covey

These past couple of weeks I’ve had biology on my mind. We had our first biology test recently, so I’ve been studying the functioning of many biological processes in our ecosystem(s). Covey’s claim about how we must relate to the interdependent “world every day” whether we like it or not seems to be in line with the thesis advanced by many biodiversity theorists in biology (51). This is a more significant conclusion than it appears. Covey borders on a hippie’s pipe dream when he describes us as being in “harmony with the natural laws of growth” (52). The fact that this thesis actually has scientific grounding suggests that Covey might actually be onto something. And this is not merely the perception of conservationists in the field. Even Major David Diner warns in the 1994 edition of the Military Law Review that “humans have artificially simplified may ecosystems” (Diner). “Theoretically, each new animal or plant extinction, with all its dimly perceived and intertwined affects, could cause total ecosystem collapse and human extinction. Each new extinction increases the risk of disaster. Like a mechanic removing, one by one, the rivets from an aircraft’s wings, n80 [hu]mankind may be edging closer to the abyss” (Diner). Even the academics associated with the military, despite their occasionally narrow focus, posit that interdependence may be an integral aspect of the human condition.

edging closer to the abyss

Another fascinating passage that I found in the Covey readings related to language. Covey indicts “reactive language” as becoming a “self-fulfilling prophecy” (79). Reactive language causes people to become reinforced in “the paradigm that they are determined, and they produce evidence to support the belief” (79). Although Covey is obviously discussing these issues in the context of self-help, I can’t help but connect this thought to a conversation that I coincidentally had in Bump’s office today. When I walked in for office hours, Sonali was actually describing the scope of her Project 2 essay and her passions in the area of feminism. One thing that she considered writing about was gendered language and how the male/female binary entrenched within language reproduces gender norms in society (I hope I’m not in trouble for the spoilers on her paper). Although a slightly different but still intimately related thought, many of the writings in Judith Butler’s famed book Gender Trouble also reflect a focus on language. Butler’s primarily concerned with the focus on a static category of “women” that characterizes feminist politics in the 21st century. She calls for an investigation of our presuppositions about representations and understandings of women in order to avoid silencing any voices that might not directly align with traditional understandings of females. Both Sonali and Butler seem to support Covey’s argument that we could fall into dangerous traps because of the language that we use. Covey’s application of these theoretical thoughts to our approach to everyday life (and love, in the example he gives) seem to be relevant. Taking proactive control of one’s language can provide new paths to emancipation previously thought to be impossible.

personal constitution

I did find some of Covey’s advice problematic. Covey advocates the development of a “personal mission statement” similar to a “personal constitution” (107). He proceeds to develop an extended analogy by noting that the United States Constitution has remained “fundamentally changeless” since the creation of the country (107). Covey believes that such a personal statement can be the “basis for making major, life-directing decisions” and can empower “individuals with the same timeless strength in the midst of change” (108). After all, “people can’t live with change if there’s not a changeless core inside them” (108). While Covey’s archaic representation of power remains “under the spell of monarch” and clings to images of power-law traced out by “theoreticians of right and the monarchic institution,” I actually think it’s more important to object to Covey on a personal level (Foucault). From my own personal experiences, I’ve found that the most radical changes to my personal views on life have been the most beneficial. Indeed, if I had developed a personal constitution just a year ago, it would be radically different from the ‘constitution’ that I live my life by now. I instead think it’s more useful to have your own personal roadmap in life constantly in flux. It seems that any change is going to merely be reformist unless one is willing to genuinely allow radical thoughts change their core. I also don’t think having a grounding in a world view prevents the implementation of Covey’s other recommendations. Nevertheless, Covey offers great insight for the most part, and I look forward to discussing this book with the class tomorrow.




Works Cited

David N. Diner. Major and Judge Advocate in the General’s Corps. “The Army and the Endangered Species Act: Who’s Endangering Whom?” 143 Mil. L. Rev. 161. Winter 1994. Lexis.


Michel Foucault. The History of Sexuality: Volume 1. 1978. pp. 88-91