Strategic frame setting through a pattern of questions

Strategic Implications of 12 Unasked Questions in Response to Disaster (Part #7)

The matter and the response can be reframed by analogy in terms of the medical response to a health issue, following the approach of Donald Schon, with respect to generative metaphor and frame setting. Massive urgent use of first aid resources may indeed be justified in response to the symptoms. However, if the crisis arises from a pattern of questionable behaviour -- drugs, alcohol, lifestyle -- with a tendency to engender the medical issue in the future (as with the metastasis of cancer), then questions can be usefully asked, such as:

what induces the behaviour in the individual?
why do such incidents encourage copycat behaviour (as with school shootings)?
how does society induce lifestyle diseases?
why is society unable to address issues inducing such behaviour -- whether endangering the individual or society?
why is the focus on preventive measures, however drastic, but not on curing characteristics of society engendering such behaviour?
why is the public response so out of proportion in comparison with "incidents" in other countries which tax payer funds help to engender/
who fails to ask such questions -- and why -- and what is the reaction to those who do?

Given the questions raised by Nasr regarding "negotiation with the enemy" (a challenge currently evident in the case of the Taliban or Iran), also of interest is to ask how the engagement between "others" could be radically reframed to mutual advantage -- and why such exploration is avoided. Especially problematic are cases of the affirmation of the "other" as being evil, most notably by Barack Obama on the occasion of his acceptance speech for the Nobel Peace Prize and by the current US Secretary of State in relation to the Boston Marathon bombings (Remarks by the President at the Acceptance of the Nobel Peace Prize, 10 December 2009; John Kerry: We've been in direct confrontation with evil, BBC News, 19 April 2013). The difficulty is that Obama is himself framed as "evil" by many of his fellow citizens, just as the Christian-inspired US is framed as "satanic" by many of Islamic inspiration -- and the favour is returned. Some would argue that opposing political parties in a democracy tend to see each other as fundamentally misguided, if not essentially evil in their inspiration. These incommensurable framings suggest the need for allocation of significant resources to transcending their limitations. As argued by Sam Keen (Radical Questions for Critical Times):

Your question is the quest you're on. No questions -- no journey. Timid questions -- timid trips. Radical questions -- an expedition to the root of your being.

At the time of writing, various parties are envisaging a new approach to the challenges of terrorism in the USA, as indicated by Amy Zalman (Post-Boston: Keep Calm and Think Clearly (Part I), The Gobalist, 23 April 2013). Less clear is whether the quality of questions is itself being addressed or whether the emphasis is on "more of the same", because it is familiar and can be framed as "effective". The lesson of Afghanistan is that this knee-jerk strategic reflex is not as adequate as is so readily portrayed.

How is the quality of more appropriate questions to be distinguished from that characteristic of the political, military and intelligence failures of the past? Is asking potentially more fruitful questions, or creating a context in which they may be evoked, itself dangerous for those involved, as explored with respect to overpopulation (Overpopulation Debate as a Psychosocial Hazard: development of safety guidelines from handling other hazardous materials, 2009).

Contrasting possibilities for reframing such negotiation, as previously argued, include: