On more than one occasion, this blog has cited Lawrence
Lessig. He, in 2011, came out with a
book that had a dire message. That is
that the nation’s republic is endangered.
“But the feeling I am talking about today is different: not that we, as a people, have lost anything of our potential, but that we, as a republic, have.”[1]
As most good writers do, he proceeds,
in his book, to provide evidence for his major argument. This posting picks up on this message. The reader might reflect: does Lessig, after these many years, still
have a point? What would indicate that
he does? After all, the nation is still
functioning, its major institutions are still operating, and social life still
progresses with a general air of cooperation.
When
this writer leaves the front door of his abode, he does not expect to meet
chaos out there. Yet, is there an
accompany air of everything not being the way they should be? And if so, isn’t that just part of
living. In the conscious decades he has
lived – from the fifties to today – each set of years seems to have had its set
of “doomsday” concerns.
The
complacency of the fifties, the rebelliousness of the sixties, the malaise of
the seventies, the “Me-ness” of the eighties and nineties, the global
challenges of the “ought” years (punctuated by the 9/11 attack), and now the
set of unprecedented politics one observes emanating from the nation’s capital
seem to be an unending movie. But is
there something more fundamental today that was pre-envisioned by Lessig at the
beginning of the current decade?
What one hears today on the media is
that the nation is having an attack on its basic institutions. Perhaps, one should give Lessig more of a
listen. He begins by citing an
institution that has been questioned all along, that of the markets. It’s not so much that the markets themselves
are corrupt, but what transpires within them is prudently questioned. At the time of Lessig’s book, a question
bandied about was: are cell phones
safe?
Americans were subject to reports
from industry studies that they were.
There were other independent studies that said they were not;
that they emitted harmful, cancer inducing “rays.” Well, with the advent of earplugs, that worry
seems to have passed. Yet, while the
controversy progressed – and what probably encouraged the industry to develop a
solution – average consumers were apt – or at least in sufficient numbers – to
believe independent studies.
Why? Well, they, the independent studies,
were likelier unaffected by the profit motive.
Afterall, the cell business by 2011 had grown to be a multi-billion-dollar
concern. People hesitant to use the
product because of independent studies would have translated into significant
loses. In addition, industry studies
were likely to be held with suspicion. If
money is at stake, people recognize that and are biased to believe those who
have no or little skin in the game over those who do.
To place more context to this, one
should consider Lessig’s words:
Across all three domains we tested,
the mere suggestion of a link between financial incentives and a particular
outcome significantly influenced the participants’ trust and confidence in the
underlying actor or institution.
Doctors’ advice was judged to be less trustworthy if the procedure they
recommended was tied to a financial incentive.
Politicians were judged to be less trustworthy if they supported a
policy consistent with the agenda of contributing lobbyists. Researchers for consumer products were judged
less trustworthy if their work was funded by an agency that had a financial
stake in the outcome. And most
surprisingly to us, these variations in the hypotheticals we presented also
significantly influenced the participants’ judgments of their own doctors,
politicians, and consumer goods. Even
the suggestion of one bad apple was enough to spoil the barrel.[2]
But, unfortunately, it is not that
simple all the time. What if one side
has no profit angle – they can call it either way with little to no financial
consequences – but they discover a relevant fact or issue that the general
population does not want to hear or if they hear, do not want to believe? Here, what Lessig says in his book, can take
on a more relevant quality. It can
gather a relevancy not only for a tendency to undermine general trust levels
among the population but to interfere with devising and implementing extremely
important policies.
And if the issue under consideration,
promises to have a one-way – i.e., unfixable – consequence(s), one can easily
understand the importance of this development.
Presently, there are various issues vying for one’s attention; all of
them important especially for those directly involved. But there is one that affects every person
not only here in the US but across the planet.
Of course, that is climate change.
Among the general population, there
has been a reluctance to accept warnings related to climate change. Was the earlier reporting by the media, that
questioned the veracity of certain institutions, undermining current warnings
or is it that a specific institution, the scientific community, is just issuing
a message average Americans do not want to hear? In this, a recent conversation with a
relative comes to mind.
Are climate and/or weather
developments indicating that there is a change in climate occurring and, if so,
is it the product of human activities?
When this topic has come up before, this relative has questioned whether
climate change is a real thing. In a
more recent conversation, his message is:
okay, it can be climate change, but any widespread fix – for example,
abandoning gasoline powered automobiles – would result in enormous, negative
consequences for millions of workers and destroy the economy.
Perhaps, that’s progress toward
accepting the dire messages the scientific community has been communicating
concerning climate. But it still does
not take in the whole story. One can,
and this writer failed to do, point out that a shift to renewable energy
sources means the creation of millions of jobs.
Net effect is unknown to this writer, but still this positive consequence
can be communicated when the issue arises. But the issue here is: why do Americans even question the legitimacy
of the scientific community?
Is it, as Lessig warned some years
ago, there is an erosion of trust over the actions and statements of the
nation’s institutions and that does reflect a dangerous development? This writer believes that there is for civics
teachers no greater issue than whether Americans are questioning their
institutions; they should address this issue in their classrooms. Of course, the first instructional aim would
be to have students know, understand, and appreciate what institutions are and
how they function in the maintenance of the republic.
A people establish institutions to
rely on established ways to accomplish societal aims and those ways, in their
manifestations, are associated with certain organizations or groupings. Some of these are within government and some
are not. The two institutions under
current attack are the press and the intelligence community. There is also the above-mentioned target, the
scientific community. These are important
institutions and they are protected by law, even constitutional law when it
comes to the press.
Yes, any human endeavor can be
improved, but when one of these entities is labelled the “enemy of the people,”
one should investigate not only the institution, but those who are issuing such
a claim. This blog avoids stating
political messages, but this issue gets at the basic notion of citizenship and
the ability to federate with the elements of the polity.
Institutions, due to their central role
in not only allowing a federalist political environment, but of maintaining any
form of legitimate governance, need to be believed and deserve to be protected. Civics classrooms should not avoid this undermining
development that offends the basic elements of a viable republic. Perhaps a way to refer to a healthy treatment
of institutions is for Americans to see them with a critical, but sanctifying eye.
[1] Lawrence
Lessig, (2011). Republic Lost: How Money
Corrupts Congress – and a Plan to Stop It (New York, NY: Twelve, 2011), 1.
[2] Ibid., 29.
Emphasis in the original.
No comments:
Post a Comment