Alternative Modernities

Thoughts

  • Thoughts
  • The Divide
  • Technically Together
  • Current Research
  • Teaching
  • About Me
  • Vitae

10/6/2017

Why the Way We Talk About Politics Will Ensure that Mass Shootings Keep Happening

Read Now
 
Picture
After news broke of the Las Vegas shooting, which claimed some 59 lives, professional and lay observers did not hesitate in trotting out the same rhetoric that Americans have heard time and time again. Those horrified by the events demanded that something be done; indeed, the frequency and scale of these events should be horrifying. Conservatives, in response, emphasized evidence for what they see as the futility of gun control legislation. Yet it is not so much gun control itself that seems futile but rather our collective efforts to accomplish almost any policy change. The Onion satirized America's firearm predicament with the same headline used after numerous other shootings: “‘No Way to Prevent This,’ Says Only Nation Where This Regularly Happens.” Why is it that we Americans seem so helpless to effect change with regard to mass shootings? What explains our inability to collectively act to combat these events?
 
Political change is, almost invariably, slow and incremental. Although the American political system is, by design, uniquely conservative and biased toward maintaining the status quo, that is not the only reason why rapid change rarely occurs. Democratic politics is often characterized as being composed by a variety of partisan political groups, all vying with one another to get their preferred outcome on any given policy area: that is, as pluralistic. When these different partisan groups are relatively equal and numerous, change is likely to be incremental because of substantial disagreements between these groups and the fact that each only has a partial hold on power. Relative equality among them means that any policy must be a product of compromise and concession—consensus is rarely possible. Advocates of environmental protection, for instance, could not expect to convince governments to immediately dismantle of coal-fired power plants, though they might be able to get taxes, fines, or subsidies adjusted to discourage them; the opposition of industry would prevent radical change. Ideally, the disagreements and mutual adjustments between partisans would lead to a more intelligent outcome than if, say, a benevolent dictator unilaterally decided.
 
While incremental policy change would be expected even in an ideal world of relatively equal partisan groups, things can move even slower when one or more partisan groups are disproportionately powerful. This helps explain why gun control policy—and, indeed, environmental protections, and a whole host of other potentially promising changes—more often stagnates than advances. Businesses occupy a relatively privileged position compared to other groups. While the CEO of Exxon can expect the president’s ear whenever a new energy bill is being passed, average citizens—and even heads of large environmental groups—rarely get the same treatment. In short, when business talks, governments listen. Unsurprisingly the voice of the NRA, which is in essence a lobby group for the firearm industry, sounds much louder to politicians than anyone else’s—something that is clear from the insensitivity of congressional activity to widespread support for strengthening gun control policy.
 
But there is more to it that just that. I am not the first person to point out that the strength of the gun lobby stymies change. Being overly focused the disproportionate power wielded by some in the gun violence debate, we miss the more subtle ways in which democratic political pluralism is itself in decline.
 
Another contributing factor to the slowness of gun policy change is the way Americans talk about issues like gun violence. Most news stories, op-eds, and tweets are laced with references to studies and a plethora of national and international statistics. Those arguing about what should be done about gun violence act as if the main barrier to change has been that not enough people have been informed of the right facts. What is worse is that most participants seem already totally convinced of the rightness of their own version or interpretation of those facts: e.g., employing post-Port Arthur Australian policy in the US will reduce deaths or restrictive gun laws will lead to rises in urban homicides. Similar to two warring nations both believing that they have God uniquely on their side, both sides of the gun control debate lay claim to being on the right side of the facts, if not rationality writ large.
 
The problem with such framings (besides the fact that no one actually knows what the outcome would be until a policy is tried out) is that anyone who disagrees must be ignorant, an idiot, or both. That is, exclusively fact-based rhetoric—the scientizing of politics—denies pluralism. Any disagreement is painted as illegitimate, if not heretical. Such as view leads to a fanatical form of politics: There is the side with “the facts” and the side that only needs informed or defeated, not listened to. If “the facts” have already pre-determined the outcome of policy change, then there is no rational reason for compromise or concession, one is simply harming one’s own position (and entertaining nonsense).
 
If gun control policy is to proceed more pluralistically, then it would seem that rhetorical appeals to the facts would need dispensed with—or at least modified. Given that the uncompromising fanaticism of some of those involved seems rooted in an unwavering certainty regarding the relevant facts, emphasizing uncertainty would likely be a promising avenue. In fact, psychological studies find that asking people to face the complexity of public issues and recognize the limits of their own knowledge leads to less fanatical political positions.
 
Proceeding with a conscious acknowledgement of uncertainty would have the additional benefit of encouraging smarter policy. Guided by an overinflated trust that a few limited studies can predict outcomes in exceedingly complex and unpredictable social systems, policy makers tend to institute rule changes or laws with no explicit role for learning. Despite that even scientific theories are only tentatively true, ready to be turned over by evermore discerning experimental tests or shift in paradigm, participants in the debate act as if events in Australia or Chicago have established eternal truths about gun control. As a result, seldom is it considered that new policies could be tested gradually, background check and registration requirements that become more stringent over time or regional rollouts, with an explicit emphasis on monitoring for effectiveness and unintended consequences—especially consequences for the already marginalized.
 
How Americans debate issues like gun control would be improved in still other ways if the narrative of “the facts” were not so dominant in people’s speech. It would allow greater consideration of values, feelings, and experiences. For instance, gun rights advocates are right to note that semiautomatic “assault” weapons are responsible for a minority of gun deaths, but their narrow focus on that statistical fact prevents them from recognizing that it is not their “objective” danger that motivates their opponents but their political riskiness. The assault rifle, due to its use in horrific mass shootings, has come to symbolize American gun violence writ large. For gun control advocates it is the antithesis of conservatives’ iconography of the flag: It represents everything that is rotten about American culture. No doubt reframing the debate in that way would not guarantee more productive deliberation, but it would at least enable political opponents some means of beginning to understand each others' position.
 
Even if I am at least partly correct in diagnosing what ails American political discourse, there remains the pesky problem of how to treat it. Allusions to “the facts,” attempts to leverage rhetorical appeals to science for political advantage, have come to dominant political discourse over the course of decades—and without anyone consciously intending or dictating it. How to effect movement in the opposite direction? Unfortunately, while some social scientists study these kinds of cultural shifts as they occur throughout history, practically none of them research how beneficial cultural changes could be generated in the present. Hence, perhaps the first change citizens could advocate for would be more publicly responsive and relevant social research. Faced with an increasingly pathological political process and evermore dire consequences from epochal problems, social scientists can no longer afford to be so aloof; they cannot afford to simply observe and analyze society while real harms and injustices continue unabated.   

Share

Details

    Author

    Taylor C. Dotson is an associate professor at New Mexico Tech, a Science and Technology Studies scholar, and a research consultant with WHOA. He is the author of The Divide: How Fanatical Certitude is Destroying Democracy and Technically Together: Reconstructing Community in a Networked World. Here he posts his thoughts on issues mostly tangential to his current research. 

    Follow @dots_t

    Archives

    July 2022
    June 2022
    March 2022
    January 2022
    November 2021
    August 2021
    March 2021
    January 2021
    December 2020
    October 2020
    August 2020
    June 2020
    May 2020
    March 2020
    December 2019
    September 2019
    February 2019
    December 2018
    November 2018
    September 2018
    March 2018
    February 2018
    November 2017
    October 2017
    August 2017
    July 2017
    June 2017
    April 2017
    March 2017
    January 2017
    November 2016
    June 2016
    May 2016
    March 2016
    June 2015
    February 2015
    December 2014
    September 2014
    August 2014
    June 2014
    May 2014
    April 2014
    March 2014
    January 2014
    December 2013
    November 2013
    September 2013
    July 2013
    June 2013
    May 2013
    April 2013
    March 2013

    Blog Posts
    On Vaccine Mandates
    Escaping the Ecomodernist Binary
    No, Electing Joe Biden Didn't Save American Democracy
    When Does Someone Deserve to Be Called "Doctor"?
    If You Don't Want Outbreaks, Don't Have In-Person Classes
    How to Stop Worrying and Live with Conspiracy Theorists
    Democracy and the Nuclear Stalemate
    Reopening Colleges & Universities an Unwise, Needless Gamble
    Radiation Politics in a Pandemic
    What Critics of Planet of the Humans Get Wrong
    Why Scientific Literacy Won't End the Pandemic
    Community Life in the Playborhood
    Who Needs What Technology Analysis?
    The Pedagogy of Control
    Don't Shovel Shit
    The Decline of American Community Makes Parenting Miserable
    The Limits of Machine-Centered Medicine
    Why Arming Teachers is a Terrible Idea
    Why School Shootings are More Likely in the Networked Age
    Against Epistocracy
    Gun Control and Our Political Talk
    Semi-Autonomous Tech and Driver Impairment
    Community in the Age of Limited Liability
    Conservative Case for Progressive Politics
    Hyperloop Likely to Be Boondoggle
    Policing the Boundaries of Medicine
    Automating Medicine
    On the Myth of Net Neutrality
    On Americans' Acquiescence to Injustice
    Science, Politics, and Partisanship
    Moving Beyond Science and Pseudoscience in the Facilitated Communication Debate
    Privacy Threats and the Counterproductive Refuge of VPNs
    Andrew Potter's Macleans Shitstorm
    The (Inevitable?) Exportation of the American Way of Life
    The Irony of American Political Discourse: The Denial of Politics
    Why It Is Too Early for Sanders Supporters to Get Behind Hillary Clinton
    ​Science's Legitimacy Problem
    Forbes' Faith-Based Understanding of Science
    There is No Anti-Scientism Movement, and It’s a Shame Too
    American Pro Rugby Should Be Community-Owned
    Why Not Break the Internet?
    Working for Scraps
    Solar Freakin' Car Culture
    Mass Shooting Victims ARE on the Rise
    Are These Shoes Made for Running?
    Underpants Gnomes and the Technocratic Theory of Progress
    Don't Drink the GMO Kool-Aid!
    On Being Driven by Driverless Cars
    Why America Needs the Educational Equivalent of the FDA

    On Introversion, the Internet and the Importance of Small Talk
    I (Still) Don't Believe in Digital Dualism
    The Anatomy of a Trolley Accident
    The Allure of Technological Solipsism
    The Quixotic Dangers Inherent in Reading Too Much
    If Science Is on Your Side, Then Who's on Mine?
    The High Cost of Endless Novelty - Part II
    The High Cost of Endless Novelty
    Lock-up Your Wi-Fi Cards: Searching for the Good Life in a Technological Age
    The Symbolic Analyst Sweatshop in the Winner-Take-All Society
    On Digital Dualism: What Would Neil Postman Say?
    Redirecting the Technoscience Machine
    Battling my Cell Phone for the Good Life

    Categories

    All
    Academic Life
    Acquiescence
    Automation
    Bias
    Black Mirror
    Cognitive Limitations
    Common Sense
    Community
    Conspiracy Theory
    Continuity Arguments
    CrossFit
    Deficit Model
    Democracy
    Diagnostic Style Of Politics
    Digital Dualism
    Digital Technology
    Disaster
    Disconnection
    Economic Democracy
    Economics
    Energy Reduction
    Epistocracy
    Fanaticism
    Foulcault
    Gmo Food
    Governance Of Technoscience
    Green Chemistry
    Green Illusions
    Gun Violence
    Inequality
    Intelligent Trial And Error
    Internet
    LBGTQ
    Legitimacy
    Megachurches
    Mesh Networks
    Nanoscience
    Narratives
    Nature
    NCAA
    Neophilia
    Net Neutrality
    Networked Individualism
    New Urbanism
    Nuclear Energy
    Panopticon
    Paranoia
    Permissionless Innovation
    PhD
    Philosophical Liberalism
    Political Talk
    Politics
    Progress
    Pseudoscience
    Renewable Energy
    Science
    Science And The Military
    Scientific Controversy
    Scientism
    Social Capital
    Social Networks
    Sweatshops
    Technocracy
    Technological Liberalism
    Technological Momentum
    Technological Solipsism
    Technological Somnambulism
    Technology
    The Facts
    The Good Life
    Thick Community
    Tristan Harris
    Trust
    Uncertainty
    Unintended Consequences
    Virtual Others
    Wall Street Journal
    Winner-take-all Society
    Worker Cooperatives

    RSS Feed

    Blogs I Follow:
    Technopolis
    ​Responsible Innovation
    Rough Type
    Technoscience as if People Mattered
© COPYRIGHT TAYLOR DOTSON 2016. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.
  • Thoughts
  • The Divide
  • Technically Together
  • Current Research
  • Teaching
  • About Me
  • Vitae