Imagine a crackpot device called the “Therapeutic Wave
Rejuvenator” invented by equally imaginary crackpot Silas Crumweed in the
fifties. It is an electrical device housed in a wooden box with two thick
vertical wires like short aerials placed six inches apart on top of the box. These
are the “therapeutic wave samplers” which supposedly draw down mysterious
therapeutic waves originating in outer space.
To use the device you switch on the machine, grasp two brass
handles attached to wires, close your eyes and relax for an hour or so. With
regular use you should not age and may even become more youthful.
Suppose Silas Crumweed died without patenting his gadget but
he left behind a book explaining both the theory and the benefits of his
device. A manufacturer builds and sells it and even today it has a small
but devoted worldwide following with its own magazine, website and discussion groups.
As the device cannot possibly work, what do we say about -
a) The manufacturer who makes no actual claims about the
device.
b) Those users who insist that it works.
c) Those users who say it works for them but might not work
for others.
Again – as the device cannot possibly work and as this
information is readily available we might say that anyone who fails to point
this out is lying by omission. Or we might allow the usual swamp of caveats to
dissuade us from being so forthright because who cares anyway? We often allow
crackpots to be crackpots – as we should in this case.
In any event, some people might say that if people believe
what they are saying then they are not lying even if what they say is
unambiguously untrue.
However, we might also say this imaginary scenario is not all that
imaginary because it highlights how liars can be recruited to a cause. This
angle is useful because people are recruited by all manner of dubious causes
and are persuaded to support dishonest claims even if the dishonesty is unambiguous
and easily established. Useful idiots they may be but in an important sense
they are liars as well as being idiots.
In the past a need to avoid excessively deep social
divisions lead us to class many useful idiots as people who are deceived or
deluded rather than out and out liars. Yet we have entered a digital age where
this softer approach begins to seem dubious and unhelpful. Deeper and deeper social
divisions seem to be a consequence as fundamentally dishonest causes try to cope with the information age.
It becomes more and more apparent that the old, softer
approach doesn’t really work in a digital age. Useful idiots are not as
innocent as they were because the information is out there. Many never were
particularly innocent but in the information age it seems naive to allow them any
innocence at all. Causes do recruit liars.
3 comments:
"It becomes more and more apparent that the old, softer approach doesn’t really work in a digital age. Useful idiots are not as innocent as they were because the information is out there."
Excellent point, but it is hardly surprising that people continue to stick to their lies and idiocy, and the fact that information is out there doesn't overcome our lazy tendencies to stick with what we know and to avoid challenges. It's just easier. Even in the digital age, there's no real incentive to overcome that inertia. Perhaps the problem is that the digital age makes it easier for others to spot their laziness and dishonesty, and to point it out. We don't move any closer to the truth, but we do get a lot more rude and aggressive. The idiots now float in a sea of scepticism.
Perhaps you might call it the disinformation age. We are overwhelmed. And it's now possible to dive into hermetic cells of the like-minded and suffer ideological drift. What is left of societally-shared experience? Not the pulpit, of course; and mainstream TV and newspapers are also seeing dwindling audiences/readership. Only hate campaigns, scares and loud noises can get attention. And celebrity bottoms, of course.
Perhaps your box could be converted into a musical instrument - set up a factory in East Grinstead?
Sam - "our lazy tendencies to stick with what we know and to avoid challenges." Yes that's the problem and it is probably part of what we are. It's more efficient to go with the flow and only major disruption seems to tip the balance in favour of other possibilities.
Sackers - diving into hermetic cells of the like-minded bothers me but I don't see any way out of it apart from endless scepticism. This may be the best general response but it often feels too negative.
Post a Comment