Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Follow Us:
Top Stories

The Pressing Issue of Distinction Overload

Opinion

The Pressing Issue of Distinction Overload

Multicolored megaphones.

Getty Images, MicroStockHub

We live in a time of distinction overload, namely a proliferation of distinctions that are employed in all aspects of contemporary political, economic, and social life. Distinction Overload—let's name it—is overwhelming citizens who pay attention to workplace dynamics, politics, and family life. Distinction Overload is a relative of information overload, associated with the Information Age itself, which is a descendant of the information explosion that occurred during the Renaissance after Johannes Gutenberg invented the printing press.

You can’t really talk or write, let alone think, without making distinctions, and the process of human development itself is very much about learning useful distinctions—me and you, left and right, good and evil, night and day, yes and no, mother and father, humans, fish and animals, and so on. Some distinctions reflect opposition; others divide reality or ethics into three or four or more categories.


Regarding distinguishing ourselves from others, the French philosopher René Descartes' famous cogito, ergo sum, “I think therefore I am,” is known as proof that we exist. The fact that I am something that exists separately from other people (as thinking things) or indeed material objects is a related matter.

Our information technology (IT) connected world presents us with a Niagara Falls of distinctions. Yet, unlike the firehose effect, one can feel "too much information" from the internet and social media as well as cable television and streaming. Distinction Overload causes the subject to be jolted back and forth with opposition distinctions and overwhelmed with the need to see nuances between different aspects of things.

In our culture, new distinctions have made their way into our lives but not everyone has the same understanding of what these distinctions mean or whether we should be using them. For example, some people make a distinction between males, females, and people who do not identify as male or female. This is frequently regarded as a gender identity issue. There is also the distinction in the area of sexual preference between those who are heterosexual, homosexual, and bisexual. Then there is the distinction between those who identify as male, those who identify as female, and those who have been identified as male or female but they themselves have come to determine that they have been misidentified. This group is the transgender class.

The American legal system, a massive institution, is distinctions on steroids. Just watch MSNBC or Fox News if you disagree.

The proliferation of distinctions, it is critical to understand, is not all bad. On the contrary, distinctions appear when innovation creates new ways to build products and provide services. We have been able to build medical devices and tools, for example, by learning from physicists about nanometers and subatomic particles. The MRI machine could not have been created out of classical mechanics; it needed quantum mechanics and an entirely new language with new distinctions to help scientists discover how to build machines that could take pictures of the human body that X-ray machines could not.

A strong democracy requires clear thinking and clear thinking requires good distinctions as well as good arguments, good public policies, good social movements, and good speeches. Clear thinking itself is frequently animated by clear distinctions or arguments against distinctions that stand in the way of justice and peace.

Many leading philosophers built their theories of knowledge and theories of justice based on distinctions that illuminated fields of inquiry. The German Philosopher Immanuel Kant, a key figure of the Enlightenment, built his theory of knowledge on two distinctions, namely the distinction between analytic judgments (which are true or false in terms of their meaning) and synthetic judgments (statements that are true or false in terms of their connection to the world) and the distinction between a priori (prior to experience) and a posteriori (after experience) judgments. The American pragmatist Philosopher Willard Van Orman Quine built his theories of language and knowledge by collapsing the distinction between analytic and synthetic judgments.

Kant, like John Locke and Jean-Jacques Rousseau, built theories of just societies that were animated by distinctions between natural rights and rights determined by governments, autonomy and community, and justice and injustice. Robert Nozick and John Rawls continued the battle between libertarian and progressive theories of justice in the twentieth century.

Distinction Overload, like Information Overload, exists. Citizens and leaders alike who seek to advance democratic norms must sift their way through the abundance of distinctions to arrive at the clear thinking a strong democracy needs. Good distinctions, in many ways, are the fabric of good democracies.

Dave Anderson edited "Leveraging: A Political, Economic and Societal Framework," has taught at five universities and ran for the Democratic nomination for a Maryland congressional seat in 2016.

Read More

Framing "Freedom"

hands holding a sign that reads "FREEDOM"

Photo Credit: gpointstudio

Framing "Freedom"

The idea of “freedom” is important to Americans. It’s a value that resonates with a lot of people, and consistently ranks among the most important. It’s a uniquely powerful motivator, with broad appeal across the political spectrum. No wonder, then, that we as communicators often appeal to the value of freedom when making a case for change.

But too often, I see people understand values as magic words that can be dropped into our communications and work exactly the way we want them to. Don’t get me wrong: “freedom” is a powerful word. But simply mentioning freedom doesn’t automatically lead everyone to support the policies we want or behave the way we’d like.

Keep ReadingShow less
Hands resting on another.

Amid headlines about Epstein, survivors’ voices remain overlooked. This piece explores how restorative justice offers CSA survivors healing and choice.

Getty Images, PeopleImages

What Do Epstein’s Victims Need?

Jeffrey Epstein is all over the news, along with anyone who may have known about, enabled, or participated in his systematic child sexual abuse. Yet there is significantly less information and coverage on the perspectives, stories and named needs of these survivors themselves. This is almost always the case for any type of coverage on incidences of sexual violence – we first ask “how should we punish the offender?”, before ever asking “what does the survivor want?” For way too long, survivors of sexual violence, particularly of childhood sexual abuse (CSA), have been cast to the wayside, treated like witnesses to crimes committed against the state, rather than the victims of individuals that have caused them enormous harm. This de-emphasis on direct survivors of CSA is often presented as a form of “protection” or “respect for their privacy” and while keeping survivors safe is of the utmost importance, so is the centering and meeting of their needs, even when doing so means going against the grain of what the general public or criminal legal system think are conventional or acceptable responses to violence. Restorative justice (RJ) is one of those “unconventional” responses to CSA and yet there is a growing number of survivors who are naming it as a form of meeting their needs for justice and accountability. But what is restorative justice and why would a CSA survivor ever want it?

“You’re the most powerful person I’ve ever known and you did not deserve what I did to you.” These words were spoken toward the end of a “victim offender dialogue”, a restorative justice process in which an adult survivor of childhood sexual abuse had elected to meet face-to-face for a facilitated conversation with the person that had harmed her. This phrase was said by the man who had violently sexually abused her in her youth, as he sat directly across from her, now an adult woman. As these two people looked at each other at that moment, the shift in power became tangible, as did a dissolvement of shame in both parties. Despite having gone through a formal court process, this survivor needed more…more space to ask questions, to name the impacts this violence had and continues to have in her life, to speak her truth directly to the person that had harmed her more than anyone else, and to reclaim her power. We often talk about the effects of restorative justice in the abstract, generally ineffable and far too personal to be classifiable; but in that instant, it was a felt sense, it was a moment of undeniable healing for all those involved and a form of justice and accountability that this survivor had sought for a long time, yet had not received until that instance.

Keep ReadingShow less
Labeling Dissent As Terrorism: New US Domestic Terrorism Priorities Raise Constitutional Alarms

A new Trump administration policy threatens to undermine foundational American commitments to free speech and association.

Labeling Dissent As Terrorism: New US Domestic Terrorism Priorities Raise Constitutional Alarms

A largely overlooked directive issued by the Trump administration marks a major shift in U.S. counterterrorism policy, one that threatens bedrock free speech rights enshrined in the Bill of Rights.

National Security Presidential Memorandum/NSPM-7, issued on Sept. 25, 2025, is a presidential directive that for the first time appears to authorize preemptive law enforcement measures against Americans based not on whether they are planning to commit violence but for their political or ideological beliefs.

Keep ReadingShow less
Someone holding a microphone.

Personal stories from constituents can profoundly shape lawmakers’ decisions. This excerpt shows how citizen advocacy influences Congress and drives real policy change.

Getty Images, EyeEm Mobile GmbH

Want to Influence Government? Start With Your Story

[The following article is excerpted from "Citizen’s Handbook for Influencing Elected Officials."]


Rep. Nanette Barragán (D-California) wanted to make a firm statement in support of continued funding of the federal government’s Supplemental Nutritional Assistance Program (SNAP) during the recent government shutdown debate. But instead of making a speech on the floor of the U.S. House of Representatives, she traveled to the Wilmington neighborhood of her Los Angeles district to a YMCA that was distributing fresh food and vegetables to people in need. She posted stories on X and described, in very practical terms, the people she met, their family stories, and the importance of food assistance programs.

Keep ReadingShow less