|
|
||
 |
|
|
|
|
||
|
|
||
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
BOOK REVIEW The Political Brain: The Role of Emotion in Deciding the Fate of the Nation by Drew Westen PublicAffairs - June 2007
Reviewed by Dr. Jonathan Dolhenty Some months ago I had the pleasure of reading and reviewing a book by Dr. Frank Luntz titled Words That Work: It's Not What You Say, It's What People Hear. I thought this to be a valuable contribution to the general field of what traditionally is called "Rhetoric," that is, the art (and arguably science) of persuasion. Words have power, some specific words more than others. Words are used to influence and motivate; they are used to make connections between ideas and emotions. Words are, therefore, extremely important regardless of the context in which they are used: interviewing for a job, defending oneself in court, lecturing to an audience and, obviously, in political campaigns. In politics, Luntz is primarily a pollster and consultant for Republican Party interests and candidates. I submit that Luntz's work should be of vital interest to every aspiring politician. We have available now another book which I think any aspiring politician needs to read and digest. And this work complements Luntz's book very well. Dr. Drew Westen, an experienced clinical and "political" psychologist, has written The Political Brain: The Role of Emotion in Deciding the Fate of the Nation. For the sake of fairness and full disclosure, it should be said that Dr. Westen is a political consultant and advisor for Democratic leaders and candidates, although Westen does refer to Luntz's book on a number of occasions. Westen's book is probably the more directly partisan of the two, but that is not a major concern once one takes the party politics out of the picture and concentrates on the practical psychology that is being offered. While I think much of the advice Weston provides would enhance a political candidate's chances of being elected to office, I do have some ethical and philosophical reservations -- plus some plain old personal uneasiness -- about his recommendations. There is little controversy regarding the reality of human emotions in political discourse, particularly when it involves important issues or candidacy for public office. An outgoing personality, the capacity to project a positive image, the ability to speak well, the flair one has for making contact on an affective level with another human being, that is, the overall "charisma" of a political candidate, has been known from antiquity to be one of the most valuable assets for anyone attempting to influence public affairs or get elected to office. The ancient Greeks and Romans knew this and it was utilized by their great orators, and even a cursory examination of American political history will elicit many examples of charismatic politicians and social leaders. Weston, however, adds a new dimension to the subject about which the ancients and, until quite recently, the moderns were unaware: the physiological principles foundational to affective behavior based on recent scientific investigation into the operations of the human brain at an empirical level. Previously, the whole matter of the "art of persuasion" rested for the most part on "rational" understandings. Aristotle, for instance, did not consider rhetoric to be a special science, but simply an art of general scope. Rhetoric explains how some people succeed in swaying audiences, either by natural gifts or through practice and study and then provides the relevant principles involved. This was a rational approach to the subject without any underlying physiological explanation or justification. This is not to say that Aristotle was wrong about the art of persuasion; it's to say that his analysis was merely incomplete (and understandingly so). Things have changed mightily over the past 2,400 years and new technologies and methods now permit a detailed examination of what actually goes on inside the human brain, but I might suggest that this knowledge can be used for nefarious purposes as well as for the opposite. Weston states: "The vision of mind, brain, and emotion ... is very different from the vision that has dominated much of Western thinking about judgment, decision making, and political behavior over the last three centuries. Emotions provide a compass that leads us toward and away from things, people, or actions associated with positive or negative states. Organisms survived for millions of years without consciousness and without the faculty philosophers have extolled for 2,500 years as reason." That may be the case; Yet, I would argue, it is the use of human reason, and not the application of human emotions, that has furthered the advancement of mankind and civilization. In his counsel to Democratic candidates, Weston often appears to relegate the importance, and even the worthiness, of an issue to second place in favor of appealing to the emotions of the voting electorate rather than to their reasoning capacity. He writes: "The data from political science are crystal clear: people vote for the candidate who elicits the right feelings, not the candidate who presents the best arguments." I won't deny that is true; I have followed American politics for well over half a century. But is this the best way to conduct public affairs or promote the public good? Human emotions are a double-edged sword in politics; they can be employed, for instance, to promote and justify the annihilation of a racial or religious group as well as to support one or grant it special privileges. There is also the matter of the "argumentum ad populum" logical fallacy which, in its narrow sense that I am using here, is the attempt to win popular assent to a conclusion (issue or candidate) by arousing the emotions and enthusiasms of the public, rather than by appeal to the relevant facts (or arguments). It seems to me that the worthiness (truth, efficacy, desirability) of an issue matters very much and that a political candidate's stand on an issue may be much more important than the "charisma" the candidate may project. Of course, Westen could argue that this is immaterial and irrelevant if the candidate can't win the election to support the issue involved. And, naturally, he is right about that. My recommendation, therefore, is this: Any aspiring political candidate or political junkie (as I am), no matter where you fall on the political spectrum, ought to read Weston's The Political Brain because it's filled with solid practical, scientifically validated information about the place of emotions in the political enterprise. But also read Luntz's Words That Work because he covers the linguistic angle in political advocacy and discourse. Then, above all, read Aristotle's Rhetoric because he is concerned, not only with the mere art of persuasion, but with the truth or falsity of an issue, how to examine both sides of an issue, how to properly develop an argument regarding an issue and, most importantly, how to develop the ability to present a persuasive argument. With these three books in hand, how could anyone lose an election? 
Read an Excerpt from this Book Order at Amazon.com The Political Brain: The Role of Emotion in Deciding the Fate of the Nation, by Drew Westen Order at Powell's Books The Political Brain: The Role of Emotion in Deciding the Fate of the Nation, by Drew Westen |
|
|
|
|
|
Enrich your life with a book about politics and current events... Enrich your political & social life with a politics or news magazine... |
|
|
|
|
|
|
||
|
|
||
[Homepage] [Newsletter] [Search] [Support the Academy] [Link to Us] [Contact the Academy] [Citing Articles from Our Website] [Privacy Policy & Disclaimer]
Copyright 1998-99, 2000-01, 2002-03, 2004-05, & 2006-07 by The Radical Academy. All Rights Reserved.