LIFE IS LIKE a box of politics.
One of the reasons we all get so emotionally hooked by a political race is that politics act out, on a national stage, the dramas that take place in our personal relationships, and even within our own souls.
I wrote yesterday about the "lipstick on a pig" furor, and about the two kinds of rhetoric it involved. But the relationship between those two rhetorics and the ways they can be used isn't just a matter of politics.
It's a spiritual matter at root, which is to say that it's fundamentally connected to the whole question of how we go about being human.
As you'll recall, I contrasted scientific rhetoric—rhetoric aimed at promoting truth and understanding—with political rhetoric—rhetoric aimed at motivating people to action.
I pointed out that both were quite respectable, that we all use both all the time, and that we often use both together. I also suggested that political rhetoric was particularly dangerous if it was used outside of the context of scientific rhetoric.
If I try to influence you without regard to truth and understanding, I am very likely to end up misleading you, lying to you, and treating you with disrespect.
This is not just a matter of politics. It touches on personal relationships, and on something even deeper.
Just by way of providing clear examples, let me introduce you to three fictional people: Ann, Betty, and Cathy. These are pure types—no such people exist, as far as I know, but you know people who resemble them to one degree or another.
-
Ann operates by pure scientific rhetoric. She always wants to tell the truth, both literally and between the lines, and it never occurs to her to edit what she says or doesn't say, based on how it will affect others.
Because of this, Ann is constantly causing problems for others and for her self. She tells people things they don't want to hear, and is surprised when they aren't grateful.
She has no sense of the time or place, and often not only offends others with her uncensored honesty, but also regularly gives up her own power because it never occurs to her to phrase a suggestion in the way that will appeal to others. -
Cathy, on the other hand, never considers the truth or understanding, unless it just happens to fit her purposes. She is devoted to political rhetoric. She always and only says what she thinks will work—in the sense of getting her what she wants.
Depending on her level of intelligence and social skills, Cathy may be anything from the compulsive bullshitter whom no one takes seriously to the consummate manipulator who gets you to work against your own best interests for years at a time.
The one thing that is certain about Cathy is that she is not to be trusted. If you can see through her, you are better off. And if you can't see through her you are better off not even knowing her. -
In the middle is Betty. She's not in the middle because she uses some scientific rhetoric and some political rhetoric, but because she always uses both.
Betty is always concerned to tell the truth, both between the lines and literally, but she is also aware that the way the truth is told makes a difference. She won't walk up to you at a party and comment on how much weight you've gained. She won't spoil a surprise by blurting it out too early.
If you work with Betty, she's the person whose discretion and honesty can be counted on, and she's the person who figures out how to motivate people without lying to them. She has all the benefits of Ann's honesty and desire for understanding and all the benefits of Cathy's knowledge of what motivates, without any of the disadvantages of either.
There are no such pure types in the world, of course. We all know people who come close to each type, but the Anns we know have some sense of the time and place, the Cathies we know connect to reality some of the time, and the Betties occasionally manipulate the truth or fail to understand the human dynamics of the situation.
Still, it's fairly obvious that the center, using political rhetoric within the context of scientific rhetoric, is the ideal place to be.
That, in itself, is a spiritual value: the desire to combine personal power with a centeredness in truth and understanding when we relate to others. If we could master that, we would all be better off—both individually and collectively.
But there's another, deeper, implication—The rhetoric we use in our relationships is often the same rhetoric we use within ourselves.
More about that next time...
