Good Work and Good Citizenship: Do They Presuppose a Democratic Society?

© Howard Gardner 2025, reproduced from howardgardner.com

Even when one seeks to be broad—if not universal—it’s challenging to transcend one’s customary concerns and ordinary points of reference. 

I learned this lesson dramatically when over forty years ago, I put forth the theory of multiple intelligences (often abbreviated as MI theory). Extensive research in a number of disciplines had convinced me of what seemed to be a seemingly reasonable conclusion: The psychometric view of intelligence—whatever its empirical virtues and convenience—is far too narrow. It fails to encompass the range of human abilities, gifts, and talents that have been valued all over the globe across the millennia. 

Yet, even decades later, the bulk of the psychometric community still embraces the concept of a single intelligence—captured accurately by a single instrument—and steadfastly refuses to countenance alternative formulations about human cognition and intellectual breadth. This is due, I think, to the convenience of the IQ test, the continuing widespread use of the singular term “intelligence”, and the vested interests of test-makers and test-users. (Perhaps if I had created seven or eight tests, they would now constitute the consensual-conventional wisdom.)

Thirty years ago, my colleagues and I embarked on a comparable journey. Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi, William Damon, and I sought to ascertain the key components of good work. We asked: What does it mean to carry out work—over the course of a lifetime—that would be held in high esteem by knowledgeable contemporaries? Through substantial empirical research as well as considerable reflection and interchange with knowledgeable colleagues, we eventually identified the three principal components of Good Work:

It’s carried out with high competence—It is Excellent

It is deeply involving and meaningful for the practitioner—It is Engaging

It seeks to discern and live up to the highest moral standards—It is Ethical

We’ve captured this formulation visually via the triple helix of the Three Es.

While our research efforts focused primarily on the realm of work, my colleagues and I have proposed that the role of good citizen can be similarly delineated. What does it mean to be a good citizen of one’s community—say, locally and nationally? Meritorious good citizens are cognizant of the major rules and regulations of their community, they care enough to become and remain involved in the relevant political processes, and to complete the picture, they strive to carry out their roles in an ethical manner.

Components of Good Citizenship

As I write, in the spring of 2025, all of this seems far less clear than it was in 2005, when my colleagues and I first proposed this scheme, or in 2015, when we began to contemplate what it means to be a good citizen.

To be Specific

My colleagues and I blithely assumed that workers and citizens would be living in a reasonably democratic society. For the purposes of our research, we focused primarily on the United States. But we could easily have had in mind workers and citizens of Western Europe, and many other regions of the world—from Canada to Japan to Costa Rica.

Not, to be sure, that these societies would have concurred about the precise characteristics of a good worker or a good citizen—far from it. The ideal lawyer or barrister is not the same in the United States, England, or France—let alone Japan or Indonesia. Nor, for that matter, are the governments of these three societies interchangeable—in several ways, Australia conceives of citizenship differently from Germany or Mexico. But in broadest brush strokes, it’s assumed across these societies that the life of the worker is governed principally by the codes of that profession and it’s not unduly influenced by the current features and instantiations of executive, judicial, or legislative branches.

By the same token, whatever the differences in the legal codes with respect to voting, taxation, and other publicly known (and legally revisable) processes—it’s assumed that civic virtues (and vices) can be delineated and observed—and that their realization or their violation can be recognized, rewarded, and/or sanctioned.

Historical exercise

Mao Zedong posters at celebration of the Communist revolution (1949) / AP

If I’d been asked about what it meant to be a good citizen or a good worker in Nazi Germany, Stalinist Russia, or Maoist China (in the height—or depth—of the Cultural Revolution), I would have been stymied! And coming out of my cerebral fog, I would have had to admit that I had stumbled into a “category error”. How could one be a good doctor, if one were enjoined not to treat—or even ordered to torture or murder—a Jew in Nazi Germany? How could one be a good journalist in Maoist China, when all kinds of topics and postures were strictly off limits? Or to shift to the civic realm, what does it mean to vote when the elections are fixed, or to follow the law when it changes irregularly and capriciously, and the decision to punish occurs ex cathedra—not after proper adjudication by independent authorities.

Virtually impossible even to conceptualize! Under such circumstances, it involves a huge stretch even contemplating Good Work or Good Citizenship. Fortunately, at the time of this writing in April 2025, we do not quite face such a quagmire in the United States or in most other developed societies. 

And yet! At this hour, the Federal Government of the United States, as well as national governments in countries like Hungary or Argentina, are questioning long-held assumptions—and even widespread consensus—about what it means to carry out Good Work or Good Citizenship. As citizens of such nations, we are being naïve or even derelict if we simply assume that our long-standing assumptions about work and civic participation will necessarily prevail and endure.

Daniel, Richard, and Jamie Susskind on AI discussion panel / WJR

Ironically, this issue first entered my consciousness a decade ago, when I encountered the writings of members of the remarkable Susskind family in Britain. Daniel, Richard, and Jamie Susskind all foresaw a time when many decisions that had long been made via deliberation among human beings would increasingly be executed—with seeming authority—by computational systems. And while these three scholars were reasonably confident that the computational systems would preserve the fundamental values of pre-computational times, I was much less confident that would be the case. (See my blog on the future of the professions, linked here.) Now some years later, Jamie Susskind himself has issued a warning published in the Financial Times about a society in which major decisions about human endeavors have been effectively handed over to General Intelligence Computational systems.

As I write, the threat to the Three Es of Good Work is patent. It’s perhaps most evident in the practice of journalism. At the height of the hegemony of American journalism—in the wake of the Sullivan decision by the Supreme Court (1964)—mainstream journalists were given considerable leeway in what they wrote about, whom they wrote about, and how they wrote about these matters. Today, however, the status of professional journalists is being seriously challenged by numerous pseudo-journalistic outlets that do not follow (if they are even aware of) the principal values of mainstream journalism and by governmental officials who seem determined to censor and even prosecute practitioners whose writings and reporting they happen to find objectionable.

Nor are journalists alone. The queue of vulnerable professionals grows steadily. Lawyers or law firms who take on unpopular causes are being threatened with massive lawsuits. Judges who rule against the governing party are being threatened with proceedings of impeachment. In some states, doctors who play a role in abortion or in sex-change operations can be charged with a crime, and professors who treat topics that are sensitive or take positions that go against the prevailing “conventional wisdom”—whether it be “pro” or “anti”-DEI—are subject to punitive measures and may even lose their jobs. Not to mention the threats against students, particularly if they are not citizens of the United States, or against educational institutions, whose functioning depends upon their tax-exempt status and the protection of their endowment funds.

The concept—and the reality—of worker-as-professional, as well as the concept and the reality of person-as-citizen are both hard-earned victories. We must acknowledge that those victories are never permanent and ought never simply to be assumed or presumed. Those of us who believe in and cherish these forms of “the good” must continue to support them, to sustain them, and to speak out when they appear to be vulnerable, in jeopardy, or even abandoned altogether. 

This essay confirms my commitment to do so.

REFERENCES

Gardner, H., Csikszentmihalyi, M., & Damon, W. (2001). Good work: When excellence and ethics meet. Basic Books.

Gardner, H. (Ed.). (2010). Good work: The theory in practice. Basic Books.

New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254 (1964).

Susskind, J. (2022). The digital republic: On freedom and democracy in the 21st century (First Pegasus Books cloth ed.). Pegasus Books.

Good Work, Compromised Work, Bad Work… And Ego

by Howard Gardner

In late July, I received a message from the USIA. For a brief moment, I thought it might be from the United States Information  Agency or Intelligence Agency, but it was actually from an organization that I had not heard of—The United Sigma Intelligence Association.  USIA informed me that , along with linguist Noam Chomsky and mathematician-physicist Edward  Witten, I was the winner of their annual prize. I don’t consider myself to be modest but I was astounded—and humbled—to be grouped with two of the outstanding scholars of our time.

I googled the USIA. I learned little about the organization online but noted that it had many outstanding figures as advisers—including several whom I knew personally. I wrote back to the agency and asked whether there were any requirements in connection with the award. I immediately heard from the director, saying that there were no ‘asks’—the organization hoped that my work would “inspire other talented people and help them further their love for humanity.” I notified a few organizations to which I belong that I had received this recognition and considered that the end of the matter.

In a few days I had occasion to write on several matters to my colleague and friend Steven Pinker (I entitled the e-mail “Sundry on Sunday.”)  I noted that, along with entrepreneur Jeff Bezos and historian Yuval Harari, Steve had received the USIA award the previous year.  He made light of this recognition and his role as an adviser, saying that he often agreed to lend his name to support organizations.

This past week—an unexpected twist. I had  inferred that the USIA award went only to three persons each year. But two individuals whom I also knew were informed that they had also received the USIA award for this year.  And undertaking more due diligence than I had, they had begun to wonder what was the USIA, where was it housed, how and by whom was it funded, and did it in fact issue the books, podcasts, and other forms of publicity that are mentioned on their website.  And not quickly receiving satisfactory answers, my colleagues so far have not accepted this recognition.

As someone who has studied and written about work—and particularly ‘good work’—for many years, I am left with a conundrum:

Could this be good work—in which case, the organization indeed has undertaken legitimate activities, actually makes appropriate use of its advisers, and reaches young people whom they seek to inspire?

Could this be compromised work—in which case the organization may have good intentions, and hopes to achieve its goals, but has gotten off to a slow start and exaggerated its achievements thus far?

Or is this basically a scam (aka ‘bad work’)—an effort to bring attention to an organization which is not legitimate and which may exploit well-known names in ways that are not sanctioned, not legitimate? 

From my grandson, I have subsequently learned the ‘sigma’ is often used online in a frivolous way—which did not give me confidence in this particular brand of sigma!  Perhaps we are being stigmatized!

And I have to ask myself: Did my own ego prevent me from doing the due diligence that I should have done?

---

Updated October 2021

Writing in mid October 2021, after consulting with several individuals, I know a lot more about USIA. It is clear that this is not a genuine organization in the sense that American professionals assume. The leadership is new and is not aware of how USIA has operated in the past. There is no recognized process for adding advisers or choosing award winners. What astonishes me is that new award winners are regularly added as are new advisers—I suspect that, like me, these individuals were flattered to be informed of this award and did not bother to ask probing questions. At this point, USIA is best described as a reputational Ponzi scheme.

---

Reference

https://www.amacad.org/publication/compromised-work