Because of our shared biology, we share
concerns. These shared concerns form the basis of our language, of thought – of
culture.
But because of our upbringing we differ in
our concerns. These differences make us who we are.
What is the phylogeny of concerns? What is
the species tree that takes us from the general to the particular – from the
concerns that we share as humans, to the concerns that we share as a type, as a
culture, all the way to the concerns that make us an individual?
Our deepest concerns are those we share
with all social creatures. Don’t ask ‘what do people care about?’ – we are too
proud, too deluded to answer this question honestly. Ask instead ‘what do dogs
care about?’
The care about pain, they care about food, about
sex and status and family. They care about fairness.
These, then, are the building blocks of our
psyche, or our language and of our culture. From these well-springs all meaning
somehow derives – extending to physics and philosophy. These are the letters
with which your story is written.
And so it is that your everyday experience ranges on a spectrum, from those things that would affect anyone of your species (you are attacked by a tiger), to those that affect only you (someone dislikes your favourite poem). From mass marketing to personalised marketing.
As we live our lives the pattern of our concerns spreads like ink on a wet page; a unique pattern, a pattern which you project into the world - your trace.
Beautifully written. I must say, I felt this one coming! :-)
ReplyDeleteThe ‘Species tree’ formulation is a very helpful one.
I imagined a ‘forest of concerns’ which perhaps share a root system of core concerns.
I look forward to us finally arriving at some kind of model of concern:
I wonder if Nussbaums’s capability approach might be interpreted as providing a list of broad issues people might be concerned about? https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capability_approach
Though in so far as people can achieve the capabilities they may not see them as concerns.
As you say, concerns at the other end of the spectrum are necessarily going to be very particular, relating to commitments and relationships that we develop as individuals; e.g. we may be preoccupied with one particular relationship that troubles us.
To your point about not asking people, I don’t think it’s simply a case of people not being honest in their responses. Andrew Sawyer (author of ‘Why things matter to people’) observed that concerns are often simply hard to articulate. For example, some people may have a vague feeling of being left out and undervalued, but find it difficult to express this, yet it might underlie more specific views they may hold.
This a methodological challenge of course, which tools like card sorts and the like could help surmount. I also think about Arlie Russell Hochschild's concept of a ‘deep story' (She wrote Strangers in their Own Land, about U.S. Tea party members and their voting practice) which in many ways represent the kind of work we already do, i.e. just talking to people.