The Merits of Red Tape

My city is gearing up for municipal elections in October. Several campaigns are already well underway. Many lawn signs are already staked in the ground.

The slogan for one would-be mayor’s campaign is, “Opportunity for all…Not red tape!” The sentiment aims at one of the biggest frustrations many of us have with bureaucratic institutions: the myriad of procedural bottlenecks that seem to hamper forward thinking and efficiency.

But I, for one, am a reluctant supporter of red tape. It is a necessary, self-regulating ingredient in democracy. Imagine the consequences if it was all eliminated: official plans, zoning regulations, public participation procedures, etc. — gone! Now what?

Let’s suppose that I, as a cyclist, got myself elected and convinced my fellow counsellors that the city needed more bicycle lanes. In fact, let’s put bike lanes on every street! Of course, there are a mountain of legislative and fiscal obstacles to this stunt, but in our imaginary world, the red tape doesn’t exist. So we plough ahead with our agenda.

Great, right? If there was no red tape at all, we could actually get stuff done!

But in our excitement, we overlook a confounding reality: If our elected council has it in their power to arbitrarily redesign the function every street in the city at their whim, the next council has equal capacity to undo everything that was done. Sure, we can put all the bicycle lanes in, but in four years, all the bicycle lanes can just as easily be removed.

Clearly, this chaos is neither efficient nor productive. The fact that higher levels of government require municipalities to adhere to specific, longterm, legally binding plans creates a maze of hoops and “obstacles” that hinder the willy-nilly, so-called “freedom” of haphazardly building at will. For me, I’d rather have red tape than not have it, as tiresome, frustrating, and impeding as it is. Make no mistake: red tape isn’t fun — but that doesn’t mean it isn’t important. People say red tape is inefficient, but it seems far more inefficient in the long run to just whimsically do whatever feels best in the moment.

When a political hopeful comes along promising the end of bureaucratic inefficiency and the elimination of growth bottlenecks, I find it somewhat amusing. First, they apparently seem to have little understanding of the Leviathan that is modern democratic legislation (which many a confident candidate hath already sworn to overthrow in the past). And secondly, more importantly, they don’t seem to respect the idea that red tape might actually have a purpose that ultimately serves the greater, longterm good of a community. At very least, the notion that red tape exists for the benefit of the citizenry doesn’t appear to register on their radar of political ideas.

Red tape is the saving grace of democracy: it’s the thread of continuity that allows us to survive the idiosyncratic folks we elect to govern us every four years. There’s nothing like a good, stinky pile of bureaucracy to help assure that the ridiculousness, radicalness, and craziness of the characters we elect is a bit more benign and manageable.

I think it’s time we take a second look at red tape, and critically examine the rhetoric of the politicians who try to convince us that it gets in the way of progress.


Journaling Feels Juvenile

Writing a journal feels juvenile. That is the beauty of it. Even as you write the words, you cringe in anticipation of how an older, wiser version of yourself will probably ridicule you later. You can almost hear the self-criticism, faintly echoing in from the future. That’s why the thoughts seem childish as soon as you transcribe them into alphabetic forms.

Maybe this is exactly why journaling is important. It is a glimpse (or whisper) of your future perspective penetrating the present. You see your thoughts not only as you feel right now, but also as you might recall them later. As soon as your emotions inhabit a written work, they begin to exist outside of you. This creates a perspective that is invaluable — even if it is transitory and intermediate — and is worth all the supposed inward shame that comes along with writing your innermost thoughts down in the present.


Volume VII – Author’s Notes

Caesura Letters Volume VIIToday I am pleased to announce the release of Affecting Cause — the seventh volume of the Caesura Letters. This is another quarterly compilation of thought experiments, propositions, and ideas, presented in hopes of inspiring new perspectives on life. As in other volumes, Affecting Cause gathers the last three months of the Caesura Letters  into thematic ‘bundles’, which dance between the arts, sciences, and humanities. This volume is divided into seven parts, exploring ideas about morality, balance, energy, mystery, crowds, leadership, and selfhood. Get ready for the summer: this volume should pair nicely with decks, cold beverages, and Adirondack chairs!

Ebook (ePub, Kindle, PDF) Paperback



Critique of Pure Happiness

This coming week (June 23-27, 2014) I am publishing a series of pieces on the Caesura Letters about happiness. Although dissecting happiness seemed like a rather counter-cultural idea at the outset, I was taken back by how many great thinkers and theorists over the years have said, in their own unique ways, “Pursuing happiness for the sake of happiness can’t make us happy.” I’m looking forward to the conversation this week. Join us.

Download on App Store Subscribe via PayPal Learn more


Politics is Toxic. Get Over it.

There’s a popular narrative that goes along these lines: the population is disillusioned with all the negativity of schoolyard, partisan politics. Therefore, if politicians would just clean up their act, citizens would re-engage with democratic process.

But what are the grounds for this proposition? Has there ever been a period in history when the political arena has not been engulfed in backbiting, backrooms, and backscratching?

Democratic governance has never had a golden age. And it never will. It can’t. And even if we achieved this hypothetical state of democratic glory, we could just as easily lose it all again in four years. That’s the nature of democracy. We love democracy because it guarantees the impermanence of our governors. But it is this very impermanence that guarantees a permanent state of scandal. The proposition that we might one day arrive at a nirvana of enlightened, competent, and permanently rational leadership is not a rational belief to hold, nor to propagate.

This discussion about voter apathy and disillusionment has nothing to do with the unscrupulous antics and stupidity of politicians. It has to do with a fundamentally flawed expectation and explanation of political process. We elect politicians in order to slug it out. Equilibrium in a democracy is not universal agreement or a collective love affair with an ideal (fictitious) politician. No, it’s a tedious combat between opposing ideological agendas. That’s the point of democracy: self-governance requires internal conflict. This is an intrinsic feature of any self-organizing system.

Our participation in our governance should have nothing to do with peddling, promising, or advocating a safe, sanctified, and sanitized version of democracy. It can never exist.

So why are voters disengaged? Maybe they’ve been told their governance it is only worth engaging in to the extent that politicians are worthy, upstanding, and moral role models. Let’s drop this foolishness. The underlying premise of democracy is that we are all sovereign, which means that any single one of us can choose to assert ourselves in the leadership arena. The point of democracy is not that we have an aesthetically and emotionally “pleasant arena” for making collective decisions. The point is that we govern ourselves. This means taking a few bruises in the arena, and accepting the fact that corruption in democracy is as sure as the wetness of rain. If you want a supreme Superman to protect you from the harsh manipulation and posturing of statecraft, stop looking in democracy, my friend.

Democracy is messy. Let’s drop the rhetoric that people will get involved if we clean it up. This belief is counterproductive to the vision of a citizenry who takes their own governance seriously. Lying to ourselves (and those so-called “disillusioned” citizens) about the nature of democracy is only making rampant “dis-engagement” more acute.


I Don’t Want to ‘Arrive’

I never want to stop discovering new things. I see this agenda and passion manifested in the writers I most love: it is pointless to consider yourself a compelling or inspiring writer unless you are, yourself, being compelled and inspired by what you are learning. In this sense, I never want to ‘arrive’ or ‘settle down’, or find myself rehearsing and rehashing my opinion like an automaton, droning on about some topic that I supposedly ‘know’ inside and out. No, I want to stay mesmerized by the curious allure of uncertainty, helplessly arrested by the intrigue of the human condition, and perpetually clinging to the coattails of mysteries I don’t understand. In other words, I don’t think I want to achieve or reach a particular, final ‘accomplishment’. That seems rather disappointing! Perhaps the most exciting part about writing for me is that I have no clue where I am going to end up.

(This post is an extract from my interview on Wired Writer’s Guild, from March 11, 2014)


Among the things I would tell my fifteen year-old self…

If you were starting today, what are some things you’d do differently?

I’d go back and tell my fifteen year-old self to keep a better bibliography of the books, lectures, and art that provokes and inspires me growing up. I would tell the little rascal that everything beckons discovery, and that he should stop arbitrarily pigeonholing life under the categories of ‘interesting’ and ‘uninteresting’. If I knew then what I know now, I would have started paying attention to all those so-called ‘uninteresting’ things much earlier. Few disciplines are more precious for a writer. Second guessing the obvious sits at the heart of it all.

(This post is an extract from my interview on Wired Writer’s Guild, from March 11, 2014)


Empty Signifiers

Words, said anthropologist Claude Lévi-Strauss (1908-2009), are symbols of meaning. If I say to you, “I own a red car,” I have given you a set of symbols that you interpret in fairly concrete terms. More symbols — such as the exact brand, make, model, and year of my vehicle — will provide you with an even more elaborate understanding.

However, much human language is far more complex than this direct exchange of symbols and descriptions. Lévi-Strauss pointed out that many of our words are “floating signifiers,” meaning that “somewhat like algebraic symbols, [they] represent an indeterminate value of signification.” (Lévi-Strauss 1987[1950]:63,55)

For example, the cultural theorist Stuart Hall (1932-2014) described the word “race” as a “floating signifier”. One person might mean “race” as biological or genetic differences between people, another person means lineage and ancestry, another person means the social and cultural divisions of people, and yet another person assumes that “race” simply refers to the dissimilarities of colour and hair between people. (Hall 1997:6) What does the word “race”, as a symbol of language, actually signify? Historically we can see the meaning of the word is in constant transition — shifting, morphing, and evolving. Therefore, in Lévi-Strauss’ words, we could say that “race” is “devoid of meaning and thus susceptible of receiving any meaning at all” (Lévi-Strauss 1987[1950]:55)

We interact with floating signifiers everyday: the coworker who raises his hand in a staff meeting and says, “Our office needs to become a better community“; the campaigning politician who announces that there is hope for the next generation; the patriot who declares their tireless devotion to freedom. What do community, hope, and freedom mean? Well, clearly it depends on who you ask.

This is the incredible power of floating signifiers: when used well, they can galvanize large groups of people to change their behaviour, even though the words themselves actually mean different things to different members of the group — even though “the signifier and the signified [come] to be constituted simultaneously and interdependently.” (Ibid 60) In other words: floating signifiers do not emit meaning — they absorb whatever meaning is projected on them.

Today, when you find yourself nodding readily in agreement, double check whether or not the signifier is empty.


Ultimate Questions of Personal Identity

As regular subscribers of the Caesura Letters know, we often (but not always) structure our weekly letters around themes. This coming week (May 12-16) is one such example: we will be exploring ultimate questions of personal identity. (Ok, ‘ultimate’ is totally hyperbolic: we’ve done our best to tackle the biggest questions, but clearly our list is up for debate!)

We are going to revisit some of literature’s most canonized declarations about selfhood (like, ‘Know thyself’, and ‘To thine own self be true’). We are going to second-guess prevalent, received wisdom about the virtues of sincerity and authenticity. We are going to take a critical eye to our popular narratives about uniqueness, specialness, and destiny. We will talk about ‘finding ourselves’, ‘being ourselves’, and ‘searching ourselves’.

Subscribers, I’m really looking forward to hear your thoughts and reactions to this mini-series. I would love your feedback, critique, and response.

And for those who have not yet subscribed, please join us!

Subscribe via PayPal