What is the difference between shaking the problems and solve them? How politics can really be a tool to solve problems? This post tries to answer these two questions and wants give an indication to policy makers and those who aspire to be elected. He wants to make a suggestion to the next particular presidential candidate of the Board: define well the problems and then learn to turn them into interesting stories, in short stories. political and ideological issues are masters of it in the abstract and generic, good for all circumstances. And the reason for this is because shake a problem is to prevent a debate. And those who use politics for personal gain and interest lobbying behave this way, however, violating the rules of democracy. These use problems in a "political" understood in its most degraded, politician. They are used in this sense, unemployment, immigration, living wills, etc.. On the other side there is instead the use of politics to solve problems. And in this perspective, the problem is well defined, classified and divided into a series of minor problems. The problem of unemployment means to determine the scope of the political sphere, economic sphere, the sphere of taxation, the sphere of education. And then define the age, the type (expecting their first job or job loss), the area (north, central, south), the sector (industry, services, new technologies), and so on. The policy needs and the methods of optics of problem solving, if he wants to give results and is intended as a service. And he has great need of Telling Problem, which is also similar. Think of a candidate in elections that, in addition to rail against this or that does not share that point of the opponents, says its program in two or three key points, which are the result of listening closely at the real needs of citizens ( problem setting). Let's pretend that in your program there is the creation of resources, tools and best conditions for the development of tourism. Now, this candidate will need to tell a clear and interesting problems resulting from them, developing them with games of imagination. If, for example, tourism can really grow, where we host the many people who come if our accommodations are not sufficient? How do we assure them that all the places to visit are accessible as often or are closed or no staff? Problem setting and problem telling do not solve problems, discover them, define them, they "sell." The setting makes it a solvable problem, the telling makes it interesting.
The problem telling crosses in storytelling, great instrument of power. Narratology has long been used for the organization and maintenance of consensus. It 'obvious that the powerful use in a top-down and in order to influence voters, where there are free elections, or subjects, where there are monarchies or theocracies. But the storytelling as network stories, from below, is also used by those who are opposed to power, make it the subject of satire as Dario For, Luttazzi, etc.. There's a war between the two forms now amplified by Real Time Web Problem Telling take storytelling but is more comprehensive problem-solving, is the threshold issue of history and a ceiling mobile, seamless. As such, it has to deal with the production of stories, it must identify the resources, modalities, etc.. So if a politician wants to talk to people's hearts not so rhetorical and artificial must learn to frame the issues according to a problem-solving and then must be able to tell stories to make it shared.
Photo credit: adrianobonc . The first part of the post was written in collaboration with Umberto Santucci .
0 comments:
Post a Comment