The Art of Insubordination is what Darwin’s thirty unlucky predecessors wish they had read before embarking on their lonely quests. I wrote this practical handbook to teach readers how to increase their odds of success as dissenters, non-conformists, rebels, or as I’ll often refer to them, insubordinates. I also wrote it to help readers prepare the ground for other insubordinates everywhere to succeed, whether we happen to agree with what they propose or not. As important and valid as non-conformist ideas might be, insubordinates can’t expect the world to welcome them with open arms. If you’re going to rage against the “man” or the “machine,” you must think ahead and protect yourself with some psychological armor and weaponry. And you must prepare yourself and others to receive new ideas more effectively rather than reject them out of hand, as we so often do.
The Art of Insubordination can be viewed as a cookbook filled with recipes for reaping the benefits of a neglected asset in life and the workplace. Recipes for permitting dissent and embracing it when present. Recipes for effectively expressing unpopular, important ideas and how to best champion them. Recipes for managing the discomfort when trying to rebel or when interacting with a rebel. The chapters ahead provide powerful “recipe steps” for introducing novelty and baking change into the system. In Part I, I prepare you to rebel by helping you understand why most of us resist new ideas, and why society so desperately needs the rebels in our midst. Part II of the cookbook—the heart of the book—offers tactics for furthering new and unusual ideas. You’ll learn how to communicate more persuasively, attract valuable allies, persevere in the face of resistance, and conduct yourself responsibly once your ideas go mainstream. Part III of the cookbook advises how you can build a society that is more receptive to challenging ideas and that can make the most of the opportunities they represent. I’ll reveal how to better engage the outrageous as an individual, how to extract wisdom from non-conformists in team environments, and how to raise a generation of insubordinate kids in your capacity as a parent or educator. Insubordination matters. I want to jar you into looking at the world a little differently, challenging others more carefully and deliberately, and lowering your guard when others might challenge your own beliefs and assumptions.
Skeptics might accuse me of indulging an overly romantic view of insubordination. The Cambridge Dictionary, after all, defines insubordination as “the refusal to obey someone who is in a higher position than you and who has the authority to tell you what to do.” Lots of people do that, sometimes in ways that don’t benefit society or even hurt it. Principled insubordination is a brand of deviance intended to improve society with a minimal amount of secondary harm. Principled insubordinates seek to build momentum for worthy and important ideas. At some point, they consciously decide to take that first, uncomfortable step away from the security of the herd, not for their own benefit (or at least not exclusively), but for humanity’s. I want more of us to take that step, and I want society to refrain from punishing us. Defining Rebellion
Not all insubordination is created equal. In writing this book, I’ve sought to sniff out people who are rebellious for the wrong reasons. Because they are impulsive. Because they don’t like anyone telling them what to do. Because they want attention. I hope to draw attention to rebels with integrity and ethical standards. “Principled insubordination” is my name for a rebellious bent on contributing to society, and we can think of it as a simple equation:
If you’re not a math nerd, don’t worry, we’re going to unpack this. DEVIANCE is the most important element defining principled insubordination, which is why I’ve positioned it as a multiplier.
Bear in mind, we’re talking about a particular kind of deviance here, one that you consciously take on. Successful rebellions don’t come from a place of ignorance, duress, compulsion, or randomness. There’s nothing impressive about being different merely because you are not paying attention to existing standards of behavior (ignorance), you are forced to disagree (duress), you can’t resist the temptation of disagreeing (compulsion or a lack of self-control), or you give little thought to what you do on any given day.
If you consciously choose to rebel, your motivation matters. I include AUTHENTICITY in the definition to ensure that the principled insubordinate’s actions arise from deeply held convictions as opposed to superficial preferences. Principled insubordinates act from the heart. They don’t simply deliver what others want from them, nor do they imitate others who came before them. They’re secure and powerful in their own uniqueness and individuality. Given how easy it is for audiences to sniff out insincerity, you must be authentic if your stand against authority is to have a fighting chance of succeeding.
I include CONTRIBUTION in the formula to ensure that principled insubordinates intend to create social value. As I envision it, principled insubordination is an act of kindness and caring. Those who perform it don’t question authority from a place of disdain (feeling one is above the norm), spite (wanting to upset the mainstream or powerful minority for the hell of it), or self-interest (such as the financial benefit of crime). They question authority because they want to give back in some way. Contribution is what distinguishes insubordination with a cause from its cynical, destructive, superficial cousins. It entails careful consideration of collateral damage that might arise from questioning and attacking social orthodoxy.
Another critically important element of contribution is remaining respectful and open to those who might disagree. Contribution is not the province of white supremacists or cop killers. Yes, they’re insubordinates, but their ideas are inherently hateful and intolerant, and history shows they don’t lead society anywhere good. You’ve probably met people across the political spectrum and members of various religions who harbor principled views. These individuals might be well-intentioned on some level, but if their views are ultimately intolerant and close-minded, they’re not principled insubordinates as I think of them.
Let’s not forget the all-important denominator in our formula, SOCIAL PRESSURE. Insubordination means little without stakes. The real test of your principles is if you hold on to them when the deck is stacked against you. Acts of rebellion begin with a single, uncomfortable step away from the safety and security of the herd. Take Charles Darwin’s story to heart, and don’t underestimate the risks of making your ideas visible to the outside world. You become fair game for misrepresentation, criticism, scorn, and even hatred—an unpleasant consequence of principled insubordination as I’m defining it.
Even better, I’d like society to reward and encourage principled insubordination, like my mom and grandmother did for me. As a twelve-year-old, I asked my rabbi why Jews are allowed to eat shrimp but not tuna fish. Did God really have so little to worry about that he/she spent time devising painfully specific dietary rules? This learned man turned me away without even entertaining my legitimate if provocatively posed question (Jews can’t eat shrimp—I purposely reversed shrimp and tuna fish to demonstrate that regardless of which food is deemed blasphemous the rule is absurd). On the drive home, my mom kept her gaze fixed on the road and said to me, “Keep questioning the rules until you get good answers.”
She died the following year but my grandmother, who became my caretaker, also relished insubordination. As one of the first women to work on Wall Street, she acknowledged that although authority figures often possess wisdom, we should judge them by what they do, not what they say. People defer easily to the powerful, she argued. We should celebrate the brave renegades who stand up to authority figures in their teams, organizations, and social groups. And we should endeavor to manifest that bravery ourselves.
I’ve written this book in homage to my mother and grandmother. I’ve written it to encourage people who deserve to be heard but who are struggling and perhaps even giving up. As I see it, it isn’t only our continued progress that is at stake, but also, quite frankly, our sanity. If nobody deviated in principled ways from society’s prescribed script, civilized life would be less interesting and inspiring, in addition to being less just, safe, and prosperous. It would be less fun—and funny.
I opened with a story of a dead white male who rustled the branches of convention and succeeded. Here’s one about an undead white female. One evening during my freshman year in college, some friends and I were sitting in the library studying. At one point, as I struggled to stay focused, a beautiful blond woman appeared. No, she wasn’t walking idly through the stacks in search of a book. She was turning cartwheels and barreling right at us. When she had come close enough, she stopped and made eye contact with me. “Give me that textbook you’re studying,” she said, gesturing with her hand. Bewildered, I handed it over. She opened to a random page and scribbled something down. “Here you go. When you get to this chapter, give me a call.” Before I could respond, she cartwheeled away.
I was flabbergasted. In this one, small act of principled insubordination, this woman broke many of the established, gender-based rules of dating. On the one hand, society has long taught women to hide their physical selves, suppress their sexual desires, and wait passively for men to approach them. On the other, society applauds men for confidently seeking out willing partners. This woman didn’t merely ask me out; she did it in her own unique way. She owned that library study space, gifting me a story that I continue to ponder to this day. Imagine a society without people like her who experiment with unconventional ideas and practices, even in relatively minor ways, because existing social scripts seem stifling. How often would we experience emotions like curiosity, inspiration, awe, admiration, elevation, and elation without such daring and imaginative souls?
I called this woman a few weeks later. We went out on a date but never started a relationship. A year went by. I transferred to another college. During orientation week, I walked across the main quad and there she was again—this incredible cartwheeling woman. I walked up to her, tapped her on the shoulder, and asked if she would think it weird if she happened to be studying in the library and someone performed gymnastics around her, only to say nothing other than “call me.” She smiled and said something to the effect of “I can think of no other way of asking a boy out.” We went out again and dated for over a year. She was the first woman I ever loved.
If you have an exceptional idea or if you occupy an outsider position of any kind, I urge you to speak up and make yourself heard. Don’t wait. Don’t ask permission from the powers that be. Do it now. Make your mark. Educate and enlighten the rest of us. Change the world. Listen to others who seek to do the same. But for heaven’s sake, do what Darwin did. Be smart about it.
RECIPE STEPS
1. Be deliberate and disciplined. Famous rebels like Charles Darwin deployed specific strategies for selling their theories to mainstream audiences, and so can you.
2. Know the difference between reckless and principled insubordination. If you’re contributing to society and taking action from a place of authenticity, consider your rebellion principled.
3. Don’t take rebels for granted. Principled rebellion is vital for improving society. It’s also part of what makes your life and the lives of those around you rich, fun, and fulfilling.
CHAPTER 2 The Strange Things We Do to Be Liked
How we’re wired to fit in
As any kid versed in playground ball will tell you, there’s a simple way and a less simple way to shoot a basketball from the free-throw line. The simple way is to shoot it underhand. You stand fifteen feet away from the basket. Nobody guards you (the other players stand still, waiting for you to shoot). You rock the rock (as pro players call a basketball) back and forth between your legs and release it so that the ball arcs upward toward the hoop. It’s not pretty, but it f*#$ing works. One of the National Basketball Association’s greatest players of all time, Hall of Famer Rick Barry, shot free throws in this way, sinking an incredible 90 percent of his attempts over the course of a ten-year NBA career. During his last two seasons combined, he took 322 free throws and missed only nineteen, an incredible 94.1 percent success rate. By comparison, today’s greatest basketball player, LeBron James, missed 132 overhand shots in a single season, a 73.1 percent success rate.
The less simple (and according to multiple sports scientists, less effective) way to shoot a free throw is to do it overhand. You grasp the ball with two hands and raise it to eye level, with one hand supporting the ball and the other steadying it from above. Gazing intently at the basket, you flick the wrist of the hand supporting the ball so that the ball flies toward the basket. Your hands work together, but they bear varying amounts of weight and perform different tasks. You rely primarily on the shooting hand to push the ball with considerable strength while simultaneously using the non-shooting hand as a guide. For an optimal trajectory, as your wrist snaps with the ball gently rolling off the fingers, the basketball should arc upward between 45 to 52 degrees. If you get the basketball to spin backward, the speed and energy lessens upon contact with the rim—allowing for a softer shot that might bounce off the backboard and drop. I could go on, but you get the picture. Break down the mechanics of a free throw, and it becomes an overwhelming physics experiment. No surprise, then, that many otherwise amazing players suck at it. Hall of Famer Wilt Chamberlain made only 51.1 percent of the free throws he attempted during his career. Hall of Famer Shaquille O’Neal, just 52.7 percent.
Given the great success Rick Barry had shooting underhand free throws, you’d think a solid chunk of pro and college players would try that method, especially those who, despite endless hours of practice, remain piss-poor at shooting overhand. You’d be wrong. In thirty-five years, not a single NBA team has reached out to Rick Barry for foul-shooting advice. In college basketball, only two players shoot the simple, underhand way, and one of them is Rick Barry’s son. The basketball world perceives underhand shooting as “girly” and a “granny shot,” so players are too self-conscious to do it. Former NBA great Shaquille O’Neal, notorious for his poor free-throw shooting, proclaimed that he’d “rather shoot zero percent than shoot underhanded. Too cool for that.” Another epically bad free-throw shooter, Andre Drummond, refused to adopt the granny shot in no uncertain terms. “Let me make this clear,” he said. “I’m not shooting free throws underhand.”
To his credit, Wilt Chamberlain did try underhand for a spell during the 1962 season, about ten years into his career. It went astonishingly well. He averaged a league record 50.4 points per game that season and improved his free-throw shooting percentage from an abysmal 38 percent to a not stellar but respectable 61 percent. In one memorable game, he scored an astronomical one hundred points, hitting twenty-eight of thirty-two free-throw shots. But rather than stick with shooting free throws the simple way, he returned to shooting overhand. His free-throw shooting declined once again. Why would he possibly have gone back to what didn’t work? “I felt silly, like a sissy, shooting underhanded,” he explained in his autobiography. “I know I was wrong. I know some of the best foul shooters in history shot that way. Even now, the best foul shooter in the NBA, Rick Barry, shoots underhanded. I just couldn’t do it.”
Think about that for a minute. Professional basketball players are paid enormous sums to score points and win games. Wilt sacrificed points, in the process failing teammates and disappointing fans, just to avoid looking foolish. Thousands of professional and college players since have done the same. The average player in the National Basketball Association shoots at about 75 percent, college players at about 69 percent. Not bad, but not Rick Barry-awesome. And these averages haven’t improved in decades. As talented as they might be, these players lacked the cojones to buck the norm and undertake a simple act of principled insubordination that would improve their performance.
We shouldn’t beat up on basketball players. Brave acts of non-conformity are tragically rare. We know the names of great mavericks and renegades like Nelson Mandela, Susan B. Anthony, Harriet Tubman, Leonardo da Vinci, Martha Graham, and Jesus, not just because of their successes, but because they were among the relatively few of their generation to reject conventional thinking and pursue progress. In recent decades, social psychologists and scholars in other disciplines have chronicled just how powerful our tendency to conform really is. Scientists delved into the specific emotional dynamics that cause us to perform stupid, self-destructive acts for the sake of being liked. Before we examine how we can break with convention more effectively, we must take a closer look at why we struggle to muster the courage to buck convention, and why it’s an uphill battle to convince others to question outdated, undesirable norms and practices.
THE BIG IDEA
To disobey effectively, it helps to know our enemy: the overriding human motivation to fit in, stick to the herd, accept conventional wisdom, and “go along to get along.”
THE VIRTUES OF “OLD SCHOOL”
This enemy might be more pervasive than you think. In fact, it might sweep along the last person you ever thought would fall victim to it: you. Other people act like lemmings who would run over a cliff if that were accepted belief and practice. Not you. You read. You question. You critique. You analyze. You challenge. You take risks. You think differently.
I used to see the world this way, until I came across research by the University of Arkansas’s Scott Eidelman and the University of Kansas’s Chris Crandall about how we make decisions about the value of ideas or practices. In one study, researchers told different groups of participants that acupuncture had been around for 250, 500, 1,000, or 2,000 years, respectively. When participants thought acupuncture had existed for a longer period of time, they felt more confident that acupuncture was “a good technique” and “ought to be used to relieve pain and restore health.” Participants thought they had conducted a rational analysis of the benefits of acupuncture. In truth, participants made judgments based primarily on how long-standing or widely accepted the practice was. Acupuncture’s appeal jumped by 18 percent if participants learned that it was ancient, with no information given about whether it worked. As skilled in critical thinking as we might think ourselves, humans have a general preference for the entrenched status quo.
In another study, researchers told one group of participants that a painting was created a century ago, another group that it was merely five years old. Participants who thought the art older judged it as higher quality and more pleasant. In yet another study, United States citizens were more inclined to support the use of violent enhanced interrogation techniques on terror suspects in the Middle East if they learned such techniques had been a standard military practice for forty years as opposed to a new practice. This finding held for both liberals and conservatives.
We rationalize the existing state of affairs when we feel an undesirable situation is “psychologically real.” Consider the strange mental shift in voters from the moment a candidate wins a presidential election to the inauguration ceremony—honoring day one of the presidency. In a remarkable longitudinal study, Dr. Kristin Laurin at the University of British Columbia found that even Americans who disliked and did not vote for the president held increasingly more positive attitudes about him. The power of “psychological realness” extends beyond elections. Something strange happened once the 1954 U.S. Supreme Court ruled racial segregation unconstitutional. Even students at an all-Black college “unambiguously opposed to segregation” felt increasingly negative attitudes about the existence of all-Black colleges after, compared to just a few weeks before, the legally binding decision. Dr. Laurin proposed “that it is this sense of realness—the recognition that a state of affairs is an immediate part of their lives—that drives people to rationalize.” Feeling the “psychological realness” and inevitable consequences of the current state of affairs pushes us to swap out resisting for a new trifecta of coping behaviors: conforming, rationalizing, and legitimizing.
THE BIG IDEA
People blindly assume that the prevailing system is better. Next time you want to convince someone of an idea or approach, remind them of its long, storied history.
WHY MOST PEOPLE DON’T LAUNCH REVOLUTIONS
