At Cognitive Policy Works we realize that people everywhere need help thinking through the issues that matter most to them. This is why we tailor our services to allow atypical clients to be served. While high-powered consultants shape the elite politics in Washington D.C., there is little assistance for the progressive activist in small-town America.
This is more than “politics-as-usual.” It is part of an intentional plan designed and implemented throughout the mid-20th Century to build a professional apparatus for politics that stands between citizens and their government. (I am currently reading about this important history in S.M. Amadae’s scholarly work, Rationalizing Capitalist Democracy: The Cold War Origins of Rational Choice Liberalism.)
Such an elite system of governance is inadequate for the challenges we face going into the 21st Century. The old paradigms of “self-interest” and “elite rule” fail to galvanize the public into action and engage us all in the solving of our problems. Confronting issues like global warming, international terrorism, dwindling water supplies, financial meltdowns, and volatile energy markets will require nothing less than planet-wide cooperation at unprecedented scales. Leaving these problems to an elite class – no matter how well educated – is not enough.
We’re going to need civic engagement that is widespread and innovative. Citizens will need to have skills at organizing, communicating, and collaborating. This is where we come in. Our work is focused on preparing the next generation of political and social change agents. We offer deep critiques of standard practices, insights into patterns of social change, and powerful new tools to be used on-the-ground by people everywhere.
Our latest consulting project exemplifies this process. We were approached by a politically engaged citizen in Wilmington, OH to help think through the morality of business in small towns. The project was small enough to be funded by discretionary funds of a small non-profit, the Empathy Surplus Campaign. And the outcome is a strategy memo designed to stimulate discussions about the ethics of business in local communities:
Ethical Business in Your Town – A Conceptual Campaign for Grassroots Activism
This strategy memo briefly introduces a few ideas to think about regarding the morality of business in your town. It culminates in a set of simple questions that fuel conversations about a topic that is relevant at local, regional, national, and global levels.
We invite you to read it, share it with your friends, and comment here about what you consider valuable in it (as well as what you feel should be the next steps in expanding its usefulness for grassroots activism). Maybe you’ll even feel inspired to commision the continuation of this work with emphasis on your own situation. Together we can change the way politics is done.
In the service of humanity,
Joe Brewer
Founder and Director, Cognitive Policy Works
Hi JESwindell,
I fully agree with you that a rationalist approach would fail. I see a need for more in-depth engagement with people in a process of cultural change that is psychologically sensitive and nuanced.
At the same time, I recognize that people are already feeling threatened by the power of corporations to devastate entire communities on a whim (because their “cost-benefit” calculations tell them they’ll save money by moving those jobs overseas). A rationalist response would be to present a well-reasoned, logical argument with lots of supporting evidence, which would fail to engage people where their hearts and souls are – in the midst of a scary and painful time that calls for a depth of understanding that only human compassion can provide.
(The other topic you brought up – surrounding “willful ignorance”, anti-intellectualism, and the like – is very important and deserves a discussion of its own. Perhaps we can dig into this soon…)
A rationalist approach using the principles in Brewer’s paper would fail if the vast ignorance and prejudices of the public remain unchanged. Ignorance at the most basic level cripples public discourse and renders elections subject to the worst sort of demagogery. How can we cause people to learn what they have refused to understand in the past?
I think it’s more difficult to be empathic and tolerant than bigoted and racist because the latter activate the fight-or-flight response. We each need to spend time meditating to program our minds for empathy etc. because you know the bigots are praying for their enemies to be crushed.
Hi Paul,
Thank you for bringing up the issue of currency (and implicitly, the role of monetary theory) in this discussion. It strikes me that it would be valuable to have an in-depth conceptual/framing analysis on the ways people think about currency. Do you know of any articles that explore things like the metaphors through which people conceptualize money or the variety of cultural models through which people reason about exchanges of wealth?
I’m familiar with this topic at a general level, but haven’t researched it closely enough to see what has been done to explore the frames and metaphors that influence how people think about money (and, by extension, incentives for moral – or immoral – behavior).
Best,
Joe
It will be difficult to maintain ethical business standards until moral and economic incentives are made congruent. Bernard Lietaer says it well in his Community Currencies for the 21st Century at http://www.transaction.net/money/cc/cc01.html#align
“There are three main ways to induce nonspontaneous behavior patterns: moral pressure, coercion, and economic incentives. For example, recycling glass bottles can be promoted by education, by regulations, or by incorporating a refundable deposit in the purchase price. A combination of all three incentives is obviously the most effective strategy.
“When these incentives conflict, problems will arise. For instance, when there is an economic incentive to do something a regulation or law prohibits, we need costly and permanent enforcement systems. Even in the presence of such enforcement systems we expect smuggling and many more imaginative forms of cheating to occur. More evident are cases where moral pressure is supposed to overrule economic interests. Consider, for instance, the well-known saying, “Money is like manure; it does good only if spread around.” This sentiment has been espoused in less florid language by most religions for a long time. However, this moral pressure is diametrically opposed to the concept of receiving interest on money, which provides a built-in incentive to hoard currency. Whenever there are such structural contradictions many people are unable to afford, or simply do not care enough, to follow the moral advice.
“It is possible, however, to design a coherent and operational currency system so that this apparent structural contradiction disappears. In other words, by questioning some traditional implicit assumptions, we can realign the moral and economic incentives so that they are in harmony.”
Hi Howard,
All in a day’s work… or I should say that we are really enjoying doing these important activities and really hope to empower millions by the time we’re done with insights and skills they can use to drive change in their communities.
Best,
Joe
Congratulations on the work you are doing, Joe. Thanks for the pointers to books by S.M. Amadae and Fred Block.
Howard
@peopleandplace