This week addresses two of my favorite topics, both as a creative writer who studied poetry in graduate school, and as a doctoral student studying public administration. Our focus is on two intertwined subjects: symbols, from Stone's text, and culture wars from Peters' text. It can seem a little counter-intuitive in our field, since public administration is called on so frequently to provide technical expertise and answers to wicked problems grounded in fact. What, then, are we to do when a problem like the ones Peters describes end up in our laps? Especially since the general public does not appreciate government institutions dictating solutions to these kinds of problems (except perhaps in the courts) navigating a cultural clash can be one of the biggest challenges we will face.
In part, we must acknowledge that these issues--whether they be the debate over abortion, gay rights, environmental causes, the death penalty or other challenging topics--cannot be "solved" in the traditional sense. As Peters notes, these problems will not be resolved by throwing more money at a community, or by bargaining between groups. As public administrators, government officials can often only aid in the process that political bodies undertake, and work to treat each side in an issue as fairly as possible.
Another effort we can undertake to improve ourselves, and to improve the policy process, is to take to heart Stone's discussion of symbols, and to realize that we are affected by the same rhetoric and action that influences the general public. If we're able to dissect how policies become targeted at particular groups (people who are homeless, for example) and what that means for them, and for us as administrators of policy, we can think critically about the role that those symbols play in our own decision-making, and how we can help others to imagine other ways of relating to peers, and the broader community.
Bear in mind how the power of symbols, and the struggle of culture wars play out in this week's documentaries, which each address in their own way topics raised by Peters. You have a choice this week to watch either an episode of In the Life's "Our Bodies, Our Rights," a television program on gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender issues, or a Frontline episode "The Last Abortion Clinic."
As you go through the week's reading, also consider the ways that you may be impacted, or participating in the creation of symbols. Where do we run across broadly accepted symbols in our daily lives, and how do we know what they mean? I look forward to reading more about your thoughts!
I think that “culture wars” are an aspect of society that will never go away. As long as there people with different ideas and beliefs there will be groups contrasting each other. Most of the time people just let it slide and don’t care what others think. However on some issues people become so emotionally invested and see the stakes as so high they come to see people who have the opposing viewpoint as the enemy. Letting the person be the problem and focusing all their anger at the person with the different belief not the issue itself. Issues like abortion, religion, and political affiliation are just some of the more popular examples but there are hundreds of these issues. Typically for people in the culture there is no debate, no negotiation, and no backing down. I agree these problems cannot be solved in any traditional sense. If 2 sides want opposite results and neither side is willing to compromise then any mutual solution is impossible. That is the nature of these wars. In many problems compromise is necessary and healthy however in this context I don’t think compromising will or even should work, no matter what side you’re on. Most of these issues are black or white with no middle ground. People already have the answer they want and whether they got to it by emotions or logic they will not be swayed. The very idea of seeing it from the others point of view is out of the question or a sign of weakness. Even leaving up to the government to decide is inadequate as public administrators, government officials can’t really arbitrate the matter satisfactorily and can at best ensure some level of fairness. These issues are very personal and complex. With abortion for example, to have any serious debate on an issue would involve in depth conversations on what each person’s values, religious affiliations, beliefs on morality, beliefs on what constitutes human life, individual rights and so on. Any point that was made would no doubt involve at least a few of these aspects and there would no doubt be numerous differences on the platforms of how we get to our answer. I think the only way a solution will ever be reached in almost any of these culture wars will simply be a majority rule. I also think it is important for us as a rational society to listen to each others perspective and listen and not just wait for our turn to talk. Too often instead of rational and respectfully debating an issue things become angry and volatile. When emotions are involved people tend to quickly act without thinking. To debate these issues require in depth knowledge, articulating your point and patience. However it is much easier to reduce the debate to the personal traits of the individual. People will quickly chant their group’s rhetoric demonizing the other person and believe that the person and their beliefs are bad without any deliberation on their actual beliefs. But if we cannot compromise we still need to remember the problem is the issue not the individual. If there cannot be a compromise we can at least respect the others beliefs and opinion.
ReplyDeleteTravis Gorney PAF340