In part one I introduced you to three hypothetical people—Ann, Betty, and Cathy —as illustrations of how we actually tend to use two different approaches to language in our daily lives.
I dubbed the two approaches "scientific rhetoric" (the use of language to discover and communicate truth and understanding) and "political rhetoric" (the use of language to motivate and influence).
Both kinds are useful and necessary. People like Ann, who are only interested in truth and understanding will often cause problems because they are unaware of the impact of their words on others. People like Cathy , who are only interested in influence, will happily mislead others, as long as they achieve their ends.
The ideal combination was represented by Betty : political rhetoric, used within the framework and limitations of scientific rhetoric. Awareness of the influence of language on others constrained by the need to be honest and promote understanding.
I provided some examples in part one of the effects that these three approaches have on our relationships to others.
But there's another, deeper, implication—the rhetoric we use in our relationships is often the same rhetoric we use within ourselves:
-
If Ann—who ignores the effects of language on others—runs true to form in her internal life, she is likely to be unmotivated, disorganized, and possibly even depressed.
We have many reasons to need to motivate ourselves. Understanding won't always do the job for us alone. I may "understand" that I really need to go out and get a job, but unless I find a way to motivate myself to actually do it—to apply a sort of internal political rhetoric—it won't happen.
I may be afraid to confront someone who is treating me badly, and unless I find a way to motivate myself to actually do it, I may end up being used by that person.
I may need to lose weight, exercise more, get myself started on that painting or that novel. All of these mean taking control of my internal rhetoric, and finding the political frame for the situation that will actually get me going.
Much of the current pop spiritualities focus on this. That's what vision boards, and affirmations, etc. are really all about: internal political rhetoric to get us moving.
Ann could also use some internal political rhetoric to get organized. Task lists, for example, are a kind of political rhetoric. They make all those little tasks that float around in our heads and make us crazy seem contained and manageable. We don't understand them better because they're in a list, but we feel different about them, and we're less overwhelmed and more motivated.
And if Ann really makes no effort to decide how she will perceive all that truth and understanding, she may well become depressed over bad news, or guilt, that she can't control.
When was the last time that you were feeling overwhelmed by some negative turn of events, and a friend, or maybe even you, yourself, reframed the information, and made it manageable? We all do this, in one way or another, all the time. If, like Ann, we didn't, we would be at the mercy of our first understanding—the one that overwhelmed us. -
Cathy, on the other hand—who is only interested in the effect of words, and not at all interested in truth or understanding—has a different set of internal problems. Uncontrolled internal political rhetoric, completely ungrounded in understanding or truth, leads to self-delusion.
Cathy ends up believing whatever makes her feel good, or whatever serves her purposes.
What makes her feel good may be a fantasy world, where she is brighter, better, more influential than she really is.
It may mean refusing to see that a relationship is dead, or it may mean telling herself that the relationship died because the other person was evil. In either case it probably won't mean recognizing the role her manipulation and deceit played in the demise.
It may mean living in a fantasy future, where she will become rich and powerful without having to actually earn either money or power.
On the other hand, Cathy's self-deception may be focused on her goals. She may begin to believe the lies she tells others, because it's easier to convince when you believe yourself.
She may come to believe that her manipulations are necessary, in order to save others from themselves, or, worse yet, that the others want to be manipulated.
She may become committed to a world-view, not because she has any evidence for it, but because a world like that would work to her benefit. -
Betty, however, has a better time of it internally. Her access to political rhetoric allows her to use it as a self-motivation tool, as a way to be organized, and focused, and deal with difficult events, while her rootedness in scientific rhetoric—her commitment to truth and understanding—keeps her from lying to herself.
Betty is able to look at a situation and say, "Yeah, I blew that one big time," and then, when that thought becomes overly depressing, laugh at herself and say, "So you expected never to blow one? Who do you think you are?" And she can move on to use her skills to repair the damage.
The fact that she can do that, the fact that she can use political rhetoric to help herself deflect the pain of admitting the truth about herself, makes it easier for her to admit the truth.
Betty is centered.
None of us, of course, is always a Betty. We alternate between all three positions in various times and situations. Sometimes we're Anns, immersed in the facts and unable to motivate ourselves. Sometimes we're Cathies, kidding ourselves into believing what we want to believe.
And the types are not evenly distributed among us humans. Some of us are more like Cathy, and some of us are more like Ann. I'm pretty sure, though I can't back it up with hard research, that more of us spend more time toward the Cathy end of the spectrum: I know a lot more people who will stretch a fact, or believe something because they just want to, than I know who are completely scientific in their thought and language.
The Cathyness in us all is not necessarily related to conservatism or liberalism. Most of us have the tendency to look for evidence to support our current positions, rather than looking for positions based on the evidence.
How many forwarded emails have you believed, without checking the facts, just because they fit your own position?
This tendency to believe what we want to believe is a spiritual matter, a kind of spiritual weakness that makes us vulnerable to political maneuvering, and less reliable as voting citizens.
And it becomes even more dangerous when mixed with questionable moral values.
But more about that in part 3...
