Naive despots set up a conflict between people's innate commitment to truthfulness and people's desire to live a successful life (family, job, money, whatever). Smart despots know it is much more effective to produce citizens who don’t value truthfulness - because then Chomsky can talk all he wants, but his words will have no effect.
It is not in the interests of a political hegemony dependent for its survival on widespread misunderstanding of its activities to encourage its subjects to take too deep an interest in social and political matters. Its subjects should be encouraged to place more value on objects such as having a job, or a family, or education, or some such, than finding out what is really going on and whether or not what is really going on is the kind of thing that should be going on.
That is to say, the ruling class shouldn't encourage its subjects to over-value truthfulness - it should dampen the will to find out what is really going on - because the leadership has much more freedom if the populace is not inclined to inquire too deeply into what the leadership is doing.
The model of State suppression of inquisitive tendencies with which I am most familiar with is the kind employed under Soviet rule in eastern Europe after WW2. The system basically worked in the way that, so long as you agreed not to ask awkward questions, or voice your concerns about the leadership’s actions, or say anything that contradicted party doctrine, you were allowed to live a quiet life in peace. You had a reasonable job, your children could go to high school and university, you had a pension.
If you didn’t cooperate, you could expect to lose your job and social benefits, go to prison, suffer police persecution and generally live a pretty miserable existence. It was generally understood that you had a choice: you could either try to expose and oppose the corruption of the State and suffer for it - or you could live as though everything were fine and live a peaceful existence.
The puzzle is why this model of state control is not applied today in countries in Europe and the United States. There is no obvious conflict in the US between a commitment to truthfulness and living a life: we are free to inquire if we want, and to criticize without fear of violent reprisals.
How is it that Chomsky gets published and avoids being shot or locked up? How come I can read Chomsky’s books and check his claims against declassified policy planning documents? It is inconceivable that this could have happened in Eastern Europe before 1989.
I guess some people must be shot or locked up for knowing and saying too much - but why hasn’t the US, Britain and much of Europe gone the way of the despotic, closed, nakedly totalitarian regimes so prevalent in much of the world?
I suppose that some might respond that it's because the truth is sacred in our society. I reject that. There is plenty of evidence to show that the truth is far from sacred. The question just asks itself again: what has happened, such that we live in a society where truth indeed appears to be sacred? Part of the answer, I think, lies in recognizing some of the defects in the communist-despotic approach.
By engineering a society in which you could only have either truthfulness or some other thing which you valued, the Soviet leadership created a social context in which truthfulness clearly conflicted with other values, where you had to choose either one or the other, and in which you were aware of the sacrifice you were making.
This produced a schizophrenic society, especially in Eastern Europe. Because they lived in a social situation in which truthfulness conflicted with other ideals, many people were committed to truthfulness but forced to choose something else. They knew something was wrong, so there was an audience for the dissidents: the dissidents could speak, and people knew they were telling the truth. People went to bed at night knowing they had struck a compromise with the State: peace in exchange for silence.
The behaviour of the State reinforced the sense that something was wrong: people who opposed the State were spirited away, arrested and - in the early days - shot. A large effort went into propaganda to try to persuade Soviet subjects that the victims of state oppression deserved it, but a large group of people were profoundly unconvinced.
In short, the Soviet system suppressed questioning but failed to eliminate the desire to question. The leadership effectively created an underclass of subdued opponents, tolerant of the either/or deal they were offered while the leadership was still strong enough to enforce it, but neither at heart loyal nor at all ignorant of the social injustices which they suffered.
What would work better than the Soviet system? (It's time to put on my policy-planning hat.)
If I wanted to be part of an economic and political elite, I would need a good economy and a political situation in which revolution (or any kind of regime change) was as unlikely as possible. Secrecy is necessary for me fulfilling my goals, but the Soviet system of suppression is incompatible with my primary objectives. I need a better way to keep out of sight, something economically preferable that doesn’t create an angry underclass.
I think it would be better to figure out a way to dissolve the dilemma, rather than crush dissent whilst allowing the dilemma to continue existing in peoples’ consciousness. I would discourage questioning of the leadership by giving people other things to do (walk off rather than ask questions). I would also give people the impression that they understand what is going on when in fact they don’t (through intelligent media control rather than blatant suppression of dissent and publishing obvious propaganda).
Critically, I would not actually go very far to hide anything. I would allow people who are interested in reading declassified documents to read them. I would allow people to openly discuss whatever they felt was worth discussing, in order to make people feel secure and that the leadership is open and trustworthy, whilst doing everything I could to manufacture a society that doesn’t question, is not interested in politics, and above all that won’t listen to the dissenting few who point at my failings and what is said in the declassified documents that reveal what is really going on behind the appearances and the rhetoric.
If I had Chomsky shot, or if I banned his books, I would be sending the message that what he said was important enough that it needed covering up. I would be better off tolerating him and creating a society that doesn’t listen to him. Shooting him would be utterly counter-productive because it would help create a society that listens. I would accept that dissent must exist in a stable society. What I would do is create a social context in which dissent doesn’t matter.
That's why Chomsky isn't dead yet.
** Join discussion at the sixteenvoices google group. Sign up today! **It is not in the interests of a political hegemony dependent for its survival on widespread misunderstanding of its activities to encourage its subjects to take too deep an interest in social and political matters. Its subjects should be encouraged to place more value on objects such as having a job, or a family, or education, or some such, than finding out what is really going on and whether or not what is really going on is the kind of thing that should be going on.
That is to say, the ruling class shouldn't encourage its subjects to over-value truthfulness - it should dampen the will to find out what is really going on - because the leadership has much more freedom if the populace is not inclined to inquire too deeply into what the leadership is doing.
The model of State suppression of inquisitive tendencies with which I am most familiar with is the kind employed under Soviet rule in eastern Europe after WW2. The system basically worked in the way that, so long as you agreed not to ask awkward questions, or voice your concerns about the leadership’s actions, or say anything that contradicted party doctrine, you were allowed to live a quiet life in peace. You had a reasonable job, your children could go to high school and university, you had a pension.
If you didn’t cooperate, you could expect to lose your job and social benefits, go to prison, suffer police persecution and generally live a pretty miserable existence. It was generally understood that you had a choice: you could either try to expose and oppose the corruption of the State and suffer for it - or you could live as though everything were fine and live a peaceful existence.
The puzzle is why this model of state control is not applied today in countries in Europe and the United States. There is no obvious conflict in the US between a commitment to truthfulness and living a life: we are free to inquire if we want, and to criticize without fear of violent reprisals.
How is it that Chomsky gets published and avoids being shot or locked up? How come I can read Chomsky’s books and check his claims against declassified policy planning documents? It is inconceivable that this could have happened in Eastern Europe before 1989.
I guess some people must be shot or locked up for knowing and saying too much - but why hasn’t the US, Britain and much of Europe gone the way of the despotic, closed, nakedly totalitarian regimes so prevalent in much of the world?
I suppose that some might respond that it's because the truth is sacred in our society. I reject that. There is plenty of evidence to show that the truth is far from sacred. The question just asks itself again: what has happened, such that we live in a society where truth indeed appears to be sacred? Part of the answer, I think, lies in recognizing some of the defects in the communist-despotic approach.
By engineering a society in which you could only have either truthfulness or some other thing which you valued, the Soviet leadership created a social context in which truthfulness clearly conflicted with other values, where you had to choose either one or the other, and in which you were aware of the sacrifice you were making.
This produced a schizophrenic society, especially in Eastern Europe. Because they lived in a social situation in which truthfulness conflicted with other ideals, many people were committed to truthfulness but forced to choose something else. They knew something was wrong, so there was an audience for the dissidents: the dissidents could speak, and people knew they were telling the truth. People went to bed at night knowing they had struck a compromise with the State: peace in exchange for silence.
The behaviour of the State reinforced the sense that something was wrong: people who opposed the State were spirited away, arrested and - in the early days - shot. A large effort went into propaganda to try to persuade Soviet subjects that the victims of state oppression deserved it, but a large group of people were profoundly unconvinced.
In short, the Soviet system suppressed questioning but failed to eliminate the desire to question. The leadership effectively created an underclass of subdued opponents, tolerant of the either/or deal they were offered while the leadership was still strong enough to enforce it, but neither at heart loyal nor at all ignorant of the social injustices which they suffered.
What would work better than the Soviet system? (It's time to put on my policy-planning hat.)
If I wanted to be part of an economic and political elite, I would need a good economy and a political situation in which revolution (or any kind of regime change) was as unlikely as possible. Secrecy is necessary for me fulfilling my goals, but the Soviet system of suppression is incompatible with my primary objectives. I need a better way to keep out of sight, something economically preferable that doesn’t create an angry underclass.
I think it would be better to figure out a way to dissolve the dilemma, rather than crush dissent whilst allowing the dilemma to continue existing in peoples’ consciousness. I would discourage questioning of the leadership by giving people other things to do (walk off rather than ask questions). I would also give people the impression that they understand what is going on when in fact they don’t (through intelligent media control rather than blatant suppression of dissent and publishing obvious propaganda).
Critically, I would not actually go very far to hide anything. I would allow people who are interested in reading declassified documents to read them. I would allow people to openly discuss whatever they felt was worth discussing, in order to make people feel secure and that the leadership is open and trustworthy, whilst doing everything I could to manufacture a society that doesn’t question, is not interested in politics, and above all that won’t listen to the dissenting few who point at my failings and what is said in the declassified documents that reveal what is really going on behind the appearances and the rhetoric.
If I had Chomsky shot, or if I banned his books, I would be sending the message that what he said was important enough that it needed covering up. I would be better off tolerating him and creating a society that doesn’t listen to him. Shooting him would be utterly counter-productive because it would help create a society that listens. I would accept that dissent must exist in a stable society. What I would do is create a social context in which dissent doesn’t matter.
That's why Chomsky isn't dead yet.
No comments:
Post a Comment