Oikeiosis in Municipal IT Projects

As a technical lead for a large, multi-year municipal GeoIT project, I connect an external development team with multiple internal city departments and IT operators. The main challenge is balancing the diverse and often conflicting technical and legal requirements from all stakeholders, making it impossible to satisfy everyone. I believe Stoic philosophy, particularly the concept of Oikeiosis, offers the right framework for making decisions oriented towards the common good and for guiding one’s actions in this complex environment, an approach that requires continuous practical application.

The importance of inner attitude

Oikeiosis is a central concept in Stoic philosophy. It involves understanding one’s own personality, the physical world with the people around us, and the relationship between ourselves and this world. Subsequently, this understanding should be put into practice through morally considered action. We can achieve this by engaging in inner discourse and self-reflection. This leads us to form an adequate attitude towards the environment and develop our personal moral character. Anthony Long underscores the importance of inner attitude: 

“Stoic oikeiosis identifies selfhood (i.e. the perspective we today call subjective) as the foundation of any animal’s life. By its reflexive formulation, “self-belonging” characterises the disposition of care and ownership that an animal has in relation to itself” (Long, 1996, p. 253). 

From within, we can develop an outwardly effective attitude. Through this, we can build a relationship with the physical world and the people around us. 

“Oikeiosis, the ‘appropriation’ or ‘affective relationship’ with which we are naturally endowed, has two faces or aspects – towards oneself and towards other human beings” (Long, 1996, p. 172). 

This attitude between us and other human beings will determine our impulses for every action “with the result that we perform whatever is appropriate with unfailing consistency” (Inwood, 2003, p. 243-244). This rational attitude will lead to rational action, and this action will pursue the ultimate goal of contributing to the common good. 

“The interests of society, however, and its common bonds will be best conserved, if kindness be shown to each individual in proportion to the closeness of his relationship.” (Cicero, 1913, I-50). 

Thus, the initial inner attitude is important. A classic example is when a project member considers a system function or a specific requirement essential, believing it requires no effort, while in reality, it is complex and can sometimes be implemented via other means. This often leads to delicate discussions because of differing perspectives and knowledge backgrounds. For this reason, I distance myself from my first impression of any situation, because: 

“Men are disturbed not by things, but by the views which they take of things.” (Epictetus, 2018, 5).

Practical application

Underlying this is an important Stoic principle with which the Enchiridion begins. It concerns the distinction between what is within our power and what is not. 

“There are things which are within our power, and there are things which are beyond our power. Within our power are opinion, aim, desire, aversion, and, in one word, whatever affairs are our own. Beyond our power are body, property, reputation, office, and, in one word, whatever are not properly our own affairs.” (Epictetus, 2018, 1). 

This distinction is found in many writings of Epictetus’s Discourses. We also find similar statements in Marcus Aurelius’ Meditations: 

“It would be wrong for anything to stand between you and attaining goodness—as a rational being and a citizen. Anything at all: the applause of the crowd, high office, wealth, or self-indulgence. All of them might seem to be compatible with it—for a while. But suddenly they control us and sweep us away.” (Aurelius, 2011, III-6). 

Many objective factors might justify insisting on one’s own perspective. In large projects, it is common for resources and financial means to be difficult to estimate over a longer period, necessitating coordinated planning as early as possible, which must then be strictly implemented. However, experience shows that people often add subjective interpretations and value judgments, thereby tearing the matter out of its objective context. Thus, I often ask myself: “How can I grasp this distinction between subject and object in reality and make it visible in practice?” Stoicism offers a profound engagement with logic, physics, and ethics for this purpose. The practical quintessence of this triad is divided by Epictetus in the Discourses as follows: 

“There are three things in which a person ought to exercise himself who would be wise and good. The first concerns the desires and the aversions, that a man may not fail to get what he desires, and that he may not fall into that which he does not desire [Physics]. The second concerns the movements (toward) and the movements from an object, and generally in doing what a man ought to do, that he may act according to order, to reason, and not carelessly [Ethics]. The third thing concerns freedom from deception and rashness in judgement, and generally it concerns the assents [Logic].” (Epictetus, 2018, III, 2, 1-2). 

Stoic Logic

We use this quintessence in analyzing the following exemplary situation. I find myself in a multi-hour discussion or workshop where the requirements and structure of a software are being debated. A project group member who is not IT-savvy takes up a lot of space to present their requirements, trying at every opportunity to point out the importance of their work and asserting that the IT implementation actually involves no great effort, can be quickly implemented, and is ultimately not worth discussing. They suggest it would be best to deal with fundamental questions instead, even though these have already been discussed and agreed upon more than enough within the group. 

The reaction to such a statement often happens very quickly and can vary. One can get upset with the person, ignore the statement, correct the facts with justifications, defend oneself, etc. Stoicism, in its philosophical tradition, does not offer an absolute dogma that one reaction or another is correct. Instead, it offers this triad as an approach to how one can receive, interpret, and act upon the situation with reason. This is entirely within our power.

First, this situation triggers initial emotions in us. Here, we think of the discipline of assent (Logic) and examine our impressions. We might feel attacked by the statement because we add our interpretation to the actual statement. We equate our field of activity with our personality, and if our work is spoken of poorly, then our personality is spoken of poorly. Furthermore, classifying the statement as something bad is solely our subjective interpretation and not an objective view. We try to interpret the person’s motivation behind the statement, although they might simply be having a bad day or struggling with the usual financial scarcity of resources in their own team. The spectrum of reasons is vast. For this reason, one should not immediately assent to emotions but first take a step back and consider the matter as it is. The Stoics argue that we are rational beings and have the ability to actively use our reason. This means not adding subjective interpretation in that moment and examining the situation objectively. This inner dialogue helps us not to be guided by initial emotions but enables a rational engagement with them. A.A. Long aptly summarizes this idea of logic: 

“Logic in Stoicism may perhaps be best described as the sciences of rational discourse.” (Long, 1986, p.122). 

Stoic Physics

Moreover, the person’s statements might indeed be a disapproval of one’s own field of activity. However, one’s job is not what constitutes one’s personality or personal character. This concerns the discipline of desire and aversion (Physics), and thus the question: what is truly good or bad? Work, along with wealth, status, health, etc., belongs to the class of indifferent things mentioned earlier. Things to strive for are virtues: wisdom, justice, moderation, and courage. These are good by nature, and their opposites are bad. For the Stoics, one must strive for these virtues, and it is much more about how one behaves in the situation and whether one uses one’s own reason for one’s actions, contributing to virtue. The field of logic teaches us to conduct argumentative discourse, for example, the distinction between objective fact and subjective opinion. But what constitutes the objective and the subjective? 

A core aspect of Stoic thinking that helps us here is found in understanding desire and what is truly valuable. The world (Nature) is intelligently and rationally structured, and every human being is equally a part of it and thus also rational (human nature). We come from this world and have a certain amount of free play. This is how the Stoics justify the relationship between the world and our capacity for reason: 

“They believed that the essential attribute of human nature, rationality, is derived from and an integral part of the active principle in the universe.” (Long, 1986, p.165). 

It is reasonable and natural to strive for the good in life as a human being. However, the good lies exclusively in the aforementioned virtues and the rational development of moral character. There is nothing good in health alone, for one can be healthy but behave badly towards people and the environment. One can be rich but have built wealth on exploitation and environmental destruction. One can have high regard at work but feed one’s contrived ego with it daily. People often strive for the accumulation of money or the attainment of a position in society, not because these things are good in themselves, but because they are defined as supposedly good by society. The Roman Emperor Marcus Aurelius breaks down these things deemed good, and even partly his imperial status, into their physical components and treats them with disdain in many passages of his Meditations: 

“When you have savouries and fine dishes set before you, you will gain an idea of their nature if you tell yourself that this is the corpse of a fish, and that the corpse of a bird or a pig; or again, the fine Falernian wine is merely grape-juice, and this purple robe some sheep’s wool dipped in the blood of a shellfish[…]” (Aurelius, 2011, VI-13). 

His view is by no means pessimistic, but rather scientific, as Marcus Aurelius breaks nature down into its physical components without any judgment. Moreover, he speaks elsewhere of the beauty of nature in smaller things, like the accidental cracking of bread during baking or 

the ripeness of fruits (Aurelius, 2011, III-2). From this, it becomes clear that things themselves do not define a meaning of good and bad, but our attitude towards them does. Pierre Hadot summarizes this conclusion well in The Inner Citadel: 

“In other words, the Stoic definition of good and evil has as its consequence the total transformation of one’s vision of the world, as it strips objects and events of the false values which people have the habit of attributing to them, and which prevent them from seeing reality in its nudity” (Hadot, 1998, p. 109-110). 

Ultimately, it is much more about the subjectively morally good or bad “how” than about the objectively value-neutral “what.” In our example situation, the “what” is the (potentially disruptive) statement by the colleague. The “how” is my internally processed and externally displayed reaction to it, which can be guided by Stoic principles. One can fall back on this thought in any inner dialogue and ultimately realize that one is merely in a meeting where people are talking about the structure of a system and that some of them are not even interested. One could argue that this is a passive attitude towards work, where it doesn’t matter at all whether a system is developed or not. Why should I make an effort? Such meetings happen every day somewhere in the world, and every person is active in some way. Furthermore, constructs or technological systems were developed in the past and will change completely in the future. However, this attitude is by no means passive but goal-oriented, because we have broken down the object into its physical nature, like Marcus Aurelius, and grasped it objectively. 

Subsequently, one can set the inner attitude for action and, for the time being, accept the situation. Today, acceptance often implies the thought: “Accept that circumstances are as they are, and therefore do nothing, because it’s pointless anyway.” This is wrong. You can accept that the circumstances around you can be as they are, but by no means that your 

own action depends on them. You can accept and then do what you have resolved to do. It is goal-oriented and much more active than passive because you are independent of circumstances and open to outcomes, and you do not prevent your action. The goal is to do the right thing on the way to the goal. With our mindset, we set the impulse for a morally good or bad action. 

Stoic Ethics

Our human nature consists not only of rational thought and the recognition that we are part of this world, but also that we live in a community with other human beings, recognize them, and strive for good social behavior towards them (=Oikeiosis). This is a large area of ethics, concerned with the development of one’s own moral character and the alignment of one’s own actions with the four Stoic virtues. This development also consists in contributing to society and seeing the interests of other people as our own interests: 

“His [Cicero’s] eloquent description of this shared investment is that what is of interest to one individual is “identical” to what is of interest to other people, and therefore is the collective interest of an entire population.” (Johncock, 2023, p. 93). 

Applied to our example situation, this means that we should actively participate in human work and not passively accept things. Active participation in the meeting and the discussion on the development of a common IT system is in the interest of the group. Furthermore, the later use of the system extends beyond the project group and thus affects a larger circle of people. Moreover, the temporal aspect reinforces our present action. The past cannot be undone, and the future is uncertain and influenced by many factors. So, we can only act in this one moment, and it depends on whether we want to contribute to the common good with our action or prefer to be guided by indifferent things and direct our inner attitude towards them. 

However, the question of the right and, above all, a good way of behaving in reaction to the statement in the meeting remains open. A right and good way of behaving according to the Stoics is one that is in harmony with nature. This means it should be aligned with the virtues, contribute to our moral development, and serve the common good. 

The discipline of action (Ethics) concerns the question: what action is, for example, just, or how do I act virtuously and in a common-good-oriented manner? I can either act justly towards the person by letting them continue to speak, simply to give them more space, as they may have a need for more say. Equally, I can act justly towards the whole group by verbally intervening against the person to clearly show that they are not the only one in the room and that every group member might want to make a statement. Certainly, both can be described as just depending on the situation. The decisive factor is the sole true inner motivation of the action, with its alignment towards virtue. Neither the fact nor the outcome of the situation is important. For one could grant the person more space to speak, but the inner motivation might be fear because this person is a superior. One could verbally intervene and offer all members the opportunity for discussion, but the inner motivation might merely be egoistic self-positioning within the group. Both would be considered non-Stoic, even anti-Stoic, because the inner motivation is not virtue, even if the factual situation and the outcome are the same. 

The driving force is the conscientious implementation of system development, aiming to make meetings more efficient and shorter, which benefits both the system and public funds. For workshops, I create a plan with clarifying questions and desired outcomes to react purposefully to discussions; the plan remains open to outcomes yet results-oriented. My concern is less about the comfort of the participants and more about the conscientious execution of my role as technical lead. The Roman senator Cato the Younger serves as my inspiration for a principled stance and my responsibility towards the public. Amidst the political corruption and moral decay of the Roman Republic, Cato the Younger embodied Stoic principles through his unwavering integrity and disciplined life. He consciously chose hardship and asceticism, sharing the privations of his soldiers and rejecting material excess, to stand as a moral bulwark against the rising autocracy and corruption of figures like Julius Caesar. Cicero describes Cato’s attitude very aptly: 

“But Cato had been endowed by nature with an austerity beyond belief, and he himself had strengthened it by unswerving consistency and had remained ever true to his purpose and fixed resolve; and it was for him to die rather than to look upon the face of a tyrant.” (Cicero, 1913, I-112). 

Conclusion

With my thoughts outlined above, I have shown how important the inner attitude is and how it relates to the three areas of Stoic philosophy and the concept of Oikeiosis. In summary, the following analytical framework can be derived from these areas of Stoic philosophy and applied in practice. I can set the right impulse for my actions with my own attitude. For this, I use the logical framework for inner discussion. I objectively assess the situation and examine my desires. Subsequently, I align my actions with the common good and carry them out. Ultimately, it is important that the action is based on a well-considered process and not on initial emotions. Seneca also confirms this approach with his formula: 

“The first assigns to each thing its proper value and determines what it is worth. This is an extremely useful investigation, for what is as needful as putting the price on things? The second deals with impulse, and the third with actions. That is to say, the objectives of ethics are first, to enable you to judge what each thing is worth; second, to enable you to entertain a well-adjusted and controlled impulse with respect to them; and third, to enable you to achieve harmony between your impulse and your action so that you may be consistent in all your behavior.” (Seneca, 2015, 89,14). 

This framework for examining inner attitude can be universally applied to any situation. It does not matter whether one is speaking in a meeting, moderating workshops, designing a system landscape with colleagues, or performing any other task in a different field of work. Permanent examination leads to building consistent behavior and not being thrown off by external things. However, it must not remain merely at the level of mental analysis and examination. What has been theoretically developed must indeed be consistently implemented. Practice is the most important part of Stoic philosophy. If one proceeds in this way, this consistency will also become tangible. 

“The carpenter does not come and say, ‘Hear me discourse on carpentry’, but he undertakes a contract and builds a house and so shows that he has acquired the art.” (Epictetus, 2018, III, 21, 4-6).