On substance versus meaning

Which is preferable, a life of substance or a life of meaning? Most sources that I could find give the two as synonymous - 'substantive' and 'meaningful' both describe something of considerable importance, yet I was never satisfied with this because there is rarely ever a need to have two words describing the exact same thing in the same language. Typically, differences exist on an abstract or philosophical level which is lost in everyday speech most of the time. Here too, I feel there is a subtle but crucial difference between 'substantive' and 'meaningful', which may impact the way we live our lives in general.

Here it goes. I have often over the past few years heard the question "What am I doing with my life?". Oftentimes the source of that question was myself, yet others have also come to me with this inquiry. I have no degree in psychology or any related field, yet I try to be a keen listener, and do not shy away from existential discussions, which is why I think people open up about such issues. It is not an easy question to address, particularly because it requires displaying some vulnerability, so providing an answer was and still is immensely difficult, not least of all because I have to persuade myself that whatever answers I attempt make sense and cause no harm.

'Meaning' I believe refers to something subjective. What is meaningful to some (such as a gesture of affection or care) might have no meaning to others. Also, meaning is given not just by the gesture itself, but by the context in which it is performed. For example, receiving a bouquet of flowers on your birthday might be less meaningful to you than receiving it when there is no special occasion. Substantively, though, it is still a gesture of affection. One would not typically send flowers to someone they hated, or someone they do not care about at all. Meaning is therefore constructed, personal and dependent on context.

'Substance' however exists outside of personal interpretation. To do something 'substantive' is to impact the world in some way even if that impact goes unnoticed. Throwing your gum in the trash can might not be a meaningful gesture to you or anyone else, but substantively you have contributed to a better world, especially if the alternative was to stick the gum to the bottom of your chair or spit it wherever. A gesture that is hollow in that it has no impact on the world around (such as saying 'I love you' to your spouse) might still be meaningful, whereas a gesture that is meaningless (such as driving to work) may have substantive implications.

Understanding that what has meaning may lack substance, and that what has substance may lack meaning is part of the process of figuring out what one can do with their life. We are all shaping the world we live in by merely existing, and even the fact of ending our life would still contribute in some way to the future. Like it or not, we are shaping the future in every single moment, either by what we do or by what de do not do. Yet, in the quest for meaning in life we seem to lose track of substance. Similarly, in the quest for substance, some seem to lose track of meaning. Keeping an eye on both might help people be more mindful and deliberate in their search for happiness, but that is a story for another time.

On compromise in majority vs consensual systems of democracy

Compromise and deliberation are perhaps more important in majority systems of democracy than they are in proportional or consensual models. This is because the large parties that emerge from winner-takes-it-all models need to somehow represent huge segments of the population with vastly different interests. The only way to effectively do this (as in the case of British or US parties) is through internal factions. The debates, compromises, and negotiations that are typically seen in Parliament or between parties in continental Europe are still present in the majority systems but they are carried out within the parties, between competing factions. This ensures some representation for all groups of voters but the process is carried out through informal channels rather than institutionally (in Parliament for example), meaning there is less oversight and fewer limitations on what and how can be negotiated. Whether this is desirable or not is up for discussion, although I personally prefer the consensual model, as it allows non-partisan actors such as NGOs or mass media to get more involved in the debate without having to pay the entry fee backstage where talks are held.

How do you empower those who do not wish to be empowered?

Power is the capacity to make decisions for or on behalf of others. Authority is doing so without having your right to do so questioned. But to be ‘empowered’ is to have the capacity to decide for one’s self. It is a type of freedom to act in accordance with one’s own beliefs, goals, aims, and passions, but one that is not limited to principle. Rather, empowerment extends to the material realm. To be empowered is not only to have “the right of doing” but also “the ability to do”. A cripple who has the right to travel wherever they wish but has not the means to do so (for lack of access ramps let’s say) is no more empowered than an able-bodied person who’s barred access. The ability to exercise one’s rights is an integral part of empowerment. Does this mean that all persons should be provided the material means to fully exercise each of their rights? If so, to what degree should these be provided, and who should provide them: the state, society at large, their immediate family or kin?

To empower another is to surrender some power to them, since one cannot empower without having the capacity to decide for or on behalf of those being empowered. One cannot allow women to vote if one does not themselves vote, and a slave cannot free another slave, nor can a master free the slaves they do not own, simply because they do not have the power or the authority to do so.

So why would a person or group who holds power over others choose to surrender part of that power? More puzzling still is why a person or group would reject being empowered.

To be free implies the possibility to voluntarily surrender your freedom.

If not empowerment, then what? What could these people be satisfied with? Can we conceive of social relations and human interactions in way that excludes power? Do we even have the vocabulary to describe such a situation? Can liberty exist without power?