Let's Get Logical

     This week’s reading covered the basics on becoming a systems thinker—from creating your own systems maps (with information on tips for choosing colors and shapes for mapping) to understanding the structure operating behind these maps. Although I found this week’s reading to be a little on the dry side, I found one topic particularly interesting. Chapter 7 discussed logic behind relationships within systems. When two things relate to one another and one is defined as A, then the other thing by default is “not-A.” However, something that had not occurred to me (although seemingly very obvious) is that not-A has its own identity independent of A. The idea of not-A is based on perspective because not-A is defined in terms of A. Perspective therefore is absolutely necessary when determining what is being discussed.

     Something that the Cabreras brought up in this chapter was the application of perspective and logic to the real world. We often use perspective to cast ourselves in a positive light, while downplaying our opponents. The example of pro-life and pro-choice was used to show perspective logic. Those who support pro-life are seen as anti-feminist or anti-choice while those supporting pro-choice are seen as pro-abortion or anti-life. The “rebranding” of these stances does not embody what that whole population supports, but rather is just a direct application of A and not-A. Applying this type of perspective logic in the real world can lead to controversy, debate and division especially when nuances are not being considered.

Question: Using A and not-A logic, what are environmentalists “rebranded” as and how do we “rebrand” our opponents?

Comments

[Mallika]

That section of the reading struck me as well. I’m sure that defining the opposing side of an issue or political spectrum as “not-A” is contributing somewhat to our current polarization. To answer your question, I think environmentalists are probably most often rebranded as anti-economic growth or anti-jobs. I’m guessing that sentiment would come primarily from people who perceive their industry is being hurt or encumbered by environmental regulations (e.g. coal mining, fracking, timber harvest). When I think about how we rebrand our opponents, the first thing that comes to mind is anti-science. I feel like this rebranding results largely from our climate-denying politicians, and we extend it to the people who support them. Another potential rebranding of our opponents who may oppose certain industry regulations or restrictions might be that they are anti-environment. Hopefully, if we can recognize our tendency to assume that those who disagree with us are our opposites, we recognize the short-sightedness of these assumptions and attempt to gain a better understanding of their perspective.