture show up in real life?
A company’s employee diversity programs, for instance, might have a “Town Hall” or mentorship program designed specifically for historically disadvantaged staff. These spaces are advertised as “safe spaces” - wher junior staff can get information from senior staff without the risk of judgement. But in any hierarchical organization, there are still limits around what a new person can ask to leadership *regardless of their identity (black, latinx, queer, etc.)*. A new person should never bring up feeling/thought that will make them appear incompatible, uncommitted, or incompetent to anyone else - especially those who manage them. In knowledge workspaces, in particular, one’s reputation is everything in your early days.
Another example of identity capture showing up in real life is in the public sphere. The technical term for this phenomenon is deference politics, or when powerful leaders decide to defer, or “hand over” power to the people they believe are most impacted/victimized. This might be when immigrant community members are brought to the decision making table, for instance. This looks great on the surface - and is often much better than excluding these voices like we’ve done in America historically… but the result can be dangerous if the marginalized are given a voice but no power (or if they’re given a voice and power, but lack the rhetorical skills to get their point across in a way that others respect, believe, and can act on).
I like to think of it as though they’ve been given a seat at the table, but the seat has no legs.
Now, let’s zoom out to a global scale. Environments like this create a scenario in which the global “elite”* control the meaning of the behavior of the less-powerful because we are the ones who define the social norms/meanings.
*which likely includes you if you have the time/energy/technology to read Substack posts! It definitely includes me because I had the time/energy/laptop to bring you here
Three things about Elite Capture blow my mind…
This is happening everywhere all the time.
The elite, in many cases, genuinely think that the seat they’ve given empowers the marginalized, and the marginalized often genuinely believe that they have a voice.
Meanwhile, everyone knows (at a subconscious level at least) that the host of the dinner party is the elite.
Therefore, it’d be completely inappropriate for a guest (the marginalized) to disrespect or challenge the host (the elite) who so graciously invited them to the table.
Using American Politics as an Example
An example of this in the US is early-day-President-Obama’s mantra that “change doesn’t come from the top down; it comes from the bottom up”. This is a truth. But it also low-key (high-key) means in many cases that “change happens through approved channels and hierarchies that have failed the common citizen for decades and that I also happen to sit on the very top of”.
I love Obama, and what he’s saying is a truth. But said in the wrong environment… statements like his feel a bit like veiled deference.
Does this imply low-SES Americans (i.e. “the bottom”, “down”) are responsible for our country’s systemic change? Perhaps. Does it suggest that high-SES Americans (i.e. “the top”, “up”) are less responsible? I hope not, but maybe some of us hear this and (subconsciously) internalize a message to the tune of: “If systemic change hasn’t happened, it’s because the people at the bottom were not as vocal as they could have been to get the people at the top to move”.
As those who hold power ourselves, where are we going wrong?
When I first read this, I wondered how well-meaning leaders & their trusted followers could let this happen. In the emperor parable, Bailey (the local baker & owner of a modestly scaling franchise called Bailey’s Biscuits) may not believe the emperor is naked, but she keeps her mouth shut anyway since assumes that every other person in the town thinks the emperor is clothed. After all, nobody is saying anything about it. She must be missing something.
And why isn’t anyone else in the town saying anything about it? Because they’re thinking just like Bailey.
Going back to our American example, the passionate Obama supporter may be skeptical that change can come from the bottom within a 4-year term
(“after all, didn’t…
we…
“the bottom”…
vote to have YOU…
at the top?
because change CAN’T happen from…
down here…?”
*bombastic side eye*).
As an Obama supporter I couldn’t say this out loud. It felt like it could undermine my own trust in his vision for America and tarnish the values I held closely. But like Bailey the baker, I also was conscious that saying this out loud could change how my peers viewed me since they all seemed to be fully bought in (after graduating college I would learn that many of us were not).
This same law of social physics applies to every other leader, CEO, manager, parent, or professor whose power - intentionally, subconsciously, or completely unintentionally - creates an environment in which individuals are faced with a genuinely risk-laden* task of choose truth over their own reputations/careers/livelihoods/group-membership.
*risks here could be psychological (“I’ll have to give up my identity around intelligence by admitting I don’t actually know how to do this part of my job well”) or material (“It’s now less likely that I’ll get promoted now that I’ve told them I can’t do this part of my job well”).
What’s the solution?
I don’t know. But I wonder if a solution is an intentionally & iteratively designed environment around dialogue that:
#1 Ensures people can share their experiences / questions / worries / hopes in a way that doesn’t force them to make a decision between honesty and reputation
#2 People know, trust, and can articulate what they know is safe to share (and why) and what is more risky to share (because not everything will always be safe to say).
#3 This space lives outside of the formal institution.
#4 People know and trust that this space lives outside of the formal institution.
#5 This space is not promoted by the institution, but it also is not rejected or stigmatized by the formal institution. It is a neutral space.
#6 The elite/powerful/leaders are incentivized to tell the truth at all times
#7 The elite/powerful/leaders are disincentivized to lie at any point
and perhaps most importantly:
#8 The marginalized, at any time, are able to “leave the room” (e.g. the town, the job, the class, etc.) without facing any existential threat (e.g. being arrested, losing company health insurance, or not graduating on time). This came up in a conversation with a mentor of mine who teaches negotiations classes to business school students. She said something along the lines of: you always have to play it safe when you’re relying on the other person for your own survival.
Thanks for reading! - Kayla
“The Emperor shivered, for he suspected they were right. But he thought, ‘This procession has got to go on.’ So he walked more proudly than ever, as his noblemen held high the train that wasn’t there at all.”