On ‘Growth’ as a Verb
“The limits of the language are the limits of my world.” Wittgenstein famously coined this phrase to highlight the significance of language in shaping our reality. Words embody ideas. They represent a certain state of the world, sets the parameters for how we interact with both the external world and society at large. This is evident from how certain languages can affect perception of colours (see “Himbas” as an example) and the breadth of our emotions palette (see “Hygge” as an example).
We live in a society where “Growth” is often viewed as a positively charged term that seems to capture a highly desirable aspect. It brings us joy to see things growing; a plant, a project, a child. We attribute growth as having value on its own, a mark of progress. A state of movement, of becoming.
“Growth” is often viewed as a desirable state of the world. This is reflected in our everyday language — from most of us saying that we want to keep “growing” in our interviews; to how politicians are focusing on “growth” in their political campaign speeches. As a society, we’ve internalised growth as a desirable outcome, on its own.
We commonly use ‘growth’ as a desired outcome on its own — but when we do that, we’re simply saying that we want “to be” in a state of “becoming”. Seems odd to say that, doesn’t it? Framing it in this light makes us realise that rarely do we ask ourselves: What are we becoming? What are we growing into? When we ask ourselves these questions, we start seeing that growth needs to have a goal in mind — a desired state other than ‘growth’ in itself. We set an arrival point, a goal for what we want to become.
The effects of treating growth as a goal on its own, confuses us. Using the term “growth” in such a manner, drives us to disregard the consideration of direction of “growth”, ultimately discounting the opportunity costs of embarking on “growth”. As, if the “journey” is our goal, we’re failing to think in terms of first principles — as we’ve effectively outsourced the determination of the direction to someone else.
When we confuse a means for an end, it’s because we’ve been convinced into thinking so. For, it is in the interest of someone else to make their means, our end. And the further away the degrees of separation we are, from the initial source of direction that dictated the means as an end, the more blindly we are to follow it. This is simply because social reinforcement takes over — and when more of a majority agrees on a certain goal, we are more likely to buy into it without questioning it.
This is why bureaucracy in a company often causes interns who do not understand the reason why they are doing what they’re doing. This is why traditions and customs exist — what may seemed to have been done with a certain purpose, a means to an end, eventually becomes a hard rule. When we don’t question why we’re being told to do something, we eventually take it as an end in itself. We start taking someone else’s means, as our own end.
‘Growth’ has become the end-all and be-all in our modern society. And the lack of questioning the purpose of growth has led to growth that can often even seem undesirable. This is evident in the business world in itself. The notion of ‘growth’ at the cost of equity erotion showcases the priority of ‘growth’ relative to shareholder value creation.
That is, until shareholders themselves have felt enough pain from the cost of growth. As shareholder value is of primacy in this capitalistic world we live in, it is natural that we start questioning ‘growth’ when it hurts shareholder value. It is only when shareholders start feeling the pain, that we start questioning the purpose of growth. And what the cost of growth is.
It is only when it hurts shareholders that we start reframing the metaphysics of ‘growth’. We start framing ‘growth’ as ‘growth into’. We start framing ‘growth’ as ‘growth at costs of…’. It is only when we hurt shareholders, that we start seeing that ‘growth’ as potentially undesirable. It is only because it’s hurting shareholders, do we start questioning: “Growth, to what end?”
“Growth” is neither desirable nor undesirable — for it’s a state of becoming. When we realise that, we start thinking for ourselves again — we start asking the direction and purpose of growth. And when we start thinking in terms of direction and purpose, we also consider the costs more easily — for if we choose to go north, we naturally deduce that we are giving up east, west and south.
The state of ‘becoming’ necessarily entails the assumption of ‘being’; hence, it’s time we stop treating ‘growth’ as being meaningful as a noun. It is a verb. And the more we treat it like a verb, the more intentional we are with our growth. That is where true flourishing takes place.
