Related Tags

Branding, policy making and science

Branding, policy making and science

I guess we all want to understand. Some try to understand how computers work. Others seek to understand how to develop policies that would work. Then you have scientists who try to understand the universe in the moment of the Big Bang and, with that, the smallest particles of present reality and forces that unite them in one known universe. And then you also have a weird minority that seeks to understand and explain brands and branding.

I do not belong to any of the stakeholder groups mentioned. I have not even tried to understand computers. As a consultant, I sometimes help my clients develop efficient policies, but I think you can not understand policies better by understanding them better. Note that the last sentence was not a mistake or oxymoron!

Understanding nothing, knowing everything?

I desperately try to understand science, especially physics, and chemistry, but I could never become a scientist with my poorly developed scientific cognitive apparatus. I’m convinced I understand brands and branding to a certain degree, but that does not mean I can manage them. That I manage my personal brand, in reality, does not mean that I really understand its identity or that I understand outcomes from moments of truth that I execute in reality.

One can not really understand any particular part of our life if he does not understand a totality, an interrelation of all particles, and the identities of all particles and their combinations in the universe.

Complexity direction

The fact that one person can never understand all domains of our reality (branding, science, policymaking, IT, medicine, engineering, etc.) and thus not their vast interrelations to perfection does not contradict the ambition of pursuing such a quest. Although you are imperfect in understanding each of the mentioned domains, that does not prevent you from pursuing something vastly less possible to understand: the complexity of all interrelations.

The ambition of this post is to take a step further in this direction.

What democracy is not

The present vocabulary of Western policymaking leaders suggests that democracy is the core value of Western democracies or that democracy is or should be a vision for all countries and people on earth. Although they do not use my Standard branding model, I suppose they would put democracy at the top of the branding formula triangle instead of experiential promise.

Democracy became a kind of ultimate goal. It is said that if we achieve this goal, all problems are gone. They (leaders) claim that we already have democracy (thanks to God), but since our reality is imperfect, we should strive for more democracy. If something fails, like terrorism, Snowden, or just about anything else, it is a lack of democracy that caused such malfunction. So, more democracy means fewer malfunctions, they claim.

Democracy as a possible technical principle

In reality, democracy is nothing but the technical principle that lies behind the functional promises of the brand identity of Western countries. It is not even a prerequisite for prosperity or happiness. It does not exist in many countries, for instance. Parliament, as a functional promise of particular societies, might or might not run on democratic procedures. Some societies worked well even without such functional promise as Parliament. So, democracy can serve as a comparative advantage of one society against another, but I doubt that it even deserves such attention within the brand formula of any society. A tool (democracy) can never serve as a vision, less as value, and even less as an experiential promise. It is a nonnecessary mechanism behind society’s skeleton (functional promise). Conversely, values, vision, and experiential promise provide the necessary meat to the skeleton of functional promises.

Democracy through political Brane topology

Let me explain this through the already developed Political Brane topology. Something that might serve as a value, a vision, or an experiential promise is individualism versus collectivism. One can see clearly that it is not democracy that differentiates societies, but individualism or collectivism as their possible values. Democracy attached to collectivism produces left and right-type populism, while democracy attached to individualism produces liberal individualism. Such individualism can then tend more toward the conservative or more towards the progressive pole (two additional values) of the liberal line. It is essential that societies can produce similar individualistic/collectivistic and conservative/progressive effects even if the technology behind them is not democracy.

The lesson here is not only that the marriage of branding with policymaking could prevent policymakers from making cardinal mistakes they do but that not only branding but science helps us to understand laws that govern our reality. String and Brane’s theories of physical reality tell us a significant story of wave-like mechanisms that govern our universe’s micro and macro dimensions. This video explains the correlations between these two extremes for those interested. (There are specific posts in the past that I deleted. I upgraded and reviewed the majority of posts. The mentioned video is still more than valid as it is.)

It would be presumptuous to think that laws that govern human artifacts (language, technology, state institutions, and so on …) follow rules that have no connection to basic (universal) laws or that they even contradict them. Yet that laws that govern human actions contradict natural laws is precisely the claim of “man-caused-global-warming-panic-makers.” That they are presumptuous is of no doubt. The real question is:

To find and understand laws that connect the so-called physical with the so-called human reality, genetic reality with memetic reality.

I have named such a marriage of both a homonism. In this case, post-science insights helped me understand what is important in policymaking. That, in combination with branding rules and a brand identity formula, helped me expel democracy as a crucial element from any society’s brand formula.

Leave A Comment

Go to Top