22 May 2005 | Draft
Being Positive Avoiding Negativity
Management challenge of positive vs negative
- / -
Introduction
Interpersonal games
Denial of the negative
Unchallenged dangers of positive thinking
Vulnerability to disaster
Concrete situations
Testing the boundaries of "being positive"
Systems management: value of both positive and negative feedback
Dependence of system operation on contrasting modes
Dualistic games
Reductio ad absurdum?
Dangerous associations
Uncritical thinking
Management challenge: positive vs negative
Embracing error
Leadership and "negative capability"
Relating to the unknown -- beyond denial
Dangerous consequences of ignoring the cycle
Symbolic relationship between positive and negative
Cognitive singularities
Autopoietic systems
Introduction
For western cultures, the term "positive" derives from a Latin word signifying "settled
by arbitrary agreement" or imposed, rather than a natural
expression. The term "negative" derives from a Latin word signifying negation
or denial. The formal mathematical and scientific senses of both terms originated
in the 18th century. Philosophical use of both "positivism" and "negativism"
originated in the 19th centuries. It was only at the beginning of the 20th
century that "positive" was used in the psychological sense of "concentrating
on what is constructive and good" -- as with the corresponding sense of
"negative". The hard sciences have frequently deplored the tendency of other disciplines to mistakenly endeavour to mimic their formalism in the psycho-social domain.
The relation between such moral and ethical implications can therefore
be understood as relying, questionably, for some of their significance on the binary
formalism introduced
by science, notably though the work of mathematician Gottfried
Leibniz. His work was however strongly influenced by the ancient notation
used by the Chinese for the 64 hexagrams of the I
Ching, which he claimed demonstrated the universality
of the binary system. The I Ching however encodes a philosophy that
is at the heart of Chinese cultural beliefs and based on the dynamic balance
of opposites such as positive and negative. It provides a richer articulation
between opposites by exploring 64 possible combinations with which moral and
ethical connotations are associated -- thus extending connotations of "positive"
and "negative" (cf Discovering richer patterns of comprehension to reframe polarization, 1998).
Exhortations
and injunctions to "be positive" are a common feature
of some religious groups, in the development of selling techniques, in self-help
therapies, in work group development, and in living with potentially fatal
illnesses. These are seen as a means of avoiding or defeating negativity in
those different contexts [more].
Misguided justifications of negativity are a particular concern [more | more].
Recommendations may even be made to avoid negative people, especially those
framed as "losers" -- to reduce the possibility of being entrained
by their mindset.
Whilst there are numerous web references in support of being positive or avoiding
negativity, there are very few resources that challenge the uncritical judgemental
attitudes which evoke such injunctions. This is curious because the consequences
of "being judgemental" have long been a concern in many of the above
contexts. The implication is then that "being positive" is an absolute
good, and "being negative" is an absolute negative -- to the point
of being recognized as sinful by some religious groups.
The issue is explored here from a variety of perspectives. It is effectively
the introduction to an associated paper (Cardioid
Attractor Fundamental to Sustainability: 8 transactional games forming the heart
of sustainable relationship, 2005) that highlights the existence of
a set of games, rather than a single game, that potentially are all aspects
of a sustainable cyclic system that merits further attention.
Interpersonal games
Transactional analysis was founded on the recognition by psychiatrist Eric
Berne (Games People
Play: the psychology of human relationships, 1964) that individuals
frequently engage in psychological games with one another -- psychological theatricals
that are played over and over again. For Berne:
A game is an ongoing series of complementary ulterior transactions progressing
to a well-defined, predictable outcome. Descriptively, it is a recurring set
of transactions... with a concealed motivation... or gimmick.
A game can then be understood as a series of interactions (words, body language,
facial expressions, etc.) between two or more people that follow a predictable
pattern. The interactions ultimately progress to an outcome in which one individual
obtains a "payoff" or "goal." In most cases, the participants in the games are
unaware that they are "playing." One of the players, the "loser" tends
to end up feeling used and hopeless.
The question explored here is whether the exhortation to "Be Positive",
addressed by one person to another, constitutes the first move in such a game
-- in which the enjoiner seeks for themselves the "positive" outcome
of being the "winner" under the guise of promising positive outcome.
It is also possible that a second game, in Berne's terms, might be associated
with a reversal of the earlier title of this paper to read: Games People
Play: Being Negative and Avoiding the Positive. This would indeed be rated
as a more appropriate and significant challenge by some.
Denial of the negative
There is an increasing social orthodoxy of positive thinking that Karen
Armstrong (Look
on the dark side of life, Guardian, 21 February 2004), as author
of Buddha
(2001), sees as a route to spiritual and political disaster. Recognizing the
Buddha's isolation from the realities of life in his childhood palace, as an
extreme example of denial by his father, she argues that:
It is increasingly unacceptable to voice legitimate distress. If you lose
your job, become chronically ill, or fall prey to loneliness or depression,
you are likely to be told -- often abrasively -- to look on the bright side.
With unseemly haste, people rush to put an optimistic gloss on a disaster
or to suggest a solution that is patently unworkable. We seem to be cultivating
an intolerance of pain -- even our own....In our global world we can no longer
afford to edit out the uncomfortable spectacle of human misery....The pain
that we ignored in some parts has hardened to murderous rage.
Elsewhere (Spontaneous
Initiation of Armageddon: a heartfelt response to systemic negligence,
2004) it is argued that within psycho-social systems as a whole -- which are
the preoccupation of future global governance -- certain functions are inadequately
expressed to a degree that is forcing their spontaneous and dangerous emergence
under certain circumstances.
Another example of an exploration of the moves in a transactional "game"
of enjoining others to be positive is that of Robert Treborlang (The
Totally Positive Mate, 2002). With respect to Australian society he
argues:
In this country, a nation not given to great political credos, the unanswerable
damning accusation from people invariably is: "You're being negative." Being
accused of negativity is like being denounced for selling your soul to the
devil in the Middle Ages. The fires of hell are sure to get you if society
doesn't grill you first. On the other hand, just like being on the side of
the angels, the highest social accolade anyone can receive is to be considered
"positive".
Treborlang asserts that when people accuse others of being negative, it should
be understood as a hint to "back off from whatever it is they don't want
to hear". The qualification "negative" is a designation applied when their
worldview is threatened, whereas "positive" is usually applied to themselves
to "disguise the fantasy they have of a given situation". The accusation
of "being negative" effectively indicates "do not bring facts
into my preferred understanding of reality". The injunction "be positive"
is an appeal to subscribe to a particular worldview -- or be considered highly
negative and retrograde for failing to do so.
The extent to which an exclusive focus on the positive should be considered irresponsible has been explored elsewhere (The Quest for the Socio-Economics of Non-Action, 1993) as a commentary on the arguments of Willis Harman (Rethinking the central institutions of modern society: science and business In: Futures, 25, 10, December 1993).
| Significance of being positive? |
Fundamentalists of the distant future may have the opportunity
to create a new negative-free universe
A 50,000 word book was written in 1939 without using the letter "e" in
the text
A piano could be created without the "black keys" on the keyboard
Are these suggesitive of the significance of being positiv and avoiding
ngativity? |
Unchallenged dangers of positive thinking
The advocacy of positive thinking was a notable feature in early twentieth
century America. It was articulated and promoted through
a wide array of ministers and spiritual thinkers, who used the Bible and personal
anecdote to extol its creative power. One of the progenitors was Norman
Vincent Peale (The Power of Positive Thinking, 1952). Its soaring
optimism has been well formulated by Neville
Goddard: "It
is not what you want that you attract; you attract what you believe to be true."
Social philosopher Geoffrey
Hill states:
Adolph Hitler. . .above all
persons, believed in the power of positive thinking (with himself of course
at the helm of the world's selfish, destructive destiny). He above all people
believed in the power of the selfish mind (tragically at the expense of millions
of others). He above all people refused to allow negative thoughts to cramp
his style. . . [more]
Members of the Bush administration have repeatedly chided journalists for failing
to focus on the positive aspects of America's role in Iraq. The consequence of
such positive thinking have been notably highlighted by journalists and commentators.
| Iraq disaster -- a direct consequence of positive
thinking by its architects? |
Sidney Blumenthal (The
hollow world of George Bush: the power of positive thinking is the
president's shield from reality, The Guardian,
23 September 2004):
The news is grim, but the president is "optimistic". The intelligence
is sobering, but he tosses aside "pessimistic predictions". His opponent
says he has "no credibility", but the president replies that it is his
rival who is "twisting in the wind".... Bush's campaign depends on the
containment of any contrary perception of reality. He must evade, deny
and suppress it. His true opponent is not his Democratic foe -- called
unpatriotic and the candidate of al-Qaida by the vice-president -- but
events. Bush's latest vision is his shield against them. He invokes the
power of positive thinking, as taught by Emile Coue, guru of autosuggestion
in the giddy 1920s, who urged mental improvement through constant repetition: "Every
day in every way I am getting better and better."
It was during this
era of illusion that T S Eliot wrote The Hollow Men:
Between the
idea
And the reality,
Between the motion
And the act
Falls the
Shadow.
***
Oliver Burkeman (Rumsfeld's
Progress, The Guardian ,
10 November 2006):
Rumsfeld had become one of the chief engines of the
notion that insisting on a particular version of reality in Iraq would
somehow cause that version to be manifested. It was the power of positive
thinking, as applied to geopolitics, and by 2005 it had gone too far for
a slew of retired generals, who joined the call for Rumsfeld to resign
|
Vulnerability to disaster
From this perspective the question is how to warn of impending diaster without
being labelled as "negative" and enjoined to minimize the danger and
"be positive". Three avoidable disasters help to clarify the challenge:
- Challenger disaster: NASA suffered a highly publicized disaster on
28 January 1986, when the space shuttle Challenger exploded, killing all seven
astronauts on board. The extensive analysis of the problem thereafter determined
that the engineers had endeavoured to report the nature of the problem (inadequate
sealing rings, called O-rings) to the NASA council responsible. They had however
been informed that negative feedback on such matters was both unwelcome and
inappropriate. A positive approach was required by NASA authorities to ensure
the planned launch and the desirable public relations coverage. Some of the
engineers were much sought out thereafter as speakers in management schools.
[more]
- Avianca disaster: In 1990 an Avianca flight was in a holding
pattern in the New York area for 77 minutes awaiting clearance to land. Realizing
that the aircraft's fuel supply was dangerously low, the pilot informed the
control tower that it was nearly exhausted: "I think we need priority;
we're running out of fuel." Hearing the pilot's calm positive voice,
the controllers did not react and authorize an immediate landing. Fatally,
the pilot had not used the prescribed "negative" terms "emergency"
or "minimum fuel". Minutes later the aircraft crashed. An investigation
concluded that the pilot neglected to use the prescribed terms, and the controllers
had also failed to ask how much fuel remained, or to request clarification.
- Baku-Ceyhan pipeline: The 1,000 mile BTC pipeline constructed by
a consortium led by BP used an unproven coating for 160,000 joints -- that
cracks when cold with the possibility of major environmental disaster from
oil spills. It is reported that BP had been informed of this problem by a
consultant in November 2002, but failed to pass on the information to the
international funding bodies -- sacking the consultant in January 2003. The
joints cracked in November 2003. [more
| more]
- Tsunami disaster: A more dramatic example is that of the head of
the Thai meteorlogical office who was forced in 1998 to retire under a shadow
for having warned that the coast was dangerously vulnerable to the effects
of tsunami. He was accused of scaremongering and jeopardising the tourist
industry around the island of Phuket. After tens of thousands of deaths in
the tsunami of 2004, he was reinstated in 2005 -- as minister in charge of
the Thai disaster warning office.
The challenge of repressing the negative is only too evident in controversies
with regard to "whistleblowing". Groups and institutions attach
high value to repressing or concealing negative feedback that may call into
question their integrity and self esteem. John Ralston Saul (The Unconscious
Civilization, 1995) argues the point with a dramatic example:
Criticism is perhaps the citizen's primary werapon in the exercise of her
legitimacy. That is why, in this corporatist society, conformism, loyalty
and silence are so admired and rewarded; why criticism is so punished or
marginalized.... In one eloquent example which has recently come to light,
the executives of a major American tobacco company debated among themselves
at great length, in the 1960s, whether they should inform the U.S. Surgeon
General of the results of their own corporate research, which confirmed
the health hazards of smoking. They decided, eventually, to say nothing and
to stop work on a safer cigarette. After all, to develop a safer cigarette
would compromise their silence by suggesting the need for one. Instead, they
initiated a legal and public relations strategy of admitting nothing.
Efforts may be made to bring the most extreme
sanctions to bear upon whistleblowers (cf the Katherine
Gun case) such that the EU has had to formulate a so-called "whistleblower's
charter" (cf Robert Taylor. Ethical
Framework Helps Promote Good Governance: Whistleblowing. Financial
Times, 10/12/1999) [more | more].
Clearly the world would never have been exposed to the scandal of Abu Ghraib
had it not been for whistleblowers. Those with secrets to hide would consider
it "positive" that exposure to such "negativity" should
be avoided. Those committed to "being positive" might well prefer
such information to be repressed as relatively insignificant in comparison with
the "positive" initiatives they purportedly made possible. Similar
dynamics are evident in relation to AIDS (notably in Africa), global warming,
and resource depletion for example.
| Exemplar of "being positive": Marie
Antoinette ? |
"If they have no bread, then let them eat cake!"
[NB: Although the phrase is widely-quoted, there is no
evidence that it originated with Marie
Antoinette] |
Concrete situations
More immediate examples of the undesirability of a purely "positive"
approach are:
- Physician / Surgeon: It is clearly not beneficial for a physician to focus
solely on that which is healthy in the patient, avoiding any reference to
that which is less healthy. If a patient has broken one leg, focusing in a
blinkered manner on the health of the other is no basis for any remedial measures
to the other. There are similar concerns if the positive framing by the surgeon
is in terms of the opportunity to experiment with a new surgical technique
and an untried prosthetic device -- irrespective of the larger interests of
the patient.
- Plumber: If plumbing in a house is leaking at a particular place, focusing
on the many parts of the pipework that are not leaking does not lead to urgent
repairs on the part that is leaking
- Firefighter: In the event of the fire, it is useful to have firemen who
focus on the challenge of extinguishing the fire, rather than concentrating
their attention solely on what has not yet been burnt -- or what might be
constructed in its place
Corresponding to the adage: "If it ain't broke, don't try and fix it"
is the adage: "Being able to understand that it is broke, is the first
step towards being able to fix it" -- a vital first step for members of
Alcoholic Anonymous.
A relevant attitude in the case of software developers has been named as "Positive
Negativity", especially given that the pleasure in the task comes from
satisfying a creative urge, which is positive. But the practice itself often
has to focus on the negative:
This is an attitude of mind that sees failure as success. You are a problem
solver, a fixer. Your ability to look on the black side to envisage problems
and exceptions and difficulties and objections is the key to your strength:
your ability to prevent and minimize the impact of what you foresee. [more]
However the point has been made by Hegel (Science of Logic) that: Evil
consists in being self-poised in opposition to the good; it is a positive negativity
(§ 950).
Testing the boundaries of "being positive"
[added in November 2006]
The following help to understand the degree of commitment to "positive thinking",
and its possible consequences:
- When short of funds, should you (or your group) invest all you have in
gambling or lottery tickets? If not, why not? Is gambling not an expression
of positive thinking?
- Is experiencing pain a failure of positive thinking? As a positive thinker,
when and why would you seek therapeutic assistance?
- If you are "positive", what do you do with your "negativity"?
Or do you consider that one can exist without the other -- unlike God who
is seemingly obliged to accept the existence of a demonic force?
- Is the following Bedouin advice an example of failure of positive thinking: Trust in Allah, but tether your camel? Do
you lock your car door?
- Why did the positive thinking of George Bush and Donald Rumsfeld
not ensure an unconditional welcome by the Iraqi population
-- and a quick adoptance of western democratic principles?
- Why does positive thinking engender so much negativity -- as exemplified
by George Biush and Donald Rumsefeld in the case of Iraq -- in the interest
of promoting democratic values worldwide?
- If even the expenditure of $400 billion failed to undermine the confidence
of George Bush and Donald Rumsfeld in their positive assessment of the Iraq
venture, what financial risks do others take in seeking the advice of positive
thinkers?
- Does thinking positively effectively eliminate one's "enemies"?
Would you encourage a good friend to walk in an urban no-go area which even
the police fear to visit?
- Would there be any problems left in the world if everyone thought positively? How would they be detected?
- Why are there not more positive thinkers working in the risky contexts
of conflict zones? Or are these to be viewed as positive phenomena rendering
any such presence superfluous?
- If marriage is a mutual celebration of positive thinking, why are so
many advocates of positive thinking divorced? Does this indicate that there
are many conditions in which being positive is unsustainable?
- Is positive thinking to be understood as presenting a favourable image
-- all "dressed up" instead of the "everday wear" required by normal circumstances?
- Does the ability to think positively depend on avoidance of any exposure
to information that might render appropriate any other mode of thought? Does
this encourage secretiveness to avoid evoking negative responses?
- Does being positive depend fundamentally for its viability and operational
effectiveness on engendering negativity beyond its information catchment
area?
- If any sense of risk is to be understood as a failure of positive thinking,
would you act unquestioningly on the advice of a positive thinker? Would
you so advise a vulnerable person? A loved one?
- Is a positive thinker to be expected to act responsibly -- when sensing
risk is effectively a failure of positive thinking?
- Should insurance companies increase the premium of positive thinking vehicle
drivers?
- How is deep commitment to positive thinking to be distinguished in practice
from psychopathology or sociopathology given the manner in which it defines
itself as beyond criticism?
- Is positive thinking essentially value neutral in that conditions and actions
percevied by others as negative are framed as positively as those so perceived
by others?
- How are the dynamics engendered by positive thinking to be distinguished
from those most criticized in the self-referential dynamics of cults, especially
around their leaders as examplars of such thinking?
- For a positive thinker, under what conditions is doubt admissible given
that it exemplifies negativity? Without the capacity to doubt, can a positive
thinker engage in dialogue meaningful to others?
- If arrogance epitomizes a form of positive thinking, why is positive thinking
not seen as inherently arrogant?
- If learning involves the capacity to fail and learn from mistakes, to what
extent can a postive thinker learn if the possibility of mistakes is denied
or failure is reframed as success?
- How does a positive thinker distinguish between a "positive attitude" in others and one that imposes a constraint on their positively preferred mode of action?
- Under what circumstances does positive thinking allow for the possibility
of valuable negative or constraining feedback?
- Is every disagreement a failure of positive thinking on the part of the other? Is there an element of negativity in this assessment?
- Is strong disagreement between positive thinkers possible? Is that to
be understood as positive or negative?
- If any of the above is to be framed by a positive thinker as "not being
positive", is the "not" an example of negativity?
Ludwig Wittgenstein (Philosophical Investigations, 1953)
makes a much-cited point that "if a lion could talk, we could not understand
him".
The explanation is that language forms part of a larger "language-game"
outside which that language cannot be understood [more | more | more]. Since humans and lions don't
share language-games they cannot share language or understanding. Is being
"positive" a form of language-game that precludes any possibility of understanding
being "negative" -- whatever the negative "lionish" noise level? The reverse being equally true in such a binary frame.
Beyond the limitations of any such binary frame, as discussed below, the question is how to distinguish:
- positive forms of "positive thinking"
- negative forms of "positive thinking"
- positive forms of "negative thinking"
- negative forms of "negative thinking"
Within any one of these, the others may each appear to be inappropriate
(if they can even be distinguished) -- readily to be condemned as misguided
or worse. The challenge is to determine the conditions under which each may
be appropriate (and to be preferred) or inappropriate (and to be avoided).
The challenge is highlighted by misguided efforts to associate "positive" with
"good" and negative" with "bad". For a farmer "good weather" may or may not
mean "sun" -- as it does for picnickers. The "bad weather" of pickners may
be desperately needed rain for a farmer. On the other hand too much rain may also
be "bad". The assessment may depend on the season and crop cycle -- or the part of the world. The same
subtlety may be appropriate for "positive" and "negative" as discussed below.
| Irresponsibility of positive thinking? Iraq as a "work of art"? |
An American general in Baghdad called Iraq a "work
of art" in
progress yesterday in one of the most extraordinary attempts by the US
military leadership to put a positive spin on the worsening violence.
(Julian Borger, Iraq
a 'work of art in progress' says US general after 49 die, The
Guardian, 3 November 2006).
In response to criticism regarding progress in Iraq, following a month
in which a record number of people died, Major General William Caldwell,
the US chief military spokesman, argued that: "Every great work
of art goes through messy phases while it is in transition. A lump of
clay can become a sculpture. Blobs of paint become paintings which inspire."
|
Interrelating positive-negative hybrids
In an associated paper (Cardioid
Attractor Fundamental to Sustainability: 8 transactional games forming the heart
of sustainable relationship, 2005) a detailed discussion is made of the relevant work of Edward Haskell (Generalization
of the structure of Mendeleev's periodic table, 1972) which is introduced by Harold Cassidy as follows::
In the cybernetic analysis of the more complex and organized systems we recognize
two distinct kinds of factors. There is the work component or components,
which we shall designate X, and the governor, or controller, which we shall
designate Y. Of course, the governor does work too (the strategic work), and
we have simplified the relationships very greatly. There will be cases of
a system made up of sub-systems, one controlling in some respects, not in
others, and so on. Let us stay with the simpler case. Now, the processes that
characterize X may, in the interaction with Y, be accelerated or in some way
enhanced ( + ), or may be unaffected ( O ), or may be decreased ( - ). Similarly,
the processes that Y undergoes. When the possibilities are cross-tabulated,
it becomes evident that there are nine and only nine of these qualitatively
different `coactions.' [glossary]
Haskell applies this insight to a range of systems, notably in the natural
environment (see table below) but also in the social environment. In the case of
the different kinds of relations between animals in an ecosystem, the following
patterns then emerge -- of which 8 of the 9 are non-neutral. Note that there
are variations in the teminology of biological interaction, notably differing
from Haskell's usage [more | more].
The dynamics of each of the 8 relationships might be described as a "game",
however asymmetrical or predictable the outcome (as with the "cat-and-mouse"
game of predation).
| Figure 1: Possible 8-fold Positive-Negative
Hybrid Conditions |
| . |
. |
X = "Work component" |
| . |
. |
Negative |
Neutral |
Positive |
Y =
"Control
component" |
Positive |
predation
(positive negativity) |
allotrophy
(positive neutrality) |
symbiosis
(positive positivity) |
| Neutral |
amensalism
(neutral negativity) |
O
(neutral neutrality) |
commensalism
(neutral positivity) |
| Negative |
synnecrosis
(negative negativity) |
allopathy
(negative neutrality) |
parasitism
(negative positivity) |
This table is effectively a complexification of the 4-fold checklist presented earlier, such that each of the items in that checklist is at one of the corners of the table above:.
- positive forms of "positive thinking" corresponds to symbiosis (corresponding to be the essence of desirable win-win relationships)
- negative forms of "positive thinking" corresponds to parasitism (namely "positive" for one and problematic for the other)
- positive forms of "negative thinking" corresponds to predation (again "positive" for one and problematic for the other)
- negative forms of "negative thinking" corresponds to synnecrosis (namely negative for both in the interaction)
But again it is vital to recognize that all such interactions are part of the systemic balance in sustainable systems as exemplified by ecosystems. Any simplistic effort to "eliminate" the predators in the "predation" process, for example, would naturally eliminate those at the top of the food chain, specifically human beings. [see further discussion in the accompanying paper].
| The positive-negative debate often neglects indigenous discourses, presupposes
consensus when there may be none, shuts down nuanced debate, and ignores
the performative features of racial identity
(Valerie Smith, Representing Blackness: Issues in Film and Video,
University Press, 1997, Rutgers, pp. 3-4) |
Systems management: value of both positive and negative
feedback
In terms of management cybernetics, a distinction is made between positive
and negative feedback. Both are required:
- Negative feedback: This is a fom of feedback, during which a system
responds so as to reverse the direction of change. Since this process tends
to keep things constant, it is stabilizing and attempts to maintain homeostasis.
When a change of variable occurs within a stable negative feedback control
system, the system will attempt to establish equilibrium. [more]
- Positive feedback: In this case the response of the system is to
change that variable even more in the same direction. This has a de-stabilizing
effect that, left unchecked, does not result in homeostasis. In some cases
(if not controlled by negative feedback), a positive feedback loop can run
out of control, and can result in the collapse of the system.[more]
Positive and negative do not mean or imply desirability in management of complex
systems. The negative feedback loop tends to slow down a process, while the
positive feedback loop tends to speed it up. Positive feedback is used in certain
situations where rapid change is desirable -- negative feedback to regulate
that change.
In the case of the NASA and Thai examples, the negative feedback process was
fatally inhibited. There may also be cases where positive feedback is inhibited,
undermining the capacity to change. Again both forms of feedback are required
to manage any change process.
It is in this context that the use of "news management" or "spin"
needs to be understood. News can be spun "positively" or "negatively"
-- hastening or delaying recognition of a challenge and the adequacy of any
response to it. Positive spin will tend to conceal the seriousness of a problem
or exaggerate the effectiveness of the response. Negative spin will tend to
exaggerate the seriousness of a problem or denigrate the adequacy of the response.
Dependence of system operation on contrasting modes
There are interesting examples of the dependence of healthy system functioning
on both "positive" and "negative" modes:
- Electricity: Most electrical systems require a judicious interaction between
positive and negative -- exemplified by the paired wires in the wiring of
electrical installations. The technical management of this distinction is
fundamental to power generation and the operation of motors. It is fundamental
to operation of radio signals of any kind. It is normally ridiculous to consider
removing the "negative" wire from such an installation, especially
since in the alternating current mode the current cycles between "positive"
and "negative" (in contrast to the direct current mode).
- Circadian rhythms: Many biological systems are dependent on the night /
day cycle. Any tendency to label "day" as "positive" (or
"good") and "night" as "negative" (or "bad"),
and to maximize one at the expense of the other, tends to have problematic
consequences.
- Weather: There is a marked tendency to distinguish between "good"
weather and "bad" weather. However both forms have their place in
ecosystems. Any efforts to maximize good weather and to eliminate bad weather
would tend to have problematic consequences.
The case of the electrical convention regarding the "positive" versus
the "negative" form of electricity is important in that it illustrates
the arbitrary nature of the convention. Whether one is assumed to be positive
(and associated with the plus sign) and the other is thereby treated as negative
(and associated with the minus sign) is an arbitrary choice, although the
convention -- once made -- should be adhered to throughout the framework.
Thus in projecting
"positive" onto any framework, it may either be associated with a plus sign
or a minus sign.
| A Technical Impossibility: Eliminate the Negative? |
It is most curious that a world-renowned designer, architect and inventor
of many devices, and specialist in systems theory,
R Buckminster
Fuller should espouse the belief
that the "negative" could
be eliminated. Where does the "negative" get eliminated "to"
in any system dependent on recycling or redistribution of stresses?
I resolved never to attack or oppose undesirable socioeconomic phenomena,
but instead committed myself to evolving and cultivating tools that
would accomplish humanity's necessitous tasks in so much easier, more
pleasant, and more efficient ways that, without thiking about it, the
undesirable ways would be abandoned by society. (I liked the 1944 popular
song Accentuate
the Positive, Eliminate the Negative). [R Buckminster Fuller, Critical Path, 1981]
***
Ac-Cent-Tchu-Ate
the Positive
You've got to accentuate the positive
Eliminate the negative
Latch on to the affirmative
Don't mess with Mister In-Between...
[Written by Johnny
Mercer and Harold Arlen
for the Bing Crosby movie "Here
comes the Waves"]
[Bing
Crosby variant | Johnny
Mercer variant | more]
Is that how the engineers of the Challenger space shuttle were encouraged
to think in denying that they had a problem? Does "eliminate" then justify "with prejudice" as with Hiroshima and elsewhere? Given Fuller's pioneering focus on the management of resources
(Operating
Manual for Spaceship Earth, 1963/1971), is such thinking a basis for managing
the Earth's resources? As a pioneer in the recognition of recycling, Fuller held that wealth can be increased by recycling resources into newer, higher value products whose more technically sophisticated design requires less material. He recognized how important recycling would be as the human race grew and outstripped its resources. How then should "waste" be "eliminated" in order to enhance "wealth"?
***
Selection from many (appreciative) comments on "accentuate the positive":
Goal Setting for Kids, 22 June 2006
Patricia McLinn ‘Accentuate the Positive, Eliminate the Negative’
Justice Donald B. King, | |
