Mapping Our Social Networks

LinkedIn has a neat tool called InMaps that I just learned is being retired soon.  With click of a button, it creates an interactive visual map of all your LinkedIn connections.  It assigns them colors based on their similarities to each other, and you can to label those colored clusters based on the similarities you see.

LinkedInMap-portion

Back when I first started using LinkedIn, I was pretty gung-ho about making connections. I currently have 2,147 LinkedIn connections, so my LinkedIn map is a little dense with people and the connections between them.  Interestingly, my current InMap is more densely concentrated than it was a couple of years ago when I first generated my InMap. There are fewer individuals and nodes that seem distanced from the others.

LinkedInMap-KeyIt’s a little hard to see who some of the other nodes are that seem to connect multiple sectors, but I could get a sense of who the most connected people are by the size of their dot.  Diana Whitney, Matt Leighninger, Thomas Valenti, Larry Schooler, Beth Offenbacker, Jon Ramer, Nancy White, Margaret Herrmann, and Libby and Len Traubman stand out to me as highly connected in LinkedIn.

One of the nice features InMaps offers is that it allows you to label your own clusters. If you click around all of the orange or blue dots on your map, it becomes clear that the people assigned to that color have something in common.  The image to the right shows how I chose to label my colored clusters.

My connections on LinkedIn, in large part, are NCDD’s connections. Reflecting on Albert-László Barabási’s Linked (a book on the power of networks), I feel pretty encouraged by the denseness and variety of my network map. In Barabási’s chapter “Hubs and Connectors,” he writes:

“Indeed, with links to an unusually large number of nodes, hubs create short paths between any two nodes in the system. Consequently, while the average separation between two randomly selected people on Earth is six, the distance between anybody and a connector is often only one or two.”

I’m curious about what other NCDDers’ InMaps look like, and how you would label your own clusters.  To create your own InMap (before it’s too late!), go to http://inmaps.linkedinlabs.com/ (you’ll have to enter your LinkedIn password). Once it has generated your map and you’ve added your labels, click Share and then add the web address of your map in the comments below so others can take a look. The link to your shareable map will look something like mine:

http://inmaps.linkedinlabs.com/share/Sandy_Heierbacher/575702...

Also – I’m very curious about what network mapping tools have worked best for NCDDers?  Mapping my own LinkedIn contacts or Facebook contacts is interesting, but NCDD is starting to map the organizations, collaboration, and capacity in our field.  What tools would you suggest we learn more about as we embark on this important task?  Are there any tools you’ve found particularly useful?  What tools have disappointed you?

People and Particles

People are, by most accounts, individuals. Thus the challenge of building good societies becomes a question of the role of individuals within a collective.

“Individuals” and “society,” as John Dewey bemoans, are often treated as antitheses. Building societies degrades the individual while individual freedom degrades societies.

Within this framework, one’s only hope is to develop strategies to balance these opposing interests. Individual freedom should be supported, but only within reason – laws should protect the collective whole.

As individuals within a society, we may debate where the proper line is – should laws govern firearms? Seat belt use? – but the framework is the same. Balancing the individual and the collective.

In The Public and its Problems -  spoiler alert, the public has many problems – Dewey refutes the individual vs collective standard:

A thing is one when it stands, lies or moves as a unit independently of other things…But even vulgar common sense at once introduces certain qualifications. The tree stands only when rooted in soil; it lives or dies in the mode of its connections with sunlight, air and water. Then too the tree is a collection of interacting parts; is the tree a more single whole than its cells?

Now, this all sounds a little earthy crunchy, as it were. Yes, yes, we are all connected. All part of nature. Blah, blah, hippie speech. Maybe it’s because I grew up in Northern California, but I’ve heard this all before.

It sounds good in theory, a skeptic might say, but does this cosmic connection mean anything in the real world? I am still me, you are still you, and you and I are still unique individuals. We still have a challenge: individual vs. society.

Or could this be an issue of frame?

Consider Peter Singer’s argument for acting as a global citizen. He begins by quoting  the Victorian philosopher Henry Sidgwick: We should all agree that each of us is bound to show kindness to his parents and spouse and children, and to other kinsmen in a less degree…

Singer reports that his students “nod their heads in agreement at the various circles of moral concern” which Sidgwick goes on to name.

Then the Victorian takes this little jaunt: [We should show kindness] to those of our own race more than to black or yellow men, and generally to human beings in proportion to their affinity to ourselves.

Yikes. Awkward. Singer’s students “sit up in shock.”

Treating your family with more care than others seems, perhaps, natural, but preferring your own race over others seems racist. Because it is racist. The notion appropriately ruffles our modern morality.

The point, of course, is to highlight this dissonance. This type of moral reasoning – that I should care about those “close to me” above others – is so pervasive that it too often goes unchecked. I may believe it’s immoral to care more for Europeans than for Africans, but accepting that I do have “circles of concern” makes me prone to such an outrage.

Singer argues that we need to re-frame the question of who is “like us,” by recognizing the common humanity that binds us all together.

I’ll leave that argument aside for the moment and bring this back to Dewey by saying that if you accept circles of moral concern – if you love your children more than a stranger – that is indicative that the individual/society struggle is more complex than a duality. There are many levels of association in between.

As Dewey goes on to describe:

Any human being is in one respect an association, consisting of a multitude of of cells each living its own life. And as the activity of each cell is conditioned and directed by those with which it interacts, so the human being whom we fasten upon as individual par excellence is moved and regulated by his associations with others; what he does and what the consequences of his behavior are, what his experience consists of, cannot even be described, much less accounted for, in isolation.

It is only when we strip man of their associations that we find the abstraction we call an “individual.” But in taking away the associations, we have taken away the meaning, the context – the “individual” as we know it is but a reflection, a placeholder, a simplification of the truth.

In true Deweyan fashion, I think I’ll conclude this post with a science metaphor.

Light, as you may know, is both a particle and a wave. In some experiments, it will behave as a discrete, complete particle. A single whole.

In other experiments, it will behave as a wave – altering the waves around it and radiating outwards with no discernible beginning or end.

A particle and a wave.

While this was first demonstrated with light, a core principle of quantum physics is that every material object, every thing that exists, is both a particle and wave. Yes, indeed, you yourself are a particle and a wave.

At least in a physical sense.

But, of course, one could apply this metaphor to associational living, with each person both a particle – a discrete ball of something – and a wave – a changing presence which affects those around it just as it is affected in turn.

Our families become atoms, our cities molecules, our countries cells, and our world a collective whole – consisting of a multitude of of cells each living its own life.

And somehow this complex world of dual natures and interactions becomes something coherent. Amidst the chaos, the randomness, and noise. It is complex, indeed, but it works.

facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditlinkedintumblrmail

Announcing Next Stage Facilitation Intensives in Montreal and Boulder

We are happy to share the announcement below from NCDD Sustaining Member Rebecca Colwell of Ten Directions. Rebecca’s announcement came via our great Submit-to-Blog Form. Do you have news you want to share with the NCDD network? Just click here to submit your news post for the NCDD Blog!


Integral Facilitator® Next Stage Facilitation™ Intensives are 3-day workshops introducing the core competencies of an Integral approach to facilitation designed to enhance your capacity to generate greater coherence and increased collaboration and dialogue in the groups you work with.

In this three-day workshop, you’ll learn:

  • How to maintain presence in the face of challenging situations.
  • How to work effectively with group energetics and emotional states.
  • How to effectively build connection and working with tension to deepen coherence and intimacy.
  • How to engage tension, power dynamics and conflict in a group.
  • How to increase the positive impact you have on others.
  • How to bring an integral approach to your work.

As a Next Stage participant, you’ll learn directly from master facilitator, mediator and former Director of Dispute Resolution for the Utah State Judiciary, Diane Musho Hamilton.

Your participation will include a deep dive into your personal presence as a facilitator, including how bring an Integral approach to your work with groups, and opportunities to practice new approaches that will stretch your development as a skilled facilitator. Masterful facilitators with depth and presence are more responsive to the subtleties of group dynamics and can create more rewarding and effective dialogue and collaboration.

Next Stage Facilitation Intensives will be taking place September 8 – 10 in Montreal, Quebec, and October 6 – 8 in Boulder, Colorado.

Sign up for an upcoming Integral Facilitator Next Stage Facilitation Intensive.

Praise from workshop participants:

“The workshop has shifted my perception of issues such as power, and allowed me to understand where my choices lie. I feel confident to run with those issues now as opposed to fighting against them and using up all my energy.” – Marissa Moore, Senior Finance Executive

“This has been my best experience ever in a 3 day training. Diane is an amazing facilitator! I’m currently figuring out how to get myself in the 1 year program as the 3 days were so exciting and promising in terms of my personal growth.” – Tremeur Balbous, Consultant & Integral coach

“Take facilitation to a whole other level. The Next Stage Facilitation three day intensive shakes you out of conventional and stifled facilitation modes and expands your view to multi-perspectival, grows your competencies toward integral–exploring what it means to work with individuals, the collective and the topic at hand in a balanced, elegant and effective way, and, it strengthens your intuitive faculties to sense and trust the energetic field of the room and respond.” – Michelle Elizabeth, Consultant

Watch Integral Facilitator Lead Teacher Diane Musho Hamilton’s recent Google Book Talk on conflict resolution:

For more information, visit https://tendirections.com/next-stage-facilitation-3-day-intensive.

job openings in civic renewal (6)

My lists of open positions seem popular, and I am able to post them with increasing frequency, because the market appears to be improving. That’s excellent news; it is really hard to create a movement without viable career paths.

The Democracy Fund “seeks to hire two Program Associates, each of whom will be focused on supporting one of our three initiatives and providing assistance to the other two. The three initiatives aim to create a more responsive political system, foster more informed participation, and improve the capacity of our political system to solve problems.”

The Mikva Challenge, an excellent civic education organization traditionally based in Chicago, is looking for “a great educator with an entrepreneurial spirit who can help Mikva replicate its Democracy in Action program to S. California cities and classroom (LA is the hub).”

The Department of Management at Drexel University’s LeBow College of Business invites applications for the Rocereto Professorship in Leadership with appointment beginning in the academic year 2014-15.

Public Conversations Project seeks a Program Coordinator who will be “responsible for providing day-to-day coordination and support for Public Conversations Project’s Open Enrollment Training Program and Fieldwork (Customized Training, Facilitated Dialogue, Consulting/Coaching).  The Coordinator is also responsible for new business development.  The Coordinator will also assist with PCP training and facilitation.”

“Social Capital Inc. is looking for a part-time “Community Connector” to work on a new community web portal for the Healthy Chelsea Coalition. Please spread the word if you know of candidates in the #Boston area! Looking for someone fluent in Spanish as well as English.”

“Nonprofit VOTE, an independent, nonpartisan 501(c)(3)nonprofit organization currently located in Boston, MA, is seeking an inspired Executive Director to oversee, manage, and grow the organization. Nonprofit VOTE works nationally and in the states to harness the reach of nonprofits to increase voter participation and to close participation gaps, especially among populations underrepresented in the political process.”

The University of Michigan’s Rackham Graduate School is recruiting a new Academic Program Officer with responsibility for initiatives in public scholarship.  “The new Academic Program Officer will continue to be responsible for day-to-day oversight for Arts of Citizenship programs–the Institute for Social Change, the Summer Fellows program, and the Graduate Students Grants program–and will work with Mathew Countryman, Mark Kamimura-Jimenez, the Director of Graduate Student Success, and the incoming Associate Dean of Arts and Humanities to develop a number of new initiatives in public scholarship, including the Engaged Pedagogy Initiative that Arts of Citizenship has undertaken in conjunction with the Center for Engaged Academic Learning and the Residential College.”

The Coady International Institute rightly calls itself “a world-class leader in community-based, citizen-driven development education.” It is based in Halifax, Nova Scotia and has both a global reach and deep local roots. It is led by the distinguished scholar/activist John Gaventa. “The Institute is committed to reducing poverty and transforming societies by strengthening local economies, building resilient communities, and promoting accountable democracies.” The Institute seeks a Specialist in Citizen Engagement, Advocacy and Accountability (a program teaching staff position). They explain: “The Institute is in the process of strengthening its work on promoting accountable democracies. How citizens make their voices heard through innovative advocacy, accountability and peacebuilding strategies that influence governments and other institutions is a critical issue around the world. Citizen engagement, grounded in power analysis, is important in all of our programs.”

The post job openings in civic renewal (6) appeared first on Peter Levine.

Existence is Hard (But that’s okay)

I’ll admit to having something of a penchant for the melodramatic – somehow the art of such flourishes strike me as imbued with valuable meaning.

So perhaps it is simply that flair for the dramatic which occasionally catches me uttering such phrases as: well…existence is hard.

I made that very statement conversationally the other day, though in retrospect such apparently bleak phraseology is not the stuff so-called proper conversations are made of.

I immediately regretted having voiced it.

But, perhaps, there is no need for such regret. Perhaps the statement isn’t so melodramatic after all. In fact, is it not true that existence is hard?

Life is hard is a well known adage, and existence, I would posit, is roughly as hard as life.

Yet existence is hard sounds dark, dreary, and – as I was told – depressing. It’s the kind of thing you might say before tossing yourself off a cliff or going out in some other dramatic fashion.

I imagine someone simply disintegrating into nothingness, too overcome with the difficulty of existence to even hold their molecules together. They might simply disperse, scattered upon the air. An ex-parrot.

But why should it be so depressing that existence is hard? Should we rather have it that existence be easy?

I’ll not deny that the option sounds tempting. Some days, in particular, life would just be so much easier…if life were easy. But life isn’t easy. Existence is hard, and sometimes it’s a struggle to get out bed in the morning.

And that’s okay.

I don’t dream of a utopia where all is perfect and harmonious all the time. If such a state were even possible, I would find it…unsatisfactory. It sounds static, fake, forced. That is not life in its finest sense.

Growth and change and improvement takes conflict, disagreement, and tension.

I’d certainly agree that there are no shortage of things we can improve upon in our society. And I like to think that those improvements could create a better world. A more just world.

But life will always be hard. I’d not advocate that everyone live forever. Nor that everyone hold the same opinion. I might argue that we have the same capabilities, but I wouldn’t advocate to have the same functionings. These realities create challenges.

We should certainly strive to minimize those challenges. I’d advocate for civil dialogue. For systems that treat people fairly and equitably. For collective efforts to address our collective problems.

But we will still have problems. There’s no end to the road, only the constant challenge of continuous improvement. Facing those challenges will make us better, and braving those challenges will make the good times sweeter.

To embrace the role of dysfunction is to embrace the nature of change – to spurn a static ideal. To say that the bad times make you appreciate the good is to appreciate the bad times – to accept that they add value to a complicated world. To say existence is hard is to acknowledge a challenge – but to be cowed by it.

So yes, existence is hard. It is a challenge. But a worthy challenge.

I for one will strive to undertake it.

facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditlinkedintumblrmail

Education, Information Credibility, and Control of Corruption

Cartoon by Winsor McCay (1930), archived by Alan Light on Flickr.

Here’s an interesting paper by Weitz-Shapiro and Winters (2014)  on the role of education in political control of corruption, which should be of interest to those working in the open government/transparency domains.

When are citizens most likely to hold politicians to account for wrongdoing? In a crowded information environment, political accountability can be achieved only if credible information is available and citizens are able to identify that information. In this paper, we argue that the ability to discern more from less credible information is increasing in citizen sophistication. Using data from an original survey experiment in Brazil, we show that all citizens react negatively to corruption allegations, but that highly educated respondents are more likely to punish credible accusations and to overlook less credible accusations. We then show, using municipal-level audit data, that voters are more likely to punish credible accusations of corruption in municipalities with high literacy rates. Our findings suggest a novel mechanism that may link increasing education with control of political corruption: educated citizens are better able to discern and therefore act on credible accusations.

And, from the conclusion, an important message on the credibility of institutions:

Our findings have interesting implications for our understanding of the relationship between education and political accountability. They suggest a new mechanism through which high educational attainment might decrease corruption—not through changes in preferences that may be associated with different education levels, but rather because more educated individuals are better able to discern more from less credible information and therefore are more likely to act on the former. These results should be heartening to governments, like Brazil’s, that have invested in the creation of reputable independent auditing and control units. As long as these agencies are able to maintain their reputation for high quality, we should expect their influence to grow as the population becomes increasingly educated.

Finally, I couldn’t help but notice that, indirectly, this paper is a good reminder of the validity of the principal-agent model of accountability. Even though it is now fashionable to criticize the model, despite its limitations, it is far from obsolete.

You can download the full paper here [PDF].


NCDD 2014 Partner: League of Extraordinary Trainers

NCDD is proud to announce that The League of Extraordinary Trainers has signed on as a Partner of the 6th National Conference on Dialogue & Deliberation…

The League of Extraordinary Trainers are seven highly seasoned practitioners who have designed and presented some of the most powerful and recognized training in public participation, collaboration, consensus, high stakes communication, and facilitation in the world today. The League (known initially as the US Trainers’ Consortium) are practice leaders, developers and founders of the International Association for Public Participation (IAP2) and its spectrum, principles and ethics.

Specializing in the IAP2 Training program, the League of Extraordinary Trainers offers two courses, including (new for this year) a revamped IAP2 Certificate Program.  More information and their 2014 schedule can be found below…

IAP2 Foundations Program

Foundations in Public Participation was designed with the input of successful practitioners who work with diverse populations and divergent circumstances throughout the world. This course will let you hit the ground running, armed with the knowledge and confidence you need to plan and execute effective initiatives for any area in which you may be working.

September 8-12  -  Fort Worth, TX
October 27-31  -  Chicago, IL

Emotion, Outrage and Public Participation EOP2

This practical, hands-on workshop is a fresh mix of lecture, video, small and large group discussion and authentic, real world exercises that give you the answers, tools and ability to prevent problems, manage the tough public issues that you face and keep your organization on track and moving forward.

October 6-7  -  Las Vegas, NV
October 16-17  -  Austin, TX
December 4-5  -   Chicago, IL

Note: Discounts are available for NCDD members.  To take advantage of the NCDD Member Discounts contact them directly at info@extraordinarytrainers.com or 720-237-9175.

You can learn a lot more about The League of Extraordinary Trainers by visiting their website and when you meet the good folks from the league at the conference this Fall, please thank them for helping make NCDD 2014 possible!

Interested in Sponsoring the Conference?

Over the next few months leading up to NCDD’s 2014 National Conference (held this year at the Hyatt Regency in Reston, VA just outside DC), we’ll be highlighting the work of our event sponsors on our news blog, on social media, and on our listservs.  Those interested in helping us create our best event ever can learn more about sponsorship opportunities by downloading our 2014 Sponsorship Info PDF.

We also recommend you check out Seattle’s sponsors to get a sense of the fantastic organizations that step up to support NCDD events — and check out the guidebook from NCDD 2012 to see how sponsors are featured.

Good Choices

There are a lot of choices one must make in life, and this can often be a stressful process – will the choice I select lead to the outcome I hope for?

One may never know the full answer to that question, but occasionally in life there are those rare moments where you can’t help but think - if this is happening, I must be doing something right.

So, since birthdays breed self-reflection, here, in no particular order, are a few moments that make me feel I must have made good choices somewhere along the line.

  • I woke up one morning and decided I’d go to work dressed as a pirate. That might have made the list by itself, but the best part of this story is that I already owned everything I needed to dress like a pirate. I don’t know what the Good Life is, but if I can dress like a pirate at whim, I must be doing something right.
  • Without any intentional strategy on my part, a group of my friends took the public bus to my wedding. Because that was the obvious way to get there.
  • At one point, a couple of my friends and I took it upon ourselves to make T-shirts for our favorite Gubernatorial candidate and wear them out to bars where we informally canvassed. Do we know how to have a good time or what?
  • The girl who was, unfortunately, probably the most picked-upon girl in my high school class once told me she respected me.
  • One of my birthday gifts today was this math joke: What does Sin B/ Tan B equal? Answer here.
  • My sister and I were once tasked with getting folding chairs out of a shed that turned out to be padlocked. However, whoever built the shed had put the hinges on the outside, so rather than return empty-handed, we took the hinges off, got what we needed, and screwed the hinges back on. We had a screwdriver on us, of course. Why would we not?
  • Pretty much my favorite thing in the world is to hang out with civic nerdy people. Or nerdy civic people. I’m not sure which.

I can’t claim to have made no unfortunate decisions, and its certainly the case that things haven’t always worked out as I might have hoped. But hey – at least I’m doing something right.

facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditlinkedintumblrmail

is a network a good representation of a person’s moral worldview?

Here is a method that I and some colleagues have been using to model the moral worldview of individuals and of groups. First, pose questions about individuals’ principles, beliefs, and methods and ask them to respond with ideas that they endorse. Then show them their own ideas in a table and ask them to identify pairs that they consider closely related. That will allow you to generate a network diagram of their ideas. Give the diagram back to them and ask them to explain their ideas and connections to their peers. As they do so, ask them to modify their own networks.

This method will generate network graphs for each individual at each time-point during the discussion. All of their networks can be placed on the same plane to produce a map of the group; and to the extent that they have chosen the same ideas, the group will have a connected network. See, for example, these maps of the Summer Institute of Civic Studies and two of its members:

subject3subject2subject1

Of course, you will get networks because you have asked for networks. You could instead ask people to give you lists of moral ideas, in which case you would receive lists back. People’s lists could be shown as sets that would overlap when two or more individuals chose the same ideas. Respondents could also be asked for ranked or weighted lists or for lists of ideas that trump other ideas, just as all the diamonds may trump all the clubs in a card game. In the “5 Whys?” technique, individuals propose a basic idea, answer the question “Why?” about it, then ask “Why?” about the reason they have given, and so on. That method will produce a chain or ladder of ideas, instead of a network.

On what grounds is the network model preferable?

We could treat it as a method for modeling the moral psychology of research subjects. In that case, it would be an empirical psychological model and we would want to know whether it was reliable and valid. Reliability would be assessed as follows. Do individuals and groups give substantially similar responses when studied at different times and when the questions and instructions have been changed in superficial ways that should not alter the results? Validity would be assessed by asking whether the results for individuals and groups correlate with other reliable measures of moral thinking, such as how people respond to dilemmas or how they express moral views in narrative form. Both reliability and validity would have to be tested with samples of people who varied by culture, age, religion, language, etc. Regardless of the results that came back from initial studies, the method could be tightened. For instance, this summer I gave extremely vague instructions about what should count as a link between two ideas. Clarifying those instructions should improve reliability.

This suggests a whole empirical research agenda, which I consider valuable and have just begun to pursue. I’ve also argued that the model is consistent with and explains empirical results by Ann Swidler and Stephen Valsey, who do not use a network model. That is a modest claim of validity. Using the network concept to reinterpret previous empirical work in moral psychology would be another part of the research agenda.

However, there are two other ways to use the model that I find more significant. The first is normative. I want to argue that certain network forms are morally preferable–quite apart from how many people hold those forms. For example, networks should be relatively flat and dense. Making distinctions among network forms only becomes possible if we think of moral ideas as networks. If we model moral psychology using lists, then we will be restricted to asking how many items are on people’s lists, whether they are consistent, how they are ranked, and whether the right ideas are listed. Network models open up additional questions about how ideas are structured. To pursue this line of inquiry, we would not hypothesize that people think with networks of ideas. We would posit that their ideas can be so modeled and inquire into the differences among network forms.

The other (related) use is conceptual. A network is a picture, and I want us to shift our picture of morality. At the beginning of the Philosophical Investigations, Wittgenstein quotes St. Augustine and asserts that the quoted “words give a particular picture [Bild] of the essence of human language” (PI, 1). Wittgenstein suggests other pictures, starting with the metaphor of a game and going on to families and woven fibers. He wants to shake our confidence in the standard picture and argue that certain questions that it provokes are pointless. “What is your aim in philosophy? To show the fly the way out of the fly bottle” (PI, 308).

In a similar spirit, I would like to shake our confidence in a set of standard pictures of morality that generate false questions. For example, Rawls thought that we live in a world of many “reasonable but incompatible comprehensive doctrines.” That “fact” about the world posed difficult problems. How could we construct a political system that was fair to all the comprehensive doctrines? Would that system not also require its own comprehensive doctrine? His picture was not an idiosyncratic one. It arose from a widespread assumption that people hold rival but internally coherent moral worldviews. In my Nietszche and the Modern Crisis of the Humanities (1995) and Reforming the Humanities (2009), I assemble evidence that this assumption was fundamental for a whole range of modernist authors, from Hegel and Nietzsche to Leo Strauss and Jacques Derrida. For instance, Nietzsche’s Zarathustra says: “A table of values hangs over every people. Behold, it is the table of their overcomings; behold, it is the voice of their will to power.” Note: one table for each people, and every table different. “Never did one neighbor understand another: his soul always wandered at his neighbor’s madness and evil.” 

We do not need this picture. If you map many people’s worldviews as networks, you will not ask the question: “How many comprehensive doctrines do we see here, and on what grounds do they conflict?” You will see diversity and disagreement, but not plural systems of thought. And so some of the dilemmas of modernism and of liberalism will vanish.

The debate about foundationalism in ethics should also end. Traditionally, we call moral views “foundationalist” if all their ideas derive from a few that are large and indubitable. Basically, no one wants to be called a foundationalist these days, because a dependence on indubitable ideas is problematic. Geoffrey Sayre-McCord redefines the issue by calling any ideas, no matter how modest and fallible, “foundationalist” if they have some kind of epistemic advantage over one’s other ideas.* But then why talk about “foundations” at all? This is a metaphor, alluding to a building with a large, strong base on which the rest of the edifice is constructed. The metaphor produces an infinite regress: on what does the “foundation” of morality rest? If we switch to a network model, the paradox disappears. Moral ideas are linked, and some have stronger reasons than others. Some have non-moral reasons. A persuasive position includes lots of ideas that are reasonably well founded and well connected to each other. 

*Geoffrey Sayre-McCord, “Coherentist Epistemology and Moral Theory,” in Walter Sinnott-Armstrong and Mark Timmons, eds., Moral Knowledge? New Readings in Moral Epistemology (New York: Oxford, 1996), pp. 137-189.

The post is a network a good representation of a person’s moral worldview? appeared first on Peter Levine.