Greater than my surprise at being elected President was my delight at knowing that I would be more than ably supported by President Elect, Victor Sibeko who heads up Corporate Development for the Transnet Pension Fund Administrators. Together, the two of us should be regarded as The Presidency of the organization as we will be working hand-in-glove and as ONE team. What is more, during our term together, Victor and I will be sharing responsibility for all matters touching on the future of our beloved PRISA. Our first priority is to ensure that the projects launched during Merle O’Brien’s tenure continue unimpeded. There is also a great deal to be done to deliver real transformation within the organization and, where feasible, these processes will be fast-tracked. Over the next two years it also will be of paramount importance to nurture new entrants to the profession while, at the same time, existing members must become inspired to achieve higher levels of professional registration. It is also my earnest intention to launch a campaign through which we may lure back those APR members who, for various reasons have left the organization over the past years. We plan also to increase the drive for corporate membership as well as increase the awareness and importance of the PRISA endorsement – endorsement of individual members through to corporates and to consultancies and agencies. In addition, the endorsement of communication-related conferences and seminars, on condition that these meet our standards, can mean a lucrative source of income for the Institute. I, for one, will not be accepting any local invitations to speak at PR/Communication Conferences - for the duration of my term - unless such a conference is PRISA endorsed. South African conference organisers do not pay the speakers and, if they do so, it is a pittance. I might as well then assist in earning PRISA some extra monies through its endorsements of such conferences when I do appear at these events! There is also a great need to ensure that PRISA’s opinion on various national and regional communication issues is reported in the media. My and Victor’s term of office comes at a time when the profession finds itself presented with a range of opportunities set against a background of dynamic changes in business and industry. As The Presidency we look forward to the support of PRISA members, the Consultancy Chapter as well as those academics active in the field of Public Relations and Communication. More than anything else, we need to reclaim PRISA’s position at the forefront of the profession and re-establish its influence in the public and private sectors. I was not surprised, some weeks after I had decided on the theme for this evening’s inaugural address, that my dear friend and colleague, Philip Sheppard in Brussels, announced that he too had chosen “Ethics” as the theme for his 2007 IPRA Presidency. [IPRA is the acronym for the International Public Relations Association on which World Council I have been elected to serve a second two-year term earlier this year] In Philip’s words: “It [ethics] resonates with the current disquiet about Public Affairs and lobbying in many parts of the world.” Charles van der Straaten-Waillet, Past World President of IPRA, in a congratulatory message to me states: “The theme of your address is more relevant and necessary than ever before and I am sure that you will find the right words to what remains one of our profession’s major challenges and issues. But however difficult to resolve the problem it has to be re-phrased, re-addressed and tackled continuously.” Charles particularly asked me to read to you the following quotation from his letter: “ If lies didn’t help you out, why don’t you try the truth? Often the solution is simply being just and fair to others and oneself “. Globally, professional institutes are concerned about the state of Ethics, particularly in the field of communication. International professionals are chiefly concerned about the many abuses during past years; abuses and crimes against humanity, simply to suit the objectives of certain politicians and religious leaders. Lobbyists and spin doctors, along with so-called public relations and/ or communication consultants and consultancies, which are not registered or accredited with local professional bodies, have been creating havoc with the world’s perception of Public Relations and, more importantly, how Truth and Lies seem to be interchangeable. What is even more worrying is that many of these questionable people are in top government positions in many of the most developed countries of the world. Their main concern is for the PR in PROPAGANDA rather than for the PR in PUBLIC RELATIONS. It is also frightening – more a crime against humanity - that the mindsets of mankind and the future of this planet is largely being determined by messages encoded by these ruthless people, people unrestrained by International and National Codes of Conduct developed by professional bodies worldwide and, thus not accountable to anyone but the writer of the cheques that are getting fatter as the abuses continue. The only way to combat and discipline such reprehensible practices is to legislate for the regulation of the communication-related professions. I am sure that everyone in this room would be horrified if the SA Medical and Dental Council suddenly dispensed with registration and allowed every Tom, Dick and Harry to practice medicine. And, in the medical world doctors are dealing only with the hardware that makes up an individual. In the communication industry, where we are dealing with the software aspects of humanity and, more often than not, create humanity’s ideas, we can create havoc on a scale that no doctor could ever dream of. It is because ideas – or may I refer to ideas as memes? I would feel so much more comfortable doing so after 30 years of studying these basic units by which culture is transmitted - memes spread themselves around indiscriminately – vertically from generation to generation and, horizontally between individuals - without regard to whether they are useful, neutral, or positively harmful to us. Such a meme could be a brilliant new scientific idea, or a technological invention and may spread because of its usefulness. A harmless but useless and at times irritating meme could very well be the ta-ta-ta-TUM from Beethoven’s Fifth Symphony! But, other memes are positively harmful – like chain letters and pyramid selling, new methods of fraud and false doctrines, ineffective slimming diets and dangerous medical ‘cures’. Homosexuals particularly have been targets for such harmful memes over the millennia. Of course, the memes in themselves ‘do not care’; they, like genes, will simply and mindlessly spread around if they successfully can do so.” Nazi beliefs spread quickly throughout Hitler’s Germany because a virus of the mind was unleashed that successfully infected people with discriminatory memes and which produced horrifying atrocities. Winston Churchill once declared that: “The Truth is so precious she should always be attended by the Handmaidens of the Lie”. This statement in itself sums up how lies and lack of ethics dominated the 20th Century World on all sides. The 21st Century, judging from the lies and deceit used to justify conflict and killing, is not going to be any better than its predecessor. It is, therefore, surprising that neither the United States nor Britain have taken the initiative in regulating the communication professions. Today, only Nigeria and Brazil have legislation in place that requires registration and the licensing of communication professionals. In reviewing world history over the past 5 years one would have hoped that the White House and Downing Street might have given serious consideration to such legislation! But, let us now shift our focus on the chosen theme of my Inaugural Address to you this evening. W hat I am going to suggest to you this evening – and for starters - is that it is quite acceptable to kill a man, to steal his belongings and then, to eat him. Anything goes that will bestow on the individual the ability to survive into another day and to procreate his or her genes successfully into the next generation – and as often as possible. Contemporary scientific thinking accepts that in the Universe in which we live, there is no such thing as good and evil. It simply does not exist. There is only opportunity, survival and procreation – whether it happens in competition or in cooperation, it matters not. And, the good news: there is no judgement, and thus no real success and no real failure. Oxford University evolutionary biologist Richard Dawkins, opined that “the universe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil, no good - nothing but blind, pitiless indifference.” If we are then nothing more than the product of sightless natural forces operating within a mercilessly uncaring cosmos, from whence can we find absolute ethical standards or ultimate moral meaning? – Can the answers maybe be found in nature? Charles Darwin’s theory of natural selection is an abstract argument about a metaphorical “struggle” to leave more offspring in subsequent generations. It is not a statement about competition or cooperation and, by representing both at different times, it upholds neither as nature’s principal way – and, therefore, Darwinism implies nothing about moral conduct. We do not find our moral values in the actions of nature. Leo Tolstoi, an astute observer of nature, also held the view that nature and the struggle for existence could not explain the meaning of life and could not give us guidance in our actions. In a famous passage from The Origin of Species, Darwin identifies two types of evolutionary struggle: Illustrating competition he uses the metaphor of two canines, in a time of scarcity, fighting to the death for the food that will ensure survival. He then juxtaposes this struggle between organisms with mistletoe, which for its existence uses cooperation with birds that disseminate its seeds, but at the same time, that mistletoe is in a struggle with other fruit-bearing plants in order to tempt the birds to devour and thus disseminate its seeds rather than those of other plants. R ussia is an immense country, under-populated over most of its area. It is also a harsh land, where competition is more likely to pit organism against environment, than organism against organism in direct competition. It is cooperation both within and between species that leads to survival. Thus, terms such as “bloody battles” and “the survival of the fittest” were foreign to the Russian observance of evolution on the vast steppes! It is interesting to see how the Western perception of evolution as a competitive process led to the practice of Unrestrained Capitalism today while Russian observance of evolution as a cooperative process in nature supported the development of Socialism. The Russian nobleman, Nikolai Danilevsky, in 1885 identified the struggle for personal gain as the credo of a distinctly British “national type”, as contrasted with old Slavic values of collectivism. (It is also said that the sun never set on the British Empire because God couldn’t trust them in the dark!) And Danilevsky’s description of the British is in fact quite astute. One can hardly blame the man for his perception if one considers that Darwin’s scientific ideas were extended into a myriad of other theories, most of which proved to be invalid and, judged by modern moral sensibilities, were harmful, if not tragic, in their application. The chief offender in this category was a highly influential theory that acquired the inappropriate name of “Social Darwinism”. As many historians have noted, this theory should really have been called “Social Spencerism,” since Herbert Spencer laid out all the basic postulates in his Social Statics of 1850, nearly a decade before Darwin published The Origin of Species. But, Spencer certainly used Darwin’s mechanism of natural selection to buttress his system. Few people recognize the following historical irony: Spencer, not Darwin, coined the terms “evolution” and “survival of the fittest”, now our conventional catch-phrases for Darwin’s mechanism – phrases grossly misunderstood by most. Social Darwinism grew into a major movement in the United Kingdom and America. Historian Richard Hofstadter argues that the primary impact of this doctrine lay in its buttressing of conservative political philosophies, particularly through the central and highly effective argument against state support of social services and governmental regulation of industry and housing. Steven Jay Gould who has written extensively about Herbert Spencer’s social theories says that he does not believe that the claims of Social Darwinism directly caused the ills of unrestrained industrial capitalism and the suppression of workers’ rights. But, the Social Darwinian argument of the super rich and the highly conservative did stem, weaken, and slow the tides of amelioration, particularly for workers rights. More generally speaking, I agree with Gould that “a somewhat cynical rule of thumb should be applied in judging arguments about nature that also have overt social implications: When such claims imbue nature with just those properties that make us feel good or fuel our prejudices, [we should] be doubly suspicious.” There are no shortcuts to moral insight. Nature is not intrinsically anything that can offer comfort or solace in human terms – if only because our species is such an insignificant latecomer in a world not constructed for us. And so much the better: The answers to moral dilemmas are not lying out there, waiting to be discovered. They reside within each of us – the most difficult and inaccessible spot for any discovery or consensus. ‘There is nothing good or bad, but thinking makes it so’ Hamlet, Act2, Scene 2 William Wshakespeare. Then, how can we explain the why and the how of morality and how can we be good without the intervention of a superior being? What I am going to propose to you tonight is that morality can be explained through the evolution of the unique human mind. Paul Ehrlich, the distinguished Stanford University biologist – and, most scientists today agree – states that all ethical systems originate in the human mind. There are no moral truths out there, waiting to be discovered. Fact is, we are bound to our empirical existence, and our moral sense is therefore grounded firmly in our human biology and our human world. Moral sentiments in humans and moral principals in human groups evolved primarily through the force of natural selection operating on individuals and secondarily through the force of group selection operating on populations: The moral sense - the psychological feeling of doing “good” in the form of positive emotions such as righteousness and pride - evolved out of the behaviours that were selected for because they were good either for the individual or for the group; an immoral sense – the psychological feeling of doing “bad” in the form of negative emotions such as guilt and shame – evolved out of behaviours that were selected for because they were bad either for the individual or for the group. While cultures may differ on what behaviours are defined as good or bad, the moral sense of feeling good or feeling bad about behaviour X - whatever X may be - is an evolved human universal. Humans are thus, by nature, moral and immoral, good and evil, altruistic and selfish, cooperative and competitive, peaceful and bellicose, virtuous and non-virtuous. Such moral traits vary within individuals as well as within and between groups. Some, people and populations are more or less moral and immoral than other people and populations. But, all people have the potential for all moral traits. In discussing Provisional Morality, American Science Historian, Michael Shermer discerns the difference between right and wrong through three principles: The ask-first principle states: to find our whether an action is right or wrong, ask first (Aside: I have slightly amended this principle: Mixael’s Law states that it is easier to ask for forgiveness than ask for permission. You get a helluva lot more done that way!) The happiness principle states: it is a higher moral principle to always seek happiness with someone else’s happiness in mind, and never to seek happiness when it leads to someone else’s unhappiness. The liberty principle states: it is a higher moral principle to always seek liberty with someone else’s liberty in mind, and never to seek liberty when it leads to someone else’s loss of liberty. To implement social change, there is another principle. This is the moderation principle and it states: when innocent people die, extremism in the defence of anything is no virtue, and moderation in the protection of everything is no vice. A s an evolved mechanism of human psychology, the moral sense transcends individuals and groups and, ultimately belongs to the species, which is the product of the impersonal forces of our individual evolutionary biology and our group history and culture. Why, if we all share a common evolved moral sense, do we have no consensus when it comes to these great ethical questions? Even with the benefit of several thousand years or more of ethical debate we do not even have consensus on what the questions are, never mind the answers! It is because our moral frames of reference can be completely at odds. For utilitarians, the sum of the consequences is important for any particular action. Others may believe in strict moral absolutes that can never be transgressed, such as the taking of a life. Ehrlich uses the example of tourists who are stranded in a cave by an ocean shore. The water is rising, and the only way out is through a hole that leads upwards to the cliff top. The first tourist, who is unfortunately vastly overweight, gets stuck near the top of the hole. He is out of danger but the rest of the group cannot escape. Rescuers arrive, and they are faced with a choice: do they blow up the fat man with dynamite, killing him and saving the lives of the others, or do they use drills to free the fat man, which will save his life but seal the fate of his friends because of the time delay? Is there a right answer to this question? Does it depend on whether or not the fat man pleads with them to save his life or begs to be sacrificed? This moral dilemma, to an extent, reminds me of Victorian hyper morality: can a misdeed against moral codes ever be condoned, whatever the circumstances? – For example, stealing a knife to prevent a murder? In South Africa some years ago, on the route to Durban, several cars were involved in a pile-up collision. A man was trapped in one of the cars, which started to burn. The man’s agonising screams were terrifying and there was no ways of rescuing him. A bystander produced a pistol and shot the man. Immediately, the burning man’s screaming stopped. The flames were going to kill him anyway but the bullet was the cause of death. Luckily, the attorney general decided not to prosecute – I am not so sure that the outcome would have been the same had this case been argued in the United States. T he emergence of economics as a separate discipline from philosophy and politics coincided with the emergence of Western Europe’s sensate culture at the end of the Middle Ages. Attitudes and activities that are highly valued in this ”masculine” system include material acquisition, expansion, competition, and an obsession with ‘hard technology’. By using so-called public relations techniques, which overemphasize these values, our society has been encouraged in the pursuit of goals that are both dangerous and unethical, and has institutionalised several of the sins known in Christianity as deadly – gluttony, pride, selfishness and greed. Acclaimed academic, Noam Chomsky has shown how fundamentalist structures – both capitalist and religious – for many years, have abused the evolution of the communication techniques in a process that sways mass sentiment and manipulates public opinion in a top-down hierarchy. This approach reframes complex issues into the headline-length, easy to photograph sound bite – a strategy of distractive over-simplification with no real information with which to make an informed opinion. There are many other techniques that bedevil the serious practitioner’s nobler efforts in trying to communicate honestly and completely. Marginalisation is such a technique and is frequently used by public relations experts to name and demonise an enemy, to whip up an emotional fury against the demon and to generate public support for illogical policies. Anyone remaining against the proposed policy is then minimalised, sidelined, or marginalised. This way people who are opposed to the public relations objectives, are made to feel absolutely alone. In America, for instance, any opposition to the recent Iraqi War translated into the sound bite of “Endangering Our Troops". The slogan "Support Our Troops" very successfully distracted the populace from the real question of: "Do you support this war?” Public relations, traditionally and often in our modern approach, manipulates the innate irrationalism which one finds throughout human history. There are two major causes or predisposing factors for this anomaly in the human mind and heart. First, our brains just don't seem to be well equipped for reasoning by probability. Fads find their most fertile ground in subjects, like the curing of disease, that require a separation of many potential causes and an assessment of probability in judging the value of a result. Secondly, whatever his powers of abstract reasoning, humankind remains the prisoners of hope. So long as life remains disappointing and cruel for so many people, we shall be prey to irrationalisms that promise relief. People are attracted by the two hopes that touch them the most: that of knowing the future and that of prolonging their days. And, the public relations profession ever so often exploit the parallel between communal crises and mass emotionalism. The military elicit this behaviour by sounding drums and playing bugles; promoters by hiring a claque to begin and direct the applause after performances; demagogues by manipulating the mob. Pubic Relations, inevitably, depending on the world-view it serves, has become the messengers of fundamentalist thinking. The communication abuses of particularly fundamentalist capitalism and fundamentalist religion are proof of our profession’s abdication of responsibility towards its publics. And, may I also mention that I share this view with people such as George Soros and Prof Noreena Herz of Cambridge. Internationally, communicators conveniently and intentionally cause confusion by giving new interpretations to old and trusted meanings of language. This is called the transposition of meaning where the dictionary no longer reconciles the usage of certain words and concepts with their traditional or standard definitions: That which I read, that which I hear and that which I see, all have been thoroughly impoverished by a habit of careless discursion in the name of progress. Like Shakespeare’s Macbeth, I too declare: “It is the tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.” A s South Africa increasingly turns its gaze to the outside world it is easy for our communication professionals to fall in line with such bad global communication trends. We, constantly, need to be vigilant and on the lookout for practices that do not honour the basic values of Honesty, Respect and Responsibility. That is simple common sense and good manners, ethical and moral qualities that are the making of civil society. That is why it is so important that we have both a Provox and a PRISA in South Africa’s public relations industry: Provox to train professionals and PRISA to maintain the professional standards of the industry – the ethics that govern communication and public relations. And that - colleagues, friends, foes, ladies and gentleman – is all I am concerned about. As National President of PRISA it is my one and only objective - the rest, as declared at the beginning of this address, are simply tactics to achieve this system of honour and honesty. I have not been elected National President of this Institute because I am popular. On the contrary, if popularity had been the deciding factor then I am sure someone else would have been standing here tonight. My election came about because a majority of this Institute’s members believe that I can make changes and uphold the standards necessary to allow this Institute another 50 years of survival. And, I vow to do everything in my power to achieve this, regardless of my popularity with the Board, my popularity with the administration or my popularity with individual members. Together with André Gide, I declare: “It is better to be hated for what one is than be loved for what one is not.” T hus we arrive at the penultimate moment of this inaugural address. But before I read to you this conclusion, I should like, at this point, to pause and thank some individuals. First of all, thank you to my colleague Pat Roberts who, on the final day of nominations decided that she wanted to nominate me and, for Past President Kate Bapela who unhesitatingly agreed to second the nomination. I am also most grateful to those members of PRISA who voted me in. My gratitude also goes, to our Past President, Merle O’Brien, who gave me a good understanding of what the Presidency should mean to the incumbent. To Margi Moscardi who, with great patience, prepared me for trying times ahead – especially finding the monies for the replacement of the Institute’s out-of-date computers. And then, Victor Sibeko who has been unbelievably supportive since my election and, last but not least, Susan Richardson and Suzanne McGinn who made this evening possible. And now, for my parting shot: A ccording to Edward O Wilson and others, thanks to science and technology, access to factual knowledge of all kinds is rising exponentially while dropping in unit cost. This phenomenon is destined to become global and democratic. Soon it will be available everywhere on television and computer screens. What then? The answer is clear: synthesis. We are drowning in information while starving for wisdom. The world henceforth will be run by synthesizers, people able to put together the right information at the right time, think critically about it and make important choices - and in the most ethical and moral of ways. And, more likely than not, these synthesizers will be us the communication professionals. We then need to remember that nature cannot teach us anything about morality and that the moral senses have evolved along with our species. T To answer the questions of life - What are we? Where do we come from? How shall we decide where to go? - we need to appeal to our higher selves and find meaning and purpose in all our idiosyncratic and frenetic activity. Thank you
Friday, April 8, 2011
Inaugural Address, Mixael de Kock, F PRISA, as Institute President, University of Johannesburg, 10 October 2006
President Elect, Victor Sibeko, National Director, Margaret Moscardi and National Secretary, Susan Richardson Colleagues, friends, ladies and gentlemen, members of the media When Margi Moscardi called to tell me that I was the new National President of PRISA I was both delighted and surprised. I am known to call a spade a spade and never thought that the members, particularly in a world where, nowadays, leaders are expected to speak in euphemisms, would have chosen me to lead the Institute during its 50th Anniversary! Greater than my surprise at being elected President was my delight at knowing that I would be more than ably supported by President Elect, Victor Sibeko who heads up Corporate Development for the Transnet Pension Fund Administrators. Together, the two of us should be regarded as The Presidency of the organization as we will be working hand-in-glove and as ONE team. What is more, during our term together, Victor and I will be sharing responsibility for all matters touching on the future of our beloved PRISA. Our first priority is to ensure that the projects launched during Merle O’Brien’s tenure continue unimpeded. There is also a great deal to be done to deliver real transformation within the organization and, where feasible, these processes will be fast-tracked. Over the next two years it also will be of paramount importance to nurture new entrants to the profession while, at the same time, existing members must become inspired to achieve higher levels of professional registration. It is also my earnest intention to launch a campaign through which we may lure back those APR members who, for various reasons have left the organization over the past years. We plan also to increase the drive for corporate membership as well as increase the awareness and importance of the PRISA endorsement – endorsement of individual members through to corporates and to consultancies and agencies. In addition, the endorsement of communication-related conferences and seminars, on condition that these meet our standards, can mean a lucrative source of income for the Institute. I, for one, will not be accepting any local invitations to speak at PR/Communication Conferences - for the duration of my term - unless such a conference is PRISA endorsed. South African conference organisers do not pay the speakers and, if they do so, it is a pittance. I might as well then assist in earning PRISA some extra monies through its endorsements of such conferences when I do appear at these events! There is also a great need to ensure that PRISA’s opinion on various national and regional communication issues is reported in the media. My and Victor’s term of office comes at a time when the profession finds itself presented with a range of opportunities set against a background of dynamic changes in business and industry. As The Presidency we look forward to the support of PRISA members, the Consultancy Chapter as well as those academics active in the field of Public Relations and Communication. More than anything else, we need to reclaim PRISA’s position at the forefront of the profession and re-establish its influence in the public and private sectors. I was not surprised, some weeks after I had decided on the theme for this evening’s inaugural address, that my dear friend and colleague, Philip Sheppard in Brussels, announced that he too had chosen “Ethics” as the theme for his 2007 IPRA Presidency. [IPRA is the acronym for the International Public Relations Association on which World Council I have been elected to serve a second two-year term earlier this year] In Philip’s words: “It [ethics] resonates with the current disquiet about Public Affairs and lobbying in many parts of the world.” Charles van der Straaten-Waillet, Past World President of IPRA, in a congratulatory message to me states: “The theme of your address is more relevant and necessary than ever before and I am sure that you will find the right words to what remains one of our profession’s major challenges and issues. But however difficult to resolve the problem it has to be re-phrased, re-addressed and tackled continuously.” Charles particularly asked me to read to you the following quotation from his letter: “ If lies didn’t help you out, why don’t you try the truth? Often the solution is simply being just and fair to others and oneself “. Globally, professional institutes are concerned about the state of Ethics, particularly in the field of communication. International professionals are chiefly concerned about the many abuses during past years; abuses and crimes against humanity, simply to suit the objectives of certain politicians and religious leaders. Lobbyists and spin doctors, along with so-called public relations and/ or communication consultants and consultancies, which are not registered or accredited with local professional bodies, have been creating havoc with the world’s perception of Public Relations and, more importantly, how Truth and Lies seem to be interchangeable. What is even more worrying is that many of these questionable people are in top government positions in many of the most developed countries of the world. Their main concern is for the PR in PROPAGANDA rather than for the PR in PUBLIC RELATIONS. It is also frightening – more a crime against humanity - that the mindsets of mankind and the future of this planet is largely being determined by messages encoded by these ruthless people, people unrestrained by International and National Codes of Conduct developed by professional bodies worldwide and, thus not accountable to anyone but the writer of the cheques that are getting fatter as the abuses continue. The only way to combat and discipline such reprehensible practices is to legislate for the regulation of the communication-related professions. I am sure that everyone in this room would be horrified if the SA Medical and Dental Council suddenly dispensed with registration and allowed every Tom, Dick and Harry to practice medicine. And, in the medical world doctors are dealing only with the hardware that makes up an individual. In the communication industry, where we are dealing with the software aspects of humanity and, more often than not, create humanity’s ideas, we can create havoc on a scale that no doctor could ever dream of. It is because ideas – or may I refer to ideas as memes? I would feel so much more comfortable doing so after 30 years of studying these basic units by which culture is transmitted - memes spread themselves around indiscriminately – vertically from generation to generation and, horizontally between individuals - without regard to whether they are useful, neutral, or positively harmful to us. Such a meme could be a brilliant new scientific idea, or a technological invention and may spread because of its usefulness. A harmless but useless and at times irritating meme could very well be the ta-ta-ta-TUM from Beethoven’s Fifth Symphony! But, other memes are positively harmful – like chain letters and pyramid selling, new methods of fraud and false doctrines, ineffective slimming diets and dangerous medical ‘cures’. Homosexuals particularly have been targets for such harmful memes over the millennia. Of course, the memes in themselves ‘do not care’; they, like genes, will simply and mindlessly spread around if they successfully can do so.” Nazi beliefs spread quickly throughout Hitler’s Germany because a virus of the mind was unleashed that successfully infected people with discriminatory memes and which produced horrifying atrocities. Winston Churchill once declared that: “The Truth is so precious she should always be attended by the Handmaidens of the Lie”. This statement in itself sums up how lies and lack of ethics dominated the 20th Century World on all sides. The 21st Century, judging from the lies and deceit used to justify conflict and killing, is not going to be any better than its predecessor. It is, therefore, surprising that neither the United States nor Britain have taken the initiative in regulating the communication professions. Today, only Nigeria and Brazil have legislation in place that requires registration and the licensing of communication professionals. In reviewing world history over the past 5 years one would have hoped that the White House and Downing Street might have given serious consideration to such legislation! But, let us now shift our focus on the chosen theme of my Inaugural Address to you this evening. W hat I am going to suggest to you this evening – and for starters - is that it is quite acceptable to kill a man, to steal his belongings and then, to eat him. Anything goes that will bestow on the individual the ability to survive into another day and to procreate his or her genes successfully into the next generation – and as often as possible. Contemporary scientific thinking accepts that in the Universe in which we live, there is no such thing as good and evil. It simply does not exist. There is only opportunity, survival and procreation – whether it happens in competition or in cooperation, it matters not. And, the good news: there is no judgement, and thus no real success and no real failure. Oxford University evolutionary biologist Richard Dawkins, opined that “the universe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil, no good - nothing but blind, pitiless indifference.” If we are then nothing more than the product of sightless natural forces operating within a mercilessly uncaring cosmos, from whence can we find absolute ethical standards or ultimate moral meaning? – Can the answers maybe be found in nature? Charles Darwin’s theory of natural selection is an abstract argument about a metaphorical “struggle” to leave more offspring in subsequent generations. It is not a statement about competition or cooperation and, by representing both at different times, it upholds neither as nature’s principal way – and, therefore, Darwinism implies nothing about moral conduct. We do not find our moral values in the actions of nature. Leo Tolstoi, an astute observer of nature, also held the view that nature and the struggle for existence could not explain the meaning of life and could not give us guidance in our actions. In a famous passage from The Origin of Species, Darwin identifies two types of evolutionary struggle: Illustrating competition he uses the metaphor of two canines, in a time of scarcity, fighting to the death for the food that will ensure survival. He then juxtaposes this struggle between organisms with mistletoe, which for its existence uses cooperation with birds that disseminate its seeds, but at the same time, that mistletoe is in a struggle with other fruit-bearing plants in order to tempt the birds to devour and thus disseminate its seeds rather than those of other plants. R ussia is an immense country, under-populated over most of its area. It is also a harsh land, where competition is more likely to pit organism against environment, than organism against organism in direct competition. It is cooperation both within and between species that leads to survival. Thus, terms such as “bloody battles” and “the survival of the fittest” were foreign to the Russian observance of evolution on the vast steppes! It is interesting to see how the Western perception of evolution as a competitive process led to the practice of Unrestrained Capitalism today while Russian observance of evolution as a cooperative process in nature supported the development of Socialism. The Russian nobleman, Nikolai Danilevsky, in 1885 identified the struggle for personal gain as the credo of a distinctly British “national type”, as contrasted with old Slavic values of collectivism. (It is also said that the sun never set on the British Empire because God couldn’t trust them in the dark!) And Danilevsky’s description of the British is in fact quite astute. One can hardly blame the man for his perception if one considers that Darwin’s scientific ideas were extended into a myriad of other theories, most of which proved to be invalid and, judged by modern moral sensibilities, were harmful, if not tragic, in their application. The chief offender in this category was a highly influential theory that acquired the inappropriate name of “Social Darwinism”. As many historians have noted, this theory should really have been called “Social Spencerism,” since Herbert Spencer laid out all the basic postulates in his Social Statics of 1850, nearly a decade before Darwin published The Origin of Species. But, Spencer certainly used Darwin’s mechanism of natural selection to buttress his system. Few people recognize the following historical irony: Spencer, not Darwin, coined the terms “evolution” and “survival of the fittest”, now our conventional catch-phrases for Darwin’s mechanism – phrases grossly misunderstood by most. Social Darwinism grew into a major movement in the United Kingdom and America. Historian Richard Hofstadter argues that the primary impact of this doctrine lay in its buttressing of conservative political philosophies, particularly through the central and highly effective argument against state support of social services and governmental regulation of industry and housing. Steven Jay Gould who has written extensively about Herbert Spencer’s social theories says that he does not believe that the claims of Social Darwinism directly caused the ills of unrestrained industrial capitalism and the suppression of workers’ rights. But, the Social Darwinian argument of the super rich and the highly conservative did stem, weaken, and slow the tides of amelioration, particularly for workers rights. More generally speaking, I agree with Gould that “a somewhat cynical rule of thumb should be applied in judging arguments about nature that also have overt social implications: When such claims imbue nature with just those properties that make us feel good or fuel our prejudices, [we should] be doubly suspicious.” There are no shortcuts to moral insight. Nature is not intrinsically anything that can offer comfort or solace in human terms – if only because our species is such an insignificant latecomer in a world not constructed for us. And so much the better: The answers to moral dilemmas are not lying out there, waiting to be discovered. They reside within each of us – the most difficult and inaccessible spot for any discovery or consensus. ‘There is nothing good or bad, but thinking makes it so’ Hamlet, Act2, Scene 2 William Wshakespeare. Then, how can we explain the why and the how of morality and how can we be good without the intervention of a superior being? What I am going to propose to you tonight is that morality can be explained through the evolution of the unique human mind. Paul Ehrlich, the distinguished Stanford University biologist – and, most scientists today agree – states that all ethical systems originate in the human mind. There are no moral truths out there, waiting to be discovered. Fact is, we are bound to our empirical existence, and our moral sense is therefore grounded firmly in our human biology and our human world. Moral sentiments in humans and moral principals in human groups evolved primarily through the force of natural selection operating on individuals and secondarily through the force of group selection operating on populations: The moral sense - the psychological feeling of doing “good” in the form of positive emotions such as righteousness and pride - evolved out of the behaviours that were selected for because they were good either for the individual or for the group; an immoral sense – the psychological feeling of doing “bad” in the form of negative emotions such as guilt and shame – evolved out of behaviours that were selected for because they were bad either for the individual or for the group. While cultures may differ on what behaviours are defined as good or bad, the moral sense of feeling good or feeling bad about behaviour X - whatever X may be - is an evolved human universal. Humans are thus, by nature, moral and immoral, good and evil, altruistic and selfish, cooperative and competitive, peaceful and bellicose, virtuous and non-virtuous. Such moral traits vary within individuals as well as within and between groups. Some, people and populations are more or less moral and immoral than other people and populations. But, all people have the potential for all moral traits. In discussing Provisional Morality, American Science Historian, Michael Shermer discerns the difference between right and wrong through three principles: The ask-first principle states: to find our whether an action is right or wrong, ask first (Aside: I have slightly amended this principle: Mixael’s Law states that it is easier to ask for forgiveness than ask for permission. You get a helluva lot more done that way!) The happiness principle states: it is a higher moral principle to always seek happiness with someone else’s happiness in mind, and never to seek happiness when it leads to someone else’s unhappiness. The liberty principle states: it is a higher moral principle to always seek liberty with someone else’s liberty in mind, and never to seek liberty when it leads to someone else’s loss of liberty. To implement social change, there is another principle. This is the moderation principle and it states: when innocent people die, extremism in the defence of anything is no virtue, and moderation in the protection of everything is no vice. A s an evolved mechanism of human psychology, the moral sense transcends individuals and groups and, ultimately belongs to the species, which is the product of the impersonal forces of our individual evolutionary biology and our group history and culture. Why, if we all share a common evolved moral sense, do we have no consensus when it comes to these great ethical questions? Even with the benefit of several thousand years or more of ethical debate we do not even have consensus on what the questions are, never mind the answers! It is because our moral frames of reference can be completely at odds. For utilitarians, the sum of the consequences is important for any particular action. Others may believe in strict moral absolutes that can never be transgressed, such as the taking of a life. Ehrlich uses the example of tourists who are stranded in a cave by an ocean shore. The water is rising, and the only way out is through a hole that leads upwards to the cliff top. The first tourist, who is unfortunately vastly overweight, gets stuck near the top of the hole. He is out of danger but the rest of the group cannot escape. Rescuers arrive, and they are faced with a choice: do they blow up the fat man with dynamite, killing him and saving the lives of the others, or do they use drills to free the fat man, which will save his life but seal the fate of his friends because of the time delay? Is there a right answer to this question? Does it depend on whether or not the fat man pleads with them to save his life or begs to be sacrificed? This moral dilemma, to an extent, reminds me of Victorian hyper morality: can a misdeed against moral codes ever be condoned, whatever the circumstances? – For example, stealing a knife to prevent a murder? In South Africa some years ago, on the route to Durban, several cars were involved in a pile-up collision. A man was trapped in one of the cars, which started to burn. The man’s agonising screams were terrifying and there was no ways of rescuing him. A bystander produced a pistol and shot the man. Immediately, the burning man’s screaming stopped. The flames were going to kill him anyway but the bullet was the cause of death. Luckily, the attorney general decided not to prosecute – I am not so sure that the outcome would have been the same had this case been argued in the United States. T he emergence of economics as a separate discipline from philosophy and politics coincided with the emergence of Western Europe’s sensate culture at the end of the Middle Ages. Attitudes and activities that are highly valued in this ”masculine” system include material acquisition, expansion, competition, and an obsession with ‘hard technology’. By using so-called public relations techniques, which overemphasize these values, our society has been encouraged in the pursuit of goals that are both dangerous and unethical, and has institutionalised several of the sins known in Christianity as deadly – gluttony, pride, selfishness and greed. Acclaimed academic, Noam Chomsky has shown how fundamentalist structures – both capitalist and religious – for many years, have abused the evolution of the communication techniques in a process that sways mass sentiment and manipulates public opinion in a top-down hierarchy. This approach reframes complex issues into the headline-length, easy to photograph sound bite – a strategy of distractive over-simplification with no real information with which to make an informed opinion. There are many other techniques that bedevil the serious practitioner’s nobler efforts in trying to communicate honestly and completely. Marginalisation is such a technique and is frequently used by public relations experts to name and demonise an enemy, to whip up an emotional fury against the demon and to generate public support for illogical policies. Anyone remaining against the proposed policy is then minimalised, sidelined, or marginalised. This way people who are opposed to the public relations objectives, are made to feel absolutely alone. In America, for instance, any opposition to the recent Iraqi War translated into the sound bite of “Endangering Our Troops". The slogan "Support Our Troops" very successfully distracted the populace from the real question of: "Do you support this war?” Public relations, traditionally and often in our modern approach, manipulates the innate irrationalism which one finds throughout human history. There are two major causes or predisposing factors for this anomaly in the human mind and heart. First, our brains just don't seem to be well equipped for reasoning by probability. Fads find their most fertile ground in subjects, like the curing of disease, that require a separation of many potential causes and an assessment of probability in judging the value of a result. Secondly, whatever his powers of abstract reasoning, humankind remains the prisoners of hope. So long as life remains disappointing and cruel for so many people, we shall be prey to irrationalisms that promise relief. People are attracted by the two hopes that touch them the most: that of knowing the future and that of prolonging their days. And, the public relations profession ever so often exploit the parallel between communal crises and mass emotionalism. The military elicit this behaviour by sounding drums and playing bugles; promoters by hiring a claque to begin and direct the applause after performances; demagogues by manipulating the mob. Pubic Relations, inevitably, depending on the world-view it serves, has become the messengers of fundamentalist thinking. The communication abuses of particularly fundamentalist capitalism and fundamentalist religion are proof of our profession’s abdication of responsibility towards its publics. And, may I also mention that I share this view with people such as George Soros and Prof Noreena Herz of Cambridge. Internationally, communicators conveniently and intentionally cause confusion by giving new interpretations to old and trusted meanings of language. This is called the transposition of meaning where the dictionary no longer reconciles the usage of certain words and concepts with their traditional or standard definitions: That which I read, that which I hear and that which I see, all have been thoroughly impoverished by a habit of careless discursion in the name of progress. Like Shakespeare’s Macbeth, I too declare: “It is the tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.” A s South Africa increasingly turns its gaze to the outside world it is easy for our communication professionals to fall in line with such bad global communication trends. We, constantly, need to be vigilant and on the lookout for practices that do not honour the basic values of Honesty, Respect and Responsibility. That is simple common sense and good manners, ethical and moral qualities that are the making of civil society. That is why it is so important that we have both a Provox and a PRISA in South Africa’s public relations industry: Provox to train professionals and PRISA to maintain the professional standards of the industry – the ethics that govern communication and public relations. And that - colleagues, friends, foes, ladies and gentleman – is all I am concerned about. As National President of PRISA it is my one and only objective - the rest, as declared at the beginning of this address, are simply tactics to achieve this system of honour and honesty. I have not been elected National President of this Institute because I am popular. On the contrary, if popularity had been the deciding factor then I am sure someone else would have been standing here tonight. My election came about because a majority of this Institute’s members believe that I can make changes and uphold the standards necessary to allow this Institute another 50 years of survival. And, I vow to do everything in my power to achieve this, regardless of my popularity with the Board, my popularity with the administration or my popularity with individual members. Together with André Gide, I declare: “It is better to be hated for what one is than be loved for what one is not.” T hus we arrive at the penultimate moment of this inaugural address. But before I read to you this conclusion, I should like, at this point, to pause and thank some individuals. First of all, thank you to my colleague Pat Roberts who, on the final day of nominations decided that she wanted to nominate me and, for Past President Kate Bapela who unhesitatingly agreed to second the nomination. I am also most grateful to those members of PRISA who voted me in. My gratitude also goes, to our Past President, Merle O’Brien, who gave me a good understanding of what the Presidency should mean to the incumbent. To Margi Moscardi who, with great patience, prepared me for trying times ahead – especially finding the monies for the replacement of the Institute’s out-of-date computers. And then, Victor Sibeko who has been unbelievably supportive since my election and, last but not least, Susan Richardson and Suzanne McGinn who made this evening possible. And now, for my parting shot: A ccording to Edward O Wilson and others, thanks to science and technology, access to factual knowledge of all kinds is rising exponentially while dropping in unit cost. This phenomenon is destined to become global and democratic. Soon it will be available everywhere on television and computer screens. What then? The answer is clear: synthesis. We are drowning in information while starving for wisdom. The world henceforth will be run by synthesizers, people able to put together the right information at the right time, think critically about it and make important choices - and in the most ethical and moral of ways. And, more likely than not, these synthesizers will be us the communication professionals. We then need to remember that nature cannot teach us anything about morality and that the moral senses have evolved along with our species. T To answer the questions of life - What are we? Where do we come from? How shall we decide where to go? - we need to appeal to our higher selves and find meaning and purpose in all our idiosyncratic and frenetic activity. Thank you
Greater than my surprise at being elected President was my delight at knowing that I would be more than ably supported by President Elect, Victor Sibeko who heads up Corporate Development for the Transnet Pension Fund Administrators. Together, the two of us should be regarded as The Presidency of the organization as we will be working hand-in-glove and as ONE team. What is more, during our term together, Victor and I will be sharing responsibility for all matters touching on the future of our beloved PRISA. Our first priority is to ensure that the projects launched during Merle O’Brien’s tenure continue unimpeded. There is also a great deal to be done to deliver real transformation within the organization and, where feasible, these processes will be fast-tracked. Over the next two years it also will be of paramount importance to nurture new entrants to the profession while, at the same time, existing members must become inspired to achieve higher levels of professional registration. It is also my earnest intention to launch a campaign through which we may lure back those APR members who, for various reasons have left the organization over the past years. We plan also to increase the drive for corporate membership as well as increase the awareness and importance of the PRISA endorsement – endorsement of individual members through to corporates and to consultancies and agencies. In addition, the endorsement of communication-related conferences and seminars, on condition that these meet our standards, can mean a lucrative source of income for the Institute. I, for one, will not be accepting any local invitations to speak at PR/Communication Conferences - for the duration of my term - unless such a conference is PRISA endorsed. South African conference organisers do not pay the speakers and, if they do so, it is a pittance. I might as well then assist in earning PRISA some extra monies through its endorsements of such conferences when I do appear at these events! There is also a great need to ensure that PRISA’s opinion on various national and regional communication issues is reported in the media. My and Victor’s term of office comes at a time when the profession finds itself presented with a range of opportunities set against a background of dynamic changes in business and industry. As The Presidency we look forward to the support of PRISA members, the Consultancy Chapter as well as those academics active in the field of Public Relations and Communication. More than anything else, we need to reclaim PRISA’s position at the forefront of the profession and re-establish its influence in the public and private sectors. I was not surprised, some weeks after I had decided on the theme for this evening’s inaugural address, that my dear friend and colleague, Philip Sheppard in Brussels, announced that he too had chosen “Ethics” as the theme for his 2007 IPRA Presidency. [IPRA is the acronym for the International Public Relations Association on which World Council I have been elected to serve a second two-year term earlier this year] In Philip’s words: “It [ethics] resonates with the current disquiet about Public Affairs and lobbying in many parts of the world.” Charles van der Straaten-Waillet, Past World President of IPRA, in a congratulatory message to me states: “The theme of your address is more relevant and necessary than ever before and I am sure that you will find the right words to what remains one of our profession’s major challenges and issues. But however difficult to resolve the problem it has to be re-phrased, re-addressed and tackled continuously.” Charles particularly asked me to read to you the following quotation from his letter: “ If lies didn’t help you out, why don’t you try the truth? Often the solution is simply being just and fair to others and oneself “. Globally, professional institutes are concerned about the state of Ethics, particularly in the field of communication. International professionals are chiefly concerned about the many abuses during past years; abuses and crimes against humanity, simply to suit the objectives of certain politicians and religious leaders. Lobbyists and spin doctors, along with so-called public relations and/ or communication consultants and consultancies, which are not registered or accredited with local professional bodies, have been creating havoc with the world’s perception of Public Relations and, more importantly, how Truth and Lies seem to be interchangeable. What is even more worrying is that many of these questionable people are in top government positions in many of the most developed countries of the world. Their main concern is for the PR in PROPAGANDA rather than for the PR in PUBLIC RELATIONS. It is also frightening – more a crime against humanity - that the mindsets of mankind and the future of this planet is largely being determined by messages encoded by these ruthless people, people unrestrained by International and National Codes of Conduct developed by professional bodies worldwide and, thus not accountable to anyone but the writer of the cheques that are getting fatter as the abuses continue. The only way to combat and discipline such reprehensible practices is to legislate for the regulation of the communication-related professions. I am sure that everyone in this room would be horrified if the SA Medical and Dental Council suddenly dispensed with registration and allowed every Tom, Dick and Harry to practice medicine. And, in the medical world doctors are dealing only with the hardware that makes up an individual. In the communication industry, where we are dealing with the software aspects of humanity and, more often than not, create humanity’s ideas, we can create havoc on a scale that no doctor could ever dream of. It is because ideas – or may I refer to ideas as memes? I would feel so much more comfortable doing so after 30 years of studying these basic units by which culture is transmitted - memes spread themselves around indiscriminately – vertically from generation to generation and, horizontally between individuals - without regard to whether they are useful, neutral, or positively harmful to us. Such a meme could be a brilliant new scientific idea, or a technological invention and may spread because of its usefulness. A harmless but useless and at times irritating meme could very well be the ta-ta-ta-TUM from Beethoven’s Fifth Symphony! But, other memes are positively harmful – like chain letters and pyramid selling, new methods of fraud and false doctrines, ineffective slimming diets and dangerous medical ‘cures’. Homosexuals particularly have been targets for such harmful memes over the millennia. Of course, the memes in themselves ‘do not care’; they, like genes, will simply and mindlessly spread around if they successfully can do so.” Nazi beliefs spread quickly throughout Hitler’s Germany because a virus of the mind was unleashed that successfully infected people with discriminatory memes and which produced horrifying atrocities. Winston Churchill once declared that: “The Truth is so precious she should always be attended by the Handmaidens of the Lie”. This statement in itself sums up how lies and lack of ethics dominated the 20th Century World on all sides. The 21st Century, judging from the lies and deceit used to justify conflict and killing, is not going to be any better than its predecessor. It is, therefore, surprising that neither the United States nor Britain have taken the initiative in regulating the communication professions. Today, only Nigeria and Brazil have legislation in place that requires registration and the licensing of communication professionals. In reviewing world history over the past 5 years one would have hoped that the White House and Downing Street might have given serious consideration to such legislation! But, let us now shift our focus on the chosen theme of my Inaugural Address to you this evening. W hat I am going to suggest to you this evening – and for starters - is that it is quite acceptable to kill a man, to steal his belongings and then, to eat him. Anything goes that will bestow on the individual the ability to survive into another day and to procreate his or her genes successfully into the next generation – and as often as possible. Contemporary scientific thinking accepts that in the Universe in which we live, there is no such thing as good and evil. It simply does not exist. There is only opportunity, survival and procreation – whether it happens in competition or in cooperation, it matters not. And, the good news: there is no judgement, and thus no real success and no real failure. Oxford University evolutionary biologist Richard Dawkins, opined that “the universe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil, no good - nothing but blind, pitiless indifference.” If we are then nothing more than the product of sightless natural forces operating within a mercilessly uncaring cosmos, from whence can we find absolute ethical standards or ultimate moral meaning? – Can the answers maybe be found in nature? Charles Darwin’s theory of natural selection is an abstract argument about a metaphorical “struggle” to leave more offspring in subsequent generations. It is not a statement about competition or cooperation and, by representing both at different times, it upholds neither as nature’s principal way – and, therefore, Darwinism implies nothing about moral conduct. We do not find our moral values in the actions of nature. Leo Tolstoi, an astute observer of nature, also held the view that nature and the struggle for existence could not explain the meaning of life and could not give us guidance in our actions. In a famous passage from The Origin of Species, Darwin identifies two types of evolutionary struggle: Illustrating competition he uses the metaphor of two canines, in a time of scarcity, fighting to the death for the food that will ensure survival. He then juxtaposes this struggle between organisms with mistletoe, which for its existence uses cooperation with birds that disseminate its seeds, but at the same time, that mistletoe is in a struggle with other fruit-bearing plants in order to tempt the birds to devour and thus disseminate its seeds rather than those of other plants. R ussia is an immense country, under-populated over most of its area. It is also a harsh land, where competition is more likely to pit organism against environment, than organism against organism in direct competition. It is cooperation both within and between species that leads to survival. Thus, terms such as “bloody battles” and “the survival of the fittest” were foreign to the Russian observance of evolution on the vast steppes! It is interesting to see how the Western perception of evolution as a competitive process led to the practice of Unrestrained Capitalism today while Russian observance of evolution as a cooperative process in nature supported the development of Socialism. The Russian nobleman, Nikolai Danilevsky, in 1885 identified the struggle for personal gain as the credo of a distinctly British “national type”, as contrasted with old Slavic values of collectivism. (It is also said that the sun never set on the British Empire because God couldn’t trust them in the dark!) And Danilevsky’s description of the British is in fact quite astute. One can hardly blame the man for his perception if one considers that Darwin’s scientific ideas were extended into a myriad of other theories, most of which proved to be invalid and, judged by modern moral sensibilities, were harmful, if not tragic, in their application. The chief offender in this category was a highly influential theory that acquired the inappropriate name of “Social Darwinism”. As many historians have noted, this theory should really have been called “Social Spencerism,” since Herbert Spencer laid out all the basic postulates in his Social Statics of 1850, nearly a decade before Darwin published The Origin of Species. But, Spencer certainly used Darwin’s mechanism of natural selection to buttress his system. Few people recognize the following historical irony: Spencer, not Darwin, coined the terms “evolution” and “survival of the fittest”, now our conventional catch-phrases for Darwin’s mechanism – phrases grossly misunderstood by most. Social Darwinism grew into a major movement in the United Kingdom and America. Historian Richard Hofstadter argues that the primary impact of this doctrine lay in its buttressing of conservative political philosophies, particularly through the central and highly effective argument against state support of social services and governmental regulation of industry and housing. Steven Jay Gould who has written extensively about Herbert Spencer’s social theories says that he does not believe that the claims of Social Darwinism directly caused the ills of unrestrained industrial capitalism and the suppression of workers’ rights. But, the Social Darwinian argument of the super rich and the highly conservative did stem, weaken, and slow the tides of amelioration, particularly for workers rights. More generally speaking, I agree with Gould that “a somewhat cynical rule of thumb should be applied in judging arguments about nature that also have overt social implications: When such claims imbue nature with just those properties that make us feel good or fuel our prejudices, [we should] be doubly suspicious.” There are no shortcuts to moral insight. Nature is not intrinsically anything that can offer comfort or solace in human terms – if only because our species is such an insignificant latecomer in a world not constructed for us. And so much the better: The answers to moral dilemmas are not lying out there, waiting to be discovered. They reside within each of us – the most difficult and inaccessible spot for any discovery or consensus. ‘There is nothing good or bad, but thinking makes it so’ Hamlet, Act2, Scene 2 William Wshakespeare. Then, how can we explain the why and the how of morality and how can we be good without the intervention of a superior being? What I am going to propose to you tonight is that morality can be explained through the evolution of the unique human mind. Paul Ehrlich, the distinguished Stanford University biologist – and, most scientists today agree – states that all ethical systems originate in the human mind. There are no moral truths out there, waiting to be discovered. Fact is, we are bound to our empirical existence, and our moral sense is therefore grounded firmly in our human biology and our human world. Moral sentiments in humans and moral principals in human groups evolved primarily through the force of natural selection operating on individuals and secondarily through the force of group selection operating on populations: The moral sense - the psychological feeling of doing “good” in the form of positive emotions such as righteousness and pride - evolved out of the behaviours that were selected for because they were good either for the individual or for the group; an immoral sense – the psychological feeling of doing “bad” in the form of negative emotions such as guilt and shame – evolved out of behaviours that were selected for because they were bad either for the individual or for the group. While cultures may differ on what behaviours are defined as good or bad, the moral sense of feeling good or feeling bad about behaviour X - whatever X may be - is an evolved human universal. Humans are thus, by nature, moral and immoral, good and evil, altruistic and selfish, cooperative and competitive, peaceful and bellicose, virtuous and non-virtuous. Such moral traits vary within individuals as well as within and between groups. Some, people and populations are more or less moral and immoral than other people and populations. But, all people have the potential for all moral traits. In discussing Provisional Morality, American Science Historian, Michael Shermer discerns the difference between right and wrong through three principles: The ask-first principle states: to find our whether an action is right or wrong, ask first (Aside: I have slightly amended this principle: Mixael’s Law states that it is easier to ask for forgiveness than ask for permission. You get a helluva lot more done that way!) The happiness principle states: it is a higher moral principle to always seek happiness with someone else’s happiness in mind, and never to seek happiness when it leads to someone else’s unhappiness. The liberty principle states: it is a higher moral principle to always seek liberty with someone else’s liberty in mind, and never to seek liberty when it leads to someone else’s loss of liberty. To implement social change, there is another principle. This is the moderation principle and it states: when innocent people die, extremism in the defence of anything is no virtue, and moderation in the protection of everything is no vice. A s an evolved mechanism of human psychology, the moral sense transcends individuals and groups and, ultimately belongs to the species, which is the product of the impersonal forces of our individual evolutionary biology and our group history and culture. Why, if we all share a common evolved moral sense, do we have no consensus when it comes to these great ethical questions? Even with the benefit of several thousand years or more of ethical debate we do not even have consensus on what the questions are, never mind the answers! It is because our moral frames of reference can be completely at odds. For utilitarians, the sum of the consequences is important for any particular action. Others may believe in strict moral absolutes that can never be transgressed, such as the taking of a life. Ehrlich uses the example of tourists who are stranded in a cave by an ocean shore. The water is rising, and the only way out is through a hole that leads upwards to the cliff top. The first tourist, who is unfortunately vastly overweight, gets stuck near the top of the hole. He is out of danger but the rest of the group cannot escape. Rescuers arrive, and they are faced with a choice: do they blow up the fat man with dynamite, killing him and saving the lives of the others, or do they use drills to free the fat man, which will save his life but seal the fate of his friends because of the time delay? Is there a right answer to this question? Does it depend on whether or not the fat man pleads with them to save his life or begs to be sacrificed? This moral dilemma, to an extent, reminds me of Victorian hyper morality: can a misdeed against moral codes ever be condoned, whatever the circumstances? – For example, stealing a knife to prevent a murder? In South Africa some years ago, on the route to Durban, several cars were involved in a pile-up collision. A man was trapped in one of the cars, which started to burn. The man’s agonising screams were terrifying and there was no ways of rescuing him. A bystander produced a pistol and shot the man. Immediately, the burning man’s screaming stopped. The flames were going to kill him anyway but the bullet was the cause of death. Luckily, the attorney general decided not to prosecute – I am not so sure that the outcome would have been the same had this case been argued in the United States. T he emergence of economics as a separate discipline from philosophy and politics coincided with the emergence of Western Europe’s sensate culture at the end of the Middle Ages. Attitudes and activities that are highly valued in this ”masculine” system include material acquisition, expansion, competition, and an obsession with ‘hard technology’. By using so-called public relations techniques, which overemphasize these values, our society has been encouraged in the pursuit of goals that are both dangerous and unethical, and has institutionalised several of the sins known in Christianity as deadly – gluttony, pride, selfishness and greed. Acclaimed academic, Noam Chomsky has shown how fundamentalist structures – both capitalist and religious – for many years, have abused the evolution of the communication techniques in a process that sways mass sentiment and manipulates public opinion in a top-down hierarchy. This approach reframes complex issues into the headline-length, easy to photograph sound bite – a strategy of distractive over-simplification with no real information with which to make an informed opinion. There are many other techniques that bedevil the serious practitioner’s nobler efforts in trying to communicate honestly and completely. Marginalisation is such a technique and is frequently used by public relations experts to name and demonise an enemy, to whip up an emotional fury against the demon and to generate public support for illogical policies. Anyone remaining against the proposed policy is then minimalised, sidelined, or marginalised. This way people who are opposed to the public relations objectives, are made to feel absolutely alone. In America, for instance, any opposition to the recent Iraqi War translated into the sound bite of “Endangering Our Troops". The slogan "Support Our Troops" very successfully distracted the populace from the real question of: "Do you support this war?” Public relations, traditionally and often in our modern approach, manipulates the innate irrationalism which one finds throughout human history. There are two major causes or predisposing factors for this anomaly in the human mind and heart. First, our brains just don't seem to be well equipped for reasoning by probability. Fads find their most fertile ground in subjects, like the curing of disease, that require a separation of many potential causes and an assessment of probability in judging the value of a result. Secondly, whatever his powers of abstract reasoning, humankind remains the prisoners of hope. So long as life remains disappointing and cruel for so many people, we shall be prey to irrationalisms that promise relief. People are attracted by the two hopes that touch them the most: that of knowing the future and that of prolonging their days. And, the public relations profession ever so often exploit the parallel between communal crises and mass emotionalism. The military elicit this behaviour by sounding drums and playing bugles; promoters by hiring a claque to begin and direct the applause after performances; demagogues by manipulating the mob. Pubic Relations, inevitably, depending on the world-view it serves, has become the messengers of fundamentalist thinking. The communication abuses of particularly fundamentalist capitalism and fundamentalist religion are proof of our profession’s abdication of responsibility towards its publics. And, may I also mention that I share this view with people such as George Soros and Prof Noreena Herz of Cambridge. Internationally, communicators conveniently and intentionally cause confusion by giving new interpretations to old and trusted meanings of language. This is called the transposition of meaning where the dictionary no longer reconciles the usage of certain words and concepts with their traditional or standard definitions: That which I read, that which I hear and that which I see, all have been thoroughly impoverished by a habit of careless discursion in the name of progress. Like Shakespeare’s Macbeth, I too declare: “It is the tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.” A s South Africa increasingly turns its gaze to the outside world it is easy for our communication professionals to fall in line with such bad global communication trends. We, constantly, need to be vigilant and on the lookout for practices that do not honour the basic values of Honesty, Respect and Responsibility. That is simple common sense and good manners, ethical and moral qualities that are the making of civil society. That is why it is so important that we have both a Provox and a PRISA in South Africa’s public relations industry: Provox to train professionals and PRISA to maintain the professional standards of the industry – the ethics that govern communication and public relations. And that - colleagues, friends, foes, ladies and gentleman – is all I am concerned about. As National President of PRISA it is my one and only objective - the rest, as declared at the beginning of this address, are simply tactics to achieve this system of honour and honesty. I have not been elected National President of this Institute because I am popular. On the contrary, if popularity had been the deciding factor then I am sure someone else would have been standing here tonight. My election came about because a majority of this Institute’s members believe that I can make changes and uphold the standards necessary to allow this Institute another 50 years of survival. And, I vow to do everything in my power to achieve this, regardless of my popularity with the Board, my popularity with the administration or my popularity with individual members. Together with André Gide, I declare: “It is better to be hated for what one is than be loved for what one is not.” T hus we arrive at the penultimate moment of this inaugural address. But before I read to you this conclusion, I should like, at this point, to pause and thank some individuals. First of all, thank you to my colleague Pat Roberts who, on the final day of nominations decided that she wanted to nominate me and, for Past President Kate Bapela who unhesitatingly agreed to second the nomination. I am also most grateful to those members of PRISA who voted me in. My gratitude also goes, to our Past President, Merle O’Brien, who gave me a good understanding of what the Presidency should mean to the incumbent. To Margi Moscardi who, with great patience, prepared me for trying times ahead – especially finding the monies for the replacement of the Institute’s out-of-date computers. And then, Victor Sibeko who has been unbelievably supportive since my election and, last but not least, Susan Richardson and Suzanne McGinn who made this evening possible. And now, for my parting shot: A ccording to Edward O Wilson and others, thanks to science and technology, access to factual knowledge of all kinds is rising exponentially while dropping in unit cost. This phenomenon is destined to become global and democratic. Soon it will be available everywhere on television and computer screens. What then? The answer is clear: synthesis. We are drowning in information while starving for wisdom. The world henceforth will be run by synthesizers, people able to put together the right information at the right time, think critically about it and make important choices - and in the most ethical and moral of ways. And, more likely than not, these synthesizers will be us the communication professionals. We then need to remember that nature cannot teach us anything about morality and that the moral senses have evolved along with our species. T To answer the questions of life - What are we? Where do we come from? How shall we decide where to go? - we need to appeal to our higher selves and find meaning and purpose in all our idiosyncratic and frenetic activity. Thank you
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
