The Problem of No-Context
Monday Map
I love the USA. But on God, there are things wrong with “God’s own country.” And as you may expect, everyone tries to be the medicine man with the healing potion. However, there is something about everyone’s medicine that I do not like. But it took me time to put this uncomfortable feeling into clear language.
In comparing the US with other successful nations, we tell the US “look at the Scandies, do they have two heads [insert whatever you wish]? Are they not your mates?”
I assume this comparison is a quick response borne from compassion and the desperation to cure the US of its ills. I believe that it is the cry of frustrated people who see something like heaven on earth and wished that their beloved land would just borrow a page from the fellow’s playbook and cure themselves. Truly, I understand.
Yet, however sympathetic you may be, reality does not care about our passions. Our passions are why we enjoy the world. But they are also immense sources of suffering because they connect our internal experiences with the evils in the real world. If we live only by these passions, we pierce ourselves with so much pain even when we want to operate within a rational frame (of knowledge).
The decontextualization Problem
Can and should the US take a page from the Nordic playbook? I have no intention of answering that question. I just want to use the US- Scandy problem as an example in depicting improper decontextualizations.
The first time I saw the Scandy-cudgel used in the US issues, two things came to my mind instantly: population and philosophy. I ran a quick Google search and saw two figures that confirmed my impulse. Denmark’s population was 5.8 million. And the US was 329.5 million. There and then, I knew that the Scandy cudgel was illegitimate. The US deserves to be free of this comparison.
Population Problem
I am no Maths scholar. And complexity theory is not my strongest suit. Nevertheless, I know a few things about numbers. And thanks to a maestro (Nassim Taleb), I know a few things about non-linearity.
In this context, I simplify non-linearity thus: the interactive effect produced by four people is not two times the interactive effect produced by two people. In order words, whatever affects the group of 2 will not necessarily have 2 times its effect on the group of 4 - the effect may be higher or lower depending on the situation.
So then with this knowledge of non-linear effects, I present my argument that the US cannot simply take a page out of Denmark’s playbook and replicate it. If they should, I will bet my money on a catastrophic outcome.
But why not – why shouldn’t the US copy this successful formula from their successful counterparts? We revisit the numbers: 5.8 million to 329.5 million. Be reminded that the interactive effect produced by four people is not necessarily two times the interactive effect produced by two people. So how about this case where the US population is 56 times the population of Denmark? What exponential effect should we expect?
The behaviour of human societies as new scales are introduced makes it hard to understand (if not impossible). It is why we believe that what works for ten people will work for a hundred people.
Dynamism and freedom – that we as human beings and free citizens can make our choices as all situations change renders the collective human society difficult to track. And remembering the butterfly effect, one tiny uncomputable action may deliver large-scale effects. How then do we expect a nation that has such a population to adopt what works for a smaller one. (By the way, the US population in 1800 was 5.3 million).
To remove the US from its population when discussing solutions is a problem on its own. Anyone who does that is not looking for solutions. Instead, it is fantastic imagination - a form 0f self-praise on how much one can conjure beautiful solutions.
How do you treat a sickness without knowing what it is? I know: treat the symptoms, not the sickness. But, what if the headache is caused by a tumor; not stress or lack of sleep?
As we see in complexity theory, as the population increases, the interaction becomes complex. And it is worse in the US where freedom is key, and diversity is heralded.
The Philosophy Problem
“Europe was created by history. America was created by philosophy.”
Margaret Thatcher.
The second problem I see applied to the US is that of its detachment from its history and philosophy.
The US is a blood child – born through war efforts as men laid down their lives for this free nation. It remains one of the most successful revolutions in human history. How is this important to our present discourse?
What is the first amendment without the backdrop of the rigorous philosophy of the enlightenment? The first amendment was not decided in a vacuum. Why then do we think that we can discuss and reform 1A without making considerable mentions of its context?
Or the second amendment. Those who secured the freedom knew its cost. And they knew the cost of keeping it. Why then are we so confident that the concerns of the founding fathers – that the government becomes a tyrannical element to its people – are a thing of the past? Isn’t the price of liberty eternal vigilance?
You cannot remove the US from its rich rationalist history. Precisely because the highest ideal in that land is freedom. And this freedom is the ability to do as much as you can without interfering with the freedom of others or having your freedom interfered with. You may want to, when criticizing the US, use a different analysis or definition of freedom (like Marx’s) but I guarantee that such criticism will be unfair seeing that you have changed the context to advance your agenda.
The US was born out of unique discussions. This forms the foundations on which everything else is built. You should do better.
My Point
I guess my point is this: it is futile to find solutions while ignoring the greatest constraints that you are presented with. You cannot, out of righteous judgment root everything out of context to get what you want. And no, the end does not always justify the means.
I have just used the US to illustrate my thoughts on how this works. You cannot make huge changes while ignoring the important stage and background where the play happens.
The article with the link in the title explains why the Nordic model is not the easily adoptable model that we tout it to be. There are fine things on that side of the world. But we don’t look there for salvation. At least not yet.
Here is your picture:
