The Big Sort

We live in a highly polarized society, or at least that's what the experts are telling us.  The American journalist Bill Bishop wrote an interesting book called The Big Sort: Why the Clustering of Like-Minded Americans is Tearing Us Apart that explains how and why we have become so polarized.  According to Bishop, Americans have spent the last several decades sorting themselves (sometimes consciously, but at other times unconsciously) into alarmingly homogeneous communities at the local level (city and neighborhood).  As our neighborhoods have become more homogeneous, we tend to select where we live and what we pay attention to based on what is most compatible with our own lifestyles and beliefs.  As a result, society is now more polarized than perhaps it ever was, such that people don't know and can't understand other people who live just a few miles away.

A few years ago, I took a MOOC (Massive Open Online Class) called "Models Thinking" by the University of Michigan professor Scott Page.  In one of the sessions, Dr. Page introduced Schelling's Model of Segregation (see an online simulation here), based upon a 1969 study by the game theorist Thomas Schelling in the journal, American Economic Review.  It's a really interesting model that shows how individuals' mild in-group preferences (i.e. mildly preferring neighbors from the same group) can unexpectedly produce highly segregated neighborhoods, even when no one wants a completely segregated society (Schelling referred to these mild preferences as "Micro-motives" and the outcomes that they produced as "Macro-behavior" and used that as a title for one of his books).  When those in-group preferences become even stronger, the neighborhood quickly becomes very homogenous to the point where, as Bill Bishop's research also suggests, they are all members of the in-group.  

Bishop suggests that there are several explanations for the so-called "Big Sort".  Most Americans (but certainly not all) have greater freedom to choose where they live.  If they don't like a particular neighborhood, for whatever reason, they are free to move to another one.  Bishop cites a wealth of data showing that educated professionals, retirees, religious groups, and even individuals with certain political views (conservative vs liberal) are gravitating towards neighborhoods and communities where they feel comfortable, i.e. where there are people like them.  For example, just looking at the two major political parties in the U.S. today, the majority of individuals in big cities tend to vote for the Democrats, while the majority of individuals living in rural areas tend to vote for the Republicans.  The "Big Sort" affects more than just neighborhoods - churches and social organizations are also becoming more homogenous, attracting individuals who all think alike and have the same values, beliefs, and views.   

Businesses and political campaigns are increasingly using data to identify and appeal to narrow lifestyle groups, which also contributes to the "Big Sort".  Several years ago, John O'Toole published an editorial in the Journal of Advertising that called attention to the fact that targeted marketing campaigns segmented individuals based on a small set of demographics.  Unfortunately, the strategy employed didn't always get things right.  He described the following individual as a profile for a specific marketing campaign:

A woman.  25 to 35 age group.  Family income over $15,000 [this was 1973 by the way].  Urban. Working. College graduate. Let's say a college like Finch in New York.  2 to 3 members of household. White. Probably comes from an upper-income family herself with professional or executive father who belongs to Republican Party.

O'Toole then proceeded to explain that this marketing profile describes both Tricia Nixon Cox, daughter of then President Richard Nixon, as well as Grace Slick, who was the lead singer in the rock-n-roll band Jefferson Airplane.  Look them up - these two women could not be any more different in their political views or personalities!  O'Toole's point was that any marketing campaign designed for the aforementioned profile, which he admitted was probably more detailed than most, would probably not be the correct one.  Bishop's point is that this kind of segmentation only serves to reinforce segregation - "Micro-motives" produce "Macro-behavior".

Bishop goes on to show why the "Big Sort" is a problem for all of us.  He cites several research studies showing like-minded groups tend to become even more extreme the longer they spend time together.  For example, the American legal scholar and author Cass Sunstein co-wrote (with David Schkade) an important op/ed piece in 2003 for the New York Times ("Judging by where you sit"), reporting that when politically like-minded judges sit together on a three-judge panel, they become significantly more extreme in their rulings.  For example, conservative judges vote even more conservatively when sitting with two other Republicans, while liberal judges shift further left with two other Democrats.  Conversely, when a Republican judge sits with at least one Democrat, or a Democratic judge sits with at least one Republican, the judges tends to rule much closer to the ideological center.

Sunstein followed up his 2003 op/ed piece with a book, Why Societies Need Dissent, in which he argued that groups function better when they encourage dissent, as it prevents groupthink and promotes better decision-making.  As like-minded groups start to think more and more alike, they become even more polarized and extreme in their viewpoints.  As someone once said, "What begins as a preference becomes conviction, which turns into the group identity."  The consequences include increased polarization, declining trust in opposing groups, and reduced capacity for compromise.

Bishop suggests that the greatest threat to democratic society today is the gradual disappearance over time of places where people with different views regularly interact.  When we all increasingly live, worship, work, and socialize only with other individuals who think exactly like us, our existing beliefs and views become even stronger, making compromise even harder.  As Sunstein stated, "Organizations and nations are far more likely to prosper if they welcome dissent and promote openness."  Welcoming dissent and promoting a more open society begins with each and every one of us.  Only we can choose to move out of our own personal comfort zones to live, worship, work, and socialize with other individuals who may not think exactly like us.

"Only the disciplined ones are free in life..."

I've mentioned the Kenyan marathoner Eliud Kipchoge a few times in the past (see "Almost doesn't count, except in horseshoes and hand grenades" and "Blind taste tests and the universal laws of success").  The first time was in the context of his goal to try to be the first long-distance runner to finish a marathon in under 2 hours, while the second time focused on a concept from the book, The Formula: The Universal Laws of Success by  Albert Laszlo-Barabasi (the fact that performance is bounded, but success is not).  I have more to say on goals (and our level of motivation to achieve these goals, depending upon how close we are to achieving them), but for today's post, I want to focus on one of Kipchoge's great quotes.  Kipchoge, who is considered one of the greatest marathon runners of all time, gave a speech at the Oxford Union in England in 2017.  He said, "Only the disciplined ones are free in life. If you aren’t disciplined, you are a slave to your moods.  You are a slave to your passions. That’s a fact."

I've thought about Kipchoge's quote a lot lately.  I understand the self-discipline that is required to successfully train for a marathon, as I have run three marathons during the past 10 years or so.  I stopped running regularly about 2 years ago, which was not good for me.  For the past 6 months or so, I've been slowly building my endurance back up to the point where I can run three miles at a time and feel pretty good.  In order to save my hips and knees, I've committed to only running every other day.  I've learned that the discipline required to maintain my every other day running schedule is just as hard.  Discipline is important.

Kipchoge's quote suggests to me that true freedom - the kind that lasts anyway - comes from self-discipline and not from doing whatever we feel like doing.  If we learn to control our habits, emotions, and impulses, we are making a conscious decision and effort to stay focused on our purpose and our long-term goals, not on our moods on any given moment, which are temporary.  That is liberating in and of itself.  If we do not have self-discipline, we are controlled by our emotions and moods - even though we may feel "free" at first, the reality is that we are "slaves" to our emotions and passions.  We are no longer living our own best life.

Kipchoge's quote is a powerful reminder of why self-discipline is so important.  Breaking a good habit is worse than breaking a bad one.  It takes discipline to maintain good habits.

"Trust is the glue of life..."

I've been posting about the so-called five Waves of Trust, a concept developed by Stephen M.R. Covey in his book, The Speed of Trust: The One Thing That Changes Everything.  I introduced the topic in a post from last November, "Change happens at the speed of trust..."  Again, Covey compares trust to the well-known ripple effect, in which waves start out small at the center and become larger and more powerful as they move and expand outward.  He describes five "waves of trust" to drive home the point that trust begins with oneself and expands outward to relationships, organizations, the market, and society.  

Covey said, "Trust is the glue of life."  Today, we will cover the third, fourth, and fifth Waves of Trust, which Covey collectively describes as "Stakeholder Trust":

The third Wave of Trust is Organizational Trust.  Here, Covey refers to a concept called the "Economics of Trust" - he is simply using the analogy of a bank.  Organizations (and to be honest, the analogy works for individuals as well), are always paying a "Trust Tax" or earning a "Trust Dividend".  If the dividends are greater than the taxes, the organization builds up its "Trust Account Balance."  Organizations build up their account balance based upon how well they align systems, processes, and culture.

Covey describes seven common "Trust Taxes" that create unnecessary bureaucracy, red tape, inefficiency, and suspicion.

1. Redundancy

2. Bureaucracy

3. Politics

4. Disengagement

5. Turnover

6. Churn

7. Fraud

The management theorist Laurence Peter (who is most famous for describing the eponymous "Peter Principle") said, "Bureaucracy defends the status quo, long past the time when the quo has lost its status."  

On the dividend side, Covey described seven common "Trust Dividends" that foster open communication, collaboration, efficiency, and speed to action ("Speed of Trust").

1. Increased value

2. Accelerated growth

3. Enhanced innovation

4. Improved collaboration

5. Stronger partnering

6. Better execution

7. Heightened loyalty

Organizations should focus on increasing the Dividends and decreasing the Taxes!  I won't spend as much time on the fourth and fifth Waves of Trust, but I do not wish to diminish their importance.  The fourth Wave of Trust is Market Trust and refers to the level of trust between the organization and its customers and stakeholders.  Market Trust describes an organization's reputation in the marketplace.  If an organization consistently delivers  on its promises, Market Trust will increase.

The fifth and final Wave of Trust is Societal Trust and refers to the level of trust within the community.  Organizations have an important role to play on building mutual trust within the community.  He refers to the concept of "Corporate Social Responsibility".   Organizations should act as good citizens within broader society by protecting the environment, investing in communities, and dealing fairly with stakeholders.  Integrity and ethics are key here.

Overall, I thought Covey's book was superb, and I highly recommend it.  Given the widespread (and growing even more so) lack of trust in society today, I think we can learn a lot from Covey's book.  Carol Stephenson wrote an excellent article on trust entitled "Rebuilding trust: The integral role of leadership in fostering values, honesty and vision" (unfortunately, I can't find a link to the article on the Internet).  I will conclude with what she thinks about leadership and trust.  She said, "A leader must do three things.  First, leaders must not only talk about their ethical values, they must live those values - every day - and in every action they take.  Second, leaders must create a climate of trust and compassion based on open communication.  And third, leaders must embrace a strong vision or purpose for their organization, and that vision and purpose must take into consideration both the economic and the social impact of the business."  And with that, you have the Five Waves of Trust in a nutshell.

"Stay away from easy..."

I was always taught by my parents and coaches to always be a good sport.  While winning was important, what was even more so was how a player or team won.  And if you ever happened to be on the losing side of things, acting with grace, humility, and respect was part of good sportsmanship too.  Unfortunately, not everyone places as high of a premium on good sportsmanship.  There are many athletes and coaches who subscribe to a "win at all costs" philosophy.  Apparently former professional tennis player Andy Roddick isn't that kind of athlete.  

When Andy Roddick retired from professional tennis in 2015, he had an overall professional record of 615-213 with 32 career titles (including the 2003 U.S. Open) and a former number one ranking to his list of accomplishments.  However, I will always be most impressed by what Roddick did in the 2005 Italian Championship.  He was the top seed in the tournament, but he was defeated in the quarterfinals by Fernando Verdasco in three sets (6-7, 7-6, 6-4).  During the second set, Roddick was leading 5-3 with triple match point.  In other words, he would have three chances to win the point and move on to the next round.  The line judge called Verdasco's serve out, which would have given Roddick the match win.  Roddick, however, insisted that the ball was in, forcing the umpire to reverse the call, giving the point to Verdasco (see a video clip here).  Verdasco would go on to win the game, the set, and the match.  Notably, Verdasco would lose in the next round. 

Unfortunately, as I stated, not everyone in Roddick's shoes would have insisted that the ball was in.  His sportsmanship ultimately cost him the match (and likely a lot of money as a result).  It's tempting to ask whether Roddick could have been accused of cheating if he hadn't argued for the correct call.  It would have been tempting to just look the other way and ignore the fact that the referee had made the wrong call.  But he didn't.  He was 100% honest in that situation, which is both admirable and honorable.

Unfortunately, a lot of individuals not only look the other way, but they also outright cheat.  Even the so-called experts that study cheating have been accused of being dishonest.  For example, the Harvard psychologist Marc Hauser once wrote an article entitled "Costs of Deception: Cheaters Are Punished in Rhesus Monkeys", but he later resigned from his position when the U.S. Office of Research Integrity concluded that he had falsified and manipulated the data to better support his conclusions (see the Scientific American article, "Why we cheat" by Ferric Fang and Arturo Casadevall).  More recently, two investigators who have studied and published on cheating and dishonesty, Dan Ariely and Francesca Gino, have been accused of fabricating some of their data (see "They Studied Dishonesty. Was Their Work a Lie?" by Gideon Lewis-Kraus published in The New Yorker magazine). 

Unfortunately, cheating, defined by Fang and Casadevall as acting dishonestly to gain an advantage, is far more common than perhaps realized.  I finished a book last year by the physician and scientist Csaba Szabo entitled Unreliable: Bias, Fraud, and the Reproducibility Crisis in Biomedical Research.  The overall gist of the book can be summarized with one simple statement.  As many as 90% of published biomedical studies may be irreproducible (see also the paper published in 2005 by John Ioannidis in the journal PLos Medicine, "Why most published research findings are false").  In other words, if another scientist tried to replicate the results of a previously published study by following the exact methods that were reported by the original scientists who first published the study, it's almost certain that he or she would not be able to do so!  Dr. Szabo suggests that there are three likely explanations.  The original scientists publishing the study made an honest mistake, used questionable statistical methods to analyze their data, or outright fabricated their results.

Given the cuts in research funding at the federal level, the pool of grant dollars available to fund academic research is getting smaller, even while the number of researchers who are competing for those dollars is increasing.  Academic fraud and dishonesty is likely to become even more commonplace.  Moreover, with the advent of artificial intelligence tools, such as ChatGPT, cheating even outside the research world is becoming more prevalent (see James Walsh's article in New York magazine, "Who wouldn't cheat?").

I have always enjoyed reading Dan Ariely's research and lay publications, and I have posted about his findings several times in the past.  His research on dishonesty is very interesting, but unfortunately I don't think it would be right to discuss his research, given some of the accusations that have come out in recent years.  In his book, The (Honest) Truth About Dishonesty, he suggests that almost everyone cheats.  And while he does not deny that the data in some of his research was fabricated, he denies personally doing so and stated that he unknowingly used and published falsified data.  

Dr. Szabo offered a few recommendations on how to address academic fraud and research dishonesty.  First, he stated that we should have stricter oversight and mandate that data is open and available to all.  Given the level of competition in academic research, that could be a tall order.  Second, he suggested that we should institute more transparent peer review.  Peer review is the process by which a scientist's peers review a submitted manuscript for scientific accuracy prior to the manuscript becoming published.  Unfortunately, even peer review has been called into question as of late (see the article published in The Wall Street Journal by Kevin McCaffree and Colin Wright).  Third, Dr. Szabo suggests that we shift funding from individuals to institutions, so that these same institutions can provide better oversight and have less of an incentive for dishonesty.  Finally, he suggests that we criminalize serious and deliberate fraud.  All of these are reasonable recommendations, but they will likely be difficult to implement.

So back to my original question, "Why do we cheat?"  I guess I can't answer that question fully, at least right now.  Dr. Christian Hart summarized what he calls a tripartite theory of dishonesty for Psychology Today.  Basically, cheating, lying, and dishonest behavior occurs as a function of (1) the expected utility (i.e. benefit) of lying is marginally high, (2) the expected external disutility risk of lying (the probability and consequences of being detected) is low, and (3) the expected internal disutility of lying (guilt, regret, shame, effort) is low.  It seems, therefore, that we can decrease the incidence of cheating, lying, or behaving dishonestly by decreasing the rewards associated with the behavior and by increasing the chance of catching someone lying or cheating.  I'm not sure we can significantly alter the internal regret, shame, or guilt from lying.  I do know that the more we reward honest behavior, individuals will act more honestly in the future.  Many of Dr. Hart's recommendations fit with those suggested by Dr. Szabo.  At the end of the day, it seems prudent to follow Scott Alexander's advice, when he said, "All good is hard. All evil is easy. Dying, losing, cheating, and mediocrity is easy. Stay away from easy."

“Make no little plans…”

I first mentioned the American architect and urban designer Daniel Burnham in my discussion of The Big Switch by Nicholas Carr.  I've come to appreciate Burnham more now that I have been living in Chicago.  As I shared in my post ("The Big Switch"), Burnham served as Director of Works for the 1893 World's Columbian Exposition (also known as the Chicago World's Fair), held from May 1 to October 30, 1893 to celebrate the 400th anniversary of Christopher Columbus' arrival in the Americas in 1492.  The city of Chicago's official flag has commemorated the Columbian Exposition with one of its six-pointed stars (the other three stars commemorate the Great Chicago Fire of 1871, the Chicago World's Fair of 1933, and Fort Dearborn, the original settlement first built in 1803 on the Chicago River near present-day Chicago).

Burnham was a major proponent of the Beaux-Arts architectural movement, a style taught at the École des Beaux-Arts in Paris, particularly from the 1830s to the end of the 19th century.  The Beaux-Arts style drew upon French neoclassicism, but also incorporated influences from the Renaissance and Baroque styles, using modern materials, such as iron and glass, and later, steel.  

The Chicago World's Fair had several important influences on later history (in addition to being the site of the first ever Ferris Wheel).  One major highlight was that the inventors Nikola Tesla and George Westinghouse showcased their alternating current (AC) system, effectively winning the "war of the currents" against Thomas Edison's direct current (DC).  The Chicago World's Fair proved that electricity generation could be centralized and distributed over long-distances, both safely and efficiently using Tesla's and Westinghouse's system.  Prior to that time, individual factories had to generate their own power using massive localized steam-powered generators.  While Edison lost the "war of the currents", both he and Samuel Insull (who later founded Chicago's Commonwealth Edison) realized that centralizing electrical power generation could be advantageous.  It was this shift that changed electrical power generation from a highly decentralized, localized, private manufacturing cost to a centralized, shared, and easily accessible public utility (hence, Carr's "big switch").

Burnham helped to design all of the buildings at the World's Fair in the neoclassical style.  All of the buildings were covered in something known as white staff, a kind of artificial stone primarily used to cover temporary buildings (the majority of the buildings at the World's Fair were temporary).  The white buildings gave the World's Fair its nickname, "The White City" and apparently served as inspiration for L. Frank Baum's "Emerald City" in his book, The Wonderful Wizard of Oz.

There is a quote from Daniel Burnham that I really love.  He once said, "Make no little plans.  They have no magic to stir men's blood and probably themselves will not be realized. Make big plans; aim high in hope and work, remembering that a noble, logical diagram once recorded will never die, but long after we are gone will be a living thing, asserting itself with ever-growing insistency. Remember that our sons and grandsons are going to do things that would stagger us. Let your watchword be order and your beacon beauty. Think big."

Burnham certainly was thinking "big" when he dreamed up the design of the so-called "White City".  And Nicholas Carr's book suggests that some of the changes incorporated as a direct result of the 1893 Columbian Exposition created a "big switch" in how power was distributed to manufacturing organizations, which subsequently played a major role in furthering the Industrial Age.  As leaders, we too need to "think big" and dream of the future, aiming high in both our hopes and dreams, making big plans instead of small ones.  By thinking big and aiming high, we can help architect a better future for our organizations and for society at large.

Relationships are built on trust...

I recently posted (see "Self-trust is the first secret of success...") about a model of trust presented in the book, The Speed of Trust: The One Thing That Changes Everything by Stephen M.R. Covey, former CEO of the Covey Leadership Center.  I introduced the topic in a post from last November, "Change happens at the speed of trust..."  Again, Covey compares trust to the well-known ripple effect, in which waves start out small at the center and become larger and more powerful as they move and expand outward.  He describes five "waves of trust" to drive home the point that trust begins with oneself and expands outward to relationships, organizations, the market, and society.  I'll cover the second Wave of Trust in today's post, which Covey calls Relationship Trust.  

As I've stated in the past (and to paraphrase the Greek philosopher Aristotle), we are "political animals".  And by "political animal" I mean that we are social.  That is how we evolved.  That is how we operate in today's society.  "Politics" really describes how people in a group make decisions, even when those people in the group want different things or don't agree.  "Politics" is all about relationships.  When there is trust in relationships, there is going to be give and take.  When people in a group trust each other, they are more willing to compromise so that the group can make the best decision for the group.

Covey writes, "People tend not to trust people who don't trust them."  In other words, if there is not trust in a relationship, there is probably no relationship.  Or at least one that works effectively.  Henry Stimson, former US Secretary of State under President Herbert Hoover in the late 1920's said, "The surest way to make a man untrustworthy is to distrust him and show your distrust."

Relationship Trust relies upon establishing credibility through Character and Competence.  Note that Covey is building upon the concepts discussed in his first Wave of Trust (Self-Trust) here.  Character depends upon a leader's Integrity and Intent, while Competence depends upon a leader's Capabilities and Results (see my last post for more explanation on each of these Core Elements of Credibility).

In order to build (and/or repair, if it is broken) Relationship Trust, Covey discusses 13 actionable behaviors grouped into the two domains of Character and Competence (or some mix of both):

Behaviors in the Character domain:

1. Talk straight.  Be honest, simple, and transparent in conversation.  Do not distort facts or leave false impressions.  Don't manipulate people.

2. Demonstrate respect.  Be kind and fair.  Do not "fake respect" by showing concern only for those who can do something for you.  Follow the Golden Rule ("Do unto others...").

3. Create transparency.  Be real and genuine.  Avoid hidden agendas.  Do not withhold information that can be helpful to getting the work done.  Err on the side of disclosure.

4. Right wrongs.  Don't use "fake apologies" (do not justify or rationalize wrongs).  Admit mistakes.  When you are sorry, say you are sorry and mean it.  But then go one step further and make right what is wrong.

5. Show loyalty.  Give credit when credit is due.  Don't take credit for something that you didn't do.  Speak up about people as if they were present, even when they are not.  Do not disclose someone else's private information for your own personal gain.

Behaviors in the Competence domain:

6. Deliver results.  It can be hard to measure results, so take the time to develop the metrics of success up front and at the beginning.  Make things happen.  Be on time and on budget.  Don't make excuses when you fall short of the goal.

7. Get better.  Adopt a continuous improvement mindset.  Be open to growth (have a "growth mindset").  Don't be afraid to make mistakes, but when you do make a mistake, learn from it.  As Dee Hock, founder of Visa said, "You learn nothing from your successes except to think too much of yourself.  It is from failure that all growth comes, provided you can recognize it, admit it, learn from it, rise above it, and then try again."

8. Confront reality.  Address the tough issues head on.  Be realistic, but also optimistic.  Learn from Admiral Stockdale and the "Stockdale Paradox").

9. Clarify expectations.  Create a shared vision and agreement up front.  Make sure roles and responsibilities are understood.  Develop a RACI.  Know who has the authority and accountability.  Blaine Lee, author of The Power Principle, said, "Almost all conflict is a result of violated expectations."  Be clear about what you are trying to do, then do it!

10. Practice accountability.  Practice 200% accountability ("I am responsible for my actions and for that of others").  Don't avoid or shirk responsibility, particularly if you are a leader.  Be clear on how you will communicate progress or lack thereof.  Follow Jim Collins' "window and mirror metaphor" - "When things go well, you look through the window; when things go wrong, you look at the mirror."  In other words, give credit for win to the team and take the blame for the loss.  Or as the Russian proverb goes, "Success has many fathers, while failure is an orphan."

Behaviors that fall in both (Character and Competence) domains:

11. Listen first.  We were born with two ears and one mouth.  We should be listening twice as much as we are talking!  Actively listen.  Be present.

12. Keep commitments.  Follow through on your promises. Never (and I mean "NEVER") overpromise and underdeliver.  

13. Extend trust.  Make trust a verb instead of a noun.  Warren Bennis said, "Leadership without mutual trust is a contradiction in terms."  To be a leader, you have to trust your teams!

Day one of the next 250 years...

I've been reading about the recent completion of the Basílica Sagrada Família with great interest.  As you may recall from my post "Cathedral Thinking" last year, this famous church (and UNESCO World Heritage site) in Barcelona was designed by the Catalan architect Antoni Gaudí.  Construction began on the church on March 19, 1882 under the direction of the architect Francisco de Paula del Villar y Lozano, though Gaudí took over when Villar resigned in 1883.  The project would become Gaudí's magnum opus, and he would devote the remainder of his life to the project.  At the time of his death in 1926, only about a quarter of the church construction was complete.  After over 144 years, the central Tower of Jesus Christ was completed on February 20, 2026, and it was inaugurated and blessed by Pope Leo XIV June 10, 2026 during his visit to Spain, coinciding with the centenary of Gaudí's death, as originally planned.

One hundred and forty-four years is definitely a long time, until it's realized that most of the famous churches and other structures from antiquity took far longer to complete.  For example, the Great Wall of China took over 2,000 years to build.  Angkor Wat, the temple complex in Cambodia took over 400 years to build.  Westminster Abbey in London required nearly 500 years to build.  St. Peter's Basilica in Rome required 120 years of construction. The Notre Dame Cathedral in Paris required over 100 years to finish.  It's clear that even with modern construction and engineering, 144 years is not too far out of the ordinary.

As I discussed in last year's post, the concept known as "cathedral thinking" describes the mindset in which long-term projects or goals are initiated for the sake of or for the benefit of future generations. Gaudí knew that he wouldn't live long enough to see the final results of his dream for the Sagrada Família.  Importantly, "cathedral thinking" applies to more than just physical objects.  The U.S. Senator Raphael Warnock recently wrote a book called The Crooked Places Made Straight: Reflections on the Moral Meaning of America.  In the introduction to his book (the title of which, appropriately enough, is "America, The Grand Cathedral"), Warnock uses the same analogy to describe the work that lies ahead for the United States of America, particularly as we celebrate the first 250 years since our nation's founding on July 4, 1776.  He writes, "I reflected that America is like a glorious cathedral, 250 years in the making.  Yet, after all these years, we're still wrestling and toiling to build this grand cathedral of freedom and democracy."  He then cites a passage from the poem "Let America Be America Again") by Langston Hughes:

America never was America to me

And yet, I swear this oath - America will be!

Senator Warnock concludes his book by returning to the "cathedral thinking" analogy.  He writes, "Our grand cathedral is 250 years in the making.  It is majestic, mighty, and full of possibility; yet it remains unfinished. At a time when our country is so deeply divided, I urge us to recognize the danger of our divisions, of allowing demagogues with no vision to deepen the chaos and tear down what has been built with blood and sacrifice.  I urge us instead to lean toward the moral work that can and must be done and to ask ourselves what kind of nation we want.  I urge us to imagine a future full of hope for everyone.  The future Isaiah [the Old Testament prophet] laid out so dearly: Every valley shall be exalted, and every mountain and hill brought low.  The crooked places shall be made straight, and the rough places smooth.  The glory of the Lord shall be revealed, and all flesh shall see it together (Isaiah 40:4-5)."

Yesterday was a celebration of America's first 250 years.  Today, we look forward to our next 250 years.  We still have work to do, for this grand cathedral of ours is not complete.  Today is day one of the next 250 years.  Let us commit to finish the work ahead.