Constructivism at the Human Level

Do you ever stop to think how you make other people feel?

Consider this statement. Consider its implications. Consider the social construction required for so many of the words — “think” and “feel” in particular. What is thought? What is feeling? As constructivist political scientists, we ponder the meaning of these words and so many others at a fundamental level.

Every one of us, as humans, think and feel. We all think differently, we all feel differently — and yet we all interact on a day-to-day basis. How do we manage to ever get along? (The pessimist in me might say…”We don’t.”)

Do you ever wonder how you make others feel when you interact with them? I do, all the time. Not obsessively, mind you, but with deliberate intent. What are my actions conveying about me, and about how I intend you to understand me? Do you perceive me as confident or shy? Engaging or withdrawn? Emotional or removed? In my mind I hold a picture of myself that I regard with high esteem, and I want to convey that to you as the “consumer” of my societal constructs.

Living deliberately, being aware of every time we touch another life, is what fulfills us as humans, and yet so often we take it for granted. We play games. We hold grudges. We get frustrated. We start wars. All in the name of perception and personal constitution.

Next time you are at a party, and you see that guy that just IRKS you, or that girl who annoys you to the point of anger, engage them. When you order a churro from that Del Taco worker at 2 AM, consider the depth and complexity of his or her humanness, rather than the parsimonious stereotype you tend to use. Wonder about their life, and the threads that lead up to it at this very moment. Appreciate them for the human being they are, rather than the construct you have made them.

30 Days: An International Relations Student’s Take on Some American Stuff

You’re right, this is a cheap shot because I’ve been neglecting my blog for a few months while I’ve been traveling and researching.  But I wrote this for a friend around February, and liked how I was thinking then, because it mirrors how I think now (with less Hil-dawg hate after the DNC, and minus that scary Huckabee fellow).  Plus, I gotta give credit where credit’s due and pat myself on the back for my pretty much stellar political predictions.  Alright, end of narcissistic plug.

Now that I’m back in the school swing of things, I’m sure I’ll be sharing a little bit more of my take on this crazy thing we call politics, American and otherwise.

—-

So, here’s my take on the candidates/low-down so far. I’ll preface with (a) American politics is NOT my field at all (in fact I find it immensely boring), (b) since I study international relations, foreign policy/image tends to be the most important issue for me and (c) I’m a little biased, obviously, because I’ve got a candidate that I want to win. Here’s why.

Hillary Clinton is great because she is a woman. Trust me, I want to see a woman president. But really, that’s about it. Honestly, she scares the crap out of me. The way she approaches her campaign is ruthless, brutal, and aggressive (see the NYT article I posted and her Dean-like outburst from several days back). She is basically “our” — by “our” I mean democrats’ — version of Dubya. She doesn’t listen to others, and she will launch herself off of this strong presidency that Bush, Cheney, et. all have created these past 7 years. Given that our reputation internationally is already tarnished (putting it lightly) by the presidency’s actions, I don’t think we can really afford that.

Barack Obama’s policies are very, very similar to Hil-dawg’s, actually. They lay out their policy proposals in-depth on their websites, so whatever perceived “differences” there are between these two candidates is minimal at best. I mean, obviously — they are both democrats. However, there are two things that excite me more about Obama than Hillary. First, he is optimistic. I know this seems like an odd trait to want in a president, but when I think of the highlight of American presidencies, I think Wilson, FDR, JFK. There is something to be said for optimism in a world full of fear and darkness (mostly of our own creation). Hope, and change = yes. Also, and more functionally, because Obama is young, he will make the presidency relatively weak. He will surround himself with an intellectual cabinet, unlike Hillary’s political “yes-men,” and will be a listener, rather than a speaker (screamer). I think a weak presidency will do this country a lot of good, especially internationally. Not to mention that Europe loves Barack Obama.

John McCain throws a wrench in the democrats’ plan to take office. When I first heard he was considering a bid, I thought I might at least entertain the idea of voting for him. This was, of course, before he started (metaphorically, of course) sucking off the fundamentalist religious right in order to begin “securing his base.” He is, when it comes down to it, a panderer. However, he certainly has his country’s best interest at heart, and is not a power-monger like Hillary is. He is intelligent, and though less well-spoken than Obama is, he does have the backing of many “on the fence” independents/democrats, especially folks like my mom and step-dad, who aren’t extremely rich but are well-off, and who are disenchanted with their normal democratic voting behaviors. However, he certainly does not have the youth vote like Obama does (I can’t think of anyone I know who did NOT vote for Obama). If — when — the presidential bid is between these two, it will make for a very interesting race.

As a side note — will Obama and Hillary ticket together? My bet is, fuck no. Though they have many similar opinions, Hillary is too much of a power-hound to play second fiddle to the guy she’s been calling “wet behind the ears” for the past year. Who will be Obama’s running mate? No idea, to be honest. Someone old and white, I’ll bet.

Oh yeah, and Huckabee scares me, too!

—-

Using Your Tool: On Reframing the Gay Rights Debate

One of the most powerful tools any social movement possesses is the ability to frame its issue in such a way as to garner support, from fervent grassroots activists and skeptical political elites alike. Framing is exactly what it sounds like: harmonizing movement-specific concepts and terminology comfortably in with contemporary culture, political environment, and previous collective action to produce a kind of social resonance that paves the way for real change.

The gay rights movement has been floundering miserably with its ability to frame, and it is directly affecting both the social “stickiness” of related issues as well as the cohesion of the movement itself. In fact, it is most likely the cause for the immense resistance in the United States to the equality of homosexual couples in the face of both religious and legal institutions.

Before I take this any further, let me preface: I am very, very pro-gay rights. I am so liberal my heart is bleeding all over my Recycle posters as I write the check to pay for my Zipcar.  But I thought I would get the caveat in there before someone tries to accuse me of lack of empathy, traitorousness, or Rush Limbaugh-worship. This criticism is meant to be constructive, and should be construed as just that — nothing more, nothing less.

There are three main jumping-off points for the gay rights debate, all of which are intricately intertwined, but which need to be extricated from the parsimonious mash-up that has been the product of media hype and movement inefficiency.

Marriage vs. Civil Unions: The Church and State Debate
Marriage has absolutely nothing to do with legal rights, binding or otherwise. This is simply the question of whether or not, according to one’s religious institution-du-jour, it is acceptable for two people who so happen to possess mirroring sex chromosomes to be united in the eyes of the diety-du-jour. Excuse me, is my sarcasm showing? How inappropriate — I apologize.

The decision on what qualifies as marriage should be solely at the discretion of each individual religious institution. It is the theological recognition of a loving, spiritual, soulful relationship between two people. To that, we have tied an inference of social and legal rights that are certainly related to this relationship, but they are absolutely not an inherent part of it. The question then becomes, should these rights de facto apply to a religious marriage, or should they be conferred separately in a legal, state-based ceremony (or, less romantically, a bureaucratic nightmare)?

If we answer the preceding question in the way the gay rights movement should (but often does not), marriage is separate and distinct from the legal rights that married couples want/need/deserve. In turn, couples should be able to be legally bound to each other in terms of tax claims, hospital rights, et cetera without having to be married by a religious institution. This is already sort of true, but we would still call it a “state marriage” if it were between a heterosexual couple, and a “civil union” if it were a homosexual couple. This ambiguity of terms it where the discrimination comes in. Were the gay rights movements to call for a redefinition and clarification of these terms, much of the current debate would be washed down the drain of ignorance.

Hypersexuality: The Cultural Debate
How a social movement is perceived culturally is of critical importance in couching its issues within the context of societal norms and values. This is not to say that the movement has to be “normal,” as of course, by definition, a social movement seeks to change the framework of society, not to slot within the confines of its preconceived cages. However, an ability to balance the natural tendency to rebel against societal constraints and the understanding of influence to be gained by recognizing certain approaches to a problem that makes it more salient to the general populace.

The gay rights movement has erred on the side of rebellion, and not in the traditional handcuff-yourself-to-a-building, set-flags-on-fire way. Instead, perhaps because the issue at hand is sexual preference, a culture of “deviance” has been built around the movement. Gay pride parades often feature scantily-clad gentlemen bound in leather or dashed with sequins. Clubs aimed at gay men are slathered in sweaty strippers and porn on the bar TVs. Even the men-for-men personals — probably not safe for work — are thoroughly drenched in demands for sex (ironically, check out the women-for-women personals sometime for an interesting contrast).

Don’t get me wrong, the eye candy is fantastic, but when you think of your average conservative politician or Christian fundamentalist voter, this isn’t exactly the most effective way to communicate your message, especially if you are trying to claim that issues of the bedroom are not meant to be politicized. In addition, there are certainly heterosexual clubs and bars and personal ads that are solely dedicated to sexual promiscuity, but how are they conceptualized socially? “Fringe” or “deviant” or “radical” — not exactly terms best associated to a social movement seeking the highest form of political institutionalization.

Instead, the gay rights movement needs to reframe its issues, specifically focusing on the line between the state and the church that has been so blurred on the issue of marriage and legal rights. Simply accepting the definitions that the media makes up to sell the movement’s issues is wholly detrimental to the cause. Illuminate the actual definition of marriage and civil rights, and highlight the implicit and explicit differences despite claims to their homogeneity.

As for cultural acceptance, don’t settle for not being yourself. However, I wholly doubt that every gay man and lesbian woman and transsexual human out there is a leather-loving, random-sex-having being, just as not every heterosexual person partakes of these things, though some certainly do. Catch those members of the movement before they get carried away. Reframing the issues through redefinition and awareness can work wonders for social movements — take the advice of predecessors facing similar struggles and understand the target audience and constituency before attempting to frame the issue in a way that may be very unpalatable and ultimately destructive to the aims of the activism.

For an interesting (and humorous) take on the subject, check out The Onion.

The Commercialization of Compassion: On Moral Consumption and Branding

Ad campaigns that tug at our heartstrings are everywhere.  Buy this t-shirt and help save the rainforest.  Proceeds from the purchase of this line of cards are donated to AIDS victims in Africa.  Drink this coffee to show you support fair-trade between companies and their suppliers.  Even the move to label items as “organic” and “natural” mirrors the post-materialist desire of consumers to feel good when they spend their dollar, to say “Because I bought this, I am a moral person.”

The relative nascency of this moral or ethical consumption and branding begs a plethora of questions.  Which came first, innovation from the marketing managers the world over doing a jig in their Gucci suits and Prada shoes, or eagerness on the part of from consumers to buy from “morally-centered” businesses?  Or is the chicken-egg argument too simplistic?  Is it a nasty hybridization of dancing CEOs and currency-waving capitalists?  (Don’t share that thought with your children, or your local Marxist — the imagery may give them nightmares.)

The most functional and economically-oriented issue is that centered on corporate monitoring and transparency.  When you use your pink “Support Breast Cancer Awareness” credit card, how much of the hiked interest rate or annual fee actually goes to help support the cause?  The lack of third-party, non-partisan, unattached monitoring organizations to enforce this type of moral monitoring is shocking, despite the fact that it has been shown time and time again that many, if not most, companies will do whatever it takes in the name of that hungry-eyed, slavering beast known as The Bottom Line.

In addition, as a society, we are numbed to those things that are thrown in our face daily through advertising.  When we continually hear about the solution that Starbucks is offering for their South American bean growers, we assume that the problem has been fixed, and we should feel good about supporting it through our purchases.  This has the potential to lull us into complacency on a host of social issues that may or may not be actually receiving the attention they deserve.  Could this lead to faltering civil society and weakened or non-existent social movements, as we begin to feel that with minimal effort we can have a maximum effect on ethical conundrums?

This type of distance plays brilliantly to our shifting moral center as human beings living in an industrialized society.  At our core, most of us are not opposed to doing a good deed, as long as it requires next to no change in daily behavior or too large of an extra surcharge.  Pareto would love us, would he not?

Before this gets too glass-half-empty and I get put on the Patriot Act watch list for sounding like a fervent communist, it is important to also consider the relativity of the commercialization of compassion.  Sure, the means are gritty and centered around money.  But what about the ends?  Isn’t some sort of improvement in our charitable contributions or our awareness of social issues a good thing?  Something is better than nothing, right!  Perhaps, and perhaps not.

The moral — yuk, yuk — of the story is thus: as consumers, we must be aware of the places our precious dollars go.  Don’t become a vegetarian because you are ethically opposed to the conditions at slaughterhouses.  Instead, do your research and know from whence that divine rare filet mignon comes, and how it is treated there before it ends up on your plate.  Don’t assume that all companies engaging in moral branding are seeking to play your conscience in order to suck whatever they can from you and leave the rest to the vultures (although, to be sure, some do and and do it with glee).  Instead, seek to understand the ins and outs of ethical claims in order to truly feel that, through purchasing power, you really are acting morally.