A POWERFUL PAIR

A recurring pair of concepts this blog has utilized is theory-in-use and espoused theory.  This writer finds the accompanying distinction between these two ideas to be very useful.  The first is the working sense or visualization one has about what one is doing.  The other, an espoused theory, is what one ideally believes and feels about what one is doing.  Ideally, the two should be in sync, but, if not, at least be congruent or accommodating one another.  The writers responsible for this conceptualization are Chris Argyris and Donald A. Shon.[1]

          This distinction can be quite complex in particular cases since ideals, though not espoused at times, can be subconscious.  Despite this, these biases pop up when it’s time to decide to act in a situation.  For example, one can have buried, within one’s senses, prejudicial ideals and, when certain situations arise, such a bias can lead one to judge a person, an animal, or a thing as being responsible for some event.  That biased person jumps to that conclusion possibly unaware of what prejudice is at work – the prejudice affects how that person sees the event.

          To varying degrees of seriousness, all people fall prey to such a thing.  When it happens, it is usually prudent to attempt to identify it, engage in appropriate introspection, and either combat the prejudice or, if one finds it positive, formualate reasoned reasons to harbor such a judgement – not all prejudices are negative, unjust in their content, or counterproductive.  All of them, though, are felt without sufficient reflection; they are more like intuitive beliefs.

          But that is at the individual level.  This writer believes that this couple of concepts are so powerful one can extend them to a societal level.  That is, a people can have a common theory-in-use and a common espoused theory.  A simple example is when a people believe in equal opportunity – like one can argue Americans generally do – and yet sustain economic conditions that cannot be described as providing equal opportunity. 

The theory-in-use or one these hidden espoused theories, to some degree, diverges from this equal opportunity, espoused theory.  A lot of the nation’s history has been to seek equal opportunity, but one would be hard pressed to say the nation has arrived at that ideal.  Along the way, the nation has supported policies that have hindered achieving meaningful, equal opportunity in too many cases or among certain segments of the population.

          As with an individual, there can be reasons for that shortfall.  Some can be legitimate, others not so much.  But that is not the point being made here.  What is being pointed out is that a society’s espoused theory concerning government and politics is important to know and, if seen as legitimate and worthy of allegiance, supported.  If not, it should be combatted.

This blog has made the claim that what he has called traditional federalism was the dominant view of government and politics from the earliest colonial days all the way to the years immediately following World War II.  While not all historians agree with that assessment – some only extend it till the time of the ratification of the constitution and some feel it is still the dominant view today – what is exactly held is not that the nation’s theory-in-use was a federalist theory, but that its espoused theory was and among some, still is.

By extension, this blog’s argument is that civics education should adopt a newer version of federation theory – liberated federalism.  In so doing, its advocates do not need to measure their success in promoting it by how many people accept it as a theory-in-use, but as a generally held espoused theory.  With that in mind, how can one further conceptualize federation theory to assist such an adoption?

One of the scholars that argues that federalism is still the dominant, espoused theory, is Daniel Elazar.  He provides an analogous language to help his readers get a more concrete sense of what the function of such a theory provides.  For example, there is the following:

The Bible reminds us that every tenth generation [100 years], a new epoch begins.  During the first epoch of American history, the American people forged a unique synthesis of constitutionalism, republicanism, and democracy.  As we reflect back from the vantage point of the newly begun twelfth generation [1990s], two generations into the second epoch of American history, we are well advised to consider the character and meaning of the first.  Federalism is the glue that has tied constitutionalism, republicanism, and democracy together during the first eleven generations of American history.  Like all glue, it has the properties of flexibility and hardness in turn and, once set, tends to be invisible or at least unnoticed in the midst of the materials which it has joined together, but without the glue the materials fall apart.  Contemporary Americans have shown that they have no less concern for constitutionalism, republicanism and democracy than their forefathers.  But it often seems as if they are neglecting the glue.  If the second epoch of American history is to reflect the fulfillment of the American promise, then we will have to be as concerned with the glue as we are with the materials themselves.[2]

          This writer does not agree with this venerable scholar – a person he had the honor to meet and share a lunch.  This writer believes that the espoused theory prevalent today is natural rights.  He also attributes a lot of what seems to be unravelling in the nation’s current political environment is due to this shift. 

To be honest, the nation had in its past times unravelling conditions that took on a more strident character – probably the Civil War era makes today look like a kumbaya period.  But one is safe to say that those times were noted for the nation’s theory-in-use defying its espoused theory.  Slavery was an affront to federalism.

What makes development potentially more serious today is that current political developments are not so foreign from a natural rights construct, the current espoused theory.  So, therefore, the problem is not incongruence, but congruence.  Congruence between a theory-in-use – one that legitimizes extreme self-centered-ness[3] – and an espoused theory that turns a blind eye to the current state of affairs.

---

[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).

[2] Daniel J. Elazar, “How Federal Is the Constitution?  Thoroughly” Readings for Classes Taught by Professor Elazar (presentation materials, prepared for a National Endowment for the Humanities Institute, Steamboat Springs, Colorado, 1994), 30.

[3] Jean M. Twenge & W. Keith Campbell, W. K. The Narcissism Epidemic: Living in the Age of Entitlement (New York, NY:  Free Press, 2009).

A JACKSONIAN DUALITY

This posting, via the use of several quotes, is visiting a recurring theme on this blog.  That is that this nation had, as a dominant political, mental construct, a form of federalism, but that through the years that view was challenged by another view.  The other, which eventually became dominant, is the natural rights construct.  The evolution of how the nation went from one view to the other was a slow process, one that was noted for its back and forth progression, and started at the time when the nation was engaged in the ratification of the US Constitution.

          The first quote is one that he feels best describes and emotes the urgency the advocates of the natural rights construct feel.  It is from a film, issued during the Cold War, that narrates a bizarre tale over the “communist menace.”  The Manchurian Candidate[1] has a character that is only seen for a few minutes, he is a presidential candidate who is to be an assassination victim. 

It doesn’t work out that way, but before the shooting starts, he utters the following:  “Nor would I ask of any fellow American in defense of his freedom that which I would not gladly give myself – my life before my liberty.”[2]  In terms of political values, that describes a trump value assuming the character has the usual attachment to his life as most people do.

And why is liberty so valued?  Does it guarantee happiness, wealth, a rewarding family life, or eternal salvation?  No, but natural rights advocates hold this value at the pinnacle and perhaps that is because they see it as a precondition for any of these other results.  It doesn’t guarantee happiness, for example, but happiness is impossible without it.  That is true, in these advocates’ eyes, at least, for Americans.

This blog has pointed out that liberty itself is viewed differently today than it was seen in the nation’s early days.  In those earlier times, John Winthrop’s view of liberty, defined as the freedom to do what one should do,[3] was the common notion of liberty.  That was a Calvinist view.  Today, the nation views it as the freedom to do what one wants to do.  The earlier view can be associated with federalist thinking (although early natural rights advocates saw it similarly); the latter view is more attuned to a current natural rights view.  

This more recent sense of what liberty is, in the opinion of this writer, has led to the narcissistic levels the nation is suffering from today.[4]  Advocates, who lead responsible lives, might see the resulting problem as just being the price of liberty.  The question that is considered here as useful to ask is how and why did American political culture shift from the more obligated view of liberty – associated with federalism – to the more libertine view of today. 

This blog has identified certain historical events and developments that encouraged or helped cause this shift.  Among them was the western movement of settlers, the rise of corporations with the resulting disassociation between ownership and management, the bureaucratization of government through the Progressive movement and the New Deal that detached citizens from their government and allowing an individualism to erupt.  Another set of events can be associated with the presidency of Andrew Jackson.

According to the historian, Richard Hofstadter,[5] Jackson’s terms of office were situated at a time when entrepreneurship was experiencing a boost.  Till that time, and even after, most “businesspeople” were farmers of small farms.  Hofstadter offers a telling statistic:  only one in fifteen Americans lived in towns of 8,000 or more.  The bulk of the population lived on farms.  In the 1830s there is a sudden uptick in people starting businesses. 

Part of the debate over the national bank was due to this change.  For those who need the reminder, Jackson set upon himself to bring the national bank to an end in favor of state banks.  This was seen as more readily assisting the business startups of that time.  What should be remembered by this move – one that was very controversial – was the notion that Jackson was concerned over equal opportunity and adopted a central argument of the natural rights view.

To illustrate, the veto message Jackson issued – the one that shot down the reauthorization of the bank – reveal this natural rights perspective.  Here’s part of it:

It is to be regretted that the rich and powerful too often bend the acts of government to their selfish purposes.  Distinctions in society will always exist under every just government.  Equality of talents, of education, or of wealth cannot be produced by human institutions.  In the full enjoyment of the gifts of Heaven and the fruits of superior industry, economy, and virtue, every man is equally entitled to protection by law; but when the laws undertake to add to these natural and just advantages artificial distinctions, to make the rich richer and the potent more powerful, the humble members of society – the farmers, mechanics, and laborers – who have neither the time nor the means of securing like favors to themselves, have a right to complain of the injustice of their Government.  There are no necessary evils in government.  Its evils exist only in its abuses.  If it would confine itself to equal protection, and, as Heaven does its rain, shower its favors alike on the high and the low, the rich and the poor, it would be an unqualified blessing.[6]

It was felt here that, given the more recent attention Jackson has enjoyed since the current president has claimed Ol’ Hickory is his model for an effective president, he deserves some focus here.[7]  More to the point, one can detect both strains of influence in this quote.

          On the one hand, yes, he provides the natural rights sense of equality.  Currently, people call that equal condition and Jackson gives the standard used in this view of equality:  government should confine itself to bestowing equal treatment.  If the law says its provision affects one person one way, that law should affect all people the same way.  According to Jackson, if government kept it to that, all would be well – a very natural rights’ bias.

          But, if one looks for the reasons of this view, a more federalist view peers through.  His concerns regarding the national bank originate with an economy that was skewed so much in favor of the rich – nothing new there.  Yes, he understood that there will always be unequal distribution of income and wealth, but artificial advantages, not all caused by unequal treatment by government, needed to be addressed.  Perhaps government could be used to assist those caught at the short end of the economic stick.  This reflects a more proactive role for government.

          And one sees this when the national bank is killed, he distributes its moneyed assets to state banks that were more accommodating to the financial needs of the lower ranks.  This did not end well in that these banks were so speculative in their lending practices that the economy fell into a serious inflationary phase that later led to a depression.  But the point here is that Jackson’s calls for advancing self-interest could not escape a more fundamental federated message.

          In what way?  Federalism is about creating a sense of partnership among the citizenry.  It is not about providing a landscape for energetic citizens getting the most out of the system irrespective of what happens to the whole national community.  As stated before in this blog, strong government was not seen as an institution that provided “giveaways” to the poor, that had never happened to that time.  Strong government was an institution that was instrumental to making the rich richer.  This undermined a federal sense of a union or of a commonwealth.

          Is there any other evidence indicating this view of Jackson or of what was an ideal at the time?  To this end, here is the last quote of the posting: 

Could it really be urged that the framers of the constitution intended that our Government should become a government of brokers?  If so, then the profits of this national brokers’ shop must inure to the benefit of the whole and not to a few privileged monied capitalists to the utter rejection of the many.[8]

One more item this blog has highlighted is the difference, at the individual level, between theories-in-use and espoused theories.  This writer believes one can make the same distinction at the societal level.  When this blog claims that federalism was the dominant view of governance and politics, perhaps a more accurate statement would be, it was the dominant espoused construct.  That is, federalism was the source of its ideals.  That can no longer be claimed.

---

[1] John Frankenheimer (director), The Manchurian Candidate (United Artists, 1962).

[2] Ibid.

[3] Daniel J. Elazar, “How Federal Is the Constitution?  Thoroughly” Readings for Classes Taught by Professor Elazar (presentation materials, prepared for a National Endowment for the Humanities Institute, Steamboat Springs, Colorado, 1994).

[4] Jean M. Twenge and W. Keith Campbell, The Narcissism Epidemic: Living in the Age of Entitlement.

 [5]  Richard Hofstadter, The American Political Tradition (New York, NY:  Vintage Books, 1948).

[6] Ibid., 62. (emphasis added)

[7] Focus yes, admiration, given his history associated with the Cherokee removal and Trail of Tears, no.

[8] Ibid., 45.

HIDDEN CONSIDERATIONS

Are people rational; do they use reason especially when it comes to governance and politics?  The founders of this nation believed they are capable of it and this ability is universal.  This blog has made the argument that the mental construct, traditional federalism, served as the dominant perspective of governance and politics at the beginnings of this nation.  This belief in the capability of people to be rational and logical in their public affairs, was part of this construct. 

According to Daniel Elazar, federalism is, in part, derived from assumptions that include beliefs from the Enlightenment.[1]  George Lakoff[2] points out that central to those assumptions is the belief that people are capable of being rational[3] and that that capability is universal.  Of course, if that is the case, certain consequences will result.

That includes:  people can govern themselves; they do not have to bow to higher authorities like kings; they are equal in their use of reason; they can be governed by the same laws on an equal basis; they inherent rights and freedoms; and ultimately, democracy and individual rights are possible because they are dependent on reasoned governance.

And how can one conceptualize reasoned thinking?  Lakoff offers the following list of attributes:  it is consciously done; universally applies to all people; disembodied in that it is free from perceptions or actions; follows classical logic; is applied unemotionally; reflects neutral-values (i.e., a person can rise above one’s values); is derived from one’s interests; and views reality as logical.  Problem is, according to Lakoff, people do not reflect these thought patterns or that they are even aware that they are lacking these thought patterns. 

But any objectified view can readily see that biases, prejudices, and emotions more accurately describe a typical person’s thought patterns.  Beyond that, people can’t help it – that’s how people are “wired.” In addition, these modes of thinking are contrary to how reason and emotions were thought off back in the 18^th-Century – that is, as opposites.  Contrary to that characterization, it is currently believed (known) that emotions are part of reasoned thought. 

As evidence of this last point:  people who have damaged portions of the brain, responsible for emotions, cannot think rationally.  Why?  Without emotions, one cannot judge over what concerns are worthy enough to expend the effort to think rationally.  This blog has cited the work of Daniel Kahneman and his explanation on reflective thinking – he calls System 2 thinking[4] – of which reasoning is an example.  He points out that that type of thinking takes effort.

Consequently, the mind needs to be motivated to activate itself to engage in that sort of thinking.  Hence, one can see the central role that emotions play in activating reasoned thought.  Any interest a person might have – be it a conscious interest or an economic interest – begins with an emotion.  Emotions provide the feelings for what is valued. 

Think about it; if one doesn’t have emotions, all things are equally unimportant.  Hence, there is nothing out there about which one is motivated to exert the energy to think rationally.  As Lakoff writes, “[t]hey cannot feel what decisions will make them – or anyone else – happy or unhappy, satisfied or anxious.”[5]

Another observation by cognitive psychologists is that most of “reasoned” thought is unconscious!  Here, Lakoff informs his readers that reason isn’t what the Enlightenment envisioned.  It is not reflective, it is mostly reflexive.  It also accounts for 98% of a person’s thoughts.  That’s right, people, for the most part, don’t consciously know what they are thinking. 

And that shortfall has consequences.  For one, it determines what one finds moral and what one finds immoral.  That is, most moral calculations, in everyday interactions or reactions to what’s happening, are reflexive and are based on subconscious moral determinations. 

Rhetoric, on the part of anyone who is trying to sell something, like politicians, and is couched in an understanding of this subconscious state of thinking is apt to be more successful than rhetoric based on “reasoned” arguments.  That is why messaging and its utilized language is so important in understanding what works in political discourse.

This subconscious and reflexive thinking is the natural way the brain operates.  But it is argued here, and this why societies spend so much on education (or should), a person can be taught to be more proactive in his/her thinking.  It takes effort, as just indicated, but it is possible. 

What one cannot assume is that people, to further their own interests, will readily engage in reasoning.  This blog will revisit Lakoff’s ideas in the future and further look at this aspect of political thinking.  It further argues for a newer version of federalist thought – one that takes a more realistic view of an Enlightenment principle.[6]

---

[1] Daniel J. Elazar, “How Federal Is the Constitution?  Thoroughly” Readings for Classes Taught by Professor Elazar (presentation materials, prepared for a National Endowment for the Humanities Institute, Steamboat Springs, Colorado, 1994).

 [2] George Lakoff, The Political Mind:  Why You Can’t Understand 21^st-Century American Politics with an 18^th-Century Brain (New York, NY:  Viking, 2008).

[3] To be clear, reasonable does not necessarily include a person using reason or logic.  To be rational does.  But the language is further confusing in that to ascribe to rationalism is not to use reason.  Huh?  What the Enlightenment argued was that people are able to use reason and logic and, therefore, they are capable of being rational.

[4] Daniel Kahneman, Thinking, Fast, and Slow, (New York, NY:  Farrar, Straus, and Giroux, 2011).

[5] George Lakoff, The Political Mind:  Why You Can’t Understand 21^st-Century American Politics with an 18^th-Century Brain, 8.

[6] For the benefit of any first-time reader of this blog, the blog is dedicated to advance a newer version of federalism – a version the writer calls liberated federalism.

FACE TO FACE

This writer in the past has admitted to a bias.  To quote:  “… we, as humans, are wired to distrust the other, the foreign, the ‘not us.’ …  This proclivity might have been useful in our ancient past when resources were scarce and boundaries between peoples were necessary for survival.”[1]  Whether this is exactly true, this writer doesn’t know – he previously used the word belief, not knowledge, to describe his bias.  It puts into question the notion that prejudices are taught.

          He also made the point that the nature of modern life is one of higher interdependence and any fear of foreign cultures, nations, peoples, and other elements abroad can be – and usually are – disruptive and counterproductive.  To boot, it is unjust in that it is prejudicial.  Of course, a viable civics education program would need to address this bias and question its reliability.

Good civics instruction should, by extension, encourage beliefs and actions reflecting functional levels of tolerance if not downright affection for varied modes of living.  Therefore, to the extent that we express or act upon our natural fears and related prejudices about the other, the foreign, the “not like us,” [the Them], we are failing to provide good civics instruction.[2]

          But all this doesn’t add much information concerning the original bias.  Well, since those words were written, this writer has become aware of a trove of research that bolster this suspicion.  One of its contributors, Susan Fiske, has done both experimental work and theoretical work that zeroes-in on this area of concern.

          She has found that if pictures of alternate-race-faces are shown to babies, there is a brain reaction noted through imagery that does not happen when same-race photos are used.  And the parts of the brain that are “fired up” are parts that do not engage in reflective thought.  They are parts that are associated with reflexive reactions. 

Here is how the bio-scientist, Robert M. Sapolsky, summarizes it:

The core of that thought is Susan Fiske’s demonstration that automatic other-race-face amygdala responses can be undone when subjects think of that face as belonging to a person, not a Them.  The ability to individuate even monolithic and deindividuated monsters can be remarkable.[3]

Hence, civics education has a definite responsibility to broaden students’ perceptions of the Us to include more of the Them.

          One last word:  apparently the 2016 election results reflected more of a Us vs. Them concern than what is usually cited, economic anxiety.  This ran across other factors such as education or geographic location.  More specifically, the factor that provided the most power in determining voting was anti-black animus.[4]   This is not an editorial comment on the election, but it bolsters the claim that this factor does provide a definite civic concern and one that civics education should address.

---

[1] See posting, “Knowledge, Beliefs, and Ignorance,” January 19, 2016.

[2] Ibid.

[3] Robert M. Sapolsky, Behave:  The Biology of Humans at Our Best and Worst (New York, NY:  Penguin Press, 2017), 628. (emphasis in the original)  Could this be a sub text in the story, Beauty and the Beast, or the current feature film, The Shape of Water?

[4] Sean McElwee and Jason McDaniel, “Economic Anxiety Didn’t Make People Vote Trump, Racism Did,” The Nation, May 8, 2017, accessed January 8, 2018, https://www.thenation.com/article/economic-anxiety-didnt-make-people-vote-trump-racism-did/.

BE AS I AM, OR NOT

Revolutions can be thought of as vast movements that engulf millions of people either directly or as a result of their effects.  There are great studies, mostly historical, that describe and explain such events.  But if one is a practitioner, someone on the ground, dealing not with millions, but that person in front of him/her, then the focus varies widely.  The question is not how to get millions to revolt, but how does one encourage that one person to strive for change.

          It is at that more modest level that this writer sees the efforts of Paolo Freire[1] having its most meaningful effect.  In his classic work, Pedagogy of the Oppressed, he writes of the humanism of the oppressed.  In short, he writes of how the oppressed need to find their humanity.  This is akin to the federalist concern for the integrity and respect of all within the notion of a partnership.  So, from a federalist point of view, Freire’s contribution has value.

          This reflects the overall judgement that liberated federalism can be considered as a compromise between the ideas that compose the natural rights view and those that compose critical theory.  Freire’s writings and public action – he was, during his life, a public official in Brazil – was well ensconced within the leftist/critical theory school of thought.  He was a critical theorist and his writings are considered venerably within that body of work of educational scholarship. 

He is also thought of highly by other scholars.  In this posting the focus is on his accounting of the humanism of those slotted in the lower income groups, especially in lesser-developed nations.  The particularly useful insight Freire shares can be summarized with a quote:  “The oppressed, having internalized the image of the oppressor and adopted his guidelines, are fearful of freedom.  Freedom would require them to eject this image and replace it with autonomy and responsibility.”[2]

This, in order to establish a more just, socioeconomic arrangement, needs to be heeded.  That is, at the center of an exploitive arrangements are the constructed views of those who are being oppressed.  They have taken on, to a great degree subconsciously, the expressed values of the oppressors – they think they want what the oppressors have.  But it is not their true natures to want these things because they entail a dehumanizing reality.

And this leads one to ask:  What does it mean to say one has a clear sense of his/her humanity?  Part of the problem is that not only do the oppressed adopt the oppressors’ views over this fundamental concern, they are, by so doing, hampered in being able to question these views, much less to change them.

 Further, in Freire’s view, the oppressors are equally dehumanized – his/her views are equally at odds with a reasonable estimation of what constitutes humanity.  As such, they are equally victimized by this inability to find and sustain their humanity.

And to add to the challenge, it is among the oppressors, Freire claims, that the challenge is beyond possible remedy.  To attempt changing their views, at least as an initial step in seeking socioeconomic change, is a waste of time.  That is, change can only be accomplished, albeit with difficulty, among the oppressed. 

This leads to the above concern:  in dealing with the oppressed person, how does one find a way for the oppressed to begin viewing the nature of the problem?  The aim is to have that person reject the notion that he/she should desire to become an oppressor for success is usually seen in those terms.  Instead, that person needs to be about learning who he/she really is. 

          This situation betrays a divided person, a person who harbors an internal tension between what is his/her internal nature and what has been artificially instilled, that takes on a consciously held view of what or who he/she is supposed to be.  Freire’s language can be surmised by this short quote:  “As long as they [the oppressed] live in the duality in which to be is to be like, and to be like is to be like the oppressor, this contribution [change] is impossible.”[3]

So, to right the dehumanized perspective calls for introspection.  That includes determining his/her internal desires, talents, interests that are not socialized by externally imposed desires and interests in the form of flashy materialism.  Instead, it entails an understanding of how he/she could function and contribute to the genuine richness of their lives and the lives of those around them.

But the language Freire uses goes on; he, in his account, begins to refer to solidarity.  Such a term is grating to a federalist.   Perhaps this can serve as a boundary between the two constructed views.  Solidarity is associated with collectivism.[4]  The whole – the system wide reality – under this perspective overtakes the understanding of justice and undermines a concern for the individual person – at least that is a concern of this writer.  A future posting will address this difference.

Yes, these are matters of degree, but can be important when one shifts from lofty thinking to actual policy decisions.  Another language distinction this writer finds useful is the difference between two images:  that of a comrade and that of a partner.  Solidarity is linked to the former; community is linked to the latter.  But in either case, Freire is a useful source.  He sheds light on this essential element of change:  for the person, who actually lives the change, to find his/her humanity.

---

[1] Paulo Freire, Pedagogy of the Oppressed (New York, NY:  Continuum Publishing Company, 1999).

[2] Ibid., 29.

[3] Ibid., 30. (emphases in the original)

[4] This in no way is a negative comment on the Solidarity movement that served to help overthrow the communist rule in Poland.

THE OL’ ONE-TWO

As this blog notes the new year – hoping all are having a happy one – its writer observes certain things don’t change.  One is how people choose emotion over reason all the time.  More specifically, how emotions determine valuing.  Values can be based on reasons, but emotions are inescapable.  At some point, unless a person can be a Spock from Star Trek, his/her emotions play a role in forming values – what one wants.  For most, that role is either central or exclusive.

As a matter of fact, people take emotional appeals as reasoned argument, if not all the time, most of the time.  To point, a philosopher from the 1700s made quite a name for himself by just pointing out a distinction.  The “is” is not the “ought.”  Sentiments are not observations of reality.  Thank you, David Hume for pointing out what should have been obvious; yet it took that long in human history to nail that point down. 

And yet, most humans continue to think and act as if the point has not been made.  And one prominent area of concern, that one witnesses this convolution, is the area of politics.  A more recent writer, Drew Westen, argues, quite convincingly, that political rhetoric, to be successful, needs to appeal to emotions.  He offers this example:  when talking to a religious audience, one should say something like:  “… no one is suggesting we give special rights to anyone, only treat all Americans as equal under the law – that we treat all Americans as God’s children.”[1]

In this example, by adding “as God’s children,” the speaker provides the context that is emotionally meaningful to a religious person.  The only thing this writer would suggest is the speaker should start with that phrase for that audience.  So, the target is someone or something close to the listeners:  themselves (usually relating to an economic factor), their family, or some entity that has emotional attachment (a hometown, a favored sports team, a historical linkage or heritage like religion).

At the time of his book being written, Westen claims the Republican Party and its candidates were better at this type of messaging than the Democrats.  Hence, at that time, the GOP was meeting with greater success at least at the national level.  He further claims that the Democrats exercised an irrational commitment to rationality.  This might still be the case.  They indulge in reasoned arguments while Republicans aim for the gut.

But such an irrationality leads one to think in rational terms.  This extends to how one views the voter.  The pol, who adopts such an approach, tends to project this approach.  He/she tends to see the voter as a calculating agent.  And when trying to see where that voter stands, where the voters’ calculations leave them on policies and issues, a pol determines this by looking at the polls.  The pol will use rational arguments in their rhetoric to meet where the voters are.

But there is the rub, as the polling shifts, the pol comes across as shifting, waffling, pandering, and lacking principled conviction.  This tends to be highly unattractive to the voter.  While, if the pol first determines the emotional positions of large blocks of voters and then determines a message(s) that is appealing to those positions (“… all of God’s children”), he/she is much less likely to shift, waffle, or be seen as pandering.  It is, therefore, more appealing.

Is it more honest?  This general strategy is not, necessarily, more or less truthful.  It is, though, more effective.  It is one of several strategic elements comprising effective messaging.  These parties hire professionals who should know how to message and, really, one side should not be so much better than the other.

In addition to aiming for some emotional target there are other “rule-of-thumb” practices a pol should do.  It is also important to either establish what becomes the consensus opinion during a given news cycle – get out fast with a response to an emotionally charged event – or, if failing that, be able to issue an equally emotional response to mitigate the damage the initial message has inflicted. 

In addition, a contextual aspect of these strategic elements is one that pols should keep in mind:  office holders are opinion-makers.  As such, they have a potential advantage.  Unless the issue is big enough, strident enough, important enough, voters will give the elected leader, who issues messages effectively, the benefit of the doubt. 

Unfortunately, the typical voter does not give the day-to-day conflicts, news headlines, or punditry much attention.  So, the pol, who can capture the overall message – its emotional punch or, more likely, its emotional jab – wins the day.  An elected official, who gets the sufficient number of jabs and punches in, wins the match and gets re-elected.

---

[1] Drew Westen, The Political Brain:  The Role of Emotions in Deciding the Fate of the Nation (New York, NY:  PublicAffairs, 2007), 15.  (emphasis in the original)

LET’EM ROLL

Previously, this blog reported on the work of Carol S. Dweck[1] – see for example the posting, “Intelligence Is Changeable,” July 8, 2016.  She introduced this writer to two views of intelligence:  the entity and the incremental.  From how they are described, this writer sees this distinction as important when considering what is an appropriate mindset when considering a federalist approach to civic affairs.

The entity view sees intelligence as a fairly static quality of one’s mental capacities – what is known and, more importantly, how one learns is not subject to meaningful change.  You’re either smart or you’re not.  On the other hand, the incremental view is the opposite – it describes intelligence as malleable, willfully changeable, and dynamic.  These are mutually exclusive views.

          That previous posting made the point that the incremental view is a significantly more democratic view.  This blog, in other postings, has further indicated that Dweck’s research has shown that an incremental view is reflective of how the human mind can operate if the person has a belief in this ability to change one’s intelligence. 

This writer has made the judgement that the incremental view is more supportive of a federalist view in that it promotes an active, engaging citizenship within a person or among a population.  It also undergirds the role of consent in the formation or maintenance of a federal union.  Consent presupposes an active, evolving mental capacity to handle the unknown.  Think of all the risk, all the unknowns involved in entering a marriage – a basic federal union.

          This posting picks up on this line of thought.  It attempts to shed light on what apparently is a cultural shift of sorts.  It seems that there is a changing perception on the whole idea of taking chances.  More specifically, on taking chances regarding business activities. 

When taking a chance – as when someone starts a business – he/she is betting that his/her idea will make money.  This type of chance is always involved when one starts a business, tries a new line of work, or accepts a job at a new place.  Such an effort has an experimental or “iffy” character to it.  It might pay off or it might not; it might even cost the person a significant amount.  Hence, it’s a bet one is consenting to take. 

The popular view is that this chance-taking has become more acceptable among the population, though, on closer scrutiny there seems to be a limitation on that trend.  At least, that is what one observes when one compares this type of chancy behavior among those who belong to Generation X and those who are Millennials.  Here is what one journalist has to say about this comparison:

Every year, far more new entrepreneurs fail than succeed.  But if you aren’t one of the lucky few, don’t despair:  Failure has transformed from a source of shame into a badge of honor.  Today’s CEOs and thought leaders glorify mistakes as key stepping stones to success – a sentiment that Generation X has taken to a whole new level.  In a recent essay for the Washington Post, Silicon Valley venture capitalist Geoff Lewis uses the phrase “failure porn” to describe the eager repackaging of people’s lowest moment – the grislier, the better.  Older leaders are urging young people to take risks when they’re most able – but this message is ill-suited for [younger] Millennials, who would much rather get started on the right foot than stumble and start again.[2]

Obviously, in this description, Gen X exhibits a more incremental view and, Millennials tend to exhibit an entity view.  How?  Well, if one sees failure as a stepping stone to success, then failing becomes a learning experience.  That is, one that can be used to derive the needed information about oneself and the involved task – be it a business, a skill, or a job – to be a success.  But before one can learn, one needs to believe one can learn and that a failure is not an indication that one just doesn’t have what it takes to succeed. 

Apparently, from this limited evidence, this distinction in how one views intelligence has a cultural aspect to it.  It seems, from comparing these two generations, that a particular sense for whether these possibilities exist or not are shared among age cohorts.   In turn, there are prevailing, consequential views over how one sees risk. 

So, how one accepts risk reflects on how one views intelligence.  Risk is more acceptable when one believes one can learn and change accordingly.  Another way to say this is to adhere to the old saying:  survive to fight another day.  But further, it also admonishes a failing party to learn from the failure.  After all, one can do so if one has an intelligence that is malleable, willfully changeable, and dynamic. 

The question remains:  how can one encourage the incremental view among the upcoming generation.  How does a nation encourage an incremental view of intelligence?  This issue should be addressed directly and not treated as an assumption one holds one way or another without any possibility of changing it.  The entity view should be actively identified and undermined whenever possible.  The incremental view should also be identified, but, instead, supported whenever possible.

---

[1] Carol S. Dweck, Self-Theories:  Their Role in Motivation, Personality, and Development (Philadelphia, PA:  Psychology Press, 2000)

[2] Neil Howe, “Millennials Don’t Want to ‘Embrace Failure,’” Forbes, February 11, 2015, accessed December 28, 2017, https://www.forbes.com/sites/neilhowe/2015/02/11/millennials-dont-want-to-embrace-failure/#4dfc3ceec19a.