A very sad day

In the aftermath of the shocking events in Tucson, it is clear that we are talking past one another in our political discourse, however we may self- identify or label one other.

What is it we are not saying that could move our politics forward? Not for a moment do I mean that campaign finance, corporate control of media, and cacophony of Internet communications do not contribute to our political turbulence. I am trying to get to the core differences among us that are being manipulated by or are propelling the dysfunction in our political discourse.

I propose the differences reside in the way we view the relationship of the individual to the social worlds we inhabit. I take my clue from George Lakoff in Don’t Think Of An Elephant, where he, like many before him, outlines the world view of those for whom the sphere of personal responsibility is themselves and their immediate family versus those for whom the sphere of personal responsibility starts with themselves and extends to a broader definition of community.

The former group understands the world more or less in terms of patriarchy and isolated individualism to whom libertarian and/or anarchist ideologies are compelling. The latter group understands the world in terms of interdependence where the well-being of the individual is considered to be dependent upon, or at least integrally linked to the well-being of the larger community. Both groups value the individual, but understand the capacities and behavior of the individual to be dependent upon different factors. In one instance the individual’s capacities and status are dependent on the will or design of G~d or genetics, and/or the individual alone, and in the other instance the capacities and status of the individual are inseparable from the social conditions to which they are born and within which they mature.

In regard to the shootings in Tucson, an aide to Sarah Palin said today,

"I don't understand how anyone can be held responsible for someone who is completely mentally unstable like this," Ms. Mansour said. "Where I come from the person who is actually shooting is culpable. We had nothing whatsoever to do with this."

To my ears it is almost incredulous that someone could actually believe this, but this may very well be an authentic statement… “Where I come from the person who is actually shooting is culpable. We had nothing whatsoever to do with this.” This is as close to a doxology of the “individualist” political philosophy as one can get today.

How does it differ from the doxology of an “interdependent” political philosophy? And, will articulating the differences be of value for the body politic? One would hope so.

To my way of thinking the sociologist, Karl Mannheim, articulates well the “interdependent” world view:

Strictly speaking, it is incorrect to say that the single individual thinks. Rather, it is more correct to insist that he participates in thinking further what other men have thought before him.

…Every individual is therefore in a two-fold sense predetermined by the fact of growing up in a society: on the one hand he finds a ready-made situation and on the other he finds in that situation preformed patterns of thought and of conduct. (p .3(from Ideology and Utopia)

From Mannheim’s perspective, words and behavior are part of the environment that informs our thoughts and behavior. In this worldview words do matter as part of the ‘pre-formed patterns of thought and of conduct.’ It is not that Jared Loughner’s mental capacity is the “fault” of anyone, but the power of words and images to have consequences, unintended or intended, is to be taken as a responsibility, especially in these days of intense media exposure.

I recall watching the Senate confirmation hearings for Justices Samuel Alito and John Roberts when I realized both were pre-Enlightenment. While under questioning, I believe by Senator Dianne Feinstein, one of them was especially clear that his legal opinions were not at all related to his upbringing. He did not say he systematically thought about how his upbringing might influence his legal analysis in order to understand how and when it might be so. He flatly denied that there was any relationship. I suggest this way of thinking about the individual is a major distinction in the understanding of the relationship of the individual to the state that drives the dysfunction in our political discourse.

How we begin to address the distinction matters because it is fundamental to our differences in interpretation of the Constitution and the role of government, which means of course fundamental to the proliferation of guns in our daily lives per the reading of the Second Amendment, to the role of corporate and special interest financing of elections, to the separation of church and state and to the use of violence to intimidate and diminish our democracy.

Molly Freeman, Sunday, January 9, 2011 - A very sad day