The myths that hold us back

In his brilliant book ‘Myths to Live By’, Joseph Campbell talks about how myths are the fundamental stories on which cultures are built. Without them, modern societies cannot develop the complex rules and structures to survive.

But what of modern societies and the modern myths we have built to perpetuate perhaps unhelpful attitudes, ones that inhibit our development?

China is an interesting case in point. A colleague of mine did a youth panel in China for a client on the attitudes of Chinese towards their society and themselves. And he found something interesting.

The talk at the moment post Olympics is about Chinese nationalism. How confident, even arrogant, Chinese are about their power and their place in the world. And in the research this comes out, collectively Chinese are very confident about the future.

But individually they are scared. They are one in 1.5 billion people, they fight for education, for jobs and for partners. They are scared of not succeeding in a society changing at break neck speed. And they are lonely. As a generation of kids who don’t have siblings, and who have done it on their own and are desperately keen to reach out and connect. From the outside you wouldn’t know this, inside Chinese are desperately frightened of the future.

The Chinese of course are not alone in their collective myths. Look at Australians. For a long time we have promoted the character of being pretty much care-free, easy going, beer loving and relaxed people. We are the larrikin, the fun loving, not taking life seriously Paul Hogans of the world and the world has loved this image of us. And so have we. Just look at that god awful movie Australia.

But the reality for most Australians is not the laid back image we like to project. Australians are in truth are under siege. We work harder and longer than almost any western country, and take less holidays. Far from being care-free we have reportedly some of the highest rates of stress and suicide in the western world. The mask of ambivalence is a thin one, and disguises to few the very real anxiety we face about the world and our place in it.

So what’s wrong with these myths? Aren’t they just an ideal that we all aspire to? Are they not just the best of what we can be?

Perhaps they are. But what if as people, they stop us from being who we are. If by trying to pretend to care less, we commit suicide because we fall short of the tough guy we are told to be. If by trying to live up to this image, we bury ourselves and those we love. What if this myth of ourselves is the very thing that holds us back?

In Thailand the myths are powerful. They are of a people who are kind, generous, and considerate to elderly. This campaign from Kasikorn Bank sums it up. And the proof of this myth to the outsider seems everywhere around in the people, in the way they treat everyone.

But take a closer look at young Thais and you will see a different story. Huge alcohol and drug problems, gangs, lack of employment and huge class divisions between the rural majority and their city brothers. The difference between the values they are told to aspire to, and the values they live and see every day, has never been greater. As has been the lack of acknowledgement of this difference.

In the case of Thailand, this reality is playing itself out now. It seems surprising to many, how this society of warm and loving people, be so embattled against each other. But if a society fails to look beyond its myth, and refuses to acknowledge the reality of all its citizens, it will collapse. A failure to bridge this gap could be catastrophic for any country.

Here’s hoping this isn’t the case here.

Selling Hope

It seems while marketing is moving towards engagement, a lot of politics is still mired in selling difference.

Today I passed by yet another rally here in Bangkok, the red shirts this time, holding up the image of their opponents and attacking the PM. Unelected though he is, it’s exhausting - on and on it goes - and it got me thinking about how digital marketing, mostly, has moved on from attack ads.

In Ad Age Digital the Obama campaign was cited as being the best campaign of the year. Multi-media, simple message, strong salesman, blah blah. What I think is more interesting is the way he pitched his ideas and involvement he got from people.

The new marketing way is driving, in many ways via the web, the idea that we can co-create what you want through listening to others. In this way you get ahead through the help of others, you can get what you want by seeking out those with similar interests and getting their opinions.

The old way is driven by the assumption that we are all really just in competition with each other, man vs man, us vs them, company vs company, me vs we.

It is very focused on us as individuals, companies (or nations) and on how we can get ahead of the rest, succeed and win. In this way your unique selling point is driven home and contrasted with the competition's weaknesses. You are better than the rest because of x. They are weaker because of y. It's predicated on a one-way communication model to sell yourself, as loudly and in as singular a way, as possible. The key is to look for difference, and exploit this for all its worth. The streets are full of it today and Thailand is not going anywhere as a result.

But what about embracing what’s good about yourself and your believers, and let that be your point of difference? Don't tell me your better or different, involve me what our common needs are and how they can be fulfilled. It is about collective hopes and dreams, but one that still feeds the needs of the individual.

That’s why Obama created a site for community content, tapped into people’s blogs for ideas, and people embraced the concept of diversity so much companies took up the challenge through its Pepsi optimism campaign, Refresh Everything. This approach can not only be seen politically in Obama, but more often in the user-centered campaigns of today that start from real people and their needs.

Many digital ideas – in Asia in particular – are based on collaborative filtering, crowd sourcing, co-creation. They are based on the fact that we can get what we want by looking at what other people of similar interests and needs want to. And listening to that.

Sounds idealistic but actually is very pragmatic. It is still based on the individual because a group of people with similar needs are always going to be able to help me get more of what I need that one company telling me – ‘this is what you need’.

It is based on the fact that I trust people more than I trust the company. In many ways it is anti-corporate, anarchic, yet liberating, and connecting. It is positive and engaging, not negative and attacking.

And the result? Look at the attack ads in this context – they look, well, sad and self-centered. Like the companies themselves - and very, very insecure. Then you look at the campaigns and products and messages that have been created with collaboration - and you think confidence, a sense of reality, a sense of freedom even.

They have unshackled themselves from the fear they are not good enough. And embraced the idea that, collectively, we are all good enough.