Andrew and I were chatting tonight about critical thinking in our contemporary (American) political society. Can the bombardment of conditioning we constantly endure lead to a lack of critical thinking or at least impair this skill? (from early school, to media (especially television) or advertising, to journalism, to even the particular focus (or field) of training in the university itself)
Are we trained to be unable to distinguish propaganda from journalism or framing from fact?
I, personally, think that its a constant struggle to combat the constant bombardment of said conditioning and attempt to (and of often fail to) critique or transcend it. Often we cannot, as its hard to even detect.
Well this becomes more interesting to me while thinking about Rawls. Let me give you a passage from this fantastic Samuel Freeman book and then we can entertain the plausibility of Rawls' idealistic concept of the human agent, and the components needed to participate in his political game.
"The two moral powers of free and equal persons are, first, a capacity to be "reasonable," which is a moral capacity for justice - the power to understand, apply, and cooperate with others on terms of cooperation that are fair ; second is the capacity to be "rational," to have a rational conception of the good - the power to form, revise, and to rationally pursue a coherent conception of values, as based in a view of what gives life and its pursuits their meaning. The capacities to be reasonable and rational Rawls regards as the primary capacities... that form "the bases of equality," or the features of humans by virtue of which they warrant being treated as equals and respected as subjects justice.To me, I read this and start thinking that perhaps attacks on the ability of people to utilize critical thinking (rational or reasonable abilities as Rawls defines them above) are attacks on equality, justice, and perhaps attempts to relegate certain humans into the 'social' position of animals. This provides us with a weighty lens to critique the social institutions that repress learning a scientific, or critical, (or however you would define it) approach to information.
By contrast with utilitarians, Rawls does not see the capacity for pleasure and pain, or the capacity for desire, as the primary feature of beings by virtue of which they deserve special moral consideration. Animals other than humans have the capacities for pleasure and pain, and this is morally significant in our treatment of them. Still, Rawls endorses the common-sense view that humans as a species deserve an exceptional kind of moral consideration, above and beyond that which we owe to other animals; for humans, unlike other species, have the moral powers to be reasonable and rational and other power necessary for practical reasoning. This is what primarily distinguishes humans as the primary subjects of justice."
Perhaps this then suggests that the social or political institutions that encourage irrationality (a dangerous term i know) are assaulting what makes us 'human' and 'equal,' and thus are assaults on the fundamental virtues of a democratic liberal society. (in my mind I often focus on religion as one of the primary culprits)
I guess Al Gore just wrote a book about this, but I feel like I'm beginning to really grasp the significance of this argument. "The assault on reason" really seems to undermine the extolled values of our political system subversively, and tricks us into the pragmatic condoning of a exploitative political apparatus, that marginalizes us individually and deceives about its actual nature.
So then - perhaps - this is a call to arms!
3 comments:
Question: how would you distinguish journalism from propaganda?
First, I don't think that we should necessarily dismiss the televised as soon as we dismiss the televisor. I think there is an all-too-common stress on the (televisual) spectator as some sort of unthinking cog stuck in the machine of public opinion, unable to take a critical position against what the televisor opines him. Again, following certain thinkers, we must presuppose that all people think.
Second, it seems at first glance to me that journalism and propaganda fall into the same category of public opinion, but propaganda is strictly political. Is politics divorced from fact? Again, I will have to write on this further, but I am quite skeptical of this fetishism of the facts (a la Chomsky and other "dissident" commentators). I think it is necessary that we systematically and perspicuously distinguish the facts from the real.
What about the capacities, if we posit there to be capacities, to be irrational and unreasonable, does that make those who are not capable of reason and rationality not our equals? I'm going to post against this view at a later time.
What are the fundamental "virtues" of democratic liberal society? Do these virtues include virtue itself? In short, if we are assuming that virtue is one of the fundamental virtues of democratic liberal society, where do Stalin and Robespierre fit into this equation, who also posited virtue as a fundamental political necessity, in two completely different situations, within their praxis and thinking of politics?
A response to the supposed "assault on reason" from a description of a journal, from its first volume, that I'm subscribing to:
"Conceived as a meticulously compiled and compendious miscellany, a grimoire or instruction manual without referent, as a delirious carnival of sobriety, it operates its war against good sense not through romantic flight but through the formal insanity secreted in the depths of the rational ('the rational is not reasonable')."
I think that journalism and propaganda often walk hand in hand. I think that if we say propaganda is an action of only the state we fail to pay proper respect to its complexity and sheer size. Foucault would say there is no "outside," and in this tradition I'd say propaganda is an action of power/coercion upon any sort of information. If we want to change the term though I'm fine with adjusting the semantics.
I agree that all people think, but I also claim that all people, us included, are affected by the image-bombardment of the contemporary world. I think it sometimes impairs the ability to understand one's own self-interest, see available choices, establish complex identity shifts, and renders many alienated from others and themselves. Now, once again I'd argue along Foucauldian lines suggesting that while this influence and impairment on the individual could vary in quantity/quality, it cannot be escaped.
I think all are "capable" of reason and rationality, but many develop a certain psychosis or ideological attachment that enables blockers against these traits. I think that its very problematic to attempt to classify those who are in a "normal" sphere or those in "abonormal," and perhaps this shouldn't be our task. Instead we should recognize its existence as a symptom of the world we live in, (and probably capitalism, ;) )
I think that the virtues of a democratic liberal society are not mutually exclusive to such a society, but are only aspects of it. In other words, I surely agree you can find similar virtues in Stalin's rhetoric or political aspirations, (or any political system or thought), but I approach liberal democracy as the goal of the world we currently live in, (our 'failing' American (or western) experiment).
Yah, Al Gore's book is wanky and dry : But - I think its interesting to see such an analysis (for better or worse) in the lens of popular culture.
Agreed your extension on propaganda. Of course, propaganda is not limited to the state. And I also agree that there is no outside, or, perhaps, there is nothing outside of everything. Foucault’s thesis is an essentially materialist thesis: everything that is is, and nothing is outside of what is. And here I think Lucretius and the Epicureans are so important analogically for politics: the thesis that everything that is is composed of atoms and void. This “and void” I think is necessary to underline because it points to the necessity, in politics, of particular gaps, holes, and/or openings whereby new forms of praxis can emerge. I think there can be an outside of the particular power politics, but, of course, it is rare, there is a hole which we must find to include ourselves out. As cliché as this might be: the revolution will not be televised in its concrete happening. The subjects of an event will always and only come to know of its evental status after the instance(s) of its happening.
I also certainly agree (but I’m quite sure we both disagree) with mass communications affects upon us. And I think that it certainly does pose as a major distraction that we by necessity must overcome, however, difficult demands this would require of thought, and even if we cannot escape it absolutely. I also think one of the fundamental symptoms of the contemporary world is also this inability to overcome these types of obstacles that we are confronted with, which is where psychoanalysis, also, I think, is demanded to be thought today. But I also think that this failure to overcome these can lead to certain forms of psychoses, hysterias, and neuroses.
Post a Comment