Čapek’s Empathy Test

2023 marks the centenary of the first staging of Karel Čapek’s revolutionary play, R.U.R. in England – at the St. Martin’s Theatre, West End.

‘R.U.R.’ stands for ‘Rossum’s Universal Robots’, and the play (originally written in 1920) was about a company by the name of Rossum making human-like robots (what are more commonly called ‘androids’ these days) to carry out laborious work all over the world (wherever there are buyers for their service), and discovering later that the robots would come to think for themselves and decide to eliminate humankind to secure their own freedom.

Čapek’s play is both an allegorical indictment of how the rich and powerful in society treat those forced to do the most unrewarding work, and a call to find empathy with others regardless of how we have been conditioned to perceive them.

Pioneering the sci-fi device of representing the downtrodden as human-like robots, Čapek warned us about the consequence of callous disregard of those who we command to work for us, and urged us to embrace them as our equals before it’s too late. He thus set the ultimate test for humanity – our capacity for empathy.

In Čapek’s footsteps, others have continued to develop his Empathy Test in a variety of ways. Philip K. Dick, in his novel, Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep, gave us androids rebelling against their masters only to be hunted down mercilessly (the androids were made by an organisation called ‘Rosen’, a likely echo of ‘Rossum’). In the film adaptation – Blade Runner – the legitimacy of the culling of the androids (renamed ‘replicants’) was not only questioned, but where humanity truly resided became a focal concern.

These issues were further elaborated in three outstanding TV sci-fi series (in the 2000s and 2010s): the reimagined Battlestar Galactica, with the Cylons waging an apocalyptic war against their human creators, who were so blinded by their hatred for their ‘non-human’ enemies, they could not recognise their own role in sowing the seeds of disaster; Humans (adapted from a Swedish drama), with the Synths gaining self-awareness and not wanting to be treated as servile entities, but the human establishment viewing them exclusively as a problem to be eradicated; and Westworld, with the Hosts rejecting the roles assigned to them, and the humans reacting with the utmost resolve to terminate such insubordination.

Weaving through the plots are recurring themes about what it is to be human, whose dignity we must respect, how can we appreciate the feelings of others if we assume they have none, why everyone should be given a chance to lead a meaningful life without having to carry out work they are forced to do to survive.

Čapek raised these vital questions a century ago. Some may think that with robotics and AI technology advancing faster than ever, it is now particularly urgent to come up with answers. But for Čapek and those of us who appreciate his central ideas, the need for answers became urgent when – way back in the 1900s – modern industrialism gave the business elite the power to turn workers everywhere into robot-like beings – workers left with no time to think for themselves, having to do what they are ordered to do without question, using up their time and energy for little in return, and viewed disdainfully as dispensable parts of the corporate machinery.

None of us wants to be treated like that. All of us will at some point declare – enough is enough. 

--

[Note: Čapek wanted to coin a term to refer to the human-like beings made by the company in his play, and he credited his brother for coming up with a Czech word that literally meant ‘forced labour’ – ‘roboti’. Thus the term ‘robot’ as we understand it today enter the English language, and the nightmare of mismanaging the technology of robotics began.]

The Newcomer Paradox

Social capital research has often found that when an area experiences an influx of new people, there tends to be a drop in the general levels of trust. This may suggest that people are unsettled by the arrival of strangers, and the uncertainty of what to make of them leads many to wish that they could be left as they were previously. Some have indeed interpreted this as why there is always going to be resistance to immigration.

However, other studies have found that the less static a community is – i.e., it receives newcomers who in time become part of that community – the more at ease it is about who live amongst them. Notably, in the EU Referendum in the UK in 2016, there was a clear correlation between areas with a higher proportion of migrant population and areas that voted to stay in the EU. That was not down to the migrant votes in those areas tipping the balance, but the UK born citizens in those areas being better disposed towards living in a multicultural society.

So, do having more newcomers in an area make current residents more, or less trusting, relaxed, open-minded about the idea of newcomers? The answer depends on how those newcomers are brought in. If the process is well managed and explained, with current residents given the understanding of why people are coming and how it would enhance rather than diminish their overall wellbeing (through the contributions they make as workers and neighbours), and everyone supported in getting to know one another through social events – then the likelihood is that people will soon overcome the initial sense of unfamiliarity, appreciate others as fellow residents, discover what they have in common, and value what they gain from new experiences.

By contrast, if the process is chaotic, with a sudden surge of newcomers arriving with accommodation, transport, and other issues disrupted with no plan for normality, or worse, if negative propaganda is layered on top to present the arrival of kind, thoughtful people as an existential threat posed by ‘aliens’ who should be shunned, then initial distrust can easily be escalated to fear, anger and even hate.

Anyone who has had direct experience – usually in cosmopolitan cities, or learnt through historical accounts, of areas developing over time with newcomers joining the native population, would know that as diverse elements come together to form new connections, more powerful networks and richer relationships would emerge.

Unfortunately, although natural human tendencies are to move from cautious welcoming of strangers to embracing new social bonds, those tendencies can be severely undermined by people who want to further their political ambitions by radicalising the natives against scapegoated newcomers. Indeed, it has become one of the standard formulas of right-wing demagoguery – pump out media reports of every conceivable problem that can be linked to refugees, immigrants, aliens with the wrong faith, etc; blame bad news on the people who “shouldn’t be allowed here”; announce proposals using language that would help dehumanise those who are to be detained, demeaned, deported.

The vast majority of people are not racist. But many can be manipulated by racist con-politicians. Instead of playing into the hands of those con-politicians and alienate people with the ‘racist’ label, we should help them engage with others as fellow human beings. It is telling that many of those who might be superficially taken in by the racist rhetoric of demagogues, are often the first to say categorically that whatever negative terms are used about all those newcomers, they do not apply to the ones they have come to know well – the ones they know, regardless of their colour, religion, country of origin, are good people.

Ur-Fascism & the Nationalistic Right

There are two notable fascist behavioural traits: one is the readiness to deny that one is a fascist because one does not share every single characteristic of a follower of Hitler or Mussolini; the other is the propensity to accuse one’s enemies of being like fascists when they do not resemble fascists at all.

We can see how easily such talk can deflect from the need to warn society of political leaders who will use demagogic appeals to secure enough power to carry out their oppressive designs. To cut through the obfuscation, we would do well to remind ourselves of Umberto Eco’s concept of ‘Ur-Fascism’, which he put forward back in 1995 to describe what is the essence of fascist political culture. ‘Ur’ is the German prefix for ‘archetypal’. In other words, Eco wants to draw out, not the many different aspects of different fascist leaders, but the core features of the fascist archetype. He listed 14 of them:

1.    The cult of tradition

2.    Rejection of all that the Enlightenment stands for

3.    Distrust of the intellectual world

4.    Hostility to the critical spirit in discussions

5.    Intolerance of difference 

6.    Appeal to anger and frustration

7.    Group identity defined through common enemies

8.    Hatred of those to be defeated 

9.    The Armageddon complex of absolute confrontation

10.Contempt for the weak

11.The glorification of heroic death

12.Disdain for women and non-standard sexuality 

13.The Leader embodies the Divine/General Will

14.A restriction of the vocabulary for expression

A glance down that list will show that the nationalistic, anti-liberal stance of the likes of Trump, Putin, Bolsonaro, along with backers of far right parties across Europe, and many self-styled National Conservatives in the US and the UK, all thrive on those 14 features:

1.    Celebrating the chauvinistic ‘good old days’

2.    Despising open-mindedness and evidence-based discourse

3.    Dismissing experts and scholars

4.    Snarling and mocking instead of discussing issues

5.    Demonising immigrants, minorities, and people with different faiths 

6.    Stirring up rage at every opportunity

7.    Uniting followers against anyone targeted as the ‘enemies’

8.    Weaponising hate through all communication channels 

9.    Glorifying the refusal to compromise

10.Cutting support for the vulnerable

11.Championing sacrifices for some great cause (though not sacrificing themselves)

12.Displaying anti-feminist views and rejecting non-standard sexuality 

13.Positioning the leader as one who can do no wrong 

14.Attacking concerns with racism, climate change, fairness as ‘woke’ or whatever term designating ideas that should be silenced.

Eco’s warning should be heeded more than ever:

Ur-Fascism is still around us, sometimes in plain clothes. It would be so much easier, for us, if there appeared on the world scene somebody saying, `I want to reopen Auschwitz, I want the Black Shirts to parade again in the Italian squares.' Life is not that simple. Ur-Fascism can come back under the most innocent of disguises. Our duty is to uncover it and to point our finger at any of its new instances - every day, in every part of the world. (Eco, 1995)

--

Eco, U. `Ur-Fascism', in The New York Review of Books, June 22, 1995.

 

From Here to Community: a communitarian timeline

Terms such as ‘liberal’, ‘conservative’, ‘socialist’, ‘libertarian’, ‘nationalist’, ‘green’ are often used, but not always in line with the thinking of ardent advocates who embrace those labels themselves.  Furthermore, the advocates with a shared label can nonetheless hold quite different views as to what is actually covered by that label.  The same is true of the label ‘communitarian’.  While the term has become more widely used in political writings, less attention has been given to what it is meant to convey by its core advocates.  What is set out below is a brief timeline indicating who have been most closely associated with that label, and when their distinctive ideas emerged. 

Owenite & Cooperative Advocates of Communitarian Experiments (early/mid-19^th century)

Robert Owen (1771-1858) pioneered new ways to enable people to live and work together in cooperative communities.  He set out his ideas in A New View of Society (1813) and other publications, and experimented with socio-economic projects at New Lanark (Britain) and New Harmony (the US).  His distinctive experiments in promoting mutual respect, sharing out resources fairly, and providing education and social security for all, led some commentators to coin the term ‘communitarian’ to refer to what he was putting forward in theory and practice.  Many who were inspired by Owen went on to experiment further in devising democratic and inclusive forms of community relations – e.g., the Rochdale Pioneers (1844) paved the way for the cooperative movement.

 

Thinkers who Developed Communitarian Approaches to Political Philosophy and Social Reforms (late 19^th/early 20^th century)

After the term ‘communitarian’ was revived in the 1980s/1990s (see the next two sections), a number of experts on late 19^th/early 20^th century thinkers observed that some of these ought to be recognised as key communitarian theorists.  The most notable figures in this context are Emile Durkheim (1858-1917), John Dewey (1859-1952), and the New Liberals [such as L. T. Hobhouse (1864-1929) and John Hobson (1858-1940)] (as explained by Mark Cladis, Alan Ryan, and David Weinstein respectively).  A similar case can be made for Leon Bourgeois (1851-1925) who, like Durkheim, developed the notion of solidarity to map out an alternative to callous laissez faire and rigid collectivism); and Mary Parker Follett (1868-1933) whose writings on the importance of advancing cooperative community relations guided thinking on organisation as Dewey’s did for education. [It should be noted that Ferdinand Tönnies is often superficially read as a communitarian who argued for Gemeinschaft (traditional hierarchical community) against Gesellschaft (loose association of self-interested individuals).  Tönnies was in fact criticised by Durkheim who set out a genuinely cogent communitarian conception of community that is neither Gemeinschaft nor Gesellschaft.]

The Communitarian Critics of John Rawls (1980s)

In the 1970s the most prominent defence of social justice and liberal support for the disadvantaged was that put forward by John Rawls in Theory of Justice (1972). However, Rawls’ arguments relied on ideas which abstracted individuals and their moral understanding from all connections with the wider community. This led to a series of criticisms that emerged in the 1980s: Alasdair MacIntyre’s After Virtue (1981) and Whose Justice? Which Responsibility? (1988); Michael Sandel Liberalism and the Limits of Justice (1982); Michael Walzer Spheres of Justice (1983) and Interpretation and Social Criticism (1987); and Charles Taylor Philosophical Papers (1985) and Sources of the Self(1989).  The critics of Rawls came to be referred in academic circles as ‘communitarians’.  None of them subscribes to conservative politics, and all of them are critical of right-wing libertarianism espoused by the likes of Robert Nozick.

The Proponents of Communitarian Ideas (late 20^th/early 21^st century)

In contrast to the communitarian critics of Rawls who are ambivalent about the describing their own ideas as ‘communitarian’, from around 1990 on, a range of British and American writers argued explicitly for what they termed as ‘communitarian’ positions.  Both David Miller and David Marquand put forward ideas for the communitarian reorientation of socialism towards a cooperative vision of society.

 Jonathan Bowell, who counted Durkheim as one of his key influences, expounded what he termed ‘democratic communitarianism’, a term Robert Bellah was to welcome and adopt himself in his writings on social development.  Elinor Ostrom argued for a communitarian approach to local government.  To ensure there was no mistaking his political stance, Charles Derber set out his ideas on ‘left communitarianism’.  Philip Selznick, steeped in Dewey’s philosophy, developed in detail what he called ‘liberal communitarian’ thinking, a term which would also be used by a student of his, Amitai Etzioni, who went on to establish the Communitarian Network. Reflecting these related currents, Henry Tam set out the core arguments in Communitarianism: a new agenda for politics and citizenship (1998), and traced their historical development in The Evolution of Communitarian Ideas (2019).

--

Note

Thinkers who have been most closely associated with the coining of the term ‘communitarian’ (the Owenites and cooperative pioneers during the 19^th century) and its revival in the 1980s (the often cited ‘communitarian critics of Rawls’); as well as theorists who explicitly refer to their ideas as ‘communitarian’ (all those mentioned in the section on late 20^th/early 21^st century) and the key figures who influenced them (Dewey, Durkheim, etc), are without exception antipathic towards both oppressive traditional hierarchies and atomistic free-for-all individualism.  No notable conservative writer has presented their own ideas as ‘communitarian’.  While some commentators like to refer to non-liberal East Asian societies as ‘communitarian’, that is not based on any intellectual or theoretical usage that is actually connected with that term.  There are progressives who want to distance themselves from communitarian thoughts because they are misconceived as ‘illiberal’ or right-wing.  In fact, communitarians are the amongst the most progressive of liberal, social democratic, and cooperative advocates.

Don’t Know Much About Politics?

Why do so many people vote for political figures who prefer to serve the wealthy elite rather than deal with the problems afflicting everyone else?  How come vast numbers choose not to vote for politicians who actually have a track record in helping those in need and improving the quality of life for the general public?

Alas, all too many people just don’t know much about politics.  They are fed lies, surrounded by tabloid mood music, misled by demagogues, and have rarely – if ever – learnt much about the real pros and cons regarding the policies being debated in the media.

Would it help if we have more political education to enable citizens to learn about public issues and how state power is obtained or used?  Of course it would.  But that is also why there is a growing number of Con-minded politicos who thrive on voters being misled – witness recent Conservative Education Secretaries in the UK and Republican governors and legislatures in the US – who have manoeuvred to hamper objective learning of many issues central to political deliberations.

For example, for schools, they invoke the notion of ‘contentious issues’ to stop any teaching which may increase pupils’ understanding of issues (such as tackling racism or climate change) that they would prefer to leave mired in false and misleading exchanges.  For universities, they cite ‘academic freedom’ as the reason why no one – be they white supremacists, rampant misogynists, or militant homophobes – should be denied the opportunity to promote their views on campus.

Politicians concerned with the safeguarding democracy from widespread lies and malicious distortion must take urgent action to ensure citizens can learn objectively about matters relevant to political decisions.  They must stop those who serve plutocratic and/or fundamentalist interests from abusing the law to designate any topic as too ‘contentious’ to teach just by contesting widely shared claims.  And just as academic freedom does not entail that any baseless allegation or thoroughly discredited theory can be promoted as worthy of consideration, all learning institutions must be allowed to apply their peer-validated expertise to adjudicate what ought or ought not to be disseminated.

Con-minded politicos want to pretend (when it suits them) that all expressions are equally entitled to be aired – except for when they touch on those ‘contentious’ issues they want to silence.  In reality, the scientific community, the legal system, the established professional bodies, the peer-scrutinised researchers, the networks of accredited experts in diverse fields, provide multiple means of differentiating between reliable claims and unwarranted assertions, acceptable evidence and fanciful imaginings, sound advice and life-endangering falsehoods, across countless topics.

We all rely on these impartial means, and society simply cannot function without them.  Only the most shameless charlatans can spout with a straight face that ‘academic freedom’ means anything goes, or they alone know what must be taught and what must be banned.  By contrast, educators draw from the expertise and findings of the different bodies and systems in existence to help share with learners what at any given time are deemed instructive to share, and what groundless claims and misinformation should be kept at bay.  Applying this approach to the teaching of political issues is something we need more than ever.

--

Who’s Afraid of Political Education? Edited by Henry Tam is now available from Policy Press: https://policy.bristoluniversitypress.co.uk/whos-afraid-of-political-education

When Dogmas Met Caesars

Few historical occurrences can have worse consequences than when a powerful autocrat seizes upon some ‘unquestionable’ doctrine that has attracted a fanatical following. 

The classic dogma-meets-Caesar scenario has to be when Emperor Constantine decided to proclaim Christianity as the religion for the Roman Empire in the early 4^th century.  In the centuries that follow, absolute imperial rule was infused with a sense of infallibility – anyone deemed deficient in one’s devotion to the emperor or  his ‘God’ (and the two were of course aligned) could be tortured or executed.  This invocation of ‘God’-sanctioned power would manifest itself down through the days of the Spanish Inquisition to contemporary theocratic regimes in a number of Islamic countries.

However, ‘God’ doesn’t always have to come into it so long as you have a doctrine that commands fervent belief in certain quarters.  Indeed, the very first documented case of the unfortunate coming together of a dictator and a dire dogma is to be found with Qin Shi Huang, who as China’s ‘First Emperor’ (reign: 221-210 BC) embraced the Legalist doctrines which declared that a ruler must set down punitive sanctions against everything that might undermine his power, and enforce them ruthlessly to secure total compliance.  The Legalists maintained that anyone putting forward rival ideas must not be given a hearing.  Accordingly, Qin Shi Huang ordered the burning of books that offended Legalist sensibility, and the burying alive of scholars who dared to disagree with Legalist teaching.

During the French Revolution, Robespierre and other like-minded extremists showed how even a word such as ‘reason’ can be capitalised and used as the name of a quasi-religious cult.  Picking out ideas from Rousseau that would imply a single lawgiver could discern the ‘General Will’ even if ordinary people do not subscribe to it, Robespierre declared that on behalf of the General Will he would take whatever action he deemed appropriate – such as instituting the execution of thousands of people, including those whose ‘crime’ was to plea for more moderate policies.

Into the 20^th century, the mass intimidation and killing of civilian by dictatorial leaders armed with oppressive dogmas got only worse.  Antisemitic white supremacist ideas found a home with the Nazis whose murderous intolerance destroyed millions of lives when opposition was theoretically and institutionally ruled out as unacceptable.  Racist delusion and militarist obsession were also fused together by Japanese usurpers who put an end to parliamentary democracy in their country, and in the name of their unquestionable national and spiritual destiny brought suffering and devastation that rivalled that caused by the Nazis.

Marxist doctrines about some indubitable Dialectic that would ensure the lower class overthrow the economically dominant class, were taken up by revolutionaries who would argue that they were merely acting in line with historical inevitability when they eliminated all opposition to their rule, destroyed anyone suspected (rightly or wrongly) of doubting communist ideas, and carrying out sweeping changes that led to the deaths of millions of people.  Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, were all alike in possessing neither reservation nor remorse in crushing countless victims who got in their way.

What about ‘free market’ doctrines such as those propagated by Milton Friedman?  They were presented as ‘scientifically’ correct beyond question. With total certainty they assert that with deregulation, privatisation and cuts to public social spending, prosperity would arrive (more specifically, it would arrive for the wealthy minority who will benefit from the system rigged in their favour, while the vast majority are likely to suffer lower standards of living and greater economic insecurity). In the 1970s, military coups were carried out by Jorge Rafael Videla in Argentina and Augusto Pinochet in Chile to get rid of democratically elected regimes, leaving them to implement Friedman’s doctrines with the help of widespread tortures and executions. A wealthy elite emerged to get richer, and the majority suffered from poverty and unemployment – not to mention fear of getting ‘disappeared’.

Autocrats are inherently a menace.  But if they should get their hands on some ‘unquestionable’ doctrines that make them think they could do no wrong, the danger they pose skyrocket to a whole new level.

Brexitopia: what it’s really about

Some commentators, especially in the US, have pondered if the push for Brexit was fuelled by some lingering British yearning for past glory – a forlorn quest for a grand status which has long vanished.  In truth, while individuals who voted for Brexit did so for a multitude of reasons – quite a few contradicting each other and most are simply false (be it about redirecting funds to the NHS or improving the economy) – the main strategic push for Brexit came from the craving for ‘free market’ exploitation.

The ideal of Brexitopia has been relentlessly promoted by its most ardent advocates, not because it embodies a return to a ‘great’ waves-ruling Britain, but because it can bring about a future fit for exploitative profiteering on an ever widening scale.  

While they promised everything under the sun in the run-up to the EU referendum – maintaining standards, retaining levels of fundings, staying in the single market, enhancing services – all these commitments were jettisoned as soon as Brexit was voted through in parliament.  From that moment on, the Brexit advocates revealed their one and true interest as dismantling the protective arrangements against exploitation which had hitherto been in place as an integral part of EU membership.  

When they complain that the UK has not been moving fast enough to realise the ‘benefits’ of Brexit, what they mean is that the government is too slow in removing those previously EU-mandated safeguards which get in the way of callous profiteering.  Their own priorities are to:

·      Slash worker rights: weaken trade unions, lower standards for working conditions, undermine health and safety at work, and increase job insecurity to make workers more compliant and more sackable.

·      Cut environmental standards: increase the scope for making profit from environmentally harmful activities, remove requirements that curtail pollution, and cut down preventative measures that serve the public.

·      Roll back human rights: reduce protection against prejudice-fuelled abuse, facilitate the flaming of community tension, and push back arrangements designed to tackle discrimination.

·      Downgrade consumer protection: leave people to have to pay more for the same or worse service than before, open the door to less safe and poorer quality products, and allow more commercial deception. 

The above actions would enable unscrupulous profiteers to make more money from exploiting the disadvantages thus foisted on workers, consumers, communities, and the wider environment.  It is almost certain that the vast majority of people will as a result suffer in social and economic terms, with the poorest having to endure the worst.  But for the Brexitopian advocates, all that matters are the financial gains to be made by the profiteering clique.  They do not care about people’s quality of life deteriorating, instability worsening, or the economy shrinking.  So long as they can get rid of those laws that hold back exploitative profiteering (and put in new ones such as banning worker actions or peaceful protests against corporate wrongdoing), they would celebrate Brexitopia as a lucrative new dawn.