You are here
A New Local Government Ethics Term
Sunday, July 28th, 2013
Robert Wechsler
Kudos to the editorial board of the St. Louis Post-Dispatch for
inventing a new local government ethics term in an
editorial yesterday. The term is "dyscronia."
Unfortunately, although referring to it as a "learning disability," the editorial board chose not to define it. So I will. Since the term is derived from "dyslexia," I'll start with the definition of that. Wikipedia defines "dyslexia" as "characterized by difficulty with learning to read fluently and with accurate comprehension despite normal intelligence."
"Dyscronia" could be defined as "characterized by difficulty with learning to accurately comprehend conflict of interest situations and to deal with them responsibly, despite normal ethics."
Dyscronia is not just about arrogance, as the editorial suggests. It is the result of a number of disabilities that I prefer to call blind spots. Two are especially relevant to the situation considered by the editorial. One is the feeling of entitlement, that rules don't apply to oneself or one's associates. The second is the belief that conflict situations, and the relationships on which they are based, will not in any way affect one's judgment, or the judgment of one's associates (the bias blind spot and motivated blindness)
Whereas dyslexia is common, but far from typical, dyscronia is the norm. This is usually not recognized by a secondary learning disability, which might be called "dysdyscronia." This disability is characterized by the belief that ethical decision-making can be applied to a conflict of interest situation in just the same way as to other situations. This belief derives from the use of the term "ethics" in both sorts of situation.
The fact is that the blind spots involved in conflict of interest situations are more powerful than in most other situations. They need to be taken into consideration, or there will be dyscronia. The best way to deal with dyscronia is to provide, and even effectively require, government officials and employees to seek professional, independent ethics advice whenever they have a special relationship with anyone involved in a matter. whenever a relationship with someone seeking special benefits from the government becomes imminent (e.g., when a gift or a job is offered), or whenever they are wearing two hats.
While the root of "dyslexia" is the Greek for "word," the root for "dyscronia" is the English for "crony." The problem here is that "cronyism" implies guilt, even when blind spots are involved. The term is meant to accuse rather than describe. It was created satirically, to be used as a weapon. This is not the kind of term that can be responsibly employed in the study of government ethics.
But this term can lead us to a better term, with a root that refers to relationships in a more neutral way than the word "crony." I prefer a term based on the Latin word "affinitas," which means a relationship, affinity, or union.
So let's replace "dyscronia" with "dysaffinia," and define it as the inability to see how damaging one's relationships, and alternate hats, can be to the public's trust in those who govern its community. And let's also coin the term "dysdysaffinia," and define it as the inability to recognize and deal with the problems that arise from dysaffinia.
Robert Wechsler
Director of Research-Retired, City Ethics
---
Unfortunately, although referring to it as a "learning disability," the editorial board chose not to define it. So I will. Since the term is derived from "dyslexia," I'll start with the definition of that. Wikipedia defines "dyslexia" as "characterized by difficulty with learning to read fluently and with accurate comprehension despite normal intelligence."
"Dyscronia" could be defined as "characterized by difficulty with learning to accurately comprehend conflict of interest situations and to deal with them responsibly, despite normal ethics."
Dyscronia is not just about arrogance, as the editorial suggests. It is the result of a number of disabilities that I prefer to call blind spots. Two are especially relevant to the situation considered by the editorial. One is the feeling of entitlement, that rules don't apply to oneself or one's associates. The second is the belief that conflict situations, and the relationships on which they are based, will not in any way affect one's judgment, or the judgment of one's associates (the bias blind spot and motivated blindness)
Whereas dyslexia is common, but far from typical, dyscronia is the norm. This is usually not recognized by a secondary learning disability, which might be called "dysdyscronia." This disability is characterized by the belief that ethical decision-making can be applied to a conflict of interest situation in just the same way as to other situations. This belief derives from the use of the term "ethics" in both sorts of situation.
The fact is that the blind spots involved in conflict of interest situations are more powerful than in most other situations. They need to be taken into consideration, or there will be dyscronia. The best way to deal with dyscronia is to provide, and even effectively require, government officials and employees to seek professional, independent ethics advice whenever they have a special relationship with anyone involved in a matter. whenever a relationship with someone seeking special benefits from the government becomes imminent (e.g., when a gift or a job is offered), or whenever they are wearing two hats.
While the root of "dyslexia" is the Greek for "word," the root for "dyscronia" is the English for "crony." The problem here is that "cronyism" implies guilt, even when blind spots are involved. The term is meant to accuse rather than describe. It was created satirically, to be used as a weapon. This is not the kind of term that can be responsibly employed in the study of government ethics.
But this term can lead us to a better term, with a root that refers to relationships in a more neutral way than the word "crony." I prefer a term based on the Latin word "affinitas," which means a relationship, affinity, or union.
So let's replace "dyscronia" with "dysaffinia," and define it as the inability to see how damaging one's relationships, and alternate hats, can be to the public's trust in those who govern its community. And let's also coin the term "dysdysaffinia," and define it as the inability to recognize and deal with the problems that arise from dysaffinia.
Robert Wechsler
Director of Research-Retired, City Ethics
---
Story Topics:
- Robert Wechsler's blog
- Log in or register to post comments
Comments
donmc says:
Mon, 2013-07-29 13:27
Permalink
Excellent !