Saturday, April 19, 2003

Well Curves and the Nation State? Roast beef dinner and our return to the Atkins diet in the next hour, have got me thinking more about the "Well Curve". No connection but maybe an empty stomach encourages the firing of a few neurons. A great sweep of the 19th century was surely the emergence of the Nation State which in a way follows the idea of the Bell Curve. While Saxons and Prussian are different - we are close enough to be Germans. While Virginia and Maine are different - we can see the value in seeing ourselves as Americans and so on. The Nation state obviously provided benefits for tribes to band together under one flag. Are we not seeing the force now of the Well Curve play out politically and substitute the Trade Bloc for the Nations as the Primary source of Value?. The Nation is in the well in the centre that is being battered by the re-emergence of the tribe on one wing and the Trading unit such as the EU or NAFTA on the other. The Nation seems to become less relevant to the citizen. I was struck a while back as I travelled in southern France and crossed over to Spain on my way to Barcelona. In the French border towns you see the Catalan flag  flying above the French. As we crossed the border, the old customs and immigration post was now a tourist shop. If I had blinked I would never have known that we had entered a new country. There was no sense of entering a new Nation. In this part of Spain the Catalan flag was also flying above the Spanish flag. The language on both sides was neither French nor Spanish but Catalan. France or Spain does not do much for the Catalans either side of the border but the EU is very important. I ask myself how will this trend play out? At its worst we see the end of artificial nations, created by treaty or by force, such as Yugoslavia that are torn apart by tribal forces. In many of the created nations is a legacy of centuries of hatred between the tribes. Such a trend does not bode well for Iraq. There is less chance I think of violence now in more established nations such as the UK. But even here we see tribal forces in play. I bet that we have seen only the beginning of more devolution to Scotland, Wales etc. It seems likely that some type of federal structure like Canada will emerge in these older nations as the relevance of the nation is eroded by the power of the Trade bloc. Canada is perhaps a model for the future with a federal system with strong regional powers. Ironically the defeat of the Separatists in Quebec this month may allow for more power to be given up by the Nation. The Federal Government will not have to hang on so tight with the threat of separation largely gone. The other irony for me is the US. In the guise of security, the Federal government is taking back all sorts of powers. The US also sees NAFTA perhaps as not a trading block of partners like the EU but as its own sphere of influence. The larger entity is the Nation maybe in the US. Maybe in the US the tribe, or the left wing of the curve,  may be the cities? Is the state becoming less relevant in the US? Which trade blocs should we belong too? Maybe the UK would be happier as part of NAFTA as might be the rest of the Anglosphere such as Australia and New Zealand? If they joined maybe the US would behave in a more collegial way? 5:53:38 PM    comment []

Change Management - Positioning messages so that they can be heard - Why are the animal right folks not doing as well as anti smoking? The question in Dave Pollard's Blog was why has the anti smoking message done so well and the animal roghts message has not?  Many of the posters held strong views on not just how badly we treat animals but also how bad it was to eat meat anyway. Here are a few thoughts .... What has really moved the anti-smoking message here on PEI, where we have a very high smoking participation, has been a shift in message and in the position of the messenger What did not work was the message that smoking is bad for you given by a "superior" being. The reaction was "don't tell me how to live my life." The felt emotional reaction to the "superior voice" is often similar to how we react to a nagging spouse or mother telling us to wear a hat on a cold day. We get angry and rebellious What is working here is a new message and a new position. The messenger is someone like you telling me that my smoking in the restaurant is killing me,your waitress -who is a real person in the ad. Ot we show images of a family playing cards with the parents smoking and the children coughing but with no spoken message. The picture is clear. This ad was followed up with a picture of the same game of cards but with the father smoking on the porch and coming in to play his hand. The message is "Don't let your smoking hurt innocents or those that you love" The messenger is not an expert but your real neighbour. The real drama of the impact of the smoker on others is shown for real. I think that there is a huge message here for all of us that want to change what seems to be "bad" behaviour" Self righteous talking down from the expert position is a poor messenger role. We hear best from peers. Secondly many object to well meaning, even informed and correct advice given to "improve us". Speaking as a man, when I hear my "mother's" voice I tune out or even rebel. Appealing to my better nature is however a very acceptable message. We show the dad in the ad being responsible and caring. We acknowledge in an unsaid way that he might find giving up smoking himself too hard. But we reward him for being caring enough to protect his children Another reason why anti-smoking is working is that there is no dispute that smoking is bad for you. I think we need to separate the issue about how dreadfully we keep and kill animals to the issue of whether meat is good or bad for us. The science is by no means on that meat is on its own bad for us. In fact much of the science, especially taken from the field of evolutionary biology makes the case that meat is critical for brain development is has no substitute. There is no question however that how we treat animals is terrible. If you could show the public what it means to have cheap chicken, pork or beef, I think that many would be appalled and think of an alternative if it was available If we could show the effect of how badly we treat animals that we eat in terms of additives and the "wrong food" and how their conditions create stress and hence poor meat. If we could show how the huge killing factories set up the conditions for bacteria and hence food poisoning risk - mainstream people might react and demand better conditions if only to protect themselves and their family. However if you play the card that eating meat is bad for you you are in trouble. I am afraid though that you will have a tough time avoiding the evidence that human brain development is directly tied to our success in hunting and accessing large relative amounts of meat based protein. You also fall into the trap of being Mummy. This time Mummy who may not be right as well as being a nag. Isn't the key issue to change how badly we treat animals? In the 17th century everyone thought that human slavery was the natural order of things. The Quakers and the Brits challenged this meme and while slavery still exists, it has largely been overcome. If we were to challenge how we treat animals and reward those that treat them well, I think that we could make more progress 3:56:38 PM    comment []