Hi, my name is Lea and I'm a Social Change Marketer!

I just returned from an international social marketing conference in Toronto. Like other attendees, I'm still basking in the glow and contemplating everything I absorbed while there.

We social marketers have this tendency to ' examine our navels' when we gather and share our angst about people not understanding what we do. We get confused with social media and people think we only work with Facebook and Twitter. Not true although there was a fair amount of tweeting going on! The word 'marketing' sometimes makes people think that we're about manipulating others as in 'sleazy marketer'. Not true. The folks I've met in this circle of change makers certainly reflect long and often about their work and their impact on the world - which is probably why we're always navel gazing when we get together.

One young professional speaking on a panel with other young professionals both chastised the old folks in the field for not changing enough or changing quickly while at the same time professing that she doesn't tell people that she's in social marketing up front, rather slipping that nugget into the conversation.

I say we start calling ourselves social change marketers and that we do it boldly, that we walk into the room with our heads high and shoulders thrown back and announce to the world "I'm a social change marketer and I make a difference in the world"!

December 22, 2012 and we're still here. No cataclysmic natural disaster destroying the earth. No invasion from outer space. No rapture whisking good Christians to Heaven. No apocolypse. National Geographic published a report of new discoveries that show the Mayan calendar wasn't predicting the end of the world, rather the beginning of a new age - the calendar generally thought to predict the end of the world was " long count" based on a 5,000 cycle.

My hope for the new era is that it be the Age of Spirituality where we recognize that we are all connected; where tolerance, empathy and acceptance become the norm; where differences are resolved through negotiation and the parties involved are willing to work for solutions that respect the value and dignity of all human life; where we can let go of decades old centuries old injustices; where every child has an opportunity to achieve their full potential; where mankind is seen as the steward of our natural environment rather than the conquerer and acts accordingly.

Imagine.

One week ago today a 20 year old mentally ill man killed 27 people in Newton, Connecticut before killing himself. 20 of those killed were first graders at Sandy Hook Elementary school, 6 of the victims were teachers or staff at the school, and 1 was the shooter's mother - his first victim. In the week following there have been the predictable cries to put God back in our schools and debates about gun control as well as blame placed on violent video games and violent movies. I say predictable because these are the same things that are said after every mass shooting. A few voices have called for examining our broken mental health system.

Today I think the tragedy was compounded. The NRA, after remaining quiet for a week, held a press conference today where among other things they proposed that the government should put armed gourds in every school in the country. School Shield they're calling it and the idea includes having volunteers from among the ranks of the NRA membership serve as those guards. Early estimates are that such a program would cost around $5 million.

The largest gun lobby, largest gun ownership advocacy group, had an opportunity today to stand up and say that we need tighter controls on assault weapons. They had an opportunity to make history by saying that assault weapons have no purpose in any setting other than the military. What a shocker that would have been and what a way to show that the NRA membership are willing to forgo owning weapons that are made for the sole purpose of killing people because they care about what is in the best interests of society of a whole.

NBC sees $$$ in Olympics

Major disappointment in watching the Olympic opening ceremonies on NBC. Bad enough they did "tape delayed" but to cut in so many ads that fully half of the time was commercial breaks - unacceptable. No wonder the ceremony seemed so disjointed. Clearly the primary goal was to make money not to bring a sense of national hope and triumph to the American people.

Things are not always as they seem

I visited the Salvadore Dali Museum in St. Petersburg Florida yesterday. I find his work fascinating but unsettling. Things are not always as they seem. I'm looking at the print of the Hallucenogenic Toreado that I bought. Looking at the print I can see the Toreado clearly. Glance away and look again and I can't see him without focusing first on the center Venus' left breast. The parallels with life are maybe too obvious. The eye of the beholder . . . Things not obvious at first glance . . . . The forest and the trees. Dali was known for rejecting the establishment. I wonder if he'd see the irony of having his work stamped on coffee mugs?

Word Choice and Connotations

I’ve been watching with interest the political build up to Gen. Petraeus’ status report on Iraq to Congress. The Democrats continue to call for troop withdrawals. The Republicans have been running ads – the ones I’ve seen have featured veterans and deceased soldier’s family members – talking about how wrong it would be to surrender.

That word “surrender” really caught my attention. It implies that we – America – say to the insurgents “We give up. You win.” And to some Republicans anything short of full democracy in Iraq may be the equivalent of giving up.

Withdrawal, on the other hand connotes gradual removal of US troops with the implication that the Iraqi military would step up to fill in the void.

Remember when you were in high school and got into arguments with your classmates? How when facts failed to support one side’s argument, that side typically resorted to personal attacks?

I believe the implication of Republican ads decrying “surrender” fall to that level. The words used imply – as the Bush administration has done all along – that anyone not supporting this administration’s policies is unpatriotic.

This latest tactic continues to disturb me. Reasoned debate between reasonable people is vital to resolving differences and moving forward.

Implying that those who disagree with this Administration’s policies are cowards can in no way be seen as reasonable.

Joseph Conrad on "brute force"

This passage from The Heart of Darkness by Joseph Conrad captured my mind as I was reading.
They were conquerors [the character Marlow is speaking of the Romans in Britian], and for that you want only brute force - nothing to boast of, when you have it, since your strength is just an accident arising from the weakness of others. They grabbed what they could get for the sake of what was to be got. It was just robbery with violence, aggravated murder on a great scale, and men going at it blind - as is very proper for those who tackle a darkness. The conquest of the earth, which mostly means the taking it away from those who have a different complexion or slightly flatter noses than ourselves, is not a pretty thing when you look into it too much. What redeems it is the idea only. An idea at the back of it; not a sentimental pretence but an idea; and an unselfish belief in the idea - something you can set up, and bow down before, and offer a sacrifice to . . . "

Here's the question - can belief in an idea be unselfish? Does the answer to that question depend on whether one shares that idea (and is willing to offer a sacrifice) only when others express a desire to share that belief or whether one thrusts that idea at others with the expectation that they too will be willing to offer a sacrifice to the idea?

If you think about what Conrad's character says through the lens of the war in the Middle East, does it give a different perspective?