facebook
linkedin
XML Feeds
Politics As Usual
It's been almost a year since I posted anything new and I debated whether I really wanted this to be the topic for a new entry after so long. But here it is...
It goes against my nature to add any fuel at all to political debates (they are RARELY dialogues). As a staunch independent who sits securely in the radical center of the political spectrum, my frustration with both sides of the political arena continues to grow.
Recently, an article was shared in an email group, and the poster congratulated the author on his promotion of “systems thinking” in his article. (I found the complete article at the Huffington Post: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/george-lakoff/obama-returns-to-his-mora_b_850295.html). Granted, George Lakoff, the author of the above article is writing to a specific audience. Perhaps his aim was to appeal to his base audience and provide some sort of ‘rallying cry’ or support to his readers. Perhaps.
Maybe I've reached my own tolerance limit with the ongoing blame game. If you are inclined to keep reading, be warned I don’t address the political topics made by Lakoff at all, rather the way the political discourse continues to happen. If you are inclined to keep reading, I apologize up front for the length. I suppose I just had to get it "out of my system."
I was not as impressed with Lakoff’s application of systems thinking to support his position on Obama’s speech for two reasons: First, while he gets some aspects of systems theory right, he misses other important components of a systems view, at least in terms of considering evolutionary systems (including social systems). Second, while he uses the systems view to support his position, he completely misses out on opportunities to apply a systemic perspective to the increasing political polarity that is deepening daily in our country.
Lakoff writes:
“What is a "system?" Systems have the following properties:
Homeostasis: Stable systems are self-correcting or are correctable; they have indicators that have to stay within a certain range for the system to be stable. In an economy, there are indicators like unemployment, GDP, and so on. In global ecology, the temperature of the earth is a major indicator.”
And yet those who understand and study evolutionary systems understand that homeostasis is at best a temporary state, and continued homeostasis will lead to entropy. So an evolutionary systems perspective wouldn't promote homeostasis as the "ideal" or the "objective" of an open, living system (which, of course, includes our social, political and economic systems)
He continues:
“Progressives tend to think more readily in terms of systems than conservatives. [...] Differences in systemic thinking between progressives and conservatives can be seen in issues like global warming and financial reform. Conservatives have not recognized human causes of global warming, partly because they are systemic, not direct. When a huge snowstorm occurred in Washington DC recently, many conservatives saw it as disproving the existence of global warming -- 'How could warming cause snow?' Similarly, conservatives, thinking in terms of individual responsibility and direct causation, blamed homeowners for foreclosures on their homes, while progressives looked to systemic explanations, seeking reform in the financial system.”
What is disappointing to me in this article is not the author's politics but his apparent unwillingness or inability to apply his own ideology and philosophy to his writing. Instead, he simply reinforces the polarity and dichotomy between "left" and "right", "red" and "blue" and "conservative" and "progressive". (Where did this term "Progressive" come from as a new label for Democrats by the way?)
As a linguist, and one who has a general understanding of systems thinking, I would have expected Lakoff to use language that encourages dialogue between the parties, language that articulates the nuances and complexity of human value systems and allows for a whole continuum and constellation of beliefs, values and perspective. I know several self-identified Republicans (political affiliation) who are very "progressive," have a strong sense of systemic causation and systemic risk, who have a broad perspective and embrace a similar "moral vision" of democracy as Lakoff credits only to the "progressive Democrats." I know Democrats who have no tolerance or interest in listening to anyone they perceive as "conservative" and stereotype all Republicans as backward, unenlightened, primitive heathens. There are saints and sinners across the entire political spectrum. Lakoff instead, like almost all the bloggers, journalists, editorialists these days, does our democracy a disservice by driving further wedges and separation between “us” and “them.” He is, like many people these days, still stuck in black and white thinking which does nothing to address the dangerous polarity growing in our country.
Show me a political commentator, a journalist or broadcaster who can get both sides in a real dialogue and I may have more optimism that our democracy can evolve. The current homeostatic state of both sides using every word, every issue as "proof" of the rightness of their perspective is unsustainable. Entropy is already setting in as a result. It's time to change the feedback loops here, and quite radically.
Mary Pipher, in her book, Writing to Change the World, challenges writers to avoid the kind of polarizing language we are seeing far too often these days:
“As connectors, we want to avoid dichotomies. Black-and-white thinking in others is unlikely to be changed if we employ the same thinking ourselves. Business success and economic justice need not be opposites. Women’s rights are not anti-family. Both/and thinking connects everything and leaves room for new ideas as well.”
My challenge goes out as well to readers, not just writers. Pay attention to what you read. Look at the language. Lakoff starts his article with phrases that are less absolute: “Progressives tend to think…” and “Conservatives tend more to…” Unfortunately, by the very next paragraph, he removes his allowances for areas of gray and variance. “Conservatives have not…” and inference that all progressives think in terms of social connection and conservatives only think in terms of direct individual responsibility and causality. Poppycock.
Lakoff misses what he himself called “A Golden Opportunity” with this paragraph:
Finally, Democrats need to understand why expressing their moral views is so vital. The crucial voters in recent elections have been misleadingly called "independents," "moderates," and "the center." In reality, they are what I will call the "duals" -- people who are conservative on some issues and progressive on others, in all kinds of combinations. They have both moral systems in the neural networks of their brains, but applied to different issues. When one moral network is activated, the other is inhibited -- shut down. The more one moral network is active, the stronger it gets and the weaker the other gets. In 2008, the Obama campaign activated and strengthened the network for the progressive moral system -- and won over the duals. In 2010, the Democrats stopped talking morality and kept on talking policy, ceding morality to the conservatives, especially the Tea Party radical conservatives. In doing this, they ceded the election. Policy without an understandable moral basis loses.
The implication that those of us who can (and do) hold “dual” perspectives or a more integrated and complex perspective on moral issues somehow can only have one “moral neural network” working at any given time is just bad science and irresponsible. People hold paradox all the time, more than we often consciously observe and understand. “Talking morals” in order to “win over” the independents to “their side” just completely misses the opportunity to find and appreciate shared values that can serve as the foundation for real dialogue. We should be striving to acknowledge, embrace and applaud the ability to create new solutions and approaches to difficult problems across perspectives. Lakoff’s language demonstrates a very non-systemic “win/lose” paradigm and we can only evolve as a democracy through win/win thinking.
As a linguist, Lakoff himself notes that “Linguists have discovered that every language studied has direct causation in its grammar, but no language has systemic causation in its grammar. Systemic causation is a harder concept and has to be learned either through socialization or education.”
This is a real linguistic understanding that can have a positive impact on our public discourse and day-to-day conversations. Let’s all of us make a resolution to pay attention and notice this type of “either/or” thinking and carefully consider how we can start using language that encourages “both/and” thinking. Our language has a direct causation, Lakoff agrees. Our words influence our thinking directly. Our thinking influences our behavior, our behavior changes our culture. So let’s choose words carefully, and challenge each other to do the same.
Mary Pipher suggests the same challenge: "Whereas writers of propaganda encourage readers to accept certain answers, writers who want to transform their readers encourage the asking of questions. Propaganda invites passive agreement; change writing invites original thought, openheartedness and engagement.”
We are all “change agents.” We share our ideas and perspectives in our day to day interactions with our families, peers, co-workers, friends, social networks. Our words have impact within our own individual spheres of influence. What we say, what we post on our social network sites, the kinds of jokes and editorials we forward to our friends in email have the potential to either further polarize or invite engagement. I challenge us all to make a commitment to engagement.
Permalink
It’s hard to believe it’s been 12 years since the death of John Denver. Harder still to believe it’s been over fifteen years since Pat and I found ourselves on the Windstar Foundation property in Old Snowmass Colorado (John co-founded the Windstar Foundation with Tom Crum in 1976). We both remember a déjà-vu-like visceral feeling of prescience the first time we walked up to the Windstar building… there was something about this unplanned trip that would change the direction of our lives. We knew it then.