We have entered a period in the world where there is an enormous amount of stress. Many people are trying to make sense of a multitude of critical issues; such as, wars in Ukraine, the Middle East and Africa, as well as a variety of dictatorships, abuse of human rights and the devaluation of women. It is tempting not to put on the news on television because it will probably be a re-run of the same depressing news as the night before.
This raises the obvious question, “Are there methodologies that will help us negotiate at least some of these issues?” I would be arrogant to suggest that out of all the brilliant minds that exist, I somehow have discovered something completely original and groundbreaking. That simply would not be true; however, it may be helpful for me to point out some insights gained as a minister and psychologist for over fifty years, just in case someone has forgotten to put this information out there.
Let me introduce you to the concepts of content and process. Content, is the substance of what is being communicated. Process, is the way in which that content is being communicated. For example, I well remember going to the edge of the Grand Canyon in the USA many years ago and, after looking at this site for a minute or so, I turned and said to my wife, “It’s just a big hole in the ground”. Putting aside for the moment the embarrassing lack of appreciation of the sacredness of this amazing part of creation, the way in which I communicated my perception of the Canyon constitutes the process. In other words, I described the content, the Grand Canyon, in a disparaging way which devalued its beauty. Another option would have been to have said something like, “Wow, what a truly spectacular and amazing site!”. I would have been describing the same content, but using a totally different process, one that valued a unique and beautiful part of creation.
If we now apply this simple methodology to some of the political issues confronting us, we can begin to work our way through to some insights. This may not necessarily solve any particular problem, but it does give us a way in which we can make ethical decisions and change our own behaviour in order that we might affect small changes.
Donald Trump won the election in the USA through a series of bluff and bluster interactions. He demeans anybody who disagrees with him and refuses to ever debate an issue respectfully. He plugs into the inherent fears in USA society and provides simplistic, so-called solutions, as well as repeating descriptions of events that cannot be confirmed or have even been shown not to be true. He uses a process that works effectively enough to win an election, with little regard for the accuracy of the content. In other words, he reads the story of his culture more accurately than those who try to oppose him. The opposition politicians continually attempted throughout the election to win over voters by explaining the content in what they saw to be more accurate descriptions. This had only a minimal effect on shifting the voting patterns. In other words, the way in which Mr Trump operated, the process he used, was far more important than whatever content was being referred to at the time. Some have suggested that such an approach indicates a certain degree of pathology and narcissism which, even if true, had little effect on the outcome in the USA.
Politicians have attempted to use the same methodology in Australia but with far less success, indicating a different culture. Usually, politicians who go to extreme edges of issues are seen in Australia as extremists, who really have little to contribute to the bulk of the community. They may win a few seats in sections of the Parliament, but never enough to have a major impact and certainly never enough to govern the country. It does not mean that the methodology used by Mr Trump can have no impact in Australia, it simply means that the greater cynicism about politics – perhaps emerging from a deep-seated, rebellious convict-influenced pioneering culture – means that such people are not taken as seriously and are even laughed at when they try to use such a process.
So, what conclusion can we reach. Take less notice of what people say and the content of what they describe. Pay more attention to the manner in which they say; that is, the process they use. When politicians use demeaning language of others that process diminishes the credibility we can attach to the content they are presenting. This is not necessarily because the content has no value, it means that should they attain the authority of government, such persons are, by definition, untrustworthy.
Some major Church denominations claiming an allegiance to the message of Jesus, follow that claim by obfuscation regarding sexual abuse. This is followed by legal manoeuvring to avoid responsibility toward those harmed by sexual abuse committed by Church workers. In doing so the Church process contradicts the claim to adhere to the content of the message of Jesus.
We live in an age where many are fearful of making judgements so as not to appear judgemental; however, when process contradicts content, it must be called out for what it is; the evil of hypocrisy.
psychology and hope 