In Harmonium

Posted By Marc on December 12, 2008

For the past couple of weeks, I have been involved in multiple conversations covering quite divergent subject matter, that all boil down to a basic problem in social epistemology.  The main thrust of all of these conversations has been how, and why, people confuse a “map” [theory] with a “territory” [reality].

Now, it appears as if human consciousness operates by constructing mental maps of “reality” or, rather, a segment of it, and then comparing those maps with current sensory perceptions looking for “information”; a “difference that makes a difference” to use Bateson’s definition.  Fine, so far.  Indeed, the ability to create and, more importantly, to communicate these mental maps is a definite evolutionary benefit (at least up until the past 100 years or so).

There are, however, problems with this.  In particular, one of the greatest problems is when the mental map no longer acts as a predictor for what will actually happen in the “territory” (a correspondence problem).  Often, this problem is talked about in terms of it no longer matches what we currently perceive (think Kuhn), but this is only one dimension of the problem.  What is often omitted is the inherent temporality of mental models, and this is what I have been dealing with.

So, what do I mean by “inherent temporality”?  Put simply. mental models have inherent models of time (and causality) implicit in them, which often appear in linguistic forms unbeknowst to the user.  Let me give a really simple example of this in the form of a question: What is the difference between a “customer” and a “consumer”?  Both of these terms refer to a relationship, but the relationships are, actually, quite different – a point that is frequently lost on many businesses.

Let me start with “consumer”.  The term itself derives etymologically from the Latin term “consumatus” [it is finished].  It has inflications of a one-time, limited relationship.  “Customer”, on the other hand, derives from “custom” [as in "habit"] and refers to an ongoing relationship.  “Consumers” are driven by price points, while “customers” are driven by relationship expectations other than price (e.g. knowledge, friendship, familiarity, etc.).

Whenever I hear someone in business talking about “consumer loyalty”, I want to both laugh and cry.  “Consumer loyalty” is an oxymoron analogous to talking about a dog as a cat that barks.  What is truly frustrating about all of this is that many business people apply the temporality of “consumer” when they are trying to build customer relationships.  The problem, of course, is that consumer temporality is immediate and one time only, while customer temporality is many times and of potentially unlimited duration. The problem, of course, is that almost all of the literature and market research, the discourses that dominate North American business practices, use the term “consumer”.

Now, this discursive dominance, the “meta-narrative” of business, not only effects the linguistic usage of the people involved; it also directly effects the structures in which and through which these people operate including the organizational systems of rewards and punishments (i.e. the selection criteria operating in the organizations).  If I am operating in a system that rewards me for each cat I place in a new home, then I would be an idiot if I didn’t refer to dogs as cats that bark.  Of course, if I do this long enough, I will probably “forget” that dogs are dogs, and try to apply other attributes of cats to them.

Some of the structuring effects I have observed over the past few years that derive from calling a customer a consumer are readily apparent.  First, many organizations that do this tend to engage in “cost saving” practices such as hiring people with little or no product knowledge and paying them minimum wage (or slightly better).  While this works in an organization like Wal Mart, which is focused on consumers, it certainly doesn’t work for organizations that should be focused on customers, such as Home Depot or any small, boutique retailer.

Now, lest you think that this is limited to retail marketing, think about what the same type of linguistic / semantic confusion (“S/He is a/an X, therefore s/he will think Y”) has led to in other areas such as religion, politics, military operations, etc.  Of course, the “beauty” [quoth he with a satirical tone of voice] of this system is that people are not rewarded or punished for their actual actions and the results of those actions, but whether or not those actions corresponded to the organizational meta-narrative.  In the vernacular, you can screw-up as much as you want as long as you screw-up by the Book.

Category: Epistemology
Tags: Map-Territory