Last year about this time an email was sent to all associates of the university at which I work, stating:
"Because of ongoing concerns about the possibility of spreading the flu virus, students receiving degrees and their families should not shake hands at Commencement if they have symptoms of an upper respiratory infection such as fever and cough."
Reading this, I had to laugh. The irony was killing me. The university, along with every other university across the nation, was taking the appropriate steps to reduce the risk of spreading H1N1. Such communication should have been applauded, right? Perhaps someone should have even shaken their hand for doing a job well done ;-) So what was the problem? What was the irony all about? Well, universities talked about using hand sanitizer, along with warnings to not shake hands with others, but all the while their coursework and structure were still set up to wear their students down into the ground, making them susceptible in the first place to the very thing they were trying to temper. By opting to ONLY offer a surface solution, especially in lieu of taking more critical steps such as lowering student stress by reducing work loads, universities were essentially washing their hands of the situation.
Increased susceptibility to disease as a result of overworking was not only something I experienced first hand, but something I see countless others undergoing everyday in my job with students. An education is being provided, but at what cost?
That, in essence, is the question posed to nearly every producible thing on this planet: yes, we have it, but
at what cost? Which is why I believe
"How the Sources See the Story" is so important to crisis communication. How sources present a situation influences the choices we make on the basis of how we come to understand the
risk and
root cause involved in a situation. This in turn renders us to ask, "At what cost is it worth keeping things as they are?"
To illustrate this, think about the H1N1 pandemic in relation to schools and universities. If the risk involved is presented as minimal at best, then little change will occur in the short and long term regardless of whether the cause of the problem is rooted in the habits of those involved. Students will not consider how their study and living habits affect their health, and schools will not invest in preventative measures. The same goes if the root cause of the situation is presented as something outside of everyone's power. Regardless if a high risk is involved, substantial change will not occur, especially in the long term. Temporary solutions, such as hand sanitizers and warnings of personal contact, will be offered, but in the long run, the risk of disease will remain just as high. Students and universities will not see their habits as related; the situation is just the way it is.
Only when the communication of a crises carries the weight of risk and responsibility does there seem to be an acknowledgment that (a) the cost is too great for things to remain the same and (b) we can (and want to) do something about this.
This is perhaps best demonstrated by the ongoing
oil spill crisis in the Gulf of Mexico. Such a crisis has the potential to bring about great change, and the angle at which the crises is presented will mainly determine where we go from here. Which is unfortunately why I believe nothing may change. Though the crises brings to the surface much of what is so troubling about our dependence on oil, the story in many of our minds is caked in avoidance. Why?
Because (a) the risk involved is not great enough. The environment has been devastated, but the cost has had no direct, apparent impact on our health. It is very telling that we are more worried about
the risk to the economy. Things will remain the same. We need the oil (and furthermore, we like cheap oil), so the cost at which we have it is deemed worth it.
And (b) we don't think we need to change. Even if we want to change, we don't necessarily believe the responsibility is ours to do so. It is solely the responsibility of BP. And when they say
all the right things, we feel even more relieved that the responsibility is not ours. That is how the story goes.
We do not see that we too are a cause of this. Everything we do supports what BP and other oil companies do. They are as much of a product of ours as oil is a product of theirs. Our computers, our internet, this game, our clothes, our food...all made possible by this cycle of dependence.
I was told earlier that my question of how to break the cycle was
the biggest question in all of the issues on Evoke. So what does it take to break the cycle? Well, first of all, acknowledge that we are a part of the cycle and break the story of avoidance. Realize that we cannot simply
wash our hands of crises that arise from it. If we want our governments, businesses, and organizations to be socially responsible and take a stand, we too must take a stand in our own lives.
So what does that stand look like? Well, it looks like this, this game. As well as a plethora of other creative initiatives and projects across the world. As the author Derek Jensen has noted, there can never be too many fulcrums where we leverage our own power to bring about the change we want. But where does one apply one's own power? Well, perhaps that is best determined by what the civil rights leader Howard Thurman once shared:
“Don’t ask what the world needs. Ask what makes you come alive, and go do it. Because what the world needs is people who have come alive.”
And there should never be any cost that keeps us from doing that. So, what makes you all come alive?
You need to be a member of Urgent Evoke to add comments!
Join Urgent Evoke