I
Represented Democracy
The Nature of Questioning

Do we really believe in democracy? Are we willing to share the burden that it implies? We have notions about democracy that rest upon the foundation of an informed citizenry and political leaders working toward the common good. The idea is that in a democracy the people are governing themselves, and even though they delegate their power, are responsible for maintaining the system through vigilant oversight.

Are we living up to this lofty ideal? Is it possible in today’s mass society, dominated by economics and technology? The root of the impulse for questioning society comes from the belief that the citizen matters, and that society should be organized for the benefit of the people.for the people But is that what we experience in our own lives? Is our system designed for our benefit or for some other?

We hear much about the discontentment of the people with their political leaders and their governments. If anything, this expression of discontentment shows that people really do want to be involved, that what they feel is a lack of control over the things that really govern their lives. What doesn’t seem to work anymore is the traditional political system of electing democratic representatives to express the collective concerns, and to take collective action. What we get is a seesaw of policy as we exchange one political banner for another. What we do not see, are actions that fundamentally solve our problems. What we see is a veneer of action on top of a base that is rarely questioned, and almost never changes.

The Idea of Questioning

We in my North America includes MexicoNorth America2 really don’t question the way things are run. I don’t mean at the level of what candidate or party to support, but rather, questioning how our society is organized, who has organized it, who it is meant to serve and whether it has to be that way. This isn’t particularly strange, as people think that they can’t do anything about these things and trying would only lead to frustration as none is within their control.

We think we do our bit by casting our ballot, our genuflection at the alter of democracy, expecting to elect our next quadrennial dictatorship. But this system isn’t working, and we need to understand why. Party loyalties have dissolved, distrust of politicians is rampant, and a loss a faith in political institutions is evident. Unfortunately, we don’t have the tools to challenge or even recognize fundamentals, we aren’t taught these things.

The loss of faith in government means our primary means of exerting our influence has lost credibility. But given our current system, we have no other way of organizing collectively, as a whole. True, we can join what are derogatively known as general interest groupsspecial interest groups in an attempt to have our say. But this takes a level of energy and involvement that most of us are not willing to sustain. And it artificially breaks our interests into easily deflected and distorted pieces.

So most people go about their daily lives not even realizing that there is a choice, that choices have been made for them. Every once in a while we are presented with choices that appear to be basic (such as whether the Senate should be elected), but never with the fundamental questions regarding the organization and operation of our society and economy. Indeed, we are even discouraged from studying these things.

Even the 1995 Québec referendum was conducted on the vague plane of sovereignty and ethnic pride, not on specifics of political, social, and economic structures or even policy.

What’s to Question?

There is a pattern in our society of the way we go about things, how things are run. There are people who do doers and followersand people who follow, people who question and people who accept. Unfortunately, most of the followers and acceptors are doing so because they think they must. They haven’t thought through and agreed, they just acquiesce. This is true in many areas in society. In politics we can easily see this happening, but as we shall see, it’s also true of business, science and art.

By accepting things the way they are, without question, we participate in a grand conspiracy of resignationconspiracy of resignation and subtle pessimism. This attitude is self reinforcing, it feeds on its own feeling of lack of control. The more individuals think that they have no way of affecting the fundamentals of their society, the more most people think that, the more it becomes a self fulfilling prophecy.

People don’t challenge basic social, economic, scientific or artistic dogma because they feel they cannot, ought not or must not. Or because they think that even after exposing the flimsy basis of most of these fundamentals, still, nothing will change.

We Can’t Question

It’s not as if ordinary people are incapable of uncommon sensequestioning and analysis. After all, these qualities are often displayed when applied to unimportant fields like sports, where people are often quite studied in their opinions and open about expressing them. This same common sense, logic, knowledge and analysis could be applied to debate on public policy (we even saw some of this during the 1992 referendum) but people tend to feel excluded from most public policy debates.

These debates are generally defined and controlled by the formal political process, which aims to stifle independent study of the issues, reserving these important questions to its exclusive (and usually private) domain. Most important decisions in government are taken by the cabinet and in private. Some less crucial decisions are taken in caucus, also held in private, where more widely varying views are supposed to be represented. The fact that cabinet and caucus debate is considered confidential is a good clue that government doesn’t want to share the decision making process.

But we are deluding ourselves when we think that these forums are where the fundamental decisions are made. Most of these decisions, as we shall see, are decided outside the political domain in the worlds of business and science. Here questions of public policy and societal well-being rarely surface. These areas are relatively unconstrained by government, indeed it is often governments that feel constrained by them. The prevailing dogma has us believe that government shouldn’t exert control, that there is something natural about them that resists any attempt at control. Since the fundamental basis of business and science goes unrecognized by society, it is left to the experts to pronounce on the ways of the world.

Questioning Questioners

Under these circumstances, our natural tendency to defer to authority and to the professionals takes over. What brings about this tendency to shy away from questioning? Is our society responsible?

We are taught early on in our schoolslearned acquiescence not to question anything important. In primary school, we are actively discouraged from questioning or having our own opinion on anything of substance.3 Questioning the knowledge of the teacher, even innocently, is considered heresy. Persistent questioners are treated as smart alecks and trouble makers who need to be taught to respect their elders. This unwanted attention from teachers leads to ostracism by their peers.

This having been drilled into us in the primary grades, we are quite accepting of almost anything put before us in secondary school, when our critical skills are supposed to be forming. What appear to be lethargy and lack of caring has actually been a product of lessons well learned in earlier grades. Later in university, it comes to many as a shock that we are expected to defend our opinions, often when through previous training, we don’t have any.

Early jobs highlight our lack of experience and reinforce our reluctance to question, as the natural instinct of self preservation takes hold. Longer employment experience breeds a sense of futility, after years of accepting incoherent and illogical decisions.

What we tend to do then is to withdraw our critical faculties into a sphere that barely surrounds our intimate concerns. Any attack on this sphere brings about a spirited and intelligent response, exhibiting a fine sense of morality and justice. Outside this sphere we loose steam, finding it difficult to expend energy on concerns that appear to be beyond our influence.

This apparent lack of control isn’t just an unfortunate consequence of living in a mass society. Rather, it is a result of the systems that we have created and maintain as the basis for our democratic free market society. And most systems have an inherent mechanism for self perpetuation, in as unchanged a form as possible.

Deterring Questions

If people do persist in asking question, the political, business, and scientific authorities then aim to control important debates, lest they stray outside the boundaries of acceptable change. They do this by a number of fundamentally shallow but, unfortunately, successful techniques.

The most successful political means of diverting attention from basic questions is to offer up juicy scandals of no fundamental importance. Thus we see endless coverage of the latest ethics breach, sex scandal, or high profile waste. Quantities of news coverage can be commandeered by petty misdeeds like a political junket, a patronage appointment, or a budget leak. Coverage of how the mighty have fallen‘how the mighty have fallen’ will always win out over any important subject.

Coverage of the GATT world trade deal can easily be shunted aside by a Jag Bhaduria résumé scandal.

The O.J. Simpson trial took over the media, especially television. Ironically, what was intended as just the spectacle of a celebrity trial may actually lead to questions about the effectiveness of the adversarial legal system.

Business decisions can be well disguised by endless speculative coverage of either unpredictable or unimportant events. Regular, dramatic stories on the stock markets, interest and exchange rates, and trade disputes are good cover for many more important acts.

The U.S. savings and loan debacle was proceeding while attention was diverted to Donald Trump or whether the New Coke was a strategic mistake.

Developments in science and technology can be equally ignored by throwing attention on contradictory studies or more juicy but freak developments.

cholesterol free
Caffeine reduced
Genetically engineered
Cholesterol and coffee have to be the most studied topics in medicine today, yet no conclusions can be safely drawn. Meanwhile, genetic engineering hardly makes the news.

Apart from avoiding the topic altogether, it is best to frame the debate in a manner that will assure the desired answer. This is certainly much easier to do than to deal with the uncontrolled result, or to suppress questioning blatantly.

Since the questions that concern fundamental societal structure are in the domain of the élites, it is usually quite easy for them to dominate the debate through one of a standard set of techniques: controlling the definitions, false dichotomy, burden of proof, specialization, and the old stand-by complexity.

Definitions Constrain Our Thoughts

The definitions used in a question have a fundamental effect on the outcome. Whoever controls the definitions controls the debate, which takes place only within the context of the terms used to define it.

Terms like free market and human resources absolutely control the range of any discussion regarding capitalism. If by definition the market is free, then what debate will take place about the nature of that freedom or even whether we want such a market. Frequent usage of the term human resources has paved the way for the equally dehumanizing euphemisms downsizing, rightsizing and jobless recovery which are an overt but also effective way of controlling the definitions. Who could argue with rightsizing? A jobless recovery is still a recovery isn’t it?

The media are complicit in enforcing these definitions. What makes for lively and powerful copy and also for concise coverage, happens to serve the interests of those who aim to control the definitions. The artificial definitions thus become media short hand for describing complex events. Unfortunately the media rarely bother to elaborate on this short hand, leaving the public with empty or misleading phrases.

When all reporters have to say is Somali warlord, Nicaraguan freedom fighter, Peacemaker missilePeacemaker missile, pro-life or pro-choice, their reporting is hardly going to probe very deeply into these intricate topics. These names are far from neutral labels given to describe events and the people involved. These terms aren’t just fabricated by harried reporters and editors, but rather are carefully crafted by politicians and other interest groups, often using the full resources of the public relations industry, and it’s no coincidence that the media find them so attractive.

Repetition of these terms through daily coverage only reinforces the artificial parameters of the event. Debate regarding the event is thus quite naturally and efficiently constrained within the confines of these artificial terms.

We are now quite aware that this is an accurate description of events during election campaigns, through celebrated behind the scenes chronologies, and media round table discussions. Why do we not recognize and compensate for the fact that this is also normal behaviour for media coverage of everyday events?

who controls definitions?Who defines things like globalization and free trade? In recent years the proponents of the free market have had a monopoly on defining the debate and excluding alternative definitions.

One of the biggest problems in the ways we think about politics and economics is the categorization of people into the two opposing camps of Left vs. Right
liberal and conservative
left and right. The related terms conservative and liberal are freely redefined to suite the arguments and attitudes of the day. Those out of step with their chosen ideology are given identifying labels such as Red Tory or Waffle Movement. People who have beliefs that do not consistently fall within one of the two groups are identified as pragmatists, as if this were a bad thing. Ideological impurity is considered a stain on one’s character.

Once the labels have been assigned the proponents must pick sides on every issue and must stick to their predefined ideologies. Our political parties are set up to defend these artificially constrained ideologies and are not permitted to stray into the territory of the others. When one party implements the idea of another, instead of praise and rejoicing, the party is accused of stealing the idea, a flip-flop, or electioneering.

The artificial purity also applies in reverse. Failure of the ideological prescription in one instance is considered reason enough to discount all future credibility. Because of the desire to stick to the ideology, policies cannot be properly tailored to circumstances that are neither ideal nor pure.

False Dichotomy

The ideological division leads predictably to another technique for winning the argument, that is to deploy either-orismeither-or choices. Once the false dichotomy is set up, the argument has been cleverly steered away from meaningful debate and examination. Policies become take it or leave it choices.

We see this every day in discussions about free trade and globalization. Either we’re for free trade, or we’re in favour of erecting a wall around our country and living in an impoverished and isolated backwater. Either we’re prepared to accept globalization as a fact, or we’ve decided to bury our heads in the sand. Either we’re for free market capitalism or we’re hopeless idealists who haven’t discerned the true nature of the world.

The anti-debt zealots would have us believe that it’s either their hack and slash debt reduction prescription or national ruin.

This ability to pose important questions as if they were simple two sided affairs is crucial to the style of debate we have assumed. Our system is defined with proposer and opposer in mind. The format of a formal debate is a perfect example of this tendency to simplistic characterization. That all substantive questions have shades and nuances that should exclude bipolar examination should be self evident. But our way of questioning is so ingrained that we are perfectly willing to engage in cut and dried options. It’s the big picture, the ideology that counts and the focus is rarely on the fine details.

When politicians break free from ideological either-orism we are shocked by their candour. We suspect they have lost their direction. It’s as if partisanship requires we only study the surface of questions, perhaps for fear of admitting that all the answers are not at hand.

The Burden of Proof

One easy way to divert the outcome of a debate is to shift the burden of proof to the opposition. Arguments in your favour need no justification and are accepted at face value. Opposing arguments must be meticulously researchedprove it, documented, and defended, and are attacked by any means.

The Yes and No forces in the 1995 Québec sovereignty referendum struggled to shift the burden of proof to the other side.

The fact that there is a burden of proof is not always recognized. We can easily see this burden in criminal law where it is spelled out explicitly. It’s not so easy to acknowledge that it exists in almost all debate and policy discussion, in business, science, the arts as well as politics.

Who shoulders the burden of proof when discussing whether capitalism is a good way to organize our economy, whether genetic engineering should be pursued, whether abstract art is important, or whether multiculturalism is a good policy?

Media coverage of orthodox opinion is lax and lingering. Any challenge to accepted views is difficult to substantiate in anything as shallow as television or structured as newspapers. Unorthodox views require elaboration and defence, as well as substantial evidence.

In many cases the reverse onus is even enshrined in law to protect the status quo. An obvious example is the need to prove that a chemical or process is harmful before its use is discontinued. In fact almost any established practice has a built in burden of proof defence, one that will erode only over time.

Specialization of Knowledge

Questioning is also constrained by confining knowledge and debate into specialized compartments. Crossing the well defined lines separating the specialties is discouraged.

Society has embraced the concept of the specialist, in science, medicine, business, law, education, art. Everywhere curiously, but politics.4 This notion is so ingrained that those that display multiple talents are lauded as Renaissance ManRenaissance Man or eclectic, or derided as a dilettante.

The specialist is almost exclusively concerned with their particular specialty. Collections of specialists are formed, they meet, discuss amongst themselves, debate. They produce arcane journals meant only for each other. These groups concentrate inwardly and offer little concern for subjects outside the narrow definition of the specialty, which are usually relegated to the concern of yet another specialty. The most obvious example are scientists and technologists, who tend to ignore the effects of their research and development on society, relegating such study to the lowly sociologists and politicians, and long after the fact to the historians.

As specialists learn more and more about less and less we are left with few people who can see the the big picturebig picture, who can analyze events as they wash over the artificial specialty boundaries. Broad understanding is downplayed, deep understanding is rewarded. Those that attempt a broad analysis are in for a rough ride.

Crossing the specialty boundary requires special attention to facts and arguments. While the debate ranges within the accepted parameters, there is little need for documentation or proof. Reinforcing arguments are accepted as fact without question. As soon as an outsider enters the domain of the specialist however, minute error in detail or lack of reference to authorities are considered reasons for rejection and disdain. The amateur is dismissed out of hand. The burden of proof is always on the heretic.

Specialists have taken over almost everywhere, reinforcing the belief that this is the proper or only way to organize society. This tendency has now become the norm, the natural way to exert influence. It is thus understandable that public interest and special interest groupslobby groups are really just organizations of specialists. These people consider a cause in-depth and then push for government or industry action to further that cause, usually to the exclusion of all others. These days, to specialize is the only recognized way to play a role in society.

Specialists can be offered as expert witnesses in court and in political forums where their special knowledge cannot be challenged by the mere laity.

Questioning is suppressed by excluding outside opinion and analysis and by reserving important information within the clique. Jargon and self-defined systems of proof are also effective shields. Complexity is the specialist’s friend.

Complexity

Complexity has always been a tool of orthodoxy. Debate can be steered away from many topics merely by claiming that the subject is too complex for the ordinary person. A recent example of this is the issue of controlling genetic engineering or reproductive technologies.

Remember Kim Campbell’s statement that an election campaign was not the time to engage in the complex question of the structure of our social programs.

Complexity, real or imagined, confers status on those that have mastered the impenetrable. This provides a substantial incentive to perpetuate and even manufacture complexity. Particularly appalling examples abound in the computer industry.

The graphical, mouse-based user interface was derided by much of the computer industry when it was first introduced. Only after it became clear that the public would no longer accept the alternative was the concept embraced.

Complexity can also be artificially introduced to steer examination away from a topic. Of the Law
By the Law
For the Law
The law has been created and maintained with artificial complexity in a way that deliberately excludes the lay person from participating in a meaningful way. Laws are written in incomprehensible language, deliberately so, to exclude the non professional from penetrating the golden egg. Laws are created by lawyers, for lawyers. They are kept complicated enough that any citizen would think twice before embarking on a self directed course through any but the most trivial legal matters.

Yet it is certainly within the powers of the legislatures to pass a law (in whatever gobbledygook currently necessary) that says ‘all laws passed from now on will be written in plain language, be interpreted in the obvious manner, and The People
v
The Legal Profession
interpretation will be guided by the expressed intent of the legislators’. Not within the parameters of my temporal existence (trans. Not in my lifetime).

External debate on most topics in business and science is regularly stifled by the claims of complexity. It is within the financial and prestige interests of most specialists to erect the complexity barricades. Even if the complexity is artificial or illusory it can serve the purpose of deterring examination and intrusion.


That Is The Question

What are the routes for questioning? The two forums usually considered for questioning are politics and the media. Unfortunately, neither can be counted on for enlightened debate. In large part, this is because of the way we go about analyzing problems and proposing solutions.

Logic Defines Form

Our pattern of questioning has been constrained by our system of logic. The binary true or false is the basis of our way of thinking. Right or wrong, our side or their side, enemy or ally, winners and losers, these are all manifestations of our use of logic. It’s how we analyze problems, there are two sides because there is a right and a there is a wrong.

This rigid framework for analysis has produced the adversarial systemadversarial system now operating in our courts and political institutions. We have opposing counsel who battle, not for the truth or for justice, but to win. We have government and opposition, who do everything to show their side right and the other wrong.

Curiously, Scottish criminal law allows three verdicts, guilty, not guilty, and not proven.

When the pendulum swings it’s not from one side through the middle to the other, but from one side, skip the middle, to the other. Why does this happen? We seem reluctant to consider alternatives for fear of being seen to cross to the other side. We are predisposed to consider either this answer or that, seemingly incapable of contemplating any mélange of the two.

The choice we are given in education reform is either child centred learning or back to basics.

Our use of logic has also led us to preclude more than one right answer. Our legal and political systems are the most slavish adherents to this form. We search not for an answer, but the answer to our problem. Having only one right answer leads to senseless partisan bickering, and much more destructive than constructive opposition.

Political Points

The most obvious forum for questioning, and also quite unlikely to produce satisfactory answers, is our system of representative's democracyrepresentative democracy. In this system we are told that our Member of Parliament is meant to represent our views in government. If we want more active participation, we are told to join a party, to be part of the process of formulating and guiding party policy. This policy debate is undertaken with the idea that its results will be reflected in government action. This might be a good system if MPs actually did represent us, if party policy really was carried into government action, and if anything that MPs did really much mattered.

The current lack of respect for legislatorsdebate as a game is due in large part to the games they play in their endless quest for partisan points and temporary advantage. Currently, almost no actual legislative debate guides the formation of the laws, for they are drafted and cast in stone long before reaching the legislature. The debates we do see are merely a series of vacuous monologues to keep up the charade that legislators really earn their keep.

On issues of true significance, and especially embarrassment, we are thrown the bone of aRoyal Omissionroyal commission, to report some years from now, after spending huge sums of money. This is done of course, in the hope that by the time the commission has reported, the public will have forgotten about the issue and the report can be safely stored in the archives with the others. Ironically, the commissions often produce reports that deal creatively and substantively with the questions, but as that is not their true purpose, these results are usually discarded.

Public cynicism about politics is well justified. Supposedly new style politicians running in the current game proclaim their goal of changing the rules of politics, but regularly fall back on the old ways.

the Reformed PartyThe Reform Party censured one of its members for speaking publicly about his leader’s expense account. After a special private caucus meeting to defuse the issue, several members spoke about their new belief in caucus solidarity and privacy.

An effect of the structure of our partisan political system is that questions tend to be debated only within its context. We are forced to take sides, to choose answers composed of ideas that conform to one and only one of the ideologies. We must lay blame. We must stick to our turf. Good ideas are only good if they conform to partisan purposes.

Because most of the debate takes place in private, the public is left wondering about the reasons for policy decisions. The parties, interested in furthering their fortunes, play manipulative games with the truth using the media as both willing and duped accomplices.

Media Mangling

Another avenue for questioning should be the the medium has no messagemedia, yet here we often see a demonstration of the most sycophantic behaviour imaginable. Panels of media created celebrities have conversations where the information content and insight are almost non existent. Often they are merely mutual admiration societies where the most basic information is dressed up and passed off as inside knowledge. Wild speculation is rampant and no more informed.

Journalists intent on the scoop is a ratings gimmick dressed up as the public interestmaintaining inside access to politicians and the political process learn to limit the range of enquiry to a narrow partisan context. These media personalities owe their fame to their ability to get the inside information and will do nothing that might jeopardize that access. On top of that, many enjoy their access to the inner circles and bask in the importance it must confer upon themselves.

The scoop, or exclusive, is a game of no benefit to the debate, yet it is pursued as if being first was the point. Media personalities gain credibility in proportion to their ability to be first, not on the quality of their coverage. In fact, by excluding other coverage of events, the public is badly served.

Further trivializing the news, the photo opportunitythe photo op has replaced the news conference has largely replaced the news conference in terms of media importance. As most news conferences now only serve to produce capsulized news, the photo op conveniently offers the necessary pictures to be accompanied by an empty voice-over or commentary, without the problem of possibly probing questions.

Trends are invented and publicized, soon becoming self fulfilling prophecies. Incomplete, inaccurate, and incorrect information becomes enshrined as fact by merely disseminating it within the mass media. Reported enough times by different outlets, inaccuracies and untruths take on a life of their own. All this reporting becomes evidence of the truth of the assertions. Distortions, omissions and falsehoods soon become the facts as they are archived in the journals of record.

Voices outside the mainstream are excluded except to provide the requisite shrill factor. These voices can be easily made to sound ridiculous when juxtaposed with the sonorous platitudes of orthodox opinion. The time and space restrictions of our media don’t allow thoughtful arguments to be presented that challenge the unconventional wisdomconventional wisdom. The journalists also relish their new found status as commentators rather than just reporters. They are hardly likely to invite interested parties to replace themselves, especially if those parties are in disagreement.

Television craves images and its appetite prefers to exclude the unphotogenic. News has become a parade of the unusual and the bizarre, giving the impression that this is the norm.

Television interviews are frequently premised on a charade of liveness. One camera interviews with the requisite phony shots of the questioner are standard practice. Interviewees are often in remote locations trying to stare into a camera and pretend they are looking at the interviewers. Groups of subjects are even placed in the same room, with multiple cameras and different artificial backgrounds to make them appear to be in several exotic locals. Translation delays are omitted while the interviewer feigns understanding, the facial expressions of both reacting parties being synchronized to the wrong audio. And all this is conducted in the context of the news, the supposedly reality based programming.

Attaining credibility in public debate is now predicated on the ability to look good on this television. Snappy quotes must be delivered into good sound blightssound bights or all substance is ignored.

Traps When Questioning

When we do attempt to question, we tend to engage in unproductive behaviour. This can be so because of certain dubious assumptions we make about the nature of the topic. These assumptions concern the nature of the behaviour of the actors and the parameters of the discussion. They cloud our analysis of the subject and restrict our range of enquiry.

Reducing People to Roles

Nothing in our debates on public policy is more insidious than the casual categorization of people into various roles, I consume, therefore I amconsumer, employee, voter, taxpayer, parent. It is a device used by the lazy to allow shallow analysis to go unchallenged. Unfortunately, we tend to accept these narrow role interests quite freely, and find ourselves trapped within them.

The taxpayer doesn’t want us to spend this money, the voter insists on it, the consumer believes it distorts the market and raises prices, and the employee thinks it’s an unfair subsidy to others.

Statements like when consumers start spending again might as well be phrased as when unemployed workers start spending again.

We are represented in these apparently exclusive roles by lobby groups that claim to defend our interests. Groups representing taxpayers’ rights, civil liberties, consumer associations, gender and ethnic associations, unions, and even political parties can only seem to advocate within the confines of one of our roles, and often end up favouring decisions that go against our general interest.

A standard method of analyzing a problem is to break it into components each of a more manageable nature. But when this is done with public policy problems the pieces are often never again considered as a whole. We then get solutions tailored for some of our role interests that ignore our general condition. If the war on inflation brings us unemployment are we better off?

The artificial constraining of interest that these roles imply distort public policy tremendously. These role definitions are all simplistic categorizations of the many-faceted and intertwining interests of real people in real economies. Considering people only as role interests leads to facile solutions that often do more harm than good.

Reducing Systems to Models

Equally simplistic assumptions are made when considering systems. Questions are often skewed by the models that people apply to describe them. These models are usually designed to simplify the problem of studying systems of fundamental complexity. Unfortunately, the simplifying assumptions can render the results of our analysis irrelevant to the original question.

The most flawed and ineffectual models I know of are those that purport to capture the behaviour of the economy. These macro and micro-economic models are based on so many simplifying assumptions and false premises as to render them almost worthless. Yet they are relied upon again and again as strategic forecasting tools, and worse, as filters for our policy prescriptions. Time and again the models don’t even predict what they were intended to, let alone rationally analyzing the system as a whole.

In science, and especially the science concerning the very small or very large, models are often put in place as a substitute for real understanding. For most of these questions we have no fundamental grasp of the system. Think of the brain and the mind, or climate and the ecosystem. Scientists usually have the courtesy to describe these models in the terms of theory, which at least leaves open the possibility of being proven wrong.

Users of these models purport to understand, when they are really only grasping at the surface of highly complex issues.

Rosy Assumptions

A classic problem when examining systems is to assume that the behaviour of the actors is moral (for example, corporationswhat's good for GM is good for the country). This often leads to the assumption that the parties are working for our benefit.

Is our economic system designed for the benefit of society or is our social system structured for the benefit of the economy?

We also tend to assume that the protagonists know what they are doing, are doing it deliberately, and that the system is under their control, or that they even understand it. All these can lead you to consider actions that will prove counter-productive.

We are also apt to assume that a system is predictable, stable, and controllable. Or that it has actually been designed instead of being a jumble of uncoordinated decision making. Or worse, that an uncoordinated system hasn’t been designed.

Financial markets are loosely structured, uncoordinated, subject to rumour, and highly unpredictable, yet our whole economic system is based upon their proper functioning. But it can be argued that this system has been designed that way.

Assuming that a system is structured correctly and that debate within that system can be productive can often be a fundamental flaw. This is the classic desire to work for change work within the systemwithin the system, one that often proves fruitless.

The Positive Imperative

If you can’t say anything nice then don’t say anything at all. If you have no constructive criticism then don’t criticize. If you’re not part of the solution then you’re part of the problem. You’re not a team player if you point out problems. There are no problems, only opportunities.

These statements characterize the current common attitude toward those who dare to question how things are run. The underlying point is that to be legitimate in questioning you must have answers. It is not good enough to recognize a problem and point it out, you must propose a solution. We thus enforce a positive image of society by suppressing consideration of problems without pat solutions.

When was the last time you heard a politician raise a question without proposing a tidy solution? Which one gets elected?

The Ontario Conservatives were elected in 1995 having promised easily grasped solutions to the perceived problems. This contrasted to the N.D.P. government which refused to offer easy solutions, and the Liberals who offered copious detailed answers.

It appears that facile solutions emphasizing the positive are often more attractive than more realistic expressions of uncertainty. The can docan do attitude attitude is what prevails in our society. This also shows in the look on the bright side response, especially of Americans.

For days after the Oklahoma City bombing, the death and destruction were downplayed in favour of the heroic efforts of the rescuers and the massive hunt for the perpetrators.

Unfortunately, solutions are not always readily at hand, are not always within the ability of the questioner. If we suppress questioning because we don’t have the answers then we won’t even recognize the need. Society looses when questions are not asked because the answer is not apparent.

Hypothetical Avoidance

Our society has an almost infinite capacity to avoid questions that are deemed to be hypothetical, in other words, not currently a problem. Politicians especially are loath to answer hypothetical questions for fear of leaving a trail of pronouncements that can be used as partisan ammunition at a later date.

But prior to the fact is often the only time that issues can be properly planned for, with effective compensating actions that are ready to deal with the potential fallout of decisions. Too often such planning is regarded as nay saying or pessimism. Prior consideration also has the potential of affecting the decision itself when possible consequences can be discussed.

Jean Chrétien’s government refused to discuss the hypothetical question of Québec separation. Apparently, they were unprepared for a narrow No vote as well.

The all sweetness and light attitude of most decisions is itself a hypothetical proposition, it’s just that we’re so used to being positive that we don’t recognize it as such.

Curiously, hypothetical events can be the driving force behind policy. In these cases though, the hypothetical is cast as the inevitable consequence of the previous policy.

The ominous warnings about a debt crisis are offered not as a hypothetical outcome but as a certain consequence.

The See All, Know All Attitude

When questioning in modern society, people often pretend that they are aware of all the issues and ramifications. People won’t point out their own knowledge gaps.

ignorance reduces credibilityIgnorance reduces credibility in our society. We find it socially awkward to admit to not knowing something. We have come to equate ignorance with stupidity, an attitude that has been fostered in our schooling. We are so loath to showing our ignorance that we learn useful techniques that hide it. In conversation we will feign recognition, in debate we deftly steer the topic around our gaps in learning. We avoid public questioning in areas where we have little knowledge, for fear of exposing our ignorance.

In social situations this tendency is likely harmless, just one of the social niceties to avoid embarrassing situations. Society really loses though, when we don’t acknowledge the limits of policy and planning, or when we try to squelch consideration of outcomes we have not taken into account.

In speeches, debate and policy pronouncements, the impression of dealing fully with a question can be given by simply excluding consideration of certain aspects out of the competence or interest of the speaker. Political success is measured by the degree to which this fools the audience into thinking that everything has been taken into consideration. Unfortunately, societal success would be indicated by just the opposite.

Instant Authority and
Never Change Your Mind

People in public debate have usually been chosen because they are authorities, and authorities know everything. They must have opinions on everything and they must produce these opinions on command. Admitting that you haven’t thought about some topic, or that you aren’t aware of some event just won’t do. It can prove politically fatal.

One thing we really don’t tolerate in our debate is changing your mind. This is seen as weakness, rather than an ability to reason. Even worse would be to show the process of thinkinglet me think, even to take into account the other arguments and points. Besides, our adversarial system of debate just wouldn’t function if people were changing sides.

Most economic decisions are conducted as if people knew exactly what the outcome was going to be. From business investments to government fiscal and monetary policy we see countless examples of instant pronouncements and unwillingness to alter reasoning.

Our leaders aren’t allowed to change their minds either. This would induce lack of confidence by partisan supporters who expect consistency as well as ideological purity.


So our society drives people to pretend they know everything, to pronounce upon things immediately and with assurance, to be solutions driven, to avoid speculation on or advance consideration of potential events, and to remain firm in all beliefs. This doesn’t sound like a healthy recipe for a democratic state.

It Doesn’t Just Happen

We have to decide whether we are willing to just let things happen, that is, let them happen the way other people arrange it. Because things don’t just happen. But to be able to decide, we have to be able to analyze events, recognizing what is a root cause and what is an effect. This is not easy, as society piles layers of shallow and false analysis upon events before we are expected to take them in.

How do we cut through the barriers around issues? First we have to approach subjects with as little ideology as possible, and to admit and take into account what we cannot exclude. We then have to understand the motivations behind the actions of the players, because why people do things can be a powerful predictor of their actions.

Our tendency is to believe the accepted truths of disciplines about which we have little knowledge. This is no accident, we are meant to trust the authorities. The problem is there is often less knowledge and understanding within a field than the façade they project. All disciplines, groups, associations and systems are prone to everyday orthodoxies. As citizens we must attempt to determine whether they are based upon a solid foundation of comprehension, or whether they are just a convenient way of stifling questioning into uncomfortable gaps in knowledge.

We need to be aware of what forces shape our society if we expect to be able to understand and influence it’s course, or just to comfortably navigate our way through. In this age of apparently jumbled international integration, both economic and social, we need to consider the basic influences that shape events.

We are part of an age where the economy defines the way our lives are conducted. The structure of this economy is shaped by the market, by important financial players, and by key decisions made in the political realm. We are also part of an age where technology defines how we conduct our lives and how we think about what happens around us. Technology is also driving the economy and shaping social structures.

If culture and art are the things that make our lives more than just an existence inside the economy, we need to understand how these are interworking. Economics and technology are shaping our culture, and this culture is the basis of our society and the foundation for our values.

When examining these topics, we have to understand the scope of our questioning, especially the boundaries we may not realize are in place to steer us toward more orthodox thinking. It’s not that we have to advocate radical change, but that we should be aware of how our economic, political and social systems operate so that we at least intelligently assent to the status quo.

It doesn’t just happen
We are parties to this charade
Lamenting foregone possibilities
Avoiding unexplored paths
Society makes us willing
Technology leads the way
While others make and do things
We make do with what we’ll have

So let’s begin by looking at the system grandiosely called the economy, the structure that governs the means by which we live.



2 I’m using the term North America here in the typical way, meaning the U.S. and Canada.

3 The back to basics movement in education, perhaps unwittingly, plays into this objective.

4 The only profession where you can be put in charge of a field without having either knowledge or inclination.

>> II Whose Economy is This, Anyway?
Purpose and Structure of the Economy


<< Preface Preface
The Nature of Questioning


© 1995, 1997 Mark Nairn Hume