I may be wrong but …… it seems to me that visceral responses to public events and policies, personally satisfying though they may be, rarely lead to improved outcomes.
The word “visceral” has always fascinated me. The word looks and sounds like the thing it is describing – squishy, raw and emotional. And when I see “visceral” used when reporting a person’s reaction to an event they are involved in, I feel the word as well as read it. It’s a great word.
My dictionary defines “visceral” as “of the viscera; intuitive, emotional, rather than intellectual”, and “viscera” as “the internal organs of the body” (or “guts”). In the Kiwi layman’s vocabulary, a visceral response is a gut reaction.
Reflecting on issues and events I’ve observed over many years, I believe strong visceral reactions more often than not make things worse. They may make the person reacting feel better (in the same way that smashing something may give an angry person a bit of release for a while), but usually they often make things worse – leaving the angry person wondering if they should have reacted even more strongly. Escalation of the problem is a common outcome, or at least a prolonging of the pain.
I’m not talking of gut reactions to private problems, such as grief at the passing of a loved one or anger at having your house burgled. As long as we don’t cause problems for unrelated third parties, we are all free to react in private as best suits our emotional makeup. I do know what it’s like to feel and express those sorts of reactions.
Visceral reactions are natural and human, but they need to be recognised as such and not as ultimate answers to problems. Unfortunately, visceral reactions to emotive public issues, if released into public discourse, can easily affect other people, so the pros and cons of actions and advocacy based on gut reactions should be recognised.
The commonest gut reactions to political and public problems usually involve righteous indignation, puffing out the chest, raising the voice, expressing superiority from the high moral ground, and throwing stones from glass houses. The complainant may or may not feel “better”, someone may get punished, and then often as not the situation worsens. More shouting, more indignation, new tougher measures . . . . and so on.
Here are some examples from recent times in New Zealand.
- The New Zealand government’s policy on the state of democracy in Fiji is just making the situation worse. Let’s skip past the obvious hypocrisy and double standard of berating Fiji while also scrambling to trade with and please states like China, Thailand and Middle Eastern dictatorships or theocracies. NZ’s mainstream political parties act patronisingly, talking tough and loud from a position of superiority. We get tougher and louder as Fiji’s current political clique continues to go its own way regardless. We huff and puff about Fiji but not other places of questionable governance because it’s the only country we think we can dictate to. Plus, the image of a defiant brown-faced Bainimarama in total control there offends our European culture.The trouble with this approach is that our visceral reaction (“How dare that thug take over!” “Who does this Banana man think he is!” A native dares to tell us how he’ll run his backward country!!) becomes the unspoken foundation for government policy, which then expresses itself as trade and visitation sanctions and expulsion from multilateral forums, and then . . . . there is nowhere else to go (short of an invasion) that doesn’t involve a “backward” step.
The approach proposed last month by the Maori Party– to visit and talk and learn as human equals – holds much more appeal for me as a long-term rational response. As I heard it on the radio, I thought, why not? Get down off your high horse, visit the country and its leaders, ask what they have in mind and why, look at it from their point of view. Accept that no democracies are perfect and military coups may not be totally and intrinsically evil. If it still makes no sense and seems to be leading to a disastrous end-game, then express that opinion and let it shape foreign policy expressed through diplomatic channels. Be driven by rational policies rather visceral reactions.
- Crime and punishment is a huge issue in itself, but its relevance to my ramblings cannot be bypassed. It is acknowledged across most of the political spectrum that the more politicians act as mouthpieces for constituents’ visceral responses to crime and punishment and prisons and rehabilitation, the better their chances of gaining or retaining power.But I am not the only person to realise that in most cases this is not rational and does not make anything better in the long run. Those who are gut-wrenchingly angry about crimes that affect them, and those wanting to use these victims and events as tools of their advocacy for tougher responses, may feel better as a result (though I suspect that for many nothing changes their victim mentality and the bitterness lives on forever), but that doesn’t help make society better in the long run.
A rational response acknowledges the grief and works through it, and eventually sees that the offender will in time pay their dues and return to society, and that taking every available step to rehabilitate them and transition them humanely will make for a safer community in the long term. Punishment for the sake of revenge may make some people feel better in the short term, but will have bad consequences down the line for everyone.
- The media loves exposing mistakes and deficiencies in the health sector, and people tut-tut or gasp in horror about tales of wrong diagnoses, psychiatric patients wrongly released, etc. Likewise other public service entities such as police. The visceral reaction is to find someone to blame, criticise the professionals who made the mistakes, expect perfection, and demand accountability and the rolling of heads.How sensible is that? How will it improve an already very difficult health landscape? Well, it may help the grumps feel better for a while. Or not.
- We’ve seen it many times over now. After the media get over their lather and go on to the next crisis, and after the armchair critics move on to the next person whose level of perfection falls short of unrealistic standards, usually two things happen: (1) more public money and time is committed to risk-aversion policies and measures which make it harder for health professionals to do their jobs; (2) some of the picked-over professionals decide it’s not worth the effort in the face of such antagonism, and resign or move on, leaving colleagues even more stretched and likely to make errors.Viscerally satisfying, maybe, for some, for a while; otherwise stupid.
- I won’t enter the argument about “boy racer” legislation, but again note that in my view, irritating and threatening though these bogans may be, beating our chests and shouting “crush their cars” is only a visceral reaction with little benefit apart from allowing us to feel like we’re doing something. The effects of the proposed new laws will be minimal at best, and could raise the stakes to make things worse.A lack of understanding of what it is to be a teenager, and fading memory of what we baby boomers were like when we were that age, means that our visceral responses have almost no effect on the bulk of these youngsters, and a rational mind realises that engagement rather than shouting is more likely to have some longer-term benefit.
As I ponder events unfolding week by week here in NZ, increasingly I’m impressed by the approach taken by the Maori Party on so many issues – talk, think, talk some more, then use common sense. I hope that my attitude will increasingly be guided by this approach.
Posted by David Armstrong 
