Stupidity is a rum business isn't it? There is such a lot of it about
yet in general stupid people are not stupid. That’s the paradox.
Yet how is it that intelligent people can be so remarkably, jaw-droppingly stupid? Not stupid in the low IQ sense and not stupid in the ad hominem sense
where we merely fire the word at those who don’t agree with us. No there is a third
type of stupidity which intelligent people clearly adopt for a long term purpose
and from which they clearly derive some social advantage.
Often the only real advantage is the paltry satisfaction of
virtue signalling but even that strengthens the social bonds. This is part of
the weirdness – stupidity can and does forge powerful and advantageous social
bonds as long as one stays in the stupid club. Which isn’t difficult when
outfits such as the Guardian and the BBC hold the door wide open. They certainly do
their tireless best for the stupid club – as do the mass media generally.
However, this third type of stupidity is weird because
personal advantage and social bonding do not really explain what it is, nor how
it arises, nor how it is so impervious to reality.
When someone adopts an ideology then the ideology becomes an
aspect of their personality to such an extent that it is not possible to
communicate meaningfully with what we usually assume is a functioning
personality. That is the problem. Within the domain of their ideology, ideologues
do not have a functioning personality. To communicate at all we have to
communicate with their ideology.
This gives stupidity a huge advantage in the debating game
because members of the stupid club do not have to debate at all. People who
differ in their opinions must find common ground if they hope to reach some
kind of mutual understanding. Members of the stupid club have no need to bother
with any of that malarkey. Their debating effort is a scorched earth policy
where the headaches and complexities of common ground are hoofed out of play from
the off.
We know all this yet still tend to see ideology as somehow sitting
on top of the basic personality like a layer. If only we could argue away that
layer of ideology then the person’s real personality would shine through so the
assumption goes. Ideologues might even see their error and shrug off the
ideology.
Fat chance.
Experience after experience tells us that within its domain,
ideology supplants personality. There is no ideological layer sitting on top of
the personality – the ideology is as much an aspect of personality as a leg is
part of the body. It is not an add-on. Within its domain, which may be very
wide, the ideology is a prosthetic personality. People with a powerful and
wide-ranging ideology may not have much of a personality at all.
Intelligent political actors seem to be aware of this and are
willing to use the power of ideology for their own advantage. They frequently
act the part of an ideologue without that degree of commitment seen in more
genuine cases.
The prosthetic nature of ideology offers political actors a
ready-made audience with predictable reactions. This seems to be a fourth type
of stupidity. For intelligent political actors stupidity seems to be little more
than a useful fashion statement. What they like about it is the scorched earth effect on
common ground – it makes the adversarial nature of party politics so much easier.
4 comments:
To be or not to be that is the question. But what are the polls saying?
Interesting post. The dumber and newer politicians do indeed have whole areas where they do not function as a person, and the ideology does the thinking and talking. As you have said several times, this strategy is the easy option; it minimises upset and nobody has to work too hard. The wilier politicians, though, can often act as if they have just laid the ideology aside and are speaking as a real person. Blair was superb at this. I suspect he had studied Harold Wilson, who was also good. Thatcher could just about manage it. Theresa May is around the same level. The interesting one is Corbyn, who clearly is attempting it although so flat-footed and dull that he might as well not bother.
I think Tony Benn was expert at dealing with this as well.
He was convinced that his idealogy was right, despite his complete commercial naivety, and his famous side-step was always to claim that the individual politician was not to blame, and for the two issues to be kept separate.
This still permeates whatever government 'business' ministry is flavour of the month, and the quality of the people who work there is dire.
Demetrius - the polls are 100% don't knows - bound to happen sooner or later.
Sam - good point, the really canny ones do often act as if they have just laid the ideology aside. As if they haven't rejected it, merely put it aside temporarily in favour of higher imperatives.
Scrobs - Tony Benn was very good indeed. He almost convinced me at times - in fact I almost found myself wanting to be convinced.
Post a Comment