Assertiveness

“An expert! An expert! My kingdom for an expert who will prove me right!”

No, King Richard wanted a horse. But today’s public and political warriors need something more modern than horses to run rough-shod over their opponents. They need experts.

Experts are quite useful people to have on retainer, or to be able to pull up from Wikipedia on demand. It’s even more useful to be an expert yourself. You can play on your expertise far beyond your field of useful knowledge – just ask Dr. Laura, or Al Gore.

Expertise is extremely valuable, necessary even, in a wide range of human endeavors. Want to build a better microprocessor? Hire yourself a fleet of electrical and computer engineers. Want to pay the taxes you owe and not a penny more? Hire an accountant. Want to understand the ways hegemonic imperial state power has shaped the discourses of post-colonial nations? Hire an assistant professor of non-western English literatures… please?

We need experts to accomplish many of our great goals. To gather, sift and organize new knowledge; to apply basic research in order to engineer new possibilities; to better understand the physical and human worlds we live in. Experts are well trained in narrow specialties that enable them to do original, creative things. Expertise is often accompanied by experience, commitment and dedication.

But there are limits to the utility of experts. Experts can be banal. Experts can be elitist and authoritarian. Experts can be bought. Experts can be highly biased and ideological. Experts can be as foolish and fallible as anyone else. Experts can bludgeon dissent and frighten lay people into obedience. Experts and expertise can be a two-edged sword, particularly in the realm of civil society. We need experts for many things, but we cannot surrender to experts our opportunities – our responsibilities – to engage the world as intelligent, passionate, informed citizens. Indeed, we must break off the tyranny of experts and actively strive to save our corners of the world one idea at a time. Tyranny of Experts

Experts cultivate authority. Their degrees, their awards, their publications, their experience all demonstrate and elevate their authority. We listen to them and trust them and pay them because they speak authoritatively about things we are not sure of ourselves. But the authority of experts can extend further. Expertise can be a club to bludgeon dissent; it can be a shield against criticism; it can be a muzzle to silence debate and create apathy. In addition, experts are often far from objective. To the contrary they are often highly ideological. Undue deference to experts can lead to a kind of tyranny. Sometimes experts indeed know things we do not. But in cases of civil society, there is little they know that you do not; and in no case ought they to replace your participation in public debate.

Experts hold strong ideological positions. They are not objective, and few would claim to be if you asked them. If an expert asserts objectivity, they are probably using their authority to try to convince you of a powerful piece of ideology. Experts are often ideological precisely because they are experts. Why would you dedicate 3 or 5 or 8 years gaining a doctoral degree on some narrow field or issue if you were not passionate about it to begin with? It often is not for the money, because there are easier ways to make a buck. It is because they care a great deal. They cared when they started their training, and their subsequent research, practice and experience make them more passionately dedicated. But sometimes experts used their expert status to shield their ideology. When the distinguished professor of biophysics stands before you and speaks passionately about the influence of greenhouse gasses on ocean temperatures, remember that she cared deeply about environmentalism long before she began graduate school; and all of her degrees, federal research grants, field studies and teaching seminars have strengthened that ideological resolve. None of that makes her assertions necessarily false; it just recognizes her ideological position.

Experts are also usually terribly stubborn and uncompromising. Science and academia value flexibility, tolerance, and the willingness to alter conclusions upon seeing new data. But experts know a lot of stuff. Their worldviews are complex, sophisticated, and mature. And, as noted above, they are passionate believers in their philosophical and ideological systems. They are unfamiliar with changing their minds, and they are unwilling to bend without much convincing. These people are not sophomores discovering themselves and their world anew. These are doctors who have it figured out. This is why debates over minute disagreements between experts within a field can be so acrimonious.

Experts surround themselves with symbols of authority. When challenged, they sometimes make the mistake of shielding themselves behind expertise or office, rather and engaging in discussion or debate. In our modern egalitarian world, few people understand hierarchy better than experts. The assistant professor challenges the chair or dean at her peril. The lawyer does not attack the judge. If the Senate staff member attacks a Cabinet member, he had better do it with an anonymous leak. Similarly, in the authoritarian space of a classroom, many students learn the very unfortunate lesson that some professors will not abide being challenged or questioned by an undergraduate student. Everyone who has played the card game ‘war’ knows that a queen beats a deuce. The most natural response to criticism is to question the credentials, publications, experience or office of the critic. An expert’s critics are not good scientists; they are outside the scientific consensus; they have not seen the evidence or the classified documents; they do not understand the theory. What then follows is often an incomprehensible, jargon laden defense of their position meant to subdue the poor sophomore who dared cross the doctor’s path. In this manner, expertise is used to limit discussion and dissent. It serves to make non-experts insecure, silent, obedient and eventually apathetic. The Limits of Experts and Expertise

What the plethora of authoritative experts around us conceals is that there are some very important things that experts cannot and should not do. There are some basic limits to expertise. First, experts are often banal or obvious. Did you really need an expert with a federal grant to tell you that children find Rembrandt or Bach beautiful? What would you do without the expert who tells you that lack of sleep makes driving more dangerous? How many different committees need to reshape the food pyramid? – and they still cannot agree on what your mother knew very well: ‘Eat your vegetables and then go out and play!’ Clearly not all expert conclusions are obvious. But many an expensive lab has been funded to discover and document the obvious. Second and more troubling, experts are often used to substantiate, as truths, claims that are highly contested. Expert says, ‘zero tolerance enforcement leads to lower crime rate.’ Well you may or not agree with that assertion. And it does not make one bit of difference which experts assert it. It is a contested conclusion. In both cases, whether the expert’s conclusions are banal or completely contested, they do not change our view of the world.

Next, expertise, by its very nature is limiting. Experts devote themselves to something specific and narrow. You cannot possibly be an expert of very much. That does not stop some experts from asserting that they can speak authoritatively about whatever they want. But they are actually only experts of a narrow field. Civil society requires that all people – whether they are experts of some narrow thing or not – engage a broad array of issues. I happen to be an expert of a narrow historical field. But I believe passionately that we all ought to be engaged and speak and be heard across the full array of issues that shape our particular worlds. When I strive to engage in public debates on social or political or ideological issues, no one need care what degrees I have. I speak as a person engaged in civil discourse. The broad field of civil society should not be tilted in favor of experts with degrees, titles, offices or narrow expertise.

Most importantly, expertise and degrees do not confer wisdom, ethics, responsibility, morality or philanthropy. Experts are human – just like you. Experts can be proud, elitist and condescending. As noted above, they can resort to ad hominem attacks when challenged. They are often biased. Fundamentally, their expertise does not give them the hidden answers to difficult problems regarding where society ought to place its priorities, or how tax dollars should be spent, or for whom you should vote. Their positions are as likely to be foolish, muddled, irresponsible or selfish as anyone else’s. Their ideas, ideals or ideological positions may be compelling, useful, effective, and even visionary. But their status as an expert has no influence on any of that. Within the context of civil society, judge them by quality of their ideas – no more; no less.

There are also some very basic things that experts cannot do. 1 – Experts cannot predict the future. They just can’t. An expert who claims to predict the future, whether he or she is a biologist, an economist or a historian, is a charlatan. 2 – Experts cannot direct your principled, moral decisions on public policy issues. You, as a citizen of your community and nation bear that responsibility alone. 3 – Experts cannot and never will form the substance and character of civil society. Functional civil society must be constituted by the broadest possible array of educated, dedicated, engaged, principled, informed citizens. And in the absence of thoroughly educated, dedicated, engaged, principled, informed citizens, you and I will have to do the best we can along with everybody else. The other option is the oligarchic rule of experts and elites, which is the antithesis of civil society. Sadly, the proliferation of experts and the dependence upon them actually damages civil society by spreading apathy, passivity, voluntary disenfranchisement, and silence. The Emancipation of Civil Society

We live in an expanding universe. Our societies face profound change, serious challenges and unique opportunities. Technological, social, political and economic change offer us innovations as well as disruptions. In order to grasp opportunities as well as manage and solve problems, we need to build stronger communities of engaged citizens. Among a variety of new opportunities, the internet provides us with new spaces to speak and powerful new ways to broadcast our voices. Healthy civil society needs to be emancipated from experts in order to enable the widest possible participation. Civil society, activism, public debate and good governance must be practiced, not lectured or taught.

Complex problems and opportunities require the engagement and commitment of a knowledgeable, responsibility civil society. We must be willing to examine and evaluate many positions. We must be willing to debate, to disagree, and eventually to compromise. Experts are often necessary to this process. But they should not dominate it; and we cannot apathetically surrender the process to experts. A large, diverse, engaged body of citizens is more valuable than any number of experts. Our societies need the combined wisdom, energy, interest and passion of multitudes. We live in an expanding universe. There is room in the expanding universe for each of us to engage and speak and act. But the growing specialization and technicality of the expanding universe can be daunting. Experts can amplify those fears – to everyone’s detriment. We cannot allow experts to rule the expanding universe.

The mums were sweating over a decision they had to make.

No. They weren’t just sweating. They were fretting over a decision.

Their daughters, both just turned 13, had asked for permission to go on a Saturday night party bus with over forty 16 and 17 year olds.

A party bus is a nightclub-on-wheels for young people. There is supervision and it is promoted as alcohol-free but they can be dodgy. The mums knew little about it.

The two girls put huge pressure on their mothers to let them go – pester power was alive and well in their homes in the preceding days.

Both mums admitted that the alarm bells were ringing and they didn’t feel good about letting their daughters girls go on the party bus!

It was the first time they had been put on the spot in such a way so they sought my advice.

My response was simple and straight-forward – “You can say NO!”

The age gap between the girls and the rest of the party, their experience gap and the mothers’ lack of knowledge about who was attending and the exact nature of supervision were the main issues.

Both girls are in the early stages of adolescence where they think they are three years older than they are. It is an age where they tread a fine line between child and emergent teen.

The emergent teen desperately wants to act ‘older’ and be older than they are. The child wants to be protected and have their parents decide for them.

Kids in the early stages of adolescence draw strength from each other and rarely make parental challenges individually, or at least not without some back-up. “Everyone else is going….” “Bonnie’s mum is letting her go…” are the catchcries for this age group as they battle to get into the headspace of their parents. That’s why they gang up on parents. Not only is it more effective but working together gives them false bravado.

Many young teens think they have invented adolescence however young teens don’t know what they don’t know. They often can’t see potential risks involved. Parents need to be the ‘bad guy’ for this age group making decisions for them in their best interests.

Early and middle teens together is a bad Saturday night mix. Middle to late teens are more likely to be sexually active and more likely to drink alcohol than early teens. The two to three year age gap can seem like a decade during at these stages. They don’t play sport against each other for good reason and they shouldn’t party with each other either!

So what did the mums decide?

Despite their gut instincts both mums let their kids join the Saturday night party bus.

FORTUNATELY, their kids showed some common sense!

The young teens didn’t like what they saw when their parents dropped them off to start the evening. They didn’t feel safe so they returned home with their parents. After all their fuss they don’t go after all!!!

There are three salient lessons from this scenario.

First, it was evident that these mothers didn’t feel confident enough to assert their authority over their daughters. They were confused about how they should respond yet their gut instinct was giving them a strong message. Next time they should have more faith in their instincts………….

Second, like many parents they were working in isolation. Despite the fact that they were good friends it wasn’t until the morning of the party that they spoke to each other. By this time their daughters’ pestering had worked a treat. Next time they should call for second, third and fourth opinions……….

Third, as both these girls were the eldest in their families it was the first real experience for both parents with the adolescent push for independence. They were unaware of the developmental stages of adolescence and the approach that is needed in each stage. They were flying blind and this is not a good way to raise teens………      Lack of basic knowledge about teen development, confusion about the best approach to take with kids at this age and solitary decision-making were the real issues here for the parents.

Next time I am sure the parents would react quite differently. Thankfully they learned a good lesson with no damage done.

So would you fret over this decision? Would it make you sweat?

HOW PREPARED ARE YOU to face a similar dilemma? As a parent I know that situations like this happen out of the blue.

Confidence in your approach is probably the best ally that you can have. It helps you withstand the pressure that can be placed on you.

Confidence in your authority gives you the backbone to walk away from arguments and resist the pressure of pestering.

The confidence gained by understanding what each stage of adolescence needs helps you make clear decisions in your child’s best interest – at an age when they most need good parenting.

The key to raising teens is to be prepared. Most parents are woefully unprepared for the challenges that they will face.

There is nothing like experience but it helps to have an understanding about teen development, a knowledge about the best approach to raising teens and a number of allies and friends whom you can swap ideas with, and more importantly, draw strength from when your resolve and patience are put to the test.

And of course, you can just say NO!