SOME REFLECTIONS

This blog has been going on for some time.  And it has had a central purpose – to promote federation theory.  For what?  To guide educators in their choice of content in the subject matter, civics.  Such an effort, to whatever influence it might have, causes its author reason to reflect.  This posting reports on such a reflection.

          Actually, there are two reflections.  One, it occurs to the writer that all this talk of encouraging an ideal-based view of government and politics might be considered “pie in the sky” talk (or writing).  This is despite the fact this writer has been very straight forward in describing this construct as idealistic.

This is not, exclusively, in terms of what exists, not even of what might exist, but as an espoused aspiration of what, in terms of government and politics, perfection might look like.  After all, the Constitution uses that sort of language:  “… to form a more perfect union.”  Federation theory, which this blog has argued had a lot to do with the Constitution’s purposes, is not meant to guide political science research; and not to be a basis for legalistic argument – although in another context it could be used for either of these purposes.

No, here instead it is used to assist in socializing students in the political culture of the nation as it is and in how it should be.  In turn, these purposes are considered as being very important.  The blog dedicates a lot of space to indicating what happens or is enabled to happen when school instruction is deficient in these endeavors. 

This blog has provided evidence that there exists among the populous a deficient level of political knowledge, of skills in acquiring political knowledge, a general disinterest in government and in being engaged in politics, uncivil behavior, and high levels of criminality as compared to other nations.  All this points to a deficient civics education program.  And within this deficiency, the blog has further identified an element of that instruction that is central to the problem.  That is, the adoption of the natural rights perspective in choosing content for civics courses of study.

          And this leads the writer to the second reflection:  can’t a curriculum that adopts the natural rights construct be equally idealistic?  By its very nature, natural rights diminishes being idealistic.  Its closest approach to being so is that it tends to romanticize the individual – the John Wayne image out there attempting – and in the movies, succeeding – taming the environment.  The environment, be it the natural one or the social one, is depicted as hostile in various ways and degrees.

          Natural environments can be extreme in terms of weather, geological features, or distances one needs to transverse.  Social environments are often pictured as prejudicial, backward, ignorant, or enemies of change.  On a more recent bent, the social also includes unreasonable and oppressive bureaucracies, especially those housed in government departments either within state capitals or within the national government. 

Of course, federation theory shares a concern over governmental control when it comes to local matters.  Yet, liberated federalism tempers this concern with the realization there is a need to face global forces, often run by officials, ironically well-ensconced in natural rights views.  Yes, they believe in a form of corporatism, but they rail against government intrusion.  These can be officials of global organizations such as transnational corporations. 

The truth is, more and more of a citizen’s daily concerns are affected by these mega entities.  But it is argued here that federation theory, with its concern emanating from its view of regulated equality, is more able to address it than a view that acts as if all entities enjoy equal condition, equal standing before the law.  And in that distinction between how the two constructs treats this issue of equality, federation theory is in a more “real” space.

So then, is federation theory too idealistic?  One in which a student population would be left adrift in a view of government and politics that simply does not exist and in one leaving them without enough of the truth for them to be able to function in what is real.  This writer, of course, does not agree with this characterization. 

He sees it as an avenue to take a cold look at the truth and judge it against a life-sustaining view of what that truth should be.  It understands that in too many cases the truth isn’t what it should be, but it holds out hope that it can be made right in the way ideals do for those who hold them.

Is the reader beyond such a view; too enveloped in what is and unable to waste time in such fancy sentiments?  Here is a way to tell, by asking:  does the film, It’s a Wonderful Life,[1] seem to be too schmaltzy?  To the degree the reader sees that movie as a bunch of niceties that one thinks about at Christmas time – because “tis the season” – but has little to say about everyday life, then, yes, federation theory is probably a waste of time.[2]  Unless, that reader has at least a smudge of doubt over such a judgement, then this blog is of little use.

But, if there is that doubt or if that movie has something to say on July 4^th, then the reader is in fact open to considering federation theory as a more useful way to define civics education.  It is for them that this blog is meant to affect.  This writer doesn’t know what more needs to happen – or is he scarred to consider what more needs to happen? – for one to see what is deficient in this very important process.

The process is:  how schools teach what the nation’s government is and how its politics is practiced.  He sees that, in addition to these concerns, an educator, a parent, or the community needs to ask:  what its government should be and how its politics should be practiced.

---

[1] Frank Capra (director/producer), It’s a Wonderful Life (Liberty Films, 1946).

[2] Perhaps an account of American life as is portrayed on the HBO production, The Sopranos as analyzed on the documentary study, America in Primetime, viewed December 24, 2017, on MSNBC, is seen as more useful.

CONCERNS REGARDING CULTURE (part 2)

This posting picks up on what the last one started, a report on a set of concerns and related questions one can ask about an organization and its culture when devising a plan to institute meaningful change.  That previous posting looked at three concerns, the first three of six concerns, offered by Lawrence E. Harrison.[1] 

His effort is aimed at addressing national cultures and their function in determining whether lesser developed countries are successful or not in modernizing their political and economic efforts.  The posting took those ideas and applied them to the challenge of instituting organizational change.  In so doing, the posting identified three aspects of an organization that are deemed as useful in planning change.

The three aspects are:  the typology of existing values and attitudes among the participants of an organization, understanding of how cultural values and attitudes affect stated goals, and how the held values and attitudes relate to the institutions of an organization.  If the reader missed that posting, he/she is encouraged to look it up.  For this posting, its time to move on to the last three concerns.

The fourth concern is how the organization transmits its values and attitudes.  This is a socialization concern.  It is important when considering change since a meaningful change will call on participants to favorably align their values and attitudes with what the change promotes in terms of behaviors and other organizational aspects.  In the main, what is important is whether the socialization processes are effective. 

Chances are there are deficiencies in how an organization meets this function.  When that is the case, the change agent needs to ask:  what can be done to improve the socializing processes?  These agents, to varying degrees, must depend on the organization’s established modes of training and socializing not only new recruits, but its veteran participants as well. 

In addition, change agents should gain an understanding of what organizational assets exist that assist in transmission efforts.  Once identified, how does one improve them or bolster them?  If there is a general deficiency in this area, how does one change these elements or “fix” them so they are, in effect, true assets relative to this concern?  Of course, if this is the case, it augments what needs to be changed making the challenge even more daunting.

The next concern is over how an organization measures values and attitudes.  This shifts one’s view to a more quantitative issue, although there are qualitative ways to measure values and attitudes.  What is usually done to conduct this introspection, is for the human relations people to administer a survey instrument asking people how they feel about different aspects of the organization. 

Surely the reader at one time another has taken one of these.  Oftentimes, the questions ask the respondent to characterize a statement – a description or a sentiment – in which they indicate how much they agree with it or disagree with it.  The options usually range from strongly agree – agree – don’t care – disagree – strongly disagree. 

The respondent usually indicates their feeling by choosing a number that corresponds to the various levels (like 1 to 5).  This lends itself to statistical analysis and assumes that if one person indicates a 4, for example, that roughly equates to someone else indicating a 4.

There are also instruments that ask for open ended answers.  Here there might be a statistical method to gauge what the respondents are indicating in their written responses, but more often answers are qualitatively analyzed.  Some organizational official reads the answers and interprets them as to what the respondents feel about what is being asked.

This writer is not an expert on this type of concern, but generally feels that for the most part these different ways of tapping and measuring participant opinions and feelings are legitimate ways.  To the degree they are, they provide a change agent useful information.  A lot of thought should be used in designing and implementing these instruments.  The object is to get accurate – as opposed to favorable – sentiments held by those who are the subjects of a change effort.

The last of the six concerns is assessing how well ongoing change efforts, within the organization, are doing in terms of values and attitudes.  And this leads one to ask:  how unsettled is this organization?  And one does not need to be upset with any level of dysfunction.  A word of warning is in order.

When one writes about change, as this blog has done from time to time, a reader might assume the writer is prone to favor change.  In the case of this blog, that is not true.  This writer favors and sees value in a stable environment.  Change, given its challenge and its disruptive quality, should only be sought when the need for it is deeply believed and felt. 

That is, it is determined that some aspect of an organization is seriously undermining the purpose of the organization – of why it exists.  Short of that, the organization should just be about what it does through the normal avenues it has established or has been granted.

Take the school system’s effort in civics education.  This blog has promoted a serious change to that curriculum.  This is not offered off-handedly.  This blog has dedicated a lot space in making the claim that the current status quo is seriously undermining what this writer believes civics education should be doing.  Here is not the place to re-state that argument, but to just cite it as an example of when a change effort is legitimate.

The other aspect of this concern is whether those change efforts are effective or not.  This calls on evaluation and any change effort needs to have, as part of its processes, an evaluation component.  Organizational evaluation is a prominent issue of concern among organizational scholars.

That component should be sophisticated enough to include steps like identifying the change’s objectives, its intermediate accomplishments (often called milestones), the steps that are designed to accomplish those intermediate accomplishments, and all this needs to identify qualitative levels of success or failure.  This in turn points to both terminal evaluation (did the process succeed or not?) and formative evaluation (is the effort getting there?).

And with that, Harrison’s suggested concerns over culture, be it national or organizational, is done.  Future postings will look at other elements of culture and how it indeed matters.

---

[1] Lawrence E. Harrison, “Introduction:  Why Culture Matters,” in Culture Matters:  How Values Shape Human Progress, ed. Lawrence E. Harrison (New York, NY:  Basic Books, 2000), xvii-xxxiv. 

CONCERNS REGARDING CULTURE (part 1)

Culture is a collective idea in that it encompasses a lot of various elements of one’s daily life.  More generally, it is often analyzed against other factors to explain why a society – or segments of a society – acts as it does.  Yet, certain theoretical approaches, among them critical theory, give this factor, culture, short shrift.  Other factors, like economic class divisions or geographic conditions, are more likely highlighted by those theorists or researchers. 

But as the title, Culture Matters,[1] of his edited book infers, Lawrence E. Harrison makes the case that not only does it matter, but it needs to be accounted for when considering change or development.  He describes how when trying to understand the lack of development in certain areas of the world, cultural conditions need to be studied and included in the mix of factors an analyst considers.

This writer wants to extend that notion a bit.  Not only are societies so affected by culture, but so are its businesses, neighborhood organizations, social clubs, non-profit organizations, and, of particular concern to this blog, schools.  All a society’s organizations, albeit to a less inclusive degree, have their own respective cultures.  These, in turn, reflect the societal culture, but have their own distinguishing elements.

The reader is reminded that one of the topics this blog has addressed is change.  While societal culture is more encompassing and helps one understand why a people behaves as it does, an organizational culture does the same thing within its more limited extent. 

If an organization wants to institute change of any significance, its culture surely needs to be considered.  And any question one would ask of a societal culture, with some revision, one can ask of an organizational culture.  By so asking, the implementation of change is made possible.

Harrison offers six concerns and accompanying questions that can guide social scientists to investigate why certain nations are able to advance – by modern standards – and some are not.  This posting shares some of these concerns, leaving the rest for the next posting.

The first concern Harrison entitles typology.  That is, he is looking at those sentiments – in the form of values and attitudes – that either assist or detract from the development of democratic institutions and economic practices that lead nations to develop modern economies.  Are there, at the organizational level, similar, fundamental values and attitudes that allow for organizational change?

This writer believes that there is.  If he is right, what are those questions?  The first question is:  what are the prevailing, relevant values and attitudes held by the subjects of an organization that can be judged to affect a change effort?  Once identified, a second question is asked:  are the sentiments helpful or counterproductive? 

Here, a change agent uses reasonable standards to determine on which side of that divide a given sentiment falls.  But the concern is then further extended to determine:  how strongly are these sentiments held?  These questions – all three of them – are asked early in a change effort.  The concern, therefore, is to identify and gauge these sentiments, but a bit more is suggested here. 

Once identified, to gauge them, a change agent needs to develop an empathetic understanding of how these sentiments affect the people being subjected to the change effort and the resulting changes.  Therefore, his/her concern is not merely a matter of asking these questions, but to develop an empathy or a compassion for what is being revealed. 

Why?  Often, these values and attitudes and, more likely, their strength, is not consciously known by the subject.  These sentiments at times – when they’re engaged – pop up and can readily determine subsequent behavior.[2]  This condition, in other contexts, has been amply covered in this blog.  As in those previous references, the point is that this factor makes change very difficult.  Beyond that, for a change agent to be successful, he/she needs to deal with it in a humane way.

This situation calls on change agents to devise honest but subtle ways to solicit the information.  They call on a level of trust that is not necessarily shared in any given social grouping.  This must be worked upon by establishing a history of honest exchanges.  It takes time and sincerity.

The second concern Harrison addresses is developing an understanding of how cultural values and attitudes affect stated goals and this is a more nuanced concern.  It is beyond the question of what are the sentiments people hold or of how strong they are.  The concern here is the qualitative aspect of how they influence people’s perceptions and dispositions.  This takes on more of a narrative quality.

For example, this writer in his maturing years – and up to this day – was affected by the relationship between his mother and father.  It was a bit rocky, to say the least.  But if someone were to have engaged the writer and tried to have steered him in one direction or another, that change agent would have probably had to feel how that relationship affected him at critical times. 

For example, how it made him look at authority or how secured he would feel given a proposed change and his role in that change.  This is not shared as a complaint or a “woe is me” account, it is what many people might share to explain their behavior – assuming they are conscious of the effects such earlier experiences have. 

Here, to get at such insight, a bit of story-telling would probably be necessary.  Those are elicited to acquire a qualitative understanding from where the subject is coming.  And to add to the challenge, many times such past experiences and their related feelings are not shared readily.

Harrison’s next concern, and the last one treated in this posting, is how the held values and attitudes relate to the institutions that exist within a society or an organization.  Here the focus shifts from the individual subject to the society or, in terms of what is being highlighted here, the organization.  In other words, the question becomes:  how are things done here – the organization – and how does this proposed change affect that? 

Are the existing ways well-established?  Are they supported, relied upon, cherished?  Or, are they disliked, detested, or are people just indifferent toward them?  Again, these can be feelings held – or their strength are held – at a subconscious or unconscious level.  Inquiry into these concerns can be the subject of conversations, surveys, experimental experiences, or “what if” questioning.

This concern should be part of a formative evaluation regimen as the change effort progresses by asking:  how are the institutions holding up?  Are necessary practices and modes of behavior changing – especially at times when no one is taking note?  Are the roles within the institutional arrangements changing; are status arrangements changing; and so on?

This posting will end here.  Harrison’s concerns might seem a bit obvious, to some, but what might be obvious to an interested party is always enhanced by a reputable source seeing it the same way.  Harrison is such a source.  The next posting will complete Harrison’s six areas of concern.

---

[1] Lawrence E. Harrison, “Introduction:  Why Culture Matters,” in Culture Matters:  How Values Shape Human Progress, ed. Lawrence E. Harrison (New York, NY:  Basic Books, 2000), xvii-xxxiv. 

[2] For example, Timothy D. Wilson, “The Social Psychology Narrative – Or – What Is Social Psychology, Anyway?” in    Thinking: The New Science of Decision-Making, Problem-Solving, and Prediction, ed. John Brockman (New York, NY:  Harper Perennial, 2013), 99-114.

BEING EFFICIENT AND/OR MORAL?

Here’s an unpleasant memory for most:  the last time standing on a long line waiting to be served or allowed to pass some obstacle.  While waiting, does one think he/she is engaged in a moral challenge?  According to Michael J. Sandel,[1] there is a morality angle to one’s discomfort. 

          What lines?  It seems like modern life is offering up more and more of them.  Of course, there are traffic lines, lines at the TSA security setups at the airport, lines at cafeteria dining facilities, lines at the supermarket, sometimes lines to place your order at fast-food outlets, etc.  Sandel reports that such lines, according to economists, are examples of market failures.  They are inefficient – people on those lines are wasting time and, if the line finds a person in a car, for example, there is the waste of gas, clean air, engine proficiency, and the like.

          In short, this inefficiency, in its various forms, is simply a market not functioning as it should.  What is happening is that to eliminate the lines one only needs to up the price of whatever people are waiting for, be it a hamburger or being “inspected” at a TSA line.  Actually, this latter case demonstrates how this type of inefficiency can be minimized.

          In this approach, TSA with the cooperation of the airlines has instituted a way to allow certain passengers to be pre-cleared allowing these passengers to, in effect, jump the line (some call it the “TSA pre-line”).  Economically, the effective element of this strategy is that those who are willing to pay for this pre-clearance are given this preferred treatment. 

More generally, the existence of lines can be eliminated or minimized if a pricing mechanism is set up so that those who value not standing in a line can pay to avoid that line.  This also helps non-payers since, by eliminating the payers, there are less people on line.  But are there problems with this approach?  And if so, is there a moral angle to those problems?

One problem is that the TSA is a government agency providing a governmental service.  As such, all citizens and through legal extension all legal residents have a right to equal treatment.  After all, the service is payed by everyone’s tax money and the Constitution guarantees equal treatment.  So, any process that treats some in a preferred way, even if the paying process by which the preference is determined is open to all, is questionable.  The law or process should not advantage some over others.  At least not in the opinion of this writer – but he is not a constitutional lawyer.

Another problem is that if this type of approach in handling lines is generally instituted, as is the want of some policy-makers, a moral concern does arise.  It takes one away from a moral perspective of “first come, first served” sensibility to one that holds “he/she, who will pay, pays to avoid the line.”  Or, as most scarce goods and services are rationed, that rationing would now rely on a price mechanism, not a timing mechanism.

And last, the concern is over the availability of a needed service or good – at times life-sustaining service or good – to those who can’t pay the price or pay it under undue hardship.  Is there a moral obligation by society to make those types of goods and services – from housing and food to medical care or education – is available to all regardless of their ability to pay?  The mental construct promoted by this blog, federation theory, holds that there is such an obligation – a moral obligation.  In some cases, such rationing means some will not attain the asset.

This last question is currently a concern being debated.  Under the rubric of education, does everyone have an equal right to have access to fast internet service?  This is in terms of the consumer and the provider of information online.  There is a new policy – as of yesterday – that places such access under a threat; that is, the current regulatory board – the Federal Communication Commission (FCC) – that polices this service, yesterday eliminated what is known as “net neutrality.” 

Without this neutrality, large corporations, such as Comcast, can pay to jump the traffic lines on the web “highway.”  By doing so, these companies can sell advantaged payers, such as Facebook, access that allows for faster internet interface than those who cannot pay such fees.  The latter could and probably will be relatively small, startup businesses or other providers of information not able to pay.  This renders these deep-pocket payers having a significant upper-hand in getting their online offerings to the consumer. 

There are technicalities involved with this debate that this writer is not knowledgeable enough to totally explain.  But he knows enough to know that it is a “line” problem and one, that up till now, had to do with what is considered a public service (like TSA) or utility.  As such, it was to be – under Obama supported provision – provided to all equally – hence the title, net neutrality.  The writer also knows that the overall concern is that by changing the relevant regulations, equal treatment will be potentially affected.

Here is another development concerning lines.  One place that lines are noticeable is doctors’ offices.  According to Sandel, some are suggesting that a service to avoid such waits in waiting rooms is to establish a concierge type service.  For example, what if a person is willing to pay from $1,500 to $25,000 a year so that on a 24 hour-a-day basis that person has a medical doctor available?  No waiting. 

Is this moral?  It assigns, to some degree, a limited asset, medical care, away from general access, lowering the supply for those who cannot or will not pay this premium.  With a lower supply, the price of medical care rises for those patients.  Health care is an essential, and such a plan raises a moral concern. 

Is this concierge service more efficient?  Yes, but other problems are either created, enlarged, and/or maintained and, if such a service becomes common place, it can even become potentially fatal for some.

But that is getting a bit more tragic than is the case today.  So, a more humorist take on this topic is a good way to end this posting.  As talented humorists can find humor in such aspects of life.  This posting leaves the reader with such an account. 

It is Sandel describing a Larry David’s plan to avoid a line problem and it has to do with highway traffic.  In the 1980s, fast lanes were introduced.  Those “car pool” lanes were to encourage car pooling and to help ease traffic in most other lanes of a given highway such as an interstate.

Here is the description:

Solo drivers caught using the car pool lanes faced hefty fines.  Some put blow-up dolls in the passenger seat in hopes of fooling the highway patrol.  In an episode of the television comedy Curb Your Enthusiasm, Larry David comes up with an ingenious way of buying access to the carpool lane:  faced with heavy freeway traffic on route to an LA Dodgers baseball game, he hires a prostitute – not to have sex but to ride in his car on the way to the stadium.  Sure enough, the quick ride in the carpool lane gets him there in time for the first pitch.[2]

Does this represent a moral concern?  David’s character is by-passing the intent of the law, but he gets points for innovation.  Never say there is no humor in all cases of “immorality,”

---

[1] Michael J. Sandel, What Money Can’t Buy:  The Moral Limits of Markets (New York, NY:  Farrar, Straus, and Giroux, 2012).

[2] Ibid., 20.

I “KNOW” WHAT I KNOW?

This blog has addressed the challenge of trying to change curriculum, especially if the change is transformative.  This seemed appropriate since what the basic message of this blog is:  civics education needs to make such a change.  It needs to shift from a curriculum that counts on the natural rights construct to guide its content to one that counts on federation theory.

          The postings that are dedicated to this topic of change, transcend the civics education angle and attempt to look at change and change theory for their own sake.  A recurring message of those postings is to point out how difficult it is to institute change that sticks. 

One of the insights that those postings share is how people in general, as they interact with their environment, develop theories concerning what that environment is and what it should be.  That is, people develop theories-in-use and espoused theories.

This blog has reported on this distinction; and as way of a reminder, the difference between these two mental representations is that what is espoused corresponds with the ideals a person holds to be proper and preferable.  It is those values and goals one holds as desirable at a time removed from the actual implementation of those values and goals.

In distinction to that is a theory-in-use.  This other theory is the dominant beliefs one holds when it comes time to act.  That is, it consists of one’s view of reality and one’s, including oftentimes unaccounted for, emotions.[1] Chris Argyris and Donald A. Shon present a model for organizational planning and action. In that model, they distinguish between “espoused theory” and “theory-in-use.”

For example, let us say an organization decides to perform an activity that will be held initially with some disfavor by the pupil, client, or customer population the organization serves. Those promoting the activity believe that in the long run this action will be best for their charges despite the short-term annoyances or even engendered hatred for what is going to be implemented. The staff commits to it and each person knows that there will be a negative response. Yet, as soon as the negativity springs up, the staff caves-in and gives up on the plan. 

This surrender does not necessarily mean the staff now thinks the plan is deficient or offending their espoused theories.  It might just be that the realities bring to the fore parts of their theories-in-use they were not aware they had – how much they perceive themselves as likable people.  They didn’t initially lie to their bosses or even to themselves.  They were, at the time of the planning, simply unaware of what was going to be psychologically at stake.

Consequently, the change does not take place.  This is but one source or type of challenge a planned change effort can face.  It is one that in its character has to do with dealing with individuals as opposed to a group or collective.  Each participant has his/her own theories.  A social scientist who provides a helpful bit of theory and research in this area is Timothy D. Wilson.[2] 

He, with Dick Nisbett, have conducted a series of experiments concerning how people opt to make stuff up when confronted with someone asking them why they behaved the way they did, especially if the behavior is generally considered unsavory and/or disappointing.  And the thing is, they believe what they say.  One might determine that this phenomenon demonstrates people who are disengaged from reality.  But it is something else.  It is that these people are tapping into their unconscious thoughts and feelings and, as such, into something of which they are unaware.

Wilson has hit upon how people do not react to their objective environment, but instead to the mental constructs they create.  Wilson describes these constructs as narratives or stories.  This is taking theories-in-use and espoused theories a step further.  Not only are people formulating a theory, but they have a whole story to back it up, to it give context, and its own sense of logic.  When confronted with an incongruent bit of information, the information is apt to being mentally changed or massaged to fit the story.

While skirting reality can lead to an array of problems – especially if the person is unaware of how what is believed is at variance with the truth.  For example, the contextual story can be dysfunctional in how it matches up to reality.  If a person harbors a set of such stories, life can be a succession of dysfunctional choices and these can be topped off with rationalizations that further leads the person to even more hurtful environments as others react negatively. 

Of course, people vary to the degree this is applicable.  In the extreme, these environments will likely include social settings that simply become antagonistic as others sense both the dysfunction and the perceived duplicity the person seems to be practicing.  Often what results are interactions where the person is somewhat bewildered why he/she is so disliked or not fitting in or not being able to arrive at satisfying results. 

Again, that is the extreme, but in general, one seems to run into this kind of reaction every so often.  In less exaggerated cases, Wilson points out a person can “edit” the story so that the story can survive, albeit changed – to at least the degree that allows the person to get over the immediate, obvious disconnect and be able to meet the demands of the moment.

But – and this is this writer’s concern – there is nothing to prevent the person, once the challenge passes, to reestablish the original story.  Generally, it seems, stories have a reason for their existence and it could be those reasons reassert themselves in a person’s life.  And as in the original case, in an unconscious fashion.

What a change agent can derive from this research is, one, that such stories exist in people minds and, two, that they can be addressed and acted upon.  In terms of the first point, change agents need, early on, to become aware of the stories with which he/she will deal.  There are ways to draw them out.  And for the second point, there are strategies that a change agent can conduct that will help the subject become aware of what lurks in his/her mind and is problematic in this fashion.

Wilson provides an example.  In dealing with freshman students in college, he devised a strategy that had them reflect on the story they held as to what it meant to be an effective student – a story that was not accurate and leading not only to less success in their transition to college, but affecting the students’ self-esteem.  Wilson’s group devised a 30-minute intervention that disrupted their theory-in-use.

Here is Wilson’s description:

[W]e gave [students] some facts and some testimonials from other students that suggested that their problems might have a different cause:  namely that it’s hard to learn the ropes in college at first, but that people do better as the college years go on, when they learn to adjust and to study differently than they did in high school and so on.

          This little message that maybe it’s not me, it’s the situation I’m in, and that that can change, seemed to alter people’s stories in ways that had dramatic effects down the road.  Namely, people who got this message, as compared to a control group that did not, got better grades over the next couple of years and were less likely to drop out of college.[3]

This is a very, very hopeful development in terms of implementing change, especially if one considers there has been many subsequent findings to further support this possible approach to implementing change.  It, for one thing, suggests how a change agent should come to know their subjects even before any change plan is drawn up.

---

 [1] Chris Argyris and Donald A. Shon, “Evaluating Theories in Action,” in The Planning of Change, Fourth Edition, eds. Warren G. Bennis, Kenneth D. Benne, and Robert Chin (New York, NY: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1985), 108-117.

[2] Timothy D. Wilson, “The Social Psychology Narrative – Or – What Is Social Psychology, Anyway?” in    Thinking: The New Science of Decision-Making, Problem-Solving, and Prediction, ed. John Brockman (New York, NY:  Harper Perennial, 2013), 99-114.

[3] Ibid., 102.

A NON-ROD SPARING ZONE

This blog has made the point that people are wired to think in terms of fairness (see for example “Fair Is Fair,” June 21, 2016).  But, according to George Lakoff,[1] this thinking plays some sort of shell game.  That is, since fairness is a purely human construct – there is no structural object, in reality, that constitutes fairness – the mind has to symbolically represent the notion of fairness.  To do this, it deals in metaphors.

          The metaphor of a ledger is more than likely to be the one employed to give this totally made-up[2] notion some concreteness.  If one person does an unjust harm to another, the metaphor visualizes this as the person owing the victim some pay-back to balance the ledger.  But the utilization of metaphors does not end there. 

Lakoff goes on the provide two other powerful metaphors that further conceptualizes how fairness or rightness is cognitively and emotionally handled by most people.  The great divide in our politics can be understood, in part, by analyzing these two opposing metaphors.  That would be the “strict father morality” metaphor and the “nurturant parent morality” metaphor. 

This posting will briefly describe the strict father metaphor and, in a later posting, will look at the nurturant parent metaphor.  But first a word on how another metaphor has been used in this blog.  That would be the metaphor of a partnership.

As the title of this blog’s promoted construct indicates, federation theory calls on citizens to be federated with each other.  What does that mean?  A simple, but useful, way to conceptualize this notion is to use the metaphor of a partnership.  In this view, the US Constitution is a grand agreement – agreed upon in perpetuity – in which the citizens of this nation have entered into a partnership. 

Concretely, that means that each citizen defines fellow citizens as sharing their interests.  Yes, they can compete against each other, they can set themselves as opponents to each other, but in the long-run, their interests are in common.  What is good for one, in the long-run, is good for all and what is good for all, in the long-run, is good for each.  Can one hear the Three Musketeers?  In the long-run, they cannot be enemies.

But in common parlance, one seldom hears people use this metaphor.  Instead, one is much more likely to hear in public venues – TV or newspapers – the metaphor of a family.  We are told we are the “American family.”  Sorry, this writer does not feel that metaphor.  He has a family, he loves his family, he even likes most members of his extended family.  But the guy who lives down the street is not a member of that family either in fact or metaphorically.

The problem with the family metaphor is that it naturally leads to this notion of authority being based on some natural plan.  People are born into a family – not much choice there – and is subject to authority not of his/her making.  Voila, there is father and mother and they are in charge.  There is no voting them in nor voting them out. 

Fine, in the grand scheme of things all this makes sense, but when such an arrangement is used to define a more encompassing arrangement, a not so good idea is promulgated.  That is, the nation’s leaders are imbued with a basis of authority beyond a citizen’s control.  That is an undemocratic, unrepublican idea.

It is difficult enough to maintain authority under reasonable restraints.  And yet, the metaphor of a family – a homey type of image – makes this even more difficult.  After reviewing the first of the prevailing metaphors, the strict father metaphor, one can further sense how using the family metaphor is counterproductive.

What follows is Lakoff’s take on this strict father metaphor.  And it is an involved one; one with a sort of narrative behind it.  The story begins with setting the stage; that is, people live in a dangerous world.  It has always been dangerous and it will always be dangerous.  To meet this danger, individuals must be disciplined to survive.  They must count on themselves to keep the wolf from the door. 

And that door is both metaphorically out there, but can also be inside the person.  As a matter of fact, the most basic threats emanate from weaknesses in people’s makeups.  The answer to those weaknesses is discipline and no agent can instill that discipline more effectively than a strict parent – usually visualized as the strict father.  Of course, in some families, it is the strict mother that fits the bill.

And the chief tool in this process is punishment when the child falls short in exhibiting the necessary discipline and what he/she should do.  Oh, there’s room for nurturing – visualized as the mother’s role – but, under two provisions that place meaningful parameters around such parenting.

One, nurturing is never coddling and, two, never trumps punishment when an offense is detected.  And whether the punishment or nurturing is being administered, the aim is to instill self-reliance.  Progress is defined as the development of a person who does not have to count on anyone for survival – in reality, an impossible aim.  But the parenting encourages one to opt for this fantasy.

It further encourages a view that failure reflects some personality or otherwise character flaw.  It means that the person did not, in his/her formative years, receive appropriate and sufficient punishment – usually of the corporal variety – and now the real world should administer what was missed in an earlier time.

It is in this light that one can view two recent quotes by prominent politicians.  One was by Senator Chuck Grassley when he commented on the tax bill provision that does away with the estate tax (a tax that is charged against estates of over $5.45 million and levied on the inheritors of the estate).  He said, “I think having the estate tax recognizes the people that are investing as opposed to those that are just spending every darn penny they have, whether it’s on booze or women or movies.”

The other telling quote is by Senator Orrin Hatch, who quite honestly was speaking about the discontinuance of a program – CHIP which helps provide health care for children in low income households – he helped get enacted, but now is willing to vote it out of existence.  He said, “I have a rough time wanting to spend billions and billions of dollars to help people who won’t help themselves, won’t lift a finger and expect the federal government to do everything.”  Both of these quotes reek of a strict father mentality.

The metaphor relies on a view, Lakoff calls, “folk behaviorism.”  That is, it is based on a simple version of the behavioral principles that people will pursue those things that offer rewards and avoid those thing that accrue punishments.  The idea for success is simply to become programed to doing the good, moral thing and programed to avoid those that are bad, evil.  The process entails overcoming inherent drives – like the seven deadly sins:  greed, lust, gluttony, envy, sloth, pride, and anger – by having the fortitude, the discipline to do so.

So, the metaphor is made up of various attributes.  They include, but not limited to, individual responsibility, self-discipline, essentialist morality (lacking any nuance), self-denial, and willingness to face hardships head-on.  Excuses for shortfalls are not well tolerated and people are to accept their fates as a reflection of their own strengths or shortcomings, at least in the main.

One can associate such a moral view with the Calvinist tradition without the aid of that tradition’s reliance on the community.  The view provides a lot of what right-wing politics assumes in their rhetoric.  It might have become impolite – poor politics – to be so forthright and blunt in espousing such a harsh set of ideas, but that should not be taken as them – strict parent biases – being tossed out with modern language.  The biases are still alive and influential.

---

[1] George Lakoff, Moral Politics:  How Liberals and Conservatives Think (Chicago, IL:  The University of Chicago Press, 2002).

[2] By using the term “made-up,” the writer is not diminishing the importance of fairness or justice.  The point is that nothing in nature can be pointed at and be identified as fairness or justice.  Fairness is an important mental construct.

A CASE STUDY IN INEQUALITY

There has been quite a bit of journalistic reporting on how segments of the American public have been short-changed as a result of the new global economy.  Recently, this blog shared the writer’s development of a unit of study suitable for an American government course.  The topic of the unit was foreign trade and the effect that trade has had on job availability in the US.  In way of understanding the current conditions of affected localities, a look at a case study helps.

          Robert Putnam offers such a case study.  In his recent book, Our Kids:  The American Dream in Crisis, he provides a short historical overview of what has happened to his childhood town, Port Clinton, Ohio.  He graduated from Port Clinton High School in 1959.  In a word, conditions in that town are very different today than back when Professor Putnam received that diploma.  This posting outlines these changes as Putnam reports them.

          For the subsequent decade after his graduation, those who remained in Port Clinton could expect, especially among the male graduates, finding well-paying jobs, getting married, and leading lower-middle class lives.  This was to come to an end.  “… Port Clinton turns out to be a poster child for the changes that have swept across America in the last several decades.”[1]

          This is a small town, currently it has a population of about 6,000.  In previous years, those that coincided with Putnam’s graduation, the town’s economy was dependent on manufacturing, mostly, and, to a lesser degree, mining.  Then, the big Standard Products factory began cutting back.  It originally hired about 1,000 factory workers.  These were, to that point, steady, well-paying jobs.  During the seventies the number of jobs was reduced in half and the cuts kept on coming until 1993 when the factory closed its doors for good.

          Today the plant site is noted for EPA posters warning people to stay clear due to hazardous materials.  In addition, there is no longer an Army base and gypsum mines.  In 1965, manufacturing provided 55% of jobs in Port Clinton’s county, Ottawa County.  In 1995, it accounted for 25% of the jobs and since then that amount has fallen further.  With this backdrop, the town’s economy missed enjoying the subsequent good times the nation has experienced – it’s economic numbers have fallen below national averages – and the hard times have been harder.

          Currently, the area’s real wages are 25% below national averages.  The average Ottawa worker, in real terms, is paid 16% less than his/her predecessor of the early 1970s.  And, of course, population has decreased in these years.  It fell 17% in the twenty years following the nineties.  For those who still live there, chances are they have longer and longer commutes since locally the jobs are not there.  Probably most noted for those who return to visit is the empty store fronts in the central business district.

          When a local community experiences this type of shocks, they will also experience an array of consequences in many different social domains.  For example, since the 1980s, the area has been hit by a 300% increase in juvenile delinquency rates.  As already indicated, there is a population drain, but more specifically, that drain is predominately among the thirty-something age cohorts.  Its depletion just about doubled through those years.  Single-parent households jumped from 10% of all households in 1970 to 20% in 2010. 

          Other rates that increased dramatically have been in divorce rates, unwed births, and child poverty.  But what is hiding these realities in Port Clinton is another and an opposite trend.  While lesser educated workers have experienced the above woes, the global economy has created an economy with an enhanced, new upper, well-educated class. 

And for them, Port Clinton offers beautiful areas for establishing their homesteads.  The views of Lake Erie provide gorgeous vistas.  These professionals, who make their livings in offices located in Columbus or Cleveland, can commute to Port Clinton away from their urban worksites.  So, what one finds in Port Clinton, a town that was nearly equitable when it came to wealth and income distribution, is now a population with a heavily skewed distribution – a population with a relatively few, extensively well-off inhabitants and a majority with significantly low incomes.

The story of Port Clinton is replicated all along the formally manufacturing areas of the country.  A lot of those areas are in the Mid-west.  States like Ohio, Indiana, Michigan, Illinois, and the rest.  Socially and economically, these developments are having a very real effect on the politics of the nation.  Further degrees of mal-distribution of wealth and income threaten to seriously disrupt the domestic tranquility of the nation.  For its own sake, the nation’s attention needs to be focused on these realities.

---

[1] Robert Putnam, Our Kids:  The American Dream in Crisis (New York, NY:  Simon and Schuster, 2015), 20.