What Metaphor Guides Your Theory of Change?
X is “upstream” or “downstream” of Y— is a metaphor we live by.
It’s a jargon-y way of naming what’s of primary and what’s of secondary import. It’s also a way of justifying one’s values and life choices from first principles.
If culture is downstream of politics, then we have to start by solving political problems, e.g., fixing our governance structure.
If politics is downstream of culture, then we have to focus on making change at the cultural level, e.g., helping people not only have the right and access to vote, but also ensuring that people are well-informed.
Depending on what you think is the cause of all causes, you’ll end up devoting your effort to one domain or another.
Carl Schmitt thinks politics is upstream of economics. Hayek thinks the opposite. Many thinkers are hybrids. The Frankfurt School was obsessed with questions of economics and politics, but folks like Adorno also cared about culture and folks like Herbert Marcuse and Erich Fromm cared about psychology.
If the state can’t help solve issues of fundamental import, you’re going to focus on culture (and education).
If you think psychology is altered through socialization, you might favor social engineering.
If functional families are the alpha and omega, you’ll have to figure out how to promote them.
If genetics is the key to all things, it’s time to double down on bio-tech.
But, we need to get meta- for a second, because in the paradigm of “X is downstream of Y” lies an unproven assumption that causality is simple and linear. If causality is bi- or multi-directional, the stream metaphor doesn’t work. It also doesn’t work in a world of multi-causality, where many tributaries all lead to one ocean (to say nothing of the rain cycle). The language of downstream and upstream articulates the truth of dependence, but not interdependence.
Perhaps the two insights are both true: some phenomena really are downstream of others; but other phenomena are interdependent. To get metaphysical: is the body downstream of the soul or vice versa? Many take a one sided view, but non-dualists reject the premise.
The upshot is that the question of where to focus your energy is only partly a tactical/strategic issue. Another aspect is simply personal: where do you feel most motivated and positioned to help? It is perfectly legitimate (and reasonable and inevitable) that we bracket certain kinds of questions and domains to focus on what we know and care about, even if we are operating downstream of other “bigger” questions.
Perhaps the best metaphor for thinking about how different kinds of questions relate to each other is the fractal. This is possibly an anti-strategic position, but hopefully a motivating one.
What is Called Thinking? is a practice of asking a daily question on the belief that self-reflection brings awe, joy, and enrichment to one’s life. Consider becoming a subscriber to support this project and access subscriber-only content.
You can read my weekly Torah commentary here.