Towards
Civil Discourse: A Political
Myers-Briggs?
Words matter. Our language has become brutal.
And our body politic is suffering.
Anger can be a great motivator if
it leads to taking responsibility and collective action. But when it just
blames and calls names, it reverts to cynicism that is the loss of collective
power and an invitation to nihilism and even violence.
It divides the “99%” and leaves
the “1%” calling all the shots. I
saw this working in Chicago in the 60s when upwardly mobile working black
families and white families were blaming each other and themselves for
deteriorating neighborhoods while financial institutions, fronted by realty
agents and backed by federal housing policy, were making great economic gains
through scare and hate tactics that drove white families out of established
neighborhoods into newly developed housing tracts in suburbs and then took
recently disinvested and devastated center city land for new high priced condos
by the lake.
Today, beyond race being used to
disempower, silence, and fragment the majority, it is life style—so-called
liberal vs. conservative values. In
other words, culture again masks economic domination and political control.
So now we have Tea Partiers
angered at government which they think is in the hands of the liberal gay-loving,
free-thinking, atheistic abortionists.
And we have an Occupy Wall Streeters angered at corporations which they
think are in the hands of the fascistic, ideological, bible-toting true
believers.
As an old organizer, who accepts
that people are motivated by 1) economic self-interest, 2) cultural values, 3) community
recognition or affiliation, and 4) spiritual meaning (and the anger that arises
when these are frustrated), I am searching for a tool that might contribute to
the reestablishing of our commons, our citizenship, and our country. I
realize that for people to unite they have to recognize and understand where
they come from, how different their stories are, and why they see the world the
way they do. Then they need to
find the interests, values, affiliations, and meanings they share and to act
together to strengthen their common space. They need to transition from consumers of things and
thoughts to citizens producing and thinking in concert. This will only happen in association. And I am looking for a tool that might
help foster citizen association
I have found that a great tool
for fostering teamwork in a family or work setting is the Myers-Briggs Personality
Type Indicator (MBTI)[1] especially
when facilitated by a competent third party specialist. It helps all
members of the family or worksite understand their own and each other's
acquired preferences in seeing and judging the world without any negativity and
in fact with lots of affirmation for how differences contribute to the whole
team, company, or project.
The tool starts with a self-test
with which the participants answer and then score, a series of questions that
ascertain whether they 1) process more interiorly or exteriorly
(Introvert/Extravert), 2) focus more on facts or on vision (Sensing/Intuiting),
3) value more feelings or intellectual coherence (Feeling/Thinking), 4) are
quick to make a decision or are more prone to keep looking at the evidence
(Perceiving/Judging). The participant considers the results and the
description of the personality to which these results point to see if the shoe
fits. Then the participant shares the results with others to discuss what
this means for the team or the family or the company.
There are no right or wrong
answers. Nor are there any pure
types. All of us find ourselves
somewhere along the continuum of these four polarities. This is not in any
sense a "fix" of a personality type--again just an understanding of
oneself and others in this here and now.
For example I found that I tend
to process things out loud (high E) even well before any decision. I
learned that when I was the director of an organization, I needed to warn
colleagues of my tendency so that they would not take what I was saying as what
I really thought or wanted. Also when I was director of a small planning
organization, I realized that I had surrounded myself with big-picture
visionaries (NTs), and I needed to value and add to the concrete, data based SPs
to make our organization more effective. The MBTI is merely a tool, but a
good one for fostering relationships in the private sphere.
Now can we devise a similar tool
for our body politic—the public sphere?
The MBTI is based on a
psychologist’s (Karl Jung) theory of personality. I would like to suggest a tool based on a sociologist
political thinker theory of sociality.
Here are the four polarities I propose. They relate to the four
motivators of human behavior I mentioned above.
1. Related to economic
interests: Free market/Social responsibility (F-S)[2]
Are you more interested in an
unrestricted marketplace where you need not look over your shoulder or consider
implications or in how your producing and consuming is affecting yourself and others
and society as a whole?
2. Related to cultural
values: Relational/Traditional (R-T)[3]
Do you have fixed values that come
from human nature and tradition or are your values more relative to the time,
the situation, the persons, and the consequences.
3. Related to affiliation
in governance: Authoritarian/Consensual (A-C)[4]
Are you more inclined to have a
strong leader within institutions of authority or to have broad emerging
leadership among changing institutions?
4. Related to philosophy of
life: Pragmatic materialist/Idealistic believer (P-I)[5]
Do you find meaning in day-to-day
concrete process of living and acting or do you find meaning in a more
idealized past or yet-to-come time and place?
As in the MBTI, I state the
polarities without any negative judgment as ranges of political personality or,
better, public character. None of them are either-or. Yes, pushed
to extremes or "pure types" there might be some negativity
inferred--again depending on your perspective and your own relative place along
the continuum.
I think they can be applied to
public officials, candidates for public office, to parties, to citizens, to
advocacy or special interest groups, to political commentators, to lobbyists,
to polls and pollsters, to communities and maybe even nations. But again
this is not a "fix." People and publics do change.
I am developing self and a group
administered tests that could be used to ascertain the style or type or public
character of a participant, group, or community. As in the MBTI, I can
identify sixteen political character types that we can use for self-knowledge
and for working together. I want
to propose this instrument as a way to diminish accusation, blame, and
name calling and inform citizens as to the style of themselves and of
candidates so they can make a more informed decision based on what they judge
to be best for the community or nation or public at this time and place.
But perhaps that wishful thinking
exposes my own preferences and public character.[6]
And certainly our body politic
needs a balance-in-tension without going to the extremes of free-for-all
marketeering or top-down controlled economy, libertine or state imposed
culture, dictatorial or anarchic governance, one-dimensional or fantasy philosophy.
Perhaps a public character indicator instrument (PCI) could be a tool to
promote this balance-in-tension.
I am hoping that with such a
Public Character Indicator instrument, we can foster a better public space and
return power ("the ability to act in concert") to all of us.
Such an instrument could be used
in focus groups and relational interviews to tell our stories and express our
preferences, our way of seeing and singing our social world. I have no illusion that it could be
used in situations where people are at the extremes and have no desire for
dialogue or learning. I doubt that
politicians, including congressional committees and political action committees,
could use it because they are already committed to their positions. I seriously doubt that Rush Limbaugh or
Ann Coulter or James Carville and their dittoheads could ever use it.
But I do think that interfaith
groups, neighborhood groups, and community organizations might use it in order
to get past likes and dislikes to what is essential. It could even be a tool for the compromise and consensus
that a republic needs.
My next steps are to get some
feedback on this from colleagues, try out the instrument (including the
questionnaire and the description of types) on a group, change the instrument
based on the feedback and trial.
I welcome any help.
Next steps:
Sixteen
Political Character Types
FRAP
|
FRCP
|
FTAI
|
FTAP
|
SRAP
|
SRCP
|
STAI
|
STAP
|
FRAI
|
FRCI
|
FTCI
|
FTCP
|
SRAI
|
SRCI
|
STCI
|
STCP
|
Description of types.
Examples of public figures alive and
dead who might represent these types.
Questionnaire for determining predominant political
character type.
[1] See the
Myers-Briggs Foundation at www.myersbriggs.org.
[2] Here I am
using the theory of Adam Smith, Karl Marx, and classical economics.
[3] Reinhold
Neibuhr and Paul Tillich are my teachers here.
[4] I accept
the political thought of Hannah Arendt for this polarity. George Lakoff’s work on the difference
between Republican and Democratic framing is useful here. My problem with Lakoff (“authoritarian
father” and “nourishing parent”) is that he neglected the other tensions and
thus oversimplified.
[5] John
Dewey, his disciple, Richard Rorty, French thinker Merleau-Ponty and those who
followed steered for me the path between idealism and realism.
[6] So let me come to terms with that so that I can reduce the influence of
my biases in developing the tool.
Without yet taking my undeveloped
test, I would guess that I am an SRCP; i.e. I usually and habitually stress
social responsibility over free market, values relative to the situation over
values from human nature or tradition, community consensus over hierarchical
organization, and pragmatic materialism over spiritual ideals. I know I
tend to be a social democrat ("socialist") economically, culturally a
"libertarian" relegating sexual orientation, methods of birth
control, free sex, and religious principles to the private realm without public
significance, politically a "republican" promoting interdependent
publics rather than a populist ruled by a strong executive, and a progressive
"pragmatist" eschewing religious or philosophical doctrines that
claim the truth or any absolute considered ideal.
But that's me. In a
republic, it is important that I recognize that my qualities are also
limitations and I need around me others who are less like me. I do need people who listen and respect
my preferences but also who challenge them. At times and places we need
to accept deregulation of the market and less government sponsored social
welfare. At times and places, we should be less tolerant of certain
behaviors like pornography or circumcision that are often not really victimless.
At times and places, our community needs a stronger executive less prone
to compromise, polls, and interest groups. At times and places, I do admire
those who are intending an ideal future or take their ideals from tradition.
No comments:
Post a Comment