How do we see the world? What are our premises? Luke 11:34-35 suggests that our individual framing of reality is worthy of attention: "Your eye is the lamp of your body. When your eyes are healthy, your whole body also is full of light. But when they are unhealthy, your body also is full of darkness. See to it, then, that the light within you is not darkness." This brief comment considers the impact of differing frames or premises when groups interact.
Groups engaged in religious, political, and social discourse are increasingly, it appears to me, unable to engage in a discussion of the merits of a position because each group possesses entirely different fundamental premises. We all want to debate from a set of assumptions that best supports our position. The very vocabulary used and identification of the question to be resolved may determine the outcome of the conversation. However, if groups lack agreement on very basic foundational premises, how can they ever expect to resolve an issue? The unfortunate result frequently is that each group simply escalates extreme rhetoric with the conscious or unconscious intention of intimidating or silencing the other group.
There are numerous contemporary examples of differing foundational premises. Here is a widely known illustration of two U.S. Presidents with different premises concerning the role and ability of government to produce social good. President Johnson in his 1964 State of the Union Address stated: "Unfortunately, many Americans live on the outskirts of hope -- some because of their poverty, and some because of their color, and all too many because of both. Our task is to help replace their despair with opportunity. This administration today, here and now, declares unconditional war on poverty in America. I urge this Congress and all Americans to join with me in that effort." In contrast, President Reagan stated in his 1981 Inaugural Address: "In this present crisis, government is not the solution to our problem; government is the problem. From time to time we've been tempted to believe that society has become too complex to be managed by self-rule, that government by an elite group is superior to government for, by, and of the people. Well, if no one among us is capable of governing himself, then who among us has the capacity to govern someone else?"
One might assert that the illustration simply demonstrates the free market place of ideas at work. However, a free market assumes the participants possess equal information. Many are ill equipped to dissect a factual assertion, particularly one requiring specialized expertise. Instead there is reliance upon frames of reference and trusted opinion leaders as a shortcut to knowledge. Unfortunately, without a common framework of fundamental understandings, groups simply talk past each other. It is the fragmenting of these foundational understandings and increasing inability to agree about what are "self-evident truths" that raises concerns about long-term social cohesion. Compounding the problem is the temptation facing opinion leaders to increase their influence by conscious or unconscious distortions.
It is important for us to know that our "eyes are healthy." This includes our being self-aware of our foundational assumptions, knowing the frames we use to understand reality, and being very selective and critical in choosing opinion leaders. In addition, shall we ask our leaders to be transparent about their frames of reference and foundational premises? Such personal integrity will facilitate meaningful conversation about the religious, political, and social issues of our day.