Parts 1 through 3 in this arc answered "Why do this exercise?" Parts 4 through 7 discussed "Why those messages?" Part 8 shared the results and analysis of the first anthropologic communication, "We trust you". Part 9 shared the same for "You can trust us", part 10 shared the results and analysis of "This is important", part 11 covered "This is important to you", part 12 explained "We can help" and part 13 answered "Who can you help?" with "We Can Help You". In part 14 the speechwriter stated what they hoped was your belief, that the speaker was a good person, and in part 15 the speechwriter reciprocated by stating that you're a good person.
Now we come to the final statement and the one around which social groups form; We know we can trust each other, that we have shared beliefs about what's important, that we can help each other and that we're all good people.
But what about "them"?
The last message which must be communicated in order for a group to form is the statement of differentiation. It is the "Us/We" versus the "Them/They". First and second person will always share an intimacy and that level of intimacy goes up exponentially if first and second person can point their finger at third person. This is covered in detail in Reading Virtual Minds Chapter 9, "I Trust You Therefore You Can Trust Me".
The whole point of these communications is to create community, to establish social groups. Communities and social groups can only exist when some form of boundary exists which demarcates what's in the community or group from what's not in the community or group. Without the concept of "Us/We" versus "Them/They" we couldn't have Democrats and Republicans, Christians and Jews, Europeans and Asians, Blue Collar and White Collar, ...
The boundaries can be natural phenomena or ideological constructs, all that matters is that they exist.
The "You're good people" results and analysis are: The "They're not good people" values were the second lowest in the analysis with only "This is important" scoring lower. There are several thoughts that fall from this. Perhaps the speechwriter non-consciously believed in all-inclusiveness, that no one should be left out. Possibly so and the "They're not good people" is a necessary message in order to unify any group into a cohesive whole. If the "They're not good people" message is necessary and we know it was communicated because it does show up in the analysis, how come at such low intensity? A place to investigate is the political requirement to not alienate anybody, especially when you're not sure who to distance yourself from. The US is becoming less and less a melting pot every day. I can remember my grandfather, when asked where he came from, answering in broken English, "I American." Of course, he then cursed the person in loud and vibrant Italian. Now people are "Italian-American" or "Italian". The quest for racial or ethnic identity grows stronger daily because it is, at its roots, a way to recognize "Us/We" and "Them/They". Such a mindset if broadly based causes difficulty for people wanting to unify "Americans" when everyone is hyphenated and these numbers could be a testimony to that. And there you have it, anthropologic messaging in political communications. These same messages must occur in business, commerce, trade, negotiations, whatever. Without them, societies, social groups, tribes, cliques, relationships, friendships, family groups and even marriages couldn't form. Please contact NextStage for information regarding presentations and trainings on this and other topics. Links for this post:
Message: They're not good people Inaugural Jan 20, 2001 11% State of the Union Jan 29, 2002 17% State of the Union Jan 28, 2003 26% State of the Union Jan 20, 2004 23% State of the Union Feb 2, 2005 23% State of the Union Jan 31, 2006 24% State of the Union Jan 23, 2007 26%
(Information in this arc is from Reading Virtual Minds Chapter 4, "Anecdotes of Learning". Text and images copyright Joseph Carrabis and NextStage Evolution 2006-2007)
Comment Preview