Explanation and Power: Q & A Part I

Note: This Q & A is my response to Peckham's summary of his luminous Explanation and Power: The Control of Human Behavior. Since questions are the foundation of PRC a Q & A seemed to me to be the most appropriate way of representing that response. The source of this Q & A are questions that I have asked myself about Peckham's work in general and Explanation and Power in particular over the years, as well as questions that partners, students, friends, etc. have asked me, and questions that I put to Peckham during a series of phone conversations that I had with him between March 1990 and June 1993. During our last talk I asked if I could visit him and he graciously said Yes. It was obvious at that point that he was a man of failing powers and I very much wanted to sit and talk with him and was preparing to do just that. His death intervened. One of my proudest accomplishments in life is that I made Peckham laugh every time I spoke with him. And that seems appropriate, given the subject matter of his work, which is deadly serious. If you can't face the seriousness of life without at least a little humor then you're finished. That might be a good thing to keep in mind for what follows.

Q: Ok. Let’s get started. Ready?

A: Yep.

Q: Great. Ok. So I’ve taken some notes during our talks and have organized them so we could start by going over them together in Q & A form, as you suggested. Sound good to you?

A: Sounds great.

Q: Great! So, here goes. The basic proposition of PRC is that the meaning of anything is the response to it. Correct?

A: Correct.

Q: But, since successful social interaction does take place, that meaning behavior is controlled, though never with complete success. Right?

A: That’s right.

Q: And this is why things like Effective Communication, saying the right thing at the right time in the right way and for the right reason is, though difficult, so important to PRC, as well as continuous learning, change and growth. So far, so good?

A: So far, so good.

Q: Great. And the primary means of controlling meaning behavior is through verbal behavior, or Explanation. Which is best conceived as instructions for both verbal and nonverbal behavior. Right?

A: That’s right.

Q: Ok. So, you have said that a behavioral analysis of words like “cause,” “logic,” “mind,” “intention,” shows that their use is normative and that, in fact, everything we say is normative.

Correct?

A: Yep. And I would add that, examined behaviorally, descriptive sentences are prescriptive sentences.

Q: Including the work you do at PRC?

A: Yes, with one big difference.

Q: What’s that?

A: At PRC I say it up front. I also don’t expect PRC partners (or readers) to automatically accept or believe what I say. I invite them to test and use the explanations that I offer to them.

Q: And you encourage them to do the same with their explanations, or solutions to their problems?

A: Of course.

Q: So basically you treat your work like a theory and together with your partners apply it to their social institutions?

A: Yes. The basic idea behind PRC is to scientize, behavioralize, historicize and humanize the social institutions I work with.

Q: Humanize as in the Humanities?

A: Yes. But not as the Humanities are now used, and abused.

Q: And how would you say they are taught now?

A: They're not taught at all.

Teaching has been replaced by indoctrination.

Q: What would you say are the consequences of replacing education with indoctrination?

A: Virtually everything in life is being passed through an ideological filter that totally, deliberately, and maliciously, distorts reality while sucking all of the joy out of life itself, thereby undermining the whole point of the Humanities.

Q: And what, in your view, is the point of the Humanities?

A: The Humanities are about experienced teachers guiding inexperienced students through the learning process by imparting knowledge and removing ignorance, not by weaponizing a political ideology, that they neither question or analyze, for the purpose of moralizing a bad world that only they understand and have the questions and answers to. People who do that are not teachers, they are indoctrinators, and as such are guilty of educational malpractice. They should not be listened to, they should be publically ridiculed and shamed and sued into poverty.

These imposters remind one of what Nietzsche said, in so many words, that constantly saying the world is mad and bad has helped make the world more mad and bad. These charlatans and their misled followers have only helped to make the world mad and bad. But worse, they've succeeded, if that's the word you want to use, in not only replacing education with indoctrination, but with replacing one set of prejudices for another.

The Humanities are about teachers and students who, through the use of great books, muster all of the intellect and imagination they can for the purpose of being able to look life in the eye.

Q: Why has education been replaced by indoctrination?

A: Because the people doing it can't look life in the eye. But, to put it bluntly, replacing education with indoctrination serves the interests of the hostile elite who own and control our social institutions today - all of them.

Q: And what would you say their interests are?

A: Well, in this case, it's to serve a power-based ideology.

Q: What in your judgment should the interests of the elite serve?

A: Instead of a power-based ideology that serves the interests of a hostile elite we should have a knowledge-based power that serves the interests of everyone.

Q: Didn't you once say that the Humanities should be placed under the Behavioral Sciences, or something like that?

A: I didn't say it, Peckham did, and then I said it, to you and others. It's one of my favorites of his. And I have to say, if there's anything that's stood the test of time, or has aged well, as they say, it's that one. Then again, just about all of his ideas have. That's why we're doing this. It's also why he's been such an inspiration for the above-mentioned basic idea behind PRC.

Q: What, for you, is the value of that basic idea?

A: First, the value of this approach is that it's the best way I know for keeping us all grounded in reality. Second, the value of this approach is that I don’t say to PRC partners, This is the truth. And because it’s the truth, it should control your behavior.

On the contrary, I say something more like, Any statement I make, that I stand by and believe in, simply amounts to a recommendation that the statement in question be used as a guide to behavior in the problem-solving process. In short, the value of this approach is intellectual, social and moral, not dogmatic.

Behaviorally, we can only say that a response to something we say is appropriate in the judgment of someone. Not that it’s true.

Q: In other words, everything that all of us say is normative?

A: Yes. And by normative I mean, in part, that I think and feel confident enough with what I have to suggest or recommend that it serve as the norm upon which those I work with can take action. But also, since it's normal for human beings to make mistakes, I may very well end up being mistaken. Which is exactly why I encourage both questions and reflection, so as to keep those mistakes to a minimum and correct them when they happen. Also, and perhaps even more importantly, I don't take the norm as a given. In any event, the point is that it's better for everyone involved if you not only know all of this, but know why it's worth knowing, and say so up front.

Q: Before continuing, if you'll permit me to play the Devil's Advocate, what would you say to someone who said to you that You're not a scientist. So you're in no position to scientize anything, whether it's an individual or institution?

A: Well, as you know, people have said that. So I'll just say here what I've said to them. Which is, Of course I am. We all are.

And the reason is simple. Scientizing is a universal form of behavior, in that it links an explanation with an experiment, as when someone dips their toe in the water to see if it's too cold for swimming. Science, like Art and Philosophy, is a mode of human behavior, it is not the sole domain of professional scientists.

Speaking of which, it's worth pointing out that civilization was not created professionals, but it is being destroyed by them.

This is something one should keep in mind in an age that fetishizes professionalization, while ignorantly mocking amateurization, when it was the tradition of the amateur-virtuoso that created Western Civilization in the first place.

In any event, when science is looked at in terms of behavior, as it should be, it becomes immediately obvious to everyone that it's only an elaboration, though an immense elaboration, of what is virtually a defining attribute of human behavior, the linking of control and feedback of both experiment and explanation.

The reason for this is that response itself is a fundamental attribute of human behavior, though not a defining attribute, and that explanatory response is a defining attribute, made possible only by the subsumptive power of language, a power which must ultimately be controlled by human beings, by channeling that language into an explanation. And now we're back to the title of this entry, itself based on the title of Peckham's masterpiece.

Q: Again, you have said that a behavioral analysis of words like cause, logic, mind, intention, shows that their use is normative. What behavioral analysis would you provide your partners, students, and readers with to help them understand Explanation?

A: Great question. And the answer, in a word, is Categorization.

Q: Could you explain?

A: Sure. Behaviorally, when we use a category to subsume two or more words or propositions we’re saying that it’s appropriate to respond to them in the same way. For example, when we say that it is appropriate to respond to the word Dog and the word Cat with the word Animal, or Pet. Or the words Mom and Dad with the word Parent. But we can only do this by ignoring other attributes that those words or propositions might possess.

Q: Could you give another example with a bit more detail?

A: Let's say we have twin brothers, one is named Robert and the other John. When their mother asks them to do something they both do it. But Robert always smiles and John frowns. One observer might say, They are both obedient young men. But another might say, True, but one is willingly obedient, and the other is not. The first observer ignores the difference between the facial expressions and places both behaviors in the same category, that is, responds to them verbally in the same way. The other observer, however, places the behaviors in different categories and responds by asserting that the two young men ought to be responded to in different ways. The appropriate verbal response to this categorical response is that the second observer has judged that there is a difference between the behaviors of the two boys, at least as far as doing what their mother tells them is concerned.

Q: So what does that mean?

A: It means that not only are our utterances normative, they’re also fictive, since all terms are categorical. But this doesn’t just apply to verbal behavior. It applies to nonverbal behavior too.

Q: Ah, you beat me to it. Ganaste de mano! I was going to ask you that. So, in short, the fictiveness and normativeness of categorization applies to all behavior.

A: Yep.

Q: So then, one acts as if two or more things were appropriately responded to in the same way?

A: Bingo!

Q: And how is this related to Explanation and Behavior?

A: Well, that’s the question of questions, the epistemological question.

Q: And the answer is?

A: The answer is that categorical subsumption is itself subsumed by more inclusive categories.

Q: How so? Could you elaborate?

A. Explanation is built up by a hierarchy of more inclusive categories. And the hierarchy or explanatory regress can be terminated only arbitrarily. Also, and this is extremely important, meaning is not immanent, meaning is a matter of response.

Q: So?

A: So, there is no necessary subsumptive relation between any two levels of an explanation. For example, given an initial act of categorization, behavior can move in any subsuming direction, terminating equally well with, for instance, religious statements, political statements, or scientific statements.

Moreover, and this is also very important, the higher the level of regress the more instances that can be subsumed, but at the same time, the less specific are the instructions to respond to any given instance. The word God is an obvious example of this. In the case of Christianity, for instance, there is one God but many different ways of believing in that word. So the word God in this case subsumes many believers, at least two different religions, and many different sects. There’s even different ways of being a monk. It’s also worth pointing out here that from a human point of view, before God is anything, it’s a word. In any event, all of this is why Validation and Justification are behaviorally specialized modes of Explanation. In short, all verbal behavior is both normative and fictive, and there is no position which can transcend verbal behavior, such as a meta-verbal position.

Q: So, we’re trapped in language?

A: Ah, well, we’re trapped in verbal behavior.

Q: No way out.

A: Not if we want to engage in social interaction.

Q: So, it’s like what Humpty Dumpty said to Alice?

A: Kind of. He said, which is to be master, that’s all.

But, really, we have no choice but to be master of the words we use in response to living with ourselves and others.

But, unfortunately, it’s a position many would prefer to avoid or even surrender to someone else. And, as anyone knows who cares, or dares, or can bear to look, the consequences of that surrender to others are immense. I mean, just look around.

Q: You said that there’s no verbal escape. So, if what applies to verbal behavior also applies to nonverbal behavior, then there's no nonverbal escape either. Is that right?

A: Yes. As we said, responses to both are fictive and normative. As human beings, or, to be human beings, we turn the world into signs, and the meaning of those signs are our responses to them.

Q: Ok. This sounds interesting, but involved. So, can we continue with our discussion of nonverbal behavior in Part II?

Because I’d like to know how this applies to a company.

A: Sure. Actually, I can tell you now that what we’re talking about here applies to all social institutions without exception.

Q: Ah, ok. So then, let’s start Part II with that then. Sound good?

A: Sounds good. Until then.