I see (at least the ToK/UTUA aspect of) the TOK society about attempting to get our "J-I-I Dynamics" on the path to Wisdom.
J-I-I stands for Justification-Investment-Influence, which, of course, I understand via the JH, BIT, and Matrix.
At the cultural level, Justification Systems refer to the linguistic narrative and explicit intersubjective knowledge aspects of our of being.
Investment refers to our embodied actions, what we are spending our work-energy "doing" in the world.
Influence refers to the interplay and exchange (and competition or cooperation) between human persons.
The J-I-I Dynamics of the current situation offer some key reflections, such as:
1. Our justification systems are too fragmented. We (most notably the University/Academy) have failed to develop/overlooked/shattered the need for an organizing frame for the multiplicity of justification systems. [My educational pitch is that the ToK is the first system that gets the picture of time and complexity correct (with its four dimensions of behavioral complexity), and it allows us to assimilate and integrate our fragmented knowledge systems, WHILE allowing for pluralism and a diversity of angles. Hence, the move from a fragmented to an integrated pluralism. We should start with a basic physical, bio, psycho, social (iQuadratic) formula for being human persons. I am a physical object, and the material sciences help me understand my nature as such. I am an organism and the life sciences help me understand my nature as such. I am an animal (a primate) and the (basic) psychological sciences (i.e., the mind, brain, behavior sciences) help me understand my nature as such. I am a person and the social sciences help me understand my nature as such. However, my nature is not *fixed* as such. Self-conscious human beings are not passively determined objects are are merely caused by their past. There is a self-recursive, self-contained feedback loop of justification that connects our past (what has been into what is) into our future (what can and ought to be)].
2. Our investment systems (what we are doing in the world) are changing rapidly and chaotically. As McLuhan notes, the techno-environment changes our constitution. How do we ensure (or at least reflect on) the harmony between our investments and technology going forward?
3. We live in a social relational matrix and, according to the Influence Matrix, we are built to seek social influence and relational value via the dimensions of power, love and freedom. Central to the good life is a society that maximizes mutual relational value, as opposed to the reverse. The more chaotic and fragmented our investment and justification systems, the harder mutual relational value will be. When humans are confused, uncertain and facing a changing dynamic, they retreat into threat-based defensive postures, where the other is a danger rather than a potential source of nourishment.
Bottom line, what can we do to help get the J-I-I Dynamics right, as the world of change accelerates around us?
Peace,
Gregg
-----Original Message-----
From: tree of knowledge system discussion <[log in to unmask]> On Behalf Of Mark Stahlman
Sent: Tuesday, August 14, 2018 8:18 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Democracy, Memes and Technology??
Waldemar:
Thanks! Yes -- I rarely get "irritated" and consider this group Gregg
has assembled to be one of the most interesting that I've encountered
in a long time . . . <g>
However . . .
"We need to find a technique to “alter” memes, similar to genetic
changes induced via CRISPR technology. I think that is what the TOK
Society struggles with (at least in part) - editing memes and acting
to multiply and promote the edited memes."
This is hopefully *not* what we are doing . . . !!
Human genes *cannot* be "edited" to produce a better human. Cannot be done.
"Memes" are by their very nature the problem -- not the solution.
They are simply the way that TELEVISION works and that is what has so
deeply messed us up. If you edit them, they will still be the problem.
Here's a meme: Just turn it off!
Under RADIO conditions, no one would have imagined an "all-volunteer"
military, for instance. It was only after Vietnam appeared on
*television* that this idea took hold. Vietnam is also where "social
science" went off the rails -- driven by the TELEVISION fantasy of
"saving the world" (which earlier generations of Americans would have
laughed at.)
Ron Robin (now head of the University of Haifa) even wrote about it --
"At the height of the Cold War, the U.S. government enlisted the aid
of a select group of psychologists, sociologists, and political
scientists to blueprint enemy behavior. Not only did these academics
bring sophisticated concepts to what became a project of demonizing
communist societies, but they influenced decision-making in the map
rooms, prison camps, and battlefields of the Korean War and in
Vietnam. With verve and insight, Ron Robin tells the intriguing story
of the rise of behavioral scientists in government and how their
potentially dangerous, "American" assumptions about human behavior
would shape U.S. views of domestic disturbances and insurgencies in
Third World countries for decades to come.
"Based at government-funded think tanks, the experts devised
provocative solutions for key Cold War dilemmas, including
psychological warfare projects, negotiation strategies during the
Korean armistice, and morale studies in the Vietnam era. Robin
examines factors that shaped the scientists' thinking and explores
their psycho-cultural and rational choice explanations for enemy
behavior. He reveals how the academics' intolerance for complexity
ultimately reduced the nation's adversaries to borderline psychotics,
ignored revolutionary social shifts in post-World War II Asia, and
promoted the notion of a maniacal threat facing the United States.
"Putting the issue of scientific validity aside, Robin presents the
first extensive analysis of the intellectual underpinnings of Cold War
behavioral sciences in a book that will be indispensable reading for
anyone interested in the era and its legacy."
https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.amazon.com_Making-2DCold-2DWar-2DEnemy-2DMilitary-2DIntellectual_dp_0691114552&d=DwIFaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=4MqT4T48ZmJrkGJELZvYXOap7Ml8ZHUiUM3qSPZm-8g&s=Qah9YFN5bVYwFTHYWzooD6UKMU95lalQMBqGsQnClyY&e=
"Memes" are simply a product of the Cold War -- which is to say,
psychological warfare. When Nike tells you to "Just Do It!" they are
making war on you. Fight back by eliminating memes . . . !!
"Meme Wars" has been the goal of Kalle Lasn for many years now. He
started "Adbusters" as a magazine promoting this form of warfare, in
the pages of which he coined the phrase "Occupy Wallstreet" -- which
turned into a circus designed to appear on the 6PM *television* news.
Basta!!
https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.amazon.com_Meme-2DWars-2DDestruction-2DNeoclassical-2DEconomics_dp_1609804732&d=DwIFaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=4MqT4T48ZmJrkGJELZvYXOap7Ml8ZHUiUM3qSPZm-8g&s=KC27C_7sBQydf8MXC7mPoJhXHimEWsEmv78dxITvih8&e=
Under DIGITAL conditions, we have begun to restore our "secondary
consciousness," as the *psychedelics* article calls it (remembering
that it was *television* that promoted psychedelics in the first
place.) We are no longer compelled to give up civilization to embrace
"entropy" (which is actually just another term for "complexity," a
discipline that began with the name "chaos theory.") We don't have to
be driven by make-believe anymore.
I was the last student of Julian Jaynes. He was a Princeton
psychology professor who was fired and sent home to die. His only
book is "The Origin of Consciousness in the Breakdown of the Bicameral
Mind" (1976). The modern "remnant" of what he called "bicameral" is
DSM's schizophrenia -- the hallmark of which is hallucinations of the
sort generated by certain "psychedelics." The early use of
psychedelics referred to them as "psychotomemetics." The fact that
psychologists are now proposing that we stimulate *psychosis* in order
to "cure" people is crazy. Hippie crazy. TELEVISION crazy.
https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.amazon.com_Origin-2DConsciousness-2DBreakdown-2DBicameral-2DMind_dp_0618057072&d=DwIFaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=4MqT4T48ZmJrkGJELZvYXOap7Ml8ZHUiUM3qSPZm-8g&s=WPOBOWeN7woYyCxzpFo4gAkeiYCh0EJvEaTjZ80kbI8&e=
Instead of drug-induced "artificial insanity," we have the opportunity
to embrace actual human sanity -- which is to say civilization (which
was unknown before the "breakdown of the bicameral mind.")
Hopefully, that is what the ToK is pointing us towards . . . !!
Mark
Quoting [log in to unmask]:
> Mark:
>
> Thank you for your thoughtful reply.
> I appreciate that my asking about your thoughts/posts prompts a
> reply, rather than irritation - at least it doesn’t appear to, since
> you do reply thoughtfully and politely.
>
> In short, I reply that you and I are apparently quite of a mind with
> regards to your queries.
> I was, and remain, deeply unsettled by the USA going to a full
> volunteer armed forces.
> It is hard to avoid the conclusion that this one step has
> contributed significantly to “constant warfare.”
> I don’t doubt the dedication or valor of our armed forces and their leaders.
> But, am concerned that having an all volunteer force significantly
> enables military leaders to promote and engage military solutions.
> That’s no aspersion on the leaders - but, that is what they are
> trained in and it is not surprising, at least to me, that the all
> volunteer force serves to enable their proclivities to employ the
> military solution - even thought some of the problems don’t seem to
> lend themselves to such resolution.
>
> It makes sense, at least to me, that having a well trained and
> possibly well-experienced core cadre makes sense.
> But, when non-volunteers (ie, drafted) are taken into the armed
> forces there is also an expanded and enlarged involvement of the
> general populace - ie the voters.
> More than once (ie, Vietnam), I have seen the general populace exert
> decisional influence on the pursuit of military involvement.
> Eisenhower’s caution of the military-industrial complex seems not to
> be simply a supposition.
>
> And, I agree, who are we fighting and, more importantly, why are we
> doing so is confused.
> I don’t have pat answers, especially since there are so many
> individual conflicts.
> In some respects, we are in a Strangleovian era characterized by
> misleading euphemisms - of which you name a few.
>
> And, advertising?
> More to be endured than anything.
> But, banning advertising? - - - - Heavens, we’ll put the spin Drs
> out of work!
> No, wait a minute, that’s a plus, isn’t it? 🤪
> Yes, expressions such as “kinetic” and “collateral damage” only fail
> to hid the horrors if we choose to allow that to occur.
> We need to find a technique to “alter” memes, similar to genetic
> changes induced via CRISPR technology.
> I think that is what the TOK Society struggles with (at least in
> part) - editing memes and acting to multiply and promote the edited
> memes.
>
> So, it seems our Wittgensteinian word games have ended up plaguing
> us - they aren’t so much fun anymore!
>
> I suspect “we” need to step back from “the precipice” even if (or
> maybe because) the “other” won’t.
> As a long-time SciFi fan, I like your allusion to Skynet - a
> frightening metaphor - or simile - or, whatever.
>
> Best regards,
>
> Waldemar
>
> Waldemar A Schmidt, PhD, MD
> (Perseveret et Percipiunt)
> 503.631.8044
>
> Strive not to be a success, but rather to be of value. (A Einstein)
>
>
>
>
>
>
>> On Aug 12, 2018, at 1:15 AM, Mark Stahlman <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>>
>> Waldemar:
>>
>> Thanks. Since you are in the habit of asking people what they mean
>> by the terms they use, I'll return the favor: Precipice . . . ??
>>
>> We all live in a constant state-of-war. "We have always been at
>> war with Eastasia." This is, however, a psychological war and, as
>> Orwell suggested, the resulting and unrelenting *fear* is the basis
>> of our "1984."
>>
>> But who is fighting whom? And for what? "Hearts and minds" are at stake.
>>
>> Here is a post from my Center's mailing list that might point to
>> some answers --
>>
>> We have all lived our lives under conditions of non-stop
>> *psychological* warfare, to which we've been forced to comply.
>> That's what "Cold War" means.
>>
>> When Imagination is overplayed, it becomes Fantasy. When people
>> "learn to stop worrying and love the bomb," as Dr. Strangelove put
>> it, our souls have become deeply disordered. "Mad Men" produce a
>> "mad" population -- which, of course, also became the acronym,
>> Mutually Assured Destruction (with all it connections to RAND, from
>> which we [i.e. the Center] were also spawned.)
>>
>> I've always wondered how Steven Pinker &al get away with *not*
>> considering "advertising" -- which was a focus-of-study for McLuhan
>> -- as violence. It is interesting that we have adopted "kinetic"
>> as a better term for *efficient* cause and that the military refers
>> to actually going in and killing people as "kinetic warfare,"
>> qualifying the larger framework, and that now we are being told
>> that the Russians are responsible for "information warfare."
>>
>> Why not Ford and Chevy . . . ??
>>
>> The whole "Humane Technology" theme (backed by my old "student"
>> Roger McNamee), along with all the examination of how our emotions
>> are manipulated by Facebook &al -- Area 8 in the Omidyar "Ethical
>> OS" danger-wheel -- cannot end well for the advertising world.
>> What happens when advertising is *removed* as a viable option for
>> funding businesses? What happens when people just "turn it off"?
>>
>> Efforts to somehow carve-off "direct-mail" as the culprit, instead
>> of directly targeting *memes* and all other forms of manipulation
>> (or "persuasion") will fail. We are heading into a situation where
>> "promotion" is viewed as criminal activity . . . !!
>>
>> What will the world look like when "make love not war" means that
>> *all* advertising is considered to be a "war crime"?
>>
>> Mark
>>
>> P.S. The typical (superficial) description of the *war* we are all
>> fighting is "culture-war" or "counter-culture." Gregg's usage of
>> the term "Culture" will need to offer an explanation of how this
>> happens to us. Jordan Peterson is successful because there is a
>> population who want to "fight back" (which, based on his audience,
>> is clearly young white males) in that "war." But the fight against
>> "identity politics" is the *old* war -- given to us by TELEVISION
>> (which carves up the population into "psycho-graphics," so that the
>> right people can be "targeted") -- and, as we know, that's what the
>> "generals" always tend to fight.
>>
>> The *new* "culture-war" is quite different. It is between the
>> robots and the humans. This is the culture-war given to us by
>> DIGITAL. Precipice? The new precipice is now described as the
>> "Singularity" -- defined as the cross-over when machines become
>> more "intelligent" than humans and we have figured out how to
>> "upload" our personalities (aka "souls") into them so that we can
>> become "immortal." This is the culture-war in which the next
>> Jordan Peterson will fight and, yes, "Skynet" is the enemy (which
>> is to say, those people who are trying to build it, disguised as
>> "colonies on Mars" &c.) But, will we step back from this precipice?
>>
>> Quoting [log in to unmask] <mailto:[log in to unmask]>:
>>
>>> Cogent thoughts for our present dilemma, Mark.
>>> But, if “we” step back from the precipice, will “others” do so, as well?
>>> And, what will we be stepping back towards or for?
>>>
>>> Best regards,
>>>
>>> Waldemar
>>>
>>> Waldemar A Schmidt, PhD, MD
>>> (Perseveret et Percipiunt)
>>> 503.631.8044
>>>
>>> Strive not to be a success, but rather to be of value. (A Einstein)
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> On Aug 11, 2018, at 2:25 PM, Mark Stahlman <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> ToKers:
>>>>
>>>> My girlfriend Debbie just sent me the article below, sent to her
>>>> by her brother in Israel. It retreives the Walter Lippmann/John
>>>> Dewey "debates" (and more), as initiated by LIppmann's 1922
>>>> "Public Opinion." Lippmann had been a part of the WW I
>>>> "propaganda" efforts (i.e. early psychological warfare), the
>>>> experience of which he turns into the statement that voter
>>>> preferences are based “not on direct and certain knowledge but on
>>>> pictures” given to us.
>>>>
>>>> Nowadays, the more common name for these pictures are "memes" and
>>>> I would suggest that "democracy" (as most people think of it
>>>> today) cannot exist without them. In fact, it is one itself.
>>>> This is the "anthropomorphic rats in a maze with the illusion of
>>>> free-will" situation that Gregory Bateson talked about in 1941.
>>>> This is the rejection of the "authoritarian personality" written
>>>> about by T. Adorno at the root of Social Psychology (as it was
>>>> launched after WW II, based on an enhanced version of
>>>> pscyhological warfare.)
>>>>
>>>> While Lippmann [1889-1974] was brought up in an earlier ELECTRIC
>>>> environment, he would live to see the advent of TELEVISION --
>>>> which, in many ways, is the "perfect" environment to deliver
>>>> these "pictures" to the population. While "mind control" and
>>>> "brainwashing" are themselves memes which reflect people's
>>>> concerns under *television* conditions, they mostly obscure what
>>>> is going on and the actual psychological "mechanisms" involved
>>>> are generally unknown to (or unspecified by) most who comment on
>>>> these matters.
>>>>
>>>> In particular, focusing on the "message" is a fundamental
>>>> mistake. I first got into this "debate" when I met Doug Rushkoff
>>>> in 1995 and invited him to come to a monthly event I organized
>>>> called "Cybersalon," where I wanted him to discuss his then-new
>>>> book "Media Virus." LIke Adam Westoby and many others, Doug was
>>>> convinced that "good memes" could change society for the better.
>>>> Eventually, he came to understand that this surely *cannot* work
>>>> and that, instead, it is the process of
>>>> meme-generation/propagation that really matters.
>>>>
>>>> In fact, it is the *medium* that "shapes our behaviors and
>>>> attitudes" -- not the specific "advertisements/jingles." What
>>>> seems to always be left out when these topics come up is a
>>>> detailed grasp of *formal* causes (i.e. psycho-technolgical
>>>> environments) and their relationship to our "senses" in the
>>>> process of how we form our "perception" of the world. For that,
>>>> McLuhan is required.
>>>>
>>>> The further problem -- touched on by Lippmann but largely ignored
>>>> by others -- is that taking *responsiblity* is fundamental in
>>>> terms of what we are *willing* to understand about the world.
>>>> Outside of our personal lives, few people have any wider
>>>> responsiblities -- which is the basic flaw in the "democracy
>>>> myth." Not only do people have no clue what to do, they
>>>> honestly don't care (thus elections that are driven by <50% voter
>>>> turnout.)
>>>>
>>>> Convincing people that they should care about something they
>>>> really have no connection with -- North Korea. Supreme Court
>>>> picks, Russian election interference &c (i.e. everything on CNN)
>>>> -- is completely outside of people's immendiate lives and,
>>>> therefore, not something that (under usual conditions) that
>>>> people would know anything about. However, if they are told that
>>>> they need to "save the world" -- which, of course, they couldn't
>>>> do even if they tried all day long -- only forces people to rely
>>>> on "pictures" (aka memes) all the more.
>>>>
>>>> Democracy is *not* the "form" of the US government -- quite on
>>>> purpose. Those who wrote the Constitution (and particularly the
>>>> "Federalist Papers") were quite clear about this. Democracy is a
>>>> "degenerate" form of constitutional government to be aggressively
>>>> avoided -- as Aristotle made clear in his "Politics" and as
>>>> everyone who has carefully considered these matters has known for
>>>> the past two+ millenia.
>>>>
>>>> Aristotle knew all this quite personally. Athens and its
>>>> democracy was, by today's standards (and even known by many
>>>> others at that time) a seriously "crazy" place. It actually
>>>> voted to kill Socrates. It regularly banned people from Athens
>>>> (including Aristotle, who left twice, and then his school was
>>>> kicked out after he died.)
>>>>
>>>> In our lives, Democracy = TELEVISION and, I'm quite confident,
>>>> our memetic enthusiasm for democracy today will decline
>>>> dramatically over the next 10+ years, as we retrieve our memories
>>>> under DIGITAL conditions . . . !!
>>>>
>>>> Mark
>>>>
>>>> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.vox.com_2018_8_9_17540448_walter-2Dlippmann-2Ddemocracy-2Dtrump-2Dbrexit&d=DwIFaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=aCzASjeVXbREiZ3ekcU6oIuCtu9WXwwDjtdnrs4f4Gk&s=bxE4u50AKfbuGoRwuqTJtmATi9bSIo2h9n_nRhLlOsQ&e=
>>>> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.vox.com_2018_8_9_17540448_walter-2Dlippmann-2Ddemocracy-2Dtrump-2Dbrexit&d=DwIFaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=aCzASjeVXbREiZ3ekcU6oIuCtu9WXwwDjtdnrs4f4Gk&s=bxE4u50AKfbuGoRwuqTJtmATi9bSIo2h9n_nRhLlOsQ&e=>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Intellectuals have said democracy is failing for a century. They
>>>> were wrong.
>>>>
>>>> Walter Lippmann’s famous critique of democracy revisited.
>>>>
>>>> By Sean Illing
>>>> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.vox.com_authors_sean-2Dilling&d=DwMFaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=tmVNgJdlbrf6XPR_8xuRbCi2vI5OD-3-pSPZ5MO2WV4&s=_Hr_KxLeTQwKuvccXZI66WOLJGjan8mX5QYhLIuwOm4&e= <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.vox.com_authors_sean-2Dilling&d=DwMFaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=tmVNgJdlbrf6XPR_8xuRbCi2vI5OD-3-pSPZ5MO2WV4&s=_Hr_KxLeTQwKuvccXZI66WOLJGjan8mX5QYhLIuwOm4&e=>>@seanilling <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.twitter.com_seanilling&d=DwMFaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=tmVNgJdlbrf6XPR_8xuRbCi2vI5OD-3-pSPZ5MO2WV4&s=fq5PLfG6JoB7C5iXJKtzoNncMy10JDI1j_FuHsfrDxc&e= <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.twitter.com_seanilling&d=DwMFaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=tmVNgJdlbrf6XPR_8xuRbCi2vI5OD-3-pSPZ5MO2WV4&s=fq5PLfG6JoB7C5iXJKtzoNncMy10JDI1j_FuHsfrDxc&e=>>[log in to unmask] <mailto:[log in to unmask]> <mailto:[log in to unmask] <mailto:[log in to unmask]>> Aug 9, 2018, 8:10am
>>>> EDT
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Walter Lippmann’s Public Opinion
>>>> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__go.redirectingat.com-3Fid-3D66960X1516588-26xs-3D1-26url-3Dhttps-253A-252F-252Fwww.amazon.com-252FPublic-2DOpinion-2DWalter-2DLippmann-252Fdp-252F0684833271&d=DwMFaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=tmVNgJdlbrf6XPR_8xuRbCi2vI5OD-3-pSPZ5MO2WV4&s=EGnjE-dQU2_Gj7Bcfa8fP6vIs1FiB89FVGy-HpW5nvQ&e= <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__go.redirectingat.com-3Fid-3D66960X1516588-26xs-3D1-26url-3Dhttps-253A-252F-252Fwww.amazon.com-252FPublic-2DOpinion-2DWalter-2DLippmann-252Fdp-252F0684833271&d=DwMFaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=tmVNgJdlbrf6XPR_8xuRbCi2vI5OD-3-pSPZ5MO2WV4&s=EGnjE-dQU2_Gj7Bcfa8fP6vIs1FiB89FVGy-HpW5nvQ&e=>>, published in 1922, is the most persuasive critique of democracy I’ve ever read. Shortly after it was published, John Dewey, the great defender of democracy and the most important American philosopher of the era, called Lippmann’s book “the most effective indictment of democracy as currently
>>>> conceived.”
>>>>
>>>> Lippmann poses a straightforward question: can citizens achieve a
>>>> basic knowledge of public affairs and then make reasonable
>>>> choices about what to do? His answer is no, and the whole point
>>>> of the book is to expose the gap between what we say democracy is
>>>> and what we know about how human beings actually behave.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Most democratic theorists in the 20th century believed that more
>>>> information would produce a more informed citizenry, and a more
>>>> informed citizenry would make good on the core promise of
>>>> democracy. They were wrong. More information doesn’t necessarily
>>>> lead to more enlightened civic participation — it is just as
>>>> likely to lead to more noise, more partisanship, and more
>>>> ignorance (click here
>>>> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__go.redirectingat.com-3Fid-3D66960X1516588-26xs-3D1-26url-3Dhttps-253A-252F-252Fwww.amazon.com-252FDemocracy-2DRealists-2DElections-2DResponsive-2DGovernment-252Fdp-252F0691178240-253Fsa-2Dno-2Dredirect-253D1-2526pldnSite-253D1&d=DwMFaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=tmVNgJdlbrf6XPR_8xuRbCi2vI5OD-3-pSPZ5MO2WV4&s=R95PI654cZkYIRidTdPo4jAF8s4YWUjmSJlpu5bZ0cM&e= <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__go.redirectingat.com-3Fid-3D66960X1516588-26xs-3D1-26url-3Dhttps-253A-252F-252Fwww.amazon.com-252FDemocracy-2DRealists-2DElections-2DResponsive-2DGovernment-252Fdp-252F0691178240-253Fsa-2Dno-2Dredirect-253D1-2526pldnSite-253D1&d=DwMFaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=tmVNgJdlbrf6XPR_8xuRbCi2vI5OD-3-pSPZ5MO2WV4&s=R95PI654cZkYIRidTdPo4jAF8s4YWUjmSJlpu5bZ0cM&e=>> and here <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__go.redirectingat.com-3Fid-3D66960X1516588-26xs-3D1-26url-3Dhttps-253A-252F-252Fwww.amazon.com-252FStealth-2DDemocracy-2DAmericans-2DGovernment-2DPsychology-252Fdp-252F0521009863-253Fsa-2Dno-2Dredirect-253D1-2526pldnSite-253D1&d=DwMFaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=tmVNgJdlbrf6XPR_8xuRbCi2vI5OD-3-pSPZ5MO2WV4&s=q30a-qmyar0tr35THuuf_jAkAxgqBnaQ_jOBBwrwwB8&e= <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__go.redirectingat.com-3Fid-3D66960X1516588-26xs-3D1-26url-3Dhttps-253A-252F-252Fwww.amazon.com-252FStealth-2DDemocracy-2DAmericans-2DGovernment-2DPsychology-252Fdp-252F0521009863-253Fsa-2Dno-2Dredirect-253D1-2526pldnSite-253D1&d=DwMFaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=tmVNgJdlbrf6XPR_8xuRbCi2vI5OD-3-pSPZ5MO2WV4&s=q30a-qmyar0tr35THuuf_jAkAxgqBnaQ_jOBBwrwwB8&e=>> and here <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__go.redirectingat.com-3Fid-3D66960X1516588-26xs-3D1-2!
6url-3Dhttps-253A-252F-252Fwww.amazon.com-252FNeither-2DLiberal-2Dnor-2DConservative-2DIdeological-252Fdp-252F022645245X-252F-253FpldnSite-253D1&d=DwMFaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=tmVNgJdlbrf6XPR_8xuRbCi2vI5OD-3-pSPZ5MO2WV4&s=eLhbDVp54FZBs8udkh-PJCJcVxv22QeaNQM9_DDaj8A&e= <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__go.redirectingat.com-3Fid-3D66960X1516588-26xs-3D1-26url-3Dhttps-253A-252F-252Fwww.amazon.com-252FNeither-2DLiberal-2Dnor-2DConservative-2DIdeological-252Fdp-252F022645245X-252F-253FpldnSite-253D1&d=DwMFaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=tmVNgJdlbrf6XPR_8xuRbCi2vI5OD-3-pSPZ5MO2WV4&s=eLhbDVp54FZBs8udkh-PJCJcVxv22QeaNQM9_DDaj8A&e=>> for research backing this up). Indeed, more informed voters practice more partisan
>>>> self-deception.
>>>>
>>>> The second half of the book attempts to solve all the problems
>>>> the first part unearths. Here Lippmann fails spectacularly, and
>>>> he fails because his solution to the problems of democracy is to
>>>> abandon everything that makes democracy worthwhile. He couldn’t
>>>> figure out how to intelligently guide public opinion, so he
>>>> sought to transcend it altogether by creating a “bureau of
>>>> experts” that would decide public policy on behalf of the public.
>>>> But that isn’t a democracy at all; it’s a technocracy at best, an
>>>> oligarchy at worst.
>>>>
>>>> Today, Lippmann’s pessimism is fashionable. After Brexit
>>>> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.vox.com_2016_6_24_12024560_brexit-2Da-2Dshort-2Dsimple-2Dexplanation&d=DwMFaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=tmVNgJdlbrf6XPR_8xuRbCi2vI5OD-3-pSPZ5MO2WV4&s=6L5LTzOuOEEazURcQFofS-49XxvqdPKM3LLXEl5UOdk&e= <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.vox.com_2016_6_24_12024560_brexit-2Da-2Dshort-2Dsimple-2Dexplanation&d=DwMFaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=tmVNgJdlbrf6XPR_8xuRbCi2vI5OD-3-pSPZ5MO2WV4&s=6L5LTzOuOEEazURcQFofS-49XxvqdPKM3LLXEl5UOdk&e=>> and the election of Donald Trump, a whole genre of nonfiction literature has emerged, seeking to explain how democracies die <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__go.redirectingat.com_-3Fid-3D66960X1516588-26xs-3D1-26url-3Dhttps-253A-252F-252Fwww.amazon.com-252FHow-2DDemocracies-2DDie-2DSteven-2DLevitsky-252Fdp-252F1524762938&d=DwMFaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=tmVNgJdlbrf6XPR_8xuRbCi2vI5OD-3-pSPZ5MO2WV4&s=IvOIan_hlIqAT6112EguT9STYy4pwVqvzp00Dpd4q7g&e= <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__go.redirectingat.com_-3Fid-3D66960X1516588-26xs-3D1-26url-3Dhttps-253A-252F-252Fwww.amazon.com-252FHow-2DDemocracies-2DDie-2DSteven-2DLevitsky-252Fdp-252F1524762938&d=DwMFaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=tmVNgJdlbrf6XPR_8xuRbCi2vI5OD-3-pSPZ5MO2WV4&s=IvOIan_hlIqAT6112EguT9STYy4pwVqvzp00Dpd4q7g&e=>>, or why Western liberalism is in retreat <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__go.redirectingat.com_-3Fid-3D66960X1516588-26xs-3D1-26url-3Dhttps-253A-252F-252Fwww.amazon.com-252FRetreat-2DWestern-2DLiberalism-2DEdward-2DLuce-252Fdp-252F0802127398&d=DwMFaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=tmVNgJdlbrf6XPR_8xuRbCi2vI5OD-3-pSPZ5MO2WV4&s=XJImMcmdXyztJWOYS!
2Qlui-up8Q7lD8s-YWh5orHnAw&e= <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__go.redirectingat.com_-3Fid-3D66960X1516588-26xs-3D1-26url-3Dhttps-253A-252F-252Fwww.amazon.com-252FRetreat-2DWestern-2DLiberalism-2DEdward-2DLuce-252Fdp-252F0802127398&d=DwMFaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=tmVNgJdlbrf6XPR_8xuRbCi2vI5OD-3-pSPZ5MO2WV4&s=XJImMcmdXyztJWOYS2Qlui-up8Q7lD8s-YWh5orHnAw&e=>>. Pundits and analysts have argued that democracy is “decaying” <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.washingtonpost.com_opinions_democracy-2Dis-2Ddecaying-2Dworldwide-2Damerica-2Disnt-2Dimmune_2018_02_22_ff670f88-2D1813-2D11e8-2D92c9-2D376b4fe57ff7-5Fstory.html-3Futm-5Fterm-3D.94e5e69b819b&d=DwMFaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=tmVNgJdlbrf6XPR_8xuRbCi2vI5OD-3-pSPZ5MO2WV4&s=09K2ly_zcBZevV6rUWwLRdSsSwhIKCGSe3y86xW_laU&e= <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.washingtonpost.com_opinions_democracy-2Dis-2Ddecaying-2Dworldwide-2Damerica-2Disnt-2Dimmune_2018_02_22_ff670f88-2D1813-2D11e8-2D92c9-2D376b4fe57ff7-5Fstory.html-3Futm-5Fterm-3D.94e5e69b819b&d=DwMFaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=tmVNgJdlbrf6XPR_8xuRbCi2vI5OD-3-pSPZ5MO2WV4&s=09K2ly_zcBZevV6rUWwLRdSsSwhIKCGSe3y86xW_laU&e=>> worldwide, and that America is morphing into an authoritarian
>>>> state.
>>>>
>>>> Which is why it’s important to note that as powerful as
>>>> Lippmann’s diagnosis of democracy’s flaws is, it seems to have
>>>> missed something essential about the elasticity of democratic
>>>> systems. After all, here we are, almost a century later, and
>>>> America has become more powerful, more tolerant, more wealthy,
>>>> and even more democratic. Perhaps that divergence contains
>>>> lessons for our present moment of panic, too.
>>>>
>>>> The myth of democracy
>>>>
>>>> Lippmann begins his critique by exploding the romanticized vision
>>>> of democracy espoused by the American Founders.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> They imagined that citizens, no matter how sprawling the state
>>>> became, would still function much as they did in the small,
>>>> self-contained communities that existed in the 18th century.
>>>> Which is to say, they would be asked to make decisions about
>>>> issues with which they had direct experience. They were thinking
>>>> of white, male, property-owning farmers who understood their
>>>> local environment, knew their neighbors, and didn’t live in a
>>>> highly industrialized society.
>>>>
>>>> As Lippmann put it, “The democratic ideal, as Jefferson moulded
>>>> it, consisted of an ideal environment and a selected class.” The
>>>> racism and sexism notwithstanding, that environment looks nothing
>>>> like ours, and the range of issues voters are expected to know
>>>> something about today vastly exceeds the demands at the time of
>>>> the founding.
>>>>
>>>> The question for Lippmann, then, wasn’t whether the average
>>>> person was intelligent enough to make decisions about public
>>>> policy; it was whether the average person could ever know enough
>>>> to choose intelligently. And he made the point using himself as
>>>> an example:
>>>>
>>>> My sympathies are with [the citizen], for I believe that he has
>>>> been saddled with an impossible task and that he is asked to
>>>> practice an unattainable ideal. I find it so myself for, although
>>>> public business is my main interest and I give most of my time to
>>>> watching it, I cannot find time to do what is expected of me in
>>>> the theory of democracy; that is, to know what is going on and to
>>>> have an opinion worth expressing on every question which
>>>> confronts a self-governing community.
>>>>
>>>> You might read this and think, “Citizens don’t have to have an
>>>> intelligent opinion on every issue confronting the community.
>>>> Instead, they choose the party they trust to serve their
>>>> interests.” On this view, citizens don’t need to be
>>>> “omnicompetent,” to borrow Lippmann’s term, they just have to
>>>> know enough to pick the team that represents their interests. But
>>>> to do that, voters have to know what their interests are, and
>>>> which party actually represents them.
>>>>
>>>> There’s no vision of democracy worth defending that doesn’t
>>>> assume a minimum level of competence from a majority of voters.
>>>> Lippmann doubted this level of mastery was possible because
>>>> citizens are too removed from the world to form concrete
>>>> judgments. Consequently, they’re forced to live in
>>>> “pseudo-environments,” in which they reduce the world to
>>>> stereotypes in order to render it intelligible.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Lippmann was an integral part of the Committee on Public
>>>> Information, the agency tasked with creating propaganda to gin up
>>>> support for World War I. That experience taught him how
>>>> manipulable the public was, how easily people surrender to
>>>> compelling narratives. We’re told about the world before we see
>>>> it, we imagine things before we experience them, and we become
>>>> hostages to these preconceptions.
>>>>
>>>> These narratives are a defense against uncertainty. They present
>>>> us with an ordered picture of the world, to which our tastes and
>>>> stereotypes and values are anchored. Which is why it’s so hard to
>>>> separate people from their dogmas. “Any disturbance of the
>>>> stereotypes,” Lippmann says, “seems like an attack upon the
>>>> foundations of the universe ... It is an attack upon the
>>>> foundations of our universe.”
>>>>
>>>> Lippmann’s point is that voter preferences are based “not on
>>>> direct and certain knowledge but on pictures” given to us. The
>>>> question is then, where do we get our pictures? The most obvious
>>>> answer is the media. If the media can provide accurate pictures
>>>> of the world, citizens ought to have the information they need to
>>>> perform their democratic duties. Lippmann says this works in
>>>> theory but not in practice. The world, he argues, is big and it
>>>> moves fast and the speed of communication in the age of mass
>>>> media forces journalists to speak through slogans and simplified
>>>> interpretations. (And this doesn’t even touch the problem of
>>>> partisanship in a commercialized media landscape.)
>>>>
>>>> Somewhere early in the book, Lippmann cites a famous passage from
>>>> Plato’s Republic that describes human beings as cave-dwellers who
>>>> spend their lives watching shadows on a wall and take that to be
>>>> their true reality. Our present condition is scarcely different,
>>>> Lippmann implies. We’re locked in a cave of media
>>>> misrepresentations and we take our caricatured pictures of the
>>>> world to be an accurate reflection of what’s actually happening.
>>>>
>>>> “News and truth are not the same thing”
>>>>
>>>> If Lippmann is right, more and better information won’t save us,
>>>> because the problem isn’t access to facts; it’s flaws in human
>>>> cognition. But even if he’s wrong about this, and I think he
>>>> might be, we’re still screwed because of certain constraints
>>>> imposed on the press.
>>>>
>>>> Lippmann says the press is like a roaming spotlight, bouncing
>>>> from topic to topic, story to story, illuminating things but
>>>> never fully explaining them. “The function of news,” he writes,
>>>> “is to signalize an event, the function of truth is to bring to
>>>> light the hidden facts, to set them into relation with each
>>>> other, and make a picture of reality on which men can act.”
>>>>
>>>> This is a strange way of making a simple point: in the world of
>>>> news, there is often no objective test for what’s true. If we’re
>>>> reporting sports statistics or poll numbers or stock futures,
>>>> then objectivity is easy. But when it comes to analyzing economic
>>>> conditions or the value of labor unions or the merits of
>>>> universal health care or the limits of state power, there is no
>>>> such test. What we’re doing isn’t uncovering truth so much as
>>>> constructing narratives, and those narratives reflect our biases,
>>>> our experience, our ignorance, our hopes, our confusion. We see
>>>> reality through a glass darkly.
>>>>
>>>> But even if we set aside this question of whether the press can
>>>> reliably tell the truth, there remains an intractable demand-side
>>>> problem: readers, for the most part, aren’t paying for news, so
>>>> publications need advertisers; to get advertisers, you must
>>>> attract readers; and to attract readers, you must pander to the
>>>> audience’s biases. Here’s how Lippmann sums it up:
>>>>
>>>> This is the plight of the reader of the general news. If he is to
>>>> read it at all he must be interested, that is to say, he must
>>>> enter into the situation and care about the outcome ... The more
>>>> passionately involved he becomes, the more he will tend to resent
>>>> not only a different view, but a disturbing bit of news. That is
>>>> why many a newspaper finds that, having honestly evoked the
>>>> partisanship of its readers, it can not easily, supposing the
>>>> editor believes the facts warrant it, change position.
>>>>
>>>> Lippmann’s point was true enough in 1922 — today it is
>>>> indisputable. The media is more fragmented, more competitive,
>>>> more profit-driven. Consequently, news consumption is like
>>>> shopping: you find the source of information that most reflects
>>>> your point of view, and you signal your preference with your
>>>> loyalty.
>>>>
>>>> Here again Lippmann is undermining an assumption baked into most
>>>> democratic theories: we expect the press to “carry the whole
>>>> burden of popular sovereignty” by supplying citizens with the
>>>> truth even though it’s not at all clear most people are
>>>> interested in truth. Is it not obvious, Lippmann asks, that
>>>> people prefer the entertaining and the trivial over the dull and
>>>> the important, or the flattering and the convenient over the
>>>> honest and the difficult?
>>>>
>>>> It’s hard to look at our current moment and conclude that
>>>> Lippmann’s pessimism was misplaced. Truth is as variable as it’s
>>>> ever been, and public trust in the press is at an all-time low
>>>> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__knightfoundation.org_reports_american-2Dviews-2Dtrust-2Dmedia-2Dand-2Ddemocracy&d=DwMFaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=tmVNgJdlbrf6XPR_8xuRbCi2vI5OD-3-pSPZ5MO2WV4&s=OVH6n6yq61MuVOPIXd33qaWTFc-mcvW1d-i7ufhc5hQ&e= <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__knightfoundation.org_reports_american-2Dviews-2Dtrust-2Dmedia-2Dand-2Ddemocracy&d=DwMFaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=tmVNgJdlbrf6XPR_8xuRbCi2vI5OD-3-pSPZ5MO2WV4&s=OVH6n6yq61MuVOPIXd33qaWTFc-mcvW1d-i7ufhc5hQ&e=>>. That stereotypical thinking Lippmann worried about is amplified by a media environment far more commercialized and partisan than he ever imagined. Indeed, public opinion is now so hopelessly cocooned that the president is under investigation <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.vox.com_policy-2Dand-2Dpolitics_2018_2_20_17031772_mueller-2Dindictments-2Dgrand-2Djury&d=DwMFaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=tmVNgJdlbrf6XPR_8xuRbCi2vI5OD-3-pSPZ5MO2WV4&s=_p6_hmIpS3wP-ypnQMFprKtctd4SWu_GnqOWxH2ARDA&e= <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.vox.com_policy-2Dand-2Dpolitics_2018_2_20_17031772_mueller-2Dindictments-2Dgrand-2Djury&d=DwMFaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=tmVNgJdlbrf6XPR_8xuRbCi2vI5OD-3-pSPZ5MO2WV4&s=_p6_hmIpS3wP-ypnQMFprKtctd4SWu_GnqOWxH2ARDA&e=>> for colluding with our primary geopolitical foe and more than half the country doesn’t give a damn <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.cbsnews.com_news_more-2Damericans-2Dnow-2Dsay-2Drussia-2Dinvestigation-2Dis-2Dpolitically-2Dmotivated-2Dcbs-2Dnews-2Dpoll_&d=DwMFaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=tmVNgJdlbrf6XPR_8xuRbCi2vI5OD-3-pSPZ5MO2WV4&s=WJ2wP6H5_DYL!
GYhxwDOrpZfyCssML8seu6xgVnQ7EHE&e=
>>>> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.cbsnews.com_news_more-2Damericans-2Dnow-2Dsay-2Drussia-2Dinvestigation-2Dis-2Dpolitically-2Dmotivated-2Dcbs-2Dnews-2Dpoll_&d=DwMFaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=tmVNgJdlbrf6XPR_8xuRbCi2vI5OD-3-pSPZ5MO2WV4&s=WJ2wP6H5_DYLGYhxwDOrpZfyCssML8seu6xgVnQ7EHE&e=>>.
>>>>
>>>> Lippmann anticipated many of these problems, and yet you can’t
>>>> engage his critique without asking what comes next. Sadly, the
>>>> alternative vision of democracy isn’t actually a vision of
>>>> democracy at all.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> The best he can do is call for a “specialized class” of social
>>>> scientific experts who operate beyond the voters and the
>>>> politicians. In theory, there would be a crop of experts for each
>>>> area of government, and these experts would competently examine
>>>> the facts and then advise government officials. Lippmann believed
>>>> such a system would divorce the “assembling of knowledge” from
>>>> “the control of policy.” And, even more crucially, it would
>>>> ensure that the experts remained independently funded and thus
>>>> free from corrupt motives.
>>>>
>>>> Dewey probably said it best: “No government by experts in which
>>>> the masses do not have the chance to inform the experts as to
>>>> their needs can be anything but an oligarchy managed in the
>>>> interests of the few.” If Lippmann had his way, the public would
>>>> be liberated from its oppressive fictions, but at the price of
>>>> everything just about democracy.
>>>>
>>>> Dewey’s rejoinder
>>>>
>>>> After Public Opinion was released, Lippmann and Dewey entered
>>>> into a long, informal debate about how to fix democracy. Dewey
>>>> was forced to concede Lippmann’s basic point about the folly of
>>>> public opinion. “As matters now stand,” he wrote, “every issue is
>>>> hopelessly entangled in a snarl of emotions, stereotypes and
>>>> irrelevant memories and associations.” Still, he rejected
>>>> Lippmann’s call for a technocratic elite.
>>>>
>>>> For Dewey, everything reduced to a simple question: who is most
>>>> in need of enlightenment, citizens or administrators? What
>>>> Lippmann wanted, whether he realized it or not, was to
>>>> permanently turn citizens into spectators. He assumed that public
>>>> opinion was about the mass of individuals possessing a correct
>>>> representation of the world, and since they could never do this,
>>>> they had to be locked out of the decision-making process.
>>>>
>>>> But Dewey insisted that political knowledge, in a democracy,
>>>> could only come about through conversation among and between
>>>> citizens. The only reality that matters is the reality that
>>>> citizens collectively construct. If you accept, as Lippmann does,
>>>> that the public is atomized and permanently cut off from the
>>>> conversation about public affairs, then you’ve undercut the very
>>>> possibility of democracy. Again, Dewey put it well:
>>>>
>>>> There is no limit to the intellectual endowment which may proceed
>>>> from the flow of social intelligence when that circulates by word
>>>> of mouth from one to another in the communications of the local
>>>> community. That and that only gives reality to public opinion. We
>>>> lie, as Emerson, said, in the lap of an immense intelligence. But
>>>> that intelligence is dormant and its communications are broken,
>>>> inarticulate and faint until it possesses the local community as
>>>> its medium.
>>>>
>>>> I think Dewey is right here, but Lippmann’s point about people
>>>> effectively living in separate worlds still holds. Since Robert
>>>> Putnam’s famous 2000 book Bowling Alone
>>>> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__go.redirectingat.com-3Fid-3D66960X1516588-26xs-3D1-26url-3Dhttps-253A-252F-252Fwww.amazon.com-252FBowling-2DAlone-2DCollapse-2DAmerican-2DCommunity-252Fdp-252F0743203046&d=DwMFaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=tmVNgJdlbrf6XPR_8xuRbCi2vI5OD-3-pSPZ5MO2WV4&s=AFbiaaXcN0jaDRfY0Le-pTEv1DTJri1GIEKRF7CRQGU&e= <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__go.redirectingat.com-3Fid-3D66960X1516588-26xs-3D1-26url-3Dhttps-253A-252F-252Fwww.amazon.com-252FBowling-2DAlone-2DCollapse-2DAmerican-2DCommunity-252Fdp-252F0743203046&d=DwMFaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=tmVNgJdlbrf6XPR_8xuRbCi2vI5OD-3-pSPZ5MO2WV4&s=AFbiaaXcN0jaDRfY0Le-pTEv1DTJri1GIEKRF7CRQGU&e=>>, scholars have lamented the loss of civic bonds in America. At the same time, local newspapers are dying out <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.bbc.com_news_world-2Dus-2Dcanada-2D44688274&d=DwMFaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=tmVNgJdlbrf6XPR_8xuRbCi2vI5OD-3-pSPZ5MO2WV4&s=ZHTgD_JJAzWa5T-3h2TQv13YIjmpMVMBPKddkmaJXf8&e= <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.bbc.com_news_world-2Dus-2Dcanada-2D44688274&d=DwMFaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=tmVNgJdlbrf6XPR_8xuRbCi2vI5OD-3-pSPZ5MO2WV4&s=ZHTgD_JJAzWa5T-3h2TQv13YIjmpMVMBPKddkmaJXf8&e=>> and political discourse is becoming increasingly nationalized, which means most issues are abstract and dominated by tribal allegiance and caricatured right-left
>>>> narratives.
>>>>
>>>> Lippmann feared that the citizenry would abandon the public
>>>> square and give themselves over to propaganda. That’s exactly
>>>> what happened, and yet American democracy has done remarkably
>>>> well over the last century.
>>>>
>>>> How do we make sense of that?
>>>>
>>>> Things are bad, but they’ve always been bad, which means they’re
>>>> not as bad as we think
>>>>
>>>> It’s tempting, from our perch in 2018, to conclude that democracy
>>>> is broken beyond repair. The world seems to be careening into
>>>> more and more disorder, and American politics in particular is
>>>> hopelessly ensnarled in partisan dysfunction.
>>>>
>>>> But perhaps the Lippmann-Dewey debate offers another perspective:
>>>> democracy has always been clumsy, has never really lived up to
>>>> its ideals, and yet we’re all still alive. Given how prophetic
>>>> Lippmann’s critique was, you’d expect American democracy to have
>>>> collapsed under the weight of its own incoherence by now. But
>>>> here we are, in 2018, still humming along, still the most
>>>> influential country in the world, still the richest and the most
>>>> dynamic economy on the planet.
>>>>
>>>> For all its problems (and there are many), democracy has managed
>>>> to thrive. And the democratic world, over time, has gotten more
>>>> stable, more wealthy, and more tolerant. Maybe the point is that
>>>> democracy doesn’t have to work the way it was conceived in order
>>>> to be successful. Maybe the myth of democracy is just that — a
>>>> myth.
>>>>
>>>> If there’s a lesson in all this for today, it’s that we should be
>>>> careful not to define democracy by its worst attribute. Lippmann
>>>> was so obsessed with the problem of public opinion that he failed
>>>> to notice that the problem wasn’t new, that democracy wasn’t
>>>> malfunctioning. The practice of democracy has always been messy
>>>> and chaotic, and mass ignorance wasn’t the exception but the rule.
>>>>
>>>> Voters will often make egregious choices, and sometimes those
>>>> choices produce horrifying outcomes. Still, the system, as a
>>>> whole, has proven incredibly resilient, and a far better
>>>> alternative to non-democratic systems, which lead invariably to
>>>> corruption and oppression. If democracy works, it’s not because
>>>> the people are reliably wise; it’s because the system offers a
>>>> layer of accountability that, more often than not, supports a
>>>> stable and just society. Democracies are also prone to disorder
>>>> and corruption, but these are ineluctable features of any
>>>> political system comprised of selfish and flawed human beings.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> The current wave of pessimism is a reminder that there’s a
>>>> recurring tendency on the part of intellectuals to abandon
>>>> democracy when it veers off course. It’s a reactionary move that
>>>> typically overstates the nature of the threat. Lippmann was
>>>> shaken by the insanity of World War I, and so he thought
>>>> something — anything — had to be done to keep the democratic
>>>> world from descending into another war. The shock of Brexit and a
>>>> Trump presidency has sent many observers (myself included) into a
>>>> panic. Just a couple weeks ago, in fact, I interviewed Jason
>>>> Brennan
>>>> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.vox.com_2018_7_23_17581394_against-2Ddemocracy-2Dbook-2Depistocracy-2Djason-2Dbrennan&d=DwMFaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=tmVNgJdlbrf6XPR_8xuRbCi2vI5OD-3-pSPZ5MO2WV4&s=dorbzMRq8Vkq-WA8eAXSBPdBYCwGMWxniAHWcCDOFrw&e= <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.vox.com_2018_7_23_17581394_against-2Ddemocracy-2Dbook-2Depistocracy-2Djason-2Dbrennan&d=DwMFaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=tmVNgJdlbrf6XPR_8xuRbCi2vI5OD-3-pSPZ5MO2WV4&s=dorbzMRq8Vkq-WA8eAXSBPdBYCwGMWxniAHWcCDOFrw&e=>>, a Georgetown political theorist, who argued for a Lippmann-esque epistocracy to replace traditional
>>>> democracy.
>>>>
>>>> But I could just as easily argue that Brennan, like Lippmann, has
>>>> it precisely backwards. Instead of abandoning democracy, maybe
>>>> what we need is more and better democracy. Maybe, as Dewey
>>>> taught, we need to educate and empower more citizens. Maybe the
>>>> crisis we’re facing now, in the age of Trump, is just the latest
>>>> manifestation of a problem that has always plagued democratic
>>>> societies, and always will. Maybe we should pause, take a deep
>>>> breath, and step back from the precipice.
>>>>
>>>> Democracy has survived far worse than Trump and Brexit.
>>>>
>>>> ############################
>>>> To unsubscribe from the TOK-SOCIETY-L list: write to:
>>>> mailto:[log in to unmask]
>>>> <mailto:[log in to unmask]>
>>>> <mailto:mailto:[log in to unmask]
>>>> <mailto:[log in to unmask]>> or click
>>>> the following link:
>>>> http://listserv.jmu.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=TOK-SOCIETY-L&A=1
>>>> <http://listserv.jmu.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=TOK-SOCIETY-L&A=1>
>>>> <http://listserv.jmu.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=TOK-SOCIETY-L&A=1
>>>> <http://listserv.jmu.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=TOK-SOCIETY-L&A=1>>
>>>
>>> ############################
>>>
>>> To unsubscribe from the TOK-SOCIETY-L list:
>>> write to: mailto:[log in to unmask]
>>> or click the following link:
>>> http://listserv.jmu.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=TOK-SOCIETY-L&A=1
>>
>> ############################
>>
>> To unsubscribe from the TOK-SOCIETY-L list:
>> write to: mailto:[log in to unmask]
>> or click the following link:
>> http://listserv.jmu.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=TOK-SOCIETY-L&A=1
>
>
> ############################
>
> To unsubscribe from the TOK-SOCIETY-L list:
> write to: mailto:[log in to unmask]
> or click the following link:
> http://listserv.jmu.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=TOK-SOCIETY-L&A=1
############################
To unsubscribe from the TOK-SOCIETY-L list:
write to: mailto:[log in to unmask]
or click the following link:
http://listserv.jmu.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=TOK-SOCIETY-L&A=1
############################
To unsubscribe from the TOK-SOCIETY-L list:
write to: mailto:[log in to unmask]
or click the following link:
http://listserv.jmu.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=TOK-SOCIETY-L&A=1
|
