Today's NY Times has a nice piece up on how anonymity impacts discourse and undermines civility - one of the things that any observer of the DKos pie fights can attest to and verify. (I have been known to say things that are untoward because I know it's not likely to come back to hurt me.)
In light of the recent Wikileaks subterfuge and fallout, and the questions raised about privacy, cybersecurity, and interpersonal communications in the Internet age, I thought it would be worth taking some time to share some reflections.
I'm going to rely largely on my clinical experience, where privacy laws, HIPAA, and patient rights create an atmosphere that is somewhat similar to what SIPRnet has created for American diplomats and intelligence officers.
A few starting principles, to begin:
- What I value, I protect. What you value, I respect.
- Allow others to tell their own stories.
- Remember that labels tend to be sticky, and almost always create misconceptions because words and things aren't always correlated except in the mind of the observer. All seeing is seeing-as. We're always already interpreting and projecting as we understand and apply new information.
Author Phil Yancey once told a story about a friend who, in rebellion against his pacifist parents, became a Vietnam-era military pilot. He told the story to illustrate how youthful rebellion can look different depending on what you're rebelling against. But his friend later pulled him aside and confronted him, feeling that the way he told the story reduced and diminished his military service and his reasons for making the commitment to serve. It was more than rebellion.
When we tell stories about others, we almost always risk reductionistic, misleading interpretations that show disrespect to the perspective of the Other. Accurate and valid assessments can and should tell the truth, but one would hope that when you're talking about others, you'd do so charitably and not "throw them under the bus".
Online communications make gossip and slander even more difficult to address. The Times piece today illustrates that by pointing to the online bullying of Alexis Pilkington. We can also remember how destructive it was to have Shirley Sherrod's poorly edited comments taken out of context and posted online as "evidence" of reverse racism in the USDA and NAACP.
The Wikileaks cables released online are embarrassing for American diplomats precisely because they were delivered confidentially, without any opportunity for review by the subjects of the cables. They were gossip. Occasionally, inflammatory and untoward remarks were made. Horse-trading deals were mentioned. Revelations of planned attacks, power grabs, and sabotage were brought into the open. The problem here is not merely espionage or the revelation of secrets. The problem, fundamentally, is that the secrets revealed suggest that power brokers are engaging in life-death decisions about geopolitical issues in ways that are dehumanizing, brazen, and immoral.
This brings me to my clinical experience.
I frequently have had to make assessments and clinical judgments about clients and families. For example, a common question is whether an "Axis II" diagnosis should be given to a client, particularly when that client is in transition or distress. An Axis II diagnosis labels a client with a "personality disorder" - a pervasive pattern of interpersonal behavior that is very difficult to change or treat, especially the "Cluster B" diagnoses of Borderline Personality Disorder, Narcissistic Personality Disorder, etc. Putting such a diagnosis into someone's medical record can forever change the way they are perceived by providers and (perhaps more importantly) insurance companies.
There's a catch-22 involved here, for providers. Without a diagnostic label, you don't have a way to get reimbursed by managed care. In other words, it (literally) pays to diagnose someone - and frequently, it pays more to give a more significant diagnosis (for instance, admitting someone for inpatient mental health treatment gets you reimbursed more than outpatient, but you need a more serious diagnosis in order to get those treatment days). Some providers "game the system" by overprescribing, adding unnecessary diagnoses, and exaggerating severity of symptoms in order to get more reimbursement. And for all the talk of "defensive medicine," we need to remember that there is a perverse incentive in the American medical system to provide more care than is necessary - not only to avoid litigation or "cover your ass" but because fee-for-service treatment means that you get paid more for doing more, even if it doesn't necessarily improve the patient's level of functioning or quality of care. (Medicare Advantage plans are a really good example of this - providing "peace of mind" at a higher premium and greater taxpayer expense, which no one "feels" because provider benefits and patient likes the additional features and benefits.)
The other side of this coin is that diagnostic labels can destroy a patient's access to quality care. A diagnosis of personality disorder, substance abuse disorder, malingering, etc., can create a perception that a patient is difficult or untreatable or too dishonest or untrustworthy to be taken seriously. Providers frequently avoid treating patients with these severe diagnoses because they don't want to get their hands dirty. And providers sometimes fail to raise red flags or call attention to severe or pervasive issues because they don't want to unfairly label their patient.
I think the same principles and challenges apply in diplomacy. On one hand, you have a desire to build solid trusting relationships with frank and open communication, rooted in mutual respect. On the other hand, you must recognize that most players in the diplomatic sphere wouldn't bother talking to you if they didn't have an axe to grind or some kind of self-serving agenda. One must assume that all players in a diplomatic "game" are acting out of self-interest and not typically out of charitable motives. At the same time, cynicism or mistrust will tend to undermine the kinds of relationships that can bring about change. In order to bring change, there is always going to be an opportunity cost. There is usually some "pay to play" aspect of being a change agent, and those who are supporting the status quo know that and exploit it to their advantage.
On Daily Kos, we too easily throw people under the bus. Ad hominem arguments and ad populem arguments tend to carry more weight because writers are known as usernames only, and communicate (typically) only through the textual traces they leave behind. The way to "win" the game (e.g., getting your diary on the wreck list) is to reflect on current events, typically with statements that appeal to the tribalism of the Big Orange Satan worshippers, and to find more people who will join your tribe or cause or whatever.
I know the diary rescue teams and top comments teams try to find ways to offset the built-in features/problems of Daily Kos's community game by finding neglected but important information or hidden pearls of wisdom. That is good and laudable and significant. But the effort to overcome the limitations of Daily Kos belie those limitations. We don't see each other face to face. We exist as ciphers and traces.
The Wikileaks document dump reflects the realities of cybersecurity and interpersonal relationships in the internet age. It is easier, in many ways, to send an email than to make a phone call or (even more difficult) a face-to-face visit. Nonverbal communication is harder to convey and interpret via the web. It's easy for feelings to get hurt. It's easy to engage in the kinds of behavior (bullying, gossip, slander) online that you'd consider immoral and dangerous if you acted that way in person. But while the facility of online communications is a blessing, it's a mixed blessing. Information wants to be free - it wants to get out into the open. No matter how hard you try to disguise or hide your thoughts or communication (even if it's on a classified SIPRnet), when you write something, you need to realize that the text will stand for itself and you're no longer the author of that text if you aren't there to stand behind it. If it comes out in writing, chances are, it's going to continue to exist after you're absent. And in the age of YouTube, even what you say in person can easily be taken out of context and posted on the web where you're not around to defend yourself.
In 2008, I got very actively involved protecting the Obama campaign from the Jeremiah Wright sermons, which were mercilessly and relentlessly taken out of context by Fox News and the Clinton campaign, as well as other right-wing groups. The irony was that the opposition felt that it was more important to pay attention to what Obama's (retiring) pastor said (soundbites taken out of context) than to listen to Obama himself.
In one sermon, delivered shortly after 9/11, Rev. Wright quoted Ambassador Peck, who said, "America's chickens are coming home to roost." Christopher Hill, another retired envoy to Iraq, spoke yesterday to NPR about the Wikileaks controversy. In his remarks to NPR, Hill noted that one of the lessons learned from the leaks is that diplomats must reconsider their own privilege and anonymity when they write cables. In an environment where 2 million sets of eyes can look at SIPRnet, it's important to remember what "classfied" really means and to understand that open and frank judgments should still remain tempered by professionalism and a diplomatic spirit.
Look, this happens in life as well as in diplomacy. You just - sometimes bad things happen. You have to deal with it. And I think [Sec. of State Clinton]'s doing some damage control in that regard. I think overall, you know, it will be more what the U.S. does with a country than what we discuss internally. And so I think we'll get through some of these bilateral relationships.
But I do worry about the business of diplomacy. I worry about what people are prepared to put in cables in the future. I really worry about some of the lateral transmission of this information to people who clearly had nothing to do with the actual substance - that they were allowed to read these things. So I think there needs to be a lot of tightening up. And I suspect that process has begun.
It's easy to "preach to the choir" or engage in the use of tribal lingo when you're attacking an outsider, whether that outsider is a "corporatist" or a "DFH" or a "Repuglican". Speaking the truth to power doesn't always require us to speak from a place of contempt. There is nothing brave or patriotic about dehumanizing, bullying, or sarcastically deriding your subject. Labels matter, and it's important to understand that what's in the best interests of one person may be diametrically opposed to the best interests of another.
I know it's tempting and tantalizing to dehumanize people when you're in the safety of your online community, wiki, church, cult, whatever. Dave Weigel knows how that goes, and what can happen. And while the unvarnished honesty can be refreshing in a world of political-speak and carefully-framed narratives, there is nonetheless a need to self-edit if you're serious about building bridges and developing mutually trustworthy relationships.
There has been a lot of talk on Daily Kos about the need for the Obama White House to do a better job of message discipline. The failure of 2010 is often labeled as a failure of Obama's Democratic Party to frame things properly in a way that leads to electoral victory. I find that narrative suspicious because I think many on Daily Kos regularly fail to exhibit the kind of message discipline that they demand from other Democrats.
In closing, I want to apologize, after a lot of reflection and a good mirror from the State Department, for my failures to show respect and charitable intentions to my fellow Kossacks. Sometimes, I find that it's easier to make a snide remark than to take the time to really say what I mean and how I feel. I often find that that kind of snark is rewarded here in this community, and my desire to get noticed overwhelms my desire to be civil and kind.
In the future, please hold me to this commitment: I will engage in online discussion in ways that are productive and respectful.