Archetypes, Foils, and Gender Norms

Through much of Western history “Man” has been an archetype with woman his convenient foil.

These two tired tropes have served us well in some regards – a simple way to summarize all that is strong and stern, or all that is weak and emotional. A tool for understanding not only ourselves, but our broader social context.

There are, of course, problems with this approach.

Consider, for example, the quote, “The perfect woman is a higher type of human than the perfect man, and also something much more rare.”

At first blush that may sound good. Perhaps I should be flattered. But of course Friedrich Nietzsche, who wrote the above in Human, All Too Human, isn’t exactly known for his raging feminist philosophy.

Perhaps because he also liked to write things like, “From the beginning, nothing has been more alien, repugnant, and hostile to woman than truth—her great art is the lie, her highest concern is mere appearance and beauty.”

But I’m not sure I find the second quote particularly more problematic than the first. They both take women as a foil – Man is the object of interest, and Woman a mere tool for understanding this more important truth.

One solution seeks to right this historic wrong by flipping the paradigm, making Woman a central concern in her own right. Perhaps it is Woman who should be the archetype with man demoted to foil – little more than a shadow which serves to illustrate its master.

But I find that approach unsatisfactory.

No sentence which begins “Woman is…” will end well for me. Women are not a monolith. Men are not a monolith. And gender is not a two item list.

We’re all individual people. With shared traits and divergent traits. Neither an archetype nor a foil.

We’ve put generations of effort into defining our gender norms. Women are this. Men are that. But which ever way you prioritize that list, a bifurcated system does little to express who we actually are.

I am glad to see efforts to promote strong women, to show real images of women, and to treat women as more than a shadow for the other half of society.

But these efforts are not enough. They still feel too narrow, too defining. Perhaps we need to think more radically – not about what it means to be Woman or what it means to be Man, but about what it means to be a Person.

facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditlinkedintumblrmail

Is the US an Oligarchy?

"Get Money Out of Politics" by Flickr user Light Brigading

“Get Money Out of Politics” by Flickr user Light Brigading

Some things live forever in social media. In my circles, one article that comes up all the time is the Marten and Gilens study of legislative influence that is often interpreted this way: “US No Longer an Actual Democracy” or “Princeton Concludes What Kind of Government America Really Has, and It’s Not a Democracy.

Part of the problem is that I think there are serious political inequality issues in the US. But the study fails to prove it, and it’s been blown out of proportion in lots of disempowering ways. The study is basically a victory for the null hypothesis: on reflection, we don’t have much evidence that policies are determined by a single group.

Here’s how it works: the study compares the policy preferences of four groups: median voters, voters in the top 10 percent of income, business-oriented interest groups, and “mass-based” interest groups. Using data from survey responses, they note that policy outcomes more often correlate with the rich and business-oriented interest groups than with the median voter and mass-based interest groups. Case closed, right?

No so fast: It’s still the case that the best predictor of the success or failure of any policy initiative is the median voter. But the median voter and the 90% voter usually agree. When they don’t, the 90% voter usually either a) prefers the status quo or b) prefers the socially liberal position. And so over the last 20 years, the status quo has tended to win out (in aggregate) except when it is broadly favored by median and 90% voters or is socially liberal and favored by the 90% voter.

A lot of this paper depends on obscuring some important issues behind difficult math. Their R2 is .074; that’s actually, pretty close to random. It means that median voters, economic elites, and interest groups, together, determine 7.4% of the variability in policy outcomes! Almost all of that is elites and interest groups, it’s true! But when you’re dealing with such small numbers, it’s easy to get *statistically* significant results that aren’t actually all that significant in human terms. In 92.6% of the policy outcomes, none of these independent variables was predictive.

That means that no group predominates most of the time, but “US System of Government is 95% Democratic” doesn’t get people to link to your study on social media.

What’s worse is that most of my progressive readers will disagree with the policy issues that the median voter has lost on.

A Metafilter friend who looked at the SPSS file wrote: “Of the 1779 polls, 105 ended up with policy being what rich people wanted and what median-income people didn’t, out of 189 polls where rich people and regular folks disagreed. The only times there was more than a 20-point gap (ie 60% of rich wanted one side but only 40% of regular people did) were the 10 or so questions about NAFTA. The rest of the time it was a slight majority of rich people favoring something and a smidge under 50% of regular folks favoring it. 

Rich people got their way mostly on social issues — RU486 legality, IDX legality, gays in the military, various abortion/birth control restrictions. But also stuff like outright banning immigration for five years, the legality of public-sector strikes, outright bans on military or domestic aid to any foreign country, and so on.”

The median voter has sometimes been prone to serious mistakes or moral failings, as you can see. So the real title should be “US System of Government is 95% Democratic and a Lot of the Rest of The Time the Demos are Assholes and Deserve to Lose.”

Then, too, nothing in their data can disaggregate the top 1% or the top 0.1%, as the authors freely admit. It also doesn’t ask about the bottom 10% or the bottom 1%, which is a perspective I much prefer.

But that means that their conclusions regarding elite domination are even less well-supported. As a progressive I’m primed to suspect that very wealthy interests usually dominate: what’s interesting is how hard it is to prove what “everybody knows.” If you believe in their conclusions, then you should actually downgrade your priors on the basis of this study. Mostly, this is a study that demonstrates how hard it is to do serious empirical work on this question. It ignores selection bias issues like which policies pollsters poll on. (Hint: they tend to poll on popular policies that are not yet in place.) If there aren’t any polls on the vast majority of things affluent and median disagree on, we’d be in the dark about affluent influence. As longtime readers know, my favorite policy initiative is the basic income guarantee, but it’s very rarely polled and when it is polled, it’s fairly unpopular.

So I do think “median voters and affluent voters generally agree in polls” is the most significant finding here. Democracy may often lead to this confluence of elite and mass interests, either through propaganda or elite-deference to voters. Perhaps voters judge outcomes rather than policy inputs, so politicians aim to guarantee good economic and social outcomes even when these contradict the policy preferences that would have unintended consequences. Perhaps it’s even true that the petite-bourgeoisie still finds its class interests allied with capital most of the time. The real victims can’t vote, right?

Election Analysis: The Populist Alternative

Real populism is a politics of civic empowerment and deepening democracy. It weds strategies for challenging injustices and unaccountable power with programs of popular self-education and uplift, based on the premise that a commonwealth of freedom requires a commonwealth of citizens, to use the phrase of the 19-century African American poetess Frances Harper.

Populism of this kind is a sharp challenge to conventional views which see populism as "us versus them" demagoguery. It also differs from dominant liberal and conservative frameworks used to interpret the Republican advance in the recent election. Here are today's conventional views:

The liberal interpretation. George Lakoff, a cognitive scientist who has helped make the concept of "framing," processing information through mental models, well-known, repeated his liberal frame to explain Democratic defeats in a blog essay, "Democratic Strategies Lost Big." In his view, Democrats got lost in the weeds of particular issues and forgot the bigger storyline. For Lakoff, the Democratic message is that our collective empathy is expressed through government. "For progressives, empathy is at the center of the very idea of democracy... a governing system in which citizens care about their fellow citizens and work through their government to provide public resource for all. Private life depends on... public resources."

Though Lakoff professes to be a voice in the wilderness, in fact progressive Democrats have been following his advice for years. At the Democratic convention in 2012, many voiced Lakoff's views almost word for word, arguing that "government is the one thing we all belong to." As Barney Frank, the liberal congressman from Massachusetts put it, "There are things that a civilized society needs that we can only do when we do them together, and when we do them together that's called government."

The conservative interpretation. Yuval Levin, a prominent young Republican intellectual, skewered the Democrats during 2012 for exactly this "government-centered" view. He described its advocates as those who "would like to extend the web of federal benefits as far and wide as possible" and "make Americans dependent on government beneficence and the liberal politicians who bestow it." Levin also called for Republicans to reject go it alone individualism and remember their civic roots.

He proposed in the Weekly Standard, October 8, 2012, that conservative philosophy believes

What happens in the space between the individual and the government is vital... Local knowledge channeled by evolving social institutions -- from civic and fraternal groups to traditional religious establishments, to charitable enterprises and complex markets -- will make for better material outcomes and a better common life.


As Sam Tanenhaus described in the New York Times magazine last July 2, Republicans were listening. And according to the New York Times columnist David Brooks, Republican success in fact depended on remembering civic roots. "Republicans didn't establish this dominant position because they are unrepresentative outsiders," Brooks argued.

Republicans... re-established their party's traditional personality. The beau ideal of American Republicanism is the prudent business leader who is active in the community, active at church, and fervently devoted to national defense.


Populism, a politics of civic empowerment, shares with liberals a concern for justice and public resources. But it puts people -- not government -- at the center of the action, seeing government as a potentially empowering partner. It shares with conservatives a concern for "middle spaces" between individuals and government. But it sees these as potentially empowering civic sites, seedbeds for constructive social change.

As I argued previously in "Higher Education and the Politics of Free Spaces," it also emphasizes the transformative qualities of middle spaces when they become free spaces.

After the Civil War, Frances Ellen Watkins Harper was an organizer among African Americans for the Women's Christian Temperance Union (WCTU). As Sara Evans and I describe in our book, Free Spaces, the WCTU used the phrase "do everything." WCTU civic activities, from homeless shelters and clinics to schools, clubs and self-help groups, generated a vast array of free spaces. In these women of diverse backgrounds developed confidence, public skills and public assertiveness, crucial foundations for the women's suffrage movement.

Harper drew on such experiences to argue that African Americans must organize themselves and develop themselves to complete the work of Reconstruction. She most certainly would have understood Dorothy Cotton's song, "We Are the Ones We've Been Waiting For," expressing the spirit of the free spaces in the 1960s civil rights movement which shaped me as a young college student.

On April 14, 1875, Harper addressed the Pennsylvania Society for Promoting the Abolition of Slavery. She issued a challenge to injustice:

Ladies and gentlemen: The great problem to be solved by the American people... is this: Whether or not there is strength enough in democracy, virtue enough in our civilization, and power enough in our religion to have mercy and deal justly with four millions of people but lately translated from the old oligarchy of slavery to the new commonwealth of freedom; and upon the right solution of this question depends in a large measure the future strength, progress and durability of our nation.


She wedded this challenge to a call for collective self-development:

The most important question before us colored people is not simply what the Democratic Party may do against us or the Republican Party do for us; but what are we going to do for ourselves? What shall we do toward developing our character, adding our quota to the civilization and strength of the country, diversifying our industry, and practicing those lordly virtues that conquer success and turn the world's dread laugh into admiring recognition?


Harper's vision of people-centered, empowering, educative politics infused the free spaces and the uplifting rhetoric which I experienced in the black freedom movement.

Once again, we urgently need such people's politics and the vision of a deeper, more vibrant democracy.

Charlie Wisoff reviews “Making Democracy Fun” by Josh Lerner

We just love Making Democracy Fun a great new book by Josh Lerner, an NCDD member and ED of the Participatory Budgeting Project. We love to work with Josh and his ideas – from hosting his great “gamification” talk during the final NCDD 2014 plenary to co-sponsoring PBP’s recent conference – and we hope you’ll read the review of his book written by Charlie Wisoff of the Kettering Foundation below.


In Making Democracy Fun, Josh Lerner addresses a key problem of democracy: “For most people, democratic participation is relatively unappealing. It is boring, painful, and pointless.” This is the case in traditional public hearings that end in bitter conflict and have little impact, but Lerner argues that even idealized forms of participation, such as deliberation, are not intrinsically fun.

To address this problem, Lerner draws on the growing field of game design. Games are defined as, “systems in which players engage in artificial conflict, defined by rules, that result in measurable outcomes.” Lerner has in mind a broad range of games including sports, board games, video games, or play-oriented games like tag. In contrast to the paltry numbers many public engagement processes get, 183 million people in the US report playing computer or video games regularly, 13 hours per week on average.

Lerner suggests utilizing a number of game design concepts and mechanics and applying them when designing democratic processes. He outlines 27 game mechanics organized under the categories of conflict and collaboration, rules, outcomes, and engagement. He also notes that the effectiveness of games does not depend on digital technology, that face-to-face interaction is essential for democracy, and that digital games should only be used to supplement rather than replace in-person engagement.

Throughout the book, Lerner draws on a number of case studies in Rosaria, Argentina and Toronto, Canada to illustrate his points about incorporating games into democratic processes. In a participatory planning process called Rosario Hábitat Lerner notes how a map puzzle game was used to prompt slum residents to make collective decisions about where they want their lots of land to be developed. A core game mechanic highlighted here is group vs. system conflict. This mode of conflict presents a group with a collective challenge, such as limited land, orienting participants towards collaboration rather than competition over scarce resources.

Another game mechanic Lerner highlights is the importance of having enjoyable core mechanics. Core mechanics are the basic activities of a game like bowling a bowling ball or rolling dice, which should be intrinsically enjoyable in a well-designed game. In Rosario, Lerner notes how theater-like games were used to get participants moving while at the same time allowing participants to act-out a new law in particular contexts. In Toronto, during Participatory Budgeting events, simple activities like putting color dots up to rate proposals made a voting process more enjoyable.

Lerner concludes by arguing that, while there “are no simple or universal recipes,” there are certain principles that should guide the application of game design mechanics to democratic processes: engage the senses, establish legitimate rules, generate collaborative competition, link participation to measurable outcomes, and participant-centered design.

For more info or to order Making Democracy Fun, visit www.mitpress.mit.edu/demofun.

nostalgia for now

Even in Kyoto
hearing a cuckoo
Basho missed Kyoto

Basho missed Kyoto
which is just a word to me
but I hear Basho

I hear Basho when
the rain beats the windshield
and I miss the rain

In driving rain, the
Starving orphan screamed
And Basho left, alone

And Basho left alone
Everything he caught
In wry, nostalgic lines

In wry, nostalgic lines
I read of Kyoto, which is just
a word to me

A word, to me, is
A row of letters that miss
Basho’s silky thought

Basho’s silky thought
comes to me as I watch the rain,
missing the rain

The post nostalgia for now appeared first on Peter Levine.

All the Truth is Out

I attended a great talk last night with Matt Bai, author of All the Truth Is Out: The Week Politics Went Tabloid. The national political columnist for Yahoo News, Bai previously was the chief political correspondent for the New York Times Magazine where he covered three presidential campaigns.

His latest book covers the 1987 Gary Hart scandal, when the political career of this leading Democratic candidate “came crashing down in a blaze of flashbulbs, the birth of 24-hour news cycles, tabloid speculation, and late-night farce” as tails of his “womanizing” swept tabloids and mainstream press alike.

Bai argues that the Hart affair “marked a crucial turning point in the ethos of political media,” a point when candidates’ ‘character’ began to draw more fixation than their political experience.”

As the scandal grew in intensity, advisors told Hart to apologize, to be contrite in the face of overwhelming public opinion.

He did not.

As the Chicago Tribune reported in May 1987, “A defiant Gary Hart dropped out of the race for the 1988 Democratic presidential nomination on Friday, delivering an angry speech that blamed news media attention on his personal life for making his candidacy ‘intolerable.’”

The article continues, quoting Hart’s speech:

I say to my children and other frustrated, angry young people: I’m angry, too. I’ve made some mistakes. I said I would, because I’m human. And I did–maybe big mistakes, but not bad mistakes.

I refuse to submit my friends, my family and innocent people and myself to further rumors and gossip. It`s simply an intolerable situation,

I believe I would have been a successful candidate. I know that I would have been a very good president, particularly for these times. But apparently now we`ll never know.

We all better do something to make this system work or we’re all going to be soon rephrasing Jefferson to say, ‘I tremble for my country when I think we may in fact get the kind of leaders we deserve.’”

A journalist by training, Bai says his work is to tell an interesting story – not necessarily to present a specific argument. But the story of Gary Hart and the clash of political coverage and celebrity culture raises some interesting questions.

As Bai commented last night, ‘character’ has always been a consideration for political candidates, and it should be to some degree. The question is what should that character look like? How should it be judged?

That is to say, in the face of such intense media scrutiny, would you rather have a candidate who would drop out of the race – or choose to not enter politics – putting his family and friends before his political ambitions?

Or would you rather have the candidate who will say anything, do anything, be anything, to get elected?

Because in the political celebrity media environment, that’s the candidate we’re going to get. And perhaps we should tremble, for that is the candidate we deserve.

facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditlinkedintumblrmail

Last Day to Add to Our Conversation on D&D Barriers

As we announced last month, NCDD is looking for input from our community on the important conversation we started during our national conference about overcoming the biggest barriers to and in our work, and today is the last day to add to that conversation via our online engagement space hosted by Codigital.

GroupWithBubbles-600pxThe period for input in the online space will end tonight at midnight, so if you haven’t already, please make sure to visit www.ncdd.codigital.com to help us identify new and existing strategies for overcoming the four barriers for effective dialogue and deliberation work that our NCDD community has said are most pressing:

  1. Lack of trust in our democracy, in our leaders, and in one another
  2. Unequal access to D&D practices and to government
  3. Lack of cohesion as a clearly delineated field of practice with all parts in communication
  4. Structural barriers within our democracy and in our own infrastructure

We want to hear your thoughts and ideas – what do you think we can or should do as a field to overcome these challenges?

At the same time, we also want you to hear each others, and there are a lot. As of last night there were 145 ideas being discussed, and nearly 4,800 votes cast on them! All of us have great ideas, and we want to hear yours, so make sure that you contribute to the conversation today before it’s over! could not be more excited to see such great participation from our members.

NCDD’s hope that the Codigital activity will help us get a sense of what ideas and actions resonate most with the whole community, which can then help us devise clearer paths forward on how to overcome our field’s most biggest challenges.

Thank you so much to all of you who have already made this post-conference engagement project a huge success, and we look forward to sharing the results with you soon.