During one of my cultural geography classes, we spent s great deal of time arguing a question we had inherited from the anthropologists. Were cultural innovations, such as pottery, agriculture, or textiles, invented once and then transmitted to other cultures by trade, migration or communication? Or are these activities independently invented by multiple cultures whenever conditions are right. Needless to say, this controversy was not settled in our discussions, any more than the cultural anthropologists had. Some questions are simply unanswerable, or even if we have the correct answer, it may not be possible to convince anyone else that we have the answer. Then again, perhaps its not an either/or question anyway! Perhaps both options are right, like the nature vs nurture question, or the free will vs determinism question. Maybe pottery (or basketweaving or voodoo or yodeling) was independently invented in a very few places, and then diffused to many others. At any rate, its unlikely we can settle these debates using historical or archaeological methods. Maybe it just doesn’t matter. Some questions may have a real right or wrong answer, and still be unanswerable. We may never know.

I bring this up here, instead of Space/Science, because it relates to the discussion we’ve been having here about the Mutz study, the one that suggests Trump voters voted for him because they feel a loss of status and legitimacy, as opposed in response to a perceived economic threat. Maybe its neither, or both, or maybe the two motivations are so entangled it really doesn’t make sense to try and separate them. Maybe this is one of those unanswerable questions, like the ones I alluded to earlier.

But i submit there is a difference. Academic arguments may mean a great deal to professional cultural geographers or other such navel gazers, but they are of rather limited practical importance. Its hard to see any policy decisions that might be affected one way or the other by determining if cultural innovations are independently devised in multiple places, or if they arose in one spot and diffused throughout the world. Who cares?

But the question addressed by the Mutz study, and our discussion of it here, is different. Not only does it involve an understanding of how public opinion develops and spreads, it also translates to real-world consequences–like what kind of government or society we live in. And it also addresses an entirely different question. We live in a society dominated by marketing, by propaganda; both commercial and political in nature. Ideas have always spread through populations, but today we have technologies and academic disciplines, whole industries dedicated to doing that. These questions are not academic or abstract, people spend a great deal of effort and resources studying and exploiting human psychology for very practical reasons.

There’s not much we can do about a psychosocial switch in the mind of a substantial number of our fellow citizens that is susceptible to being thrown one way or another. But if someone has found a way to put a finger on that switch and choose how it is toggled, then it is imperative we find out how, and why. I submit that along with the communications and marketing technologies now available to do this, there also exists a demonstrable economic motivation and agenda to do so. Maybe its an oversimplification to say Trump voters are made, not born, but it makes all the difference in the world to me. I choose to err on the side of caution and try to identify those who profit by how the switch is toggled, and what I can do to stop them. Even if I can’t change the future, I really need to have some clue how its going to turn out.