Branding, policy making and science

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

I do not belong to any of mentioned community. I do not even try to understand computers. As a consultant I do sometimes help my clients to develop efficient policies, but I think you can not understand policies better through better understanding of policies (this was not an oxymoron!). I desperately try to understand science, especially physics and chemistry, but I know that with my poorly developed scientific cognitive apparatus, I could never become a scientist. I’m quite convinced that I understand brands and branding to a degree that I can even manage them, but perfection in this respect is far from what I believe is a real quest to understand.

One can not really understand if he does not understand a totality, an interrelation of all particles and identity of all particles and their combinations in the universe. This is philosophy defined from slightly different (personal) perspective.

The fact, that one person can never understand all particles (branding, science, policy making, IT, medicine, engineering…) and thus also not their vast interrelations to a perfection, does not contradict the ambition of pursuing such quest. Although you are imperfect in understanding each of mentioned particles, that does not prevent you from ambition to understand something that is vastly less possible to understand: complexity of all interrelations. This post should make a step further in this direction.

Present vocabulary of western policy making leaders makes an impression that democracy is the core value of western democracies or even that democracy is or should be a vision for all countries and people on earth. Although they do not use my Standard branding model, some of their statements would put democracy even to the top of branding formula triangle, on the place of experiential promise. Democracy became a kind of ultimate goal. If we achieve this goal all problems are gone, is said.. They (leaders) claim that we already have democracy (thanks god), but since obviously our reality is not perfect, we should strive for more democracy. If something fails, like terrorism, Panama leaks or just name it, it is a lack of democracy that caused such malfunction. So: more democracy, less malfunctions, they claim.

Should they link branding to policy making, it would come clear that democracy is neither vision, nor values and even less experiential promise of any human society. Democracy is a mere technical principle that lies behind functional promises of brand identity. And we know that in Arab countries for instance does even not exist. Parliament as functional promise of certain society can or can not run on democratic procedures. Some societies worked well even without such functional promise as Parliament. So democracy can serve as comparative advantage of one society against another, but I doubt that it even deserves such attention within brand formula of any society. A tool (democracy) can never serve as a vision, less as value and even less as experiential promise. It is a non necessary mechanism behind society skeleton (functional promise). On the other side Values, vision and experiential promise provide meat to the skeleton of functional promises.

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

The lesson here is not only that the marriage of branding with policy making could prevent policy makers making cardinal mistakes they do, but that science help both to understand laws that govern our reality. String and brane theories of physical reality tell us extremely important story of wave-like mechanisms that govern micro and macro dimensions of our universe. I have made a video that explains correlations of these two extremes for those interested.

It would be presumptuous to think that laws that govern human artefacts (language, technology, state institutions and so on …) follow rules that have no connection to basic (universal) laws or even contradict them, although for example “man-caused-global-warming-panic-makers” claim exactly this (and that is why they are presumptuous). We should find and understand laws that connect so called physical with so called human reality, genetic reality with memetic reality. I called such interaction homonism.  But for present case science insights helped me to understand what is important in policy making. That in combination of branding rules and brand identity formula helped me to expel democracy as crucial element from brand formula of any society.

Andrej Drapal