Institute For The Future

A New Tone for Health Authority?

The Chinese government is taking a softer, more cuddly approach to marketing its one child policy, according to an article in yesterday's Gaurdian. The shift is definitely a sign of changing times for that country, but I think it has an interesting parallel here in the U.S.

From the article: 

"Slogans from the early days of the policy… conveyed "coldness, constraint and even threats. They easily caused resentment in people and led to social tension"...

“Newer slogans tend to promote the benefits of having fewer children or advocate gender equality, for instance: "Lower fertility, better quality; boys and girls are all treasures."

The article also mentions this as part of an overall shift in propaganda that includes "de-deifying" folk heroes like Lei Feng to make him more relatable to today's youth.

I think, though, this is more than just a sign of China's modernization and, rather, it's part of a global shift in ideas of authority and persuasion that extends to the U.S. 

Obviously, we are starting from somewhere very different, (in the U.S., a valid consideration when choosing a political candidate has long been whether or not someone seems like the “kind of guy you could have a beer with”). But with science and health, we do value a certain cold detachment. Public health organizations in the U.S. have traditionally been very careful to appear serious, probably because appearing too casual would undermine their authority/credibility and, therefore, ability to be persuasive.

There are examples, though, of this changing. Take, for instance, the much talked about zombie-preparedness campaign by the Center for Disease Control. The idea was to teach people to prepare for a disaster (of just about any kind) by framing it as a hypothetical zombie attack. From their site:

"[CDC] director, Dr. Ali Khan, notes, "If you are generally well equipped to deal with a zombie apocalypse you will be prepared for a hurricane, pandemic, earthquake, or terrorist attack."

What I think this reflects is that, in many fields people’s perception that seriousness/sternness is the only indicator of credibility is changing.  

I think we can see this outside of the health world as well. In news media, for instance, the traditional format is for the host to speak about news in a very serious, unemotional and detached tone. However, journalism on shows like “This American Life,” which take a conversational tone and a transparent approach to the reporter’s emotional reactions to events, is increasingly popular.  And many people turn to the commentary of highly emotional pundits to help them make sense of this increasingly complex world. 

To really find out what’s driving this trend of “humanizing” authority, we’d need to do research, including real interviews with everyday people. However, the democratizing power of the Internet is a likely suspect. 

Aspects of the web question the wisdom of authority—the largely anonymously crowd-sourced Wikipedia is more comprehensive and accurate than anything compiled by experts and published traditionally. And the abundance of information flowing through various Internet and media channels means there is much more competition for any given person’s attention, (but also more niche channels do it). 

If this is indeed the case, we may be headed towards a future in which the most effective persuaders in any field are the ones we feel we can “grab a beer with.”