Should to could; trading one burden with another

I have a hypothesis: The fundamental schism that has emerged in society over the last 30 years, driving both hypergrowth and hyperpolarization, is the shift from the “burden of shoulds” to the “burden of coulds.”

We once lived in a world largely bound by the “burden of shoulds” – we should pray to God, we should obey our parents, we should respect our elders, we should be kind, we should set limits. While there were pockets where these rules were relaxed, society as a whole was still deeply rooted in what one should do. There was change, but it was superficial, leaving the foundational "burden of shoulds" intact.

Somewhere in the last 30 years, this has tipped. Now, society is beholden to a different burden: the “burden of coulds.” I could do whatever I want. Previously, for the last couple of centuries, this agency of “what I could do” peaked during adolescence and middle age, as autonomy and financial independence grew. But after this hype of autonomy wore off, individuals reverted to the societal norm of the “burden of shoulds”. Some were trailblazers, but most were not. And this was normal.

If we go back further into history, the possibilities for defining one’s life were extremely limited. Most people didn’t have the capability or context to pursue a life defined by “coulds.” Inter- and intra-generational sameness was common. Most people followed their fathers’ and grandfathers’ professions. For generations, people adhered to the same philosophical and spiritual beliefs, doing what they should do to remain relevant.

Challenges to the “burden of shoulds” existed, of course. When Nietzsche, for instance, ponders the source of one's habits, he was challenging the dominance of the “burden of shoulds,” but this was not mainstream thought

“Is the source of one's habits coming from innumerable cowardice and laziness, or courage and inventive reasons?”

Recently, the scales have tipped, and the majority now operate within the realm of what could be – the Art of the Possible. This, to me, explains many of the happenings in society. The hypergrowth of Silicon Valley is driven by this burden of “could” – how could we make things faster and frictionless? How could we enable endless buying on credit? How could we replace traditional currency with digital assets? How could we make overconsumption sustainable?

The entire consulting industry, in my view, peddles these possibilities – constantly advocating for change and transformation, fueled by the “coulds.” As a sidebar, Ashley Goodall, a former consulting veteran, writes in his book The Problem with Change about how the cult of disruption has taken hold among executives. He notes:

While we were all busily disrupting ourselves hither and yon, we somehow lost sight of the fact that change and improvement are two different things. In the beginning, executives thought, ‘We need to fix this problem; therefore, we need to change.’ Now, too many believe, ‘We need to change, because then all the problems will be fixed.’

Earlier, I suggested that part of the work malaise we’re seeing today is due to this burden shift. The modern professional, especially in the last 30 years, is constantly navigating between the "burden of shoulds" (what is expected of us, what we believe we must do) and the "burden of coulds" (what we can do, what seems possible). This frequent switching between the two creates a mental tax, contributing to anxiety.

On a societal level, the hyperpolarization and the widening gap between rich and poor are also products of this schism. Political hyperpolarization is a manifestation of this desire for change and the exploration of possibilities. For example, the increasingly negative rhetoric in elections, and the abandonment of common decency, are acceptable to large segments of society because it could be okay to some group of hyperpolarized people. The same can be said for cancel culture and wokeism – extreme manifestations of the “burden of coulds,” where everyone could identify with any gender they choose, disregarding biological norms.

Nietzsche, while advocating for a challenge to certain "shoulds," also warned of the dangers of abandoning them. When he said “God is dead,” he wasn’t celebrating the demise of God, but rather warning of the consequences of a society that abandons universal moral truths. He wrote this in 1882, when the long arc of this change had already started.

Many modern philosophers in the 20th century argued for the benefits of “coulds” and accelerated this change. In the world of shoulds, saving oneself was seen as something external, requiring one to follow specific rules – religious or societal. In the modern world, salvation is often considered internal – you could do whatever you want to save yourself. This shift fully tipped into the “burden of coulds” in the early 21st century.

It’s crucial to note that “could” is considered to be better than “should” in the modern world. And while there is no denying that we are better off today than anytime in history, there are some problems with this schism. “Could”  is only better than “should” if it’s not a burden. But as a society, we’ve simply replaced one burden with another.

This replacement of the certainty of “shoulds” with the uncertainty of “coulds” presents the latest challenge. We have traded one authority figure for a new one. Psychologically, humans need authority figures. So now we idolize those who appear to live freely, doing whatever they could do. 

But it binds us to this new shallow, narcissistic authority figure – the mediocre self which is eternally trapped in the burden of what could be – instead of ever being content or feeling contentment. This is why we spend hours doom-scrolling on Instagram for example, living vicariously through others' curated lives, burdened by thoughts like, “I could travel there,” “I could be perfectly healthy,” “I could be perfectly productive,” etc.

In Book of Longing (2007), Leonard Cohen offers a timeless observation:

“We are moving into a period of bewilderment, a curious moment in which people find light in the midst of despair, and vertigo at the summit of their hopes. It is a religious moment also, and here is the danger. People will want to obey the voice of Authority, and many strange constructs of just what Authority is will arise in every mind… The public yearning for Order will invite many stubborn uncompromising persons to impose it. The sadness of the zoo will fall upon society.”

The sadness of the zoo has fallen upon society.

Trapped inside the cage, burdened by what could be, we are all looking out with longing eyes.