A rather remarkable debate in my undergraduate industrial-organizational psych class forms the groundwork for these thoughts.

We begin with trying to think through the implications of David Brooks’ critique of Obama’s healthcare intiative in the NY Times a week ago. Not surprisingly, the effect of thought across a group of 27 individuals was to generate a world of opinion. Not surprisingly, none of these lined up to describe the whole picture: but remained provocative as partial viewpoints, all somehow tangential to an indistinct focus.

Significant questions were asked: what is the nature of an incentive? who is incentivized and how? is it possible for the healthcare user to be “accountable”, given “transparency”, for thinking through the best situation for her/himself (wasn’t this what happened when in the financial sphere, defined contributions and benefits became subject to the personal choices of a fundamentally ignorant market? Think the Madoff pitch: modest, consistent returns guaranteed (the American Dream!))

But where was the central point?

‘What is the fundamental goal of democratic society’ was a top contender: is it to insure the fundamental rights of a people or the fundamental rights of its organizations? But this was too philosophical.

What galvanized the group was the nature of a healthcare right: the poorly defined “public option”: was it Socialist (= England, oddly enough (home of the limited liability corporation)) or American/”democratic”?

What became clear was that the question itself, evoked a conflicting interpretation of language: and that in the conflict, without consensus on the meaning of such ideas as socialism, democracy, human rights, etc., an immediate barrier was instantly discernable:  THE QUESTION ITSELF PROVOKED A DEFENSIVE BARRIER AGAINST OTHERS’ THINKING AS WELL AS ANY MEANINGFUL INTERACTION. DEFENSIVENESS EXTENDED ACROSS ALL POSITIONS: NO SIDE WAS ABLE TO HEAR ANOTHER.

All seemingly talking in English, the class fragmented along the lines of implicit meanings in the words they spoke. The effect? NO ONE COULD HEAR ANYONE ELSE BECAUSE THE MEANINGS OF LANGUAGE PRECLUDED ALTERNATIVE MEANINGS.

The outcome, the common denominator? That in order to be heard, it is necessary to negotiate the meanings of what we say, so we can be clearly heard.

• BROWSE / IN TIMELINE
• « New Research: “The Anguish of Unemployment” and Midlife Professionals
• » Learning From Cases: 1. Emotional Learning as Value

• BROWSE / IN Uncategorized
• « Sunny Skies and Hurricanes: Dress For the Weather
• » Working Knowledge Initiative. Exercise 2 for Reluctant Entrepreneurs.

• RELATED / YOU MIGHT FIND THESE INTERESTING
• No related posts