This post was prompted by Sam Vega's comment on the previous post.
I think it has something to do with the seductive power of a theory. Unlike real life, theories can be understood by plodders, and they can be used to justify stuff that excites the oddbods: control, intellectual superiority, in-groups, and murder.
There certainly is a seductive power to theory, especially fashionable theory. It is surprising how useful it can be to avoid thinking too
hard and less surprising that fashionable theories tend to be easy on the brain. They allow any modestly articulate person to become fashionably articulate,
putting them on the road to at least modest
success in most areas of life. If our internal censor tells us not to
think certain complex thoughts we don’t - we think fashionable simplifications
instead and reap a range of advantages.
One advantage is that fashionable theories are a useful way
to avoid those internal disturbances activists seem so fanatically keen to bypass.
Maybe an important source of activist satisfaction is not having to think too hard. The other side of any argument has to do all the heavy lifting, only to be lightly dismissed with a cliché afterwards.
Politically and socially there appears to be a fundamental divide between those who accept complexity and those who avoid its social and political disadvantages. A diffuse divide to be sure, but still real enough as far as I can see. Stick with fashionable – you know it works and makes you feel better. What’s not to like about fashionable?
Politically and socially there appears to be a fundamental divide between those who accept complexity and those who avoid its social and political disadvantages. A diffuse divide to be sure, but still real enough as far as I can see. Stick with fashionable – you know it works and makes you feel better. What’s not to like about fashionable?
The problem in not confronting complexity is that it leaves
a huge opening for charlatans to peddle seductively fashionable theories which don’t actually work.
A further problem is that it is virtually impossible to demonstrate real world
complexities to anyone hooked on fashionable simplicity. Fashionable but over-simplified
theories are a perfect cloaking device, they render complexity completely invisible
but it doesn’t seem to work the other way round.
It is odd, but some people seem to be interested in or even fascinated by complexity while others prefer the cloaking device of fashionable simplicity and
it is not always clear why this should be so. With charlatans it is clear
enough but apart from charlatans there are many people who are merely deceived
by the cloaking device.
It does not appear to be a question of intelligence because
intelligent people frequently give their allegiance to political or social theories which may be fashionable but are also grossly over-simplified, often to the
point of being obviously untrue.
A problem which cannot be defeated perhaps - because it is complex.
2 comments:
I think these two types of engagement with the world - theoretical and acknowledging complexity - are both extremely dangerous if followed to their logical conclusions. It's obvious in the case of theory, but those dealing with the "nitty gritty" can also lose sight of the bigger picture and either get obsessive about pointless details, or leave out essential components like morality. "Details people" often live with a big elephant in the room.
I think our best hope in this is to try to create or maintain a society where the two can balance each other out, and it is clear as to what people are doing. The theoreticians need to occasionally tap the complexity-wallahs on the shoulder and point to the bigger picture, and likewise we need to jeer at the dreamers and absolutists. Anything that cuts down on transparency and freedom of expression is to be avoided.
I probably shouldn't lower the tone by asking which of the parties on offer tomorrow would serve this purpose best. Good luck to you AKH and all other contributors, and may you vote wisely and effectively.
Sam - yes there are problems in losing the big picture with too much "nitty gritty" focus. I found that with climate change.
To begin with I went into various aspects of the science in some detail, especially those close to my own field. Yet over time I realised that standing back to take a broader view was just as enlightening, perhaps more so in some cases because we have to be aware of the bad faith at the core of climate change narratives.
Post a Comment