Political Epistemology: 4 approaches compared

Political epistemology is concerned with how society is to deal with the problem of conflicting knowledge claims.  What people take to be true has implications for themselves and others, and can lead to greater wellbeing or serious harm.  A society’s system of governance needs to adopt a position on how the validity of claims is to be assessed if there is to be any collective means to determine what warrants belief, what is to be rejected as false, and what cannot be settled for the time being.

Although relatively little attention is paid to political epistemology, there are four de facto approaches that influence how society responds to disputes over veracity:

 

[1] Absolutism

The absolutist approach considers any dispute to be resolvable with one definitive answer that can be supplied by an unquestionable authority. As for who is to be designated the ‘absolute authority’, that is to be determined by those who can secure a sufficiently dedicated following.  Under theocratic regimes, those who claim to speak for ‘God’ will present themselves as the ‘absolute authority’.  Totalitarian regimes, from Marxist to Fascist ones, will hand the absolute position to the leader of their one-party state.  Populist cults may regard the likes of Trump as the beacon of truth.  While philosophers such as Plato would deem only those as wise as they to be qualified to be the ultimate authority.

 

[2] Scepticism

The sceptical approach declines to resolve any disputes over truth claims.  It does not accept that there can be any basis for differentiating the veracity of any claim from any other.  Whatever people believe, whatever happens as a result of their beliefs, it is simply how it is and there is no rational basis for repudiating any claim in favour of any other.  Anarchists and laissez faire advocates embrace scepticism in their rejection of any overriding political rules and systems that may adjudicate between true and false, or right and wrong.  People are to be left to believe and act as they wish, and no one has any authority to judge them for it.

 

[3] Relativism

The relativist approach leaves the issue of settling disputes to any group of people who would agree to a system of settling such disputes.  If there were ten different groups each with their own system, then the decisions of each is correct relative to that group.  There would be no scope for deciding which of the ten is correct, unless they all sign up to a system that will operate for all of them.  Free marketeers thus want businesses to form their own voluntary rules and reject regulatory oversight.  Nationalists want ‘their’ countries to do as they choose without being bound by any international law.  And there are families that want to treat/mistreat their children in their own ways without any intervention from social services.

 

[4] Experimentalism

The experimentalist approach holds that claims are vacuous unless they assert something that is objectively discernible; and any objectively detectable feature can be checked in time through observation and investigation.  The gathered findings can be tested experimentally through further examination of reports and evidence.  Any system that can demonstrate its efficacy in carrying out experimental assessment of claims has to the extent the authority to be the adjudicator of conflicting claims in that field.  Decisions are universally applicable, but they are also provisional in the sense that they could be revised, subject to future discovery of relevant evidence.  Advancement of science and technology, legal reforms, development of techniques in arts and craft, all follow the experimentalist approach in testing, learning, and adapting to move gradually closer to more reliable ideas and practices.

 

In Conclusion

In politics, all too often we are taken in by absolutism, scepticism, or relativism, and end up allowing the most erroneous claims to steer policies that shape society.  If we are to move forward in line with what genuinely warrants our belief, we cannot afford to shrug off epistemological questions.  Instead, we should learn more about the experimentalist approach and apply it to how we want our society to be governed.

 

--

For more on political epistemology, see What Should Citizens Believe:

(paperback version): https://www.amazon.co.uk/What-Should-Citizens-Believe-Exploring/dp/1548183105

(kindle version): https://www.amazon.co.uk/What-Should-Citizens-Believe-Exploring-ebook/dp/B07CSYRF8H

 

Educating Citizens: 3 critical aspects

When it comes to learning – be it in schools, universities, or adult education – much attention, quite rightly, is given to the development of  basic skills (linguistic and mathematical); general knowledge; skills to get an income; health and environmental awareness; cultural appreciation (music, literature); and social competence (discipline, tolerance, volunteering).  

But what about the inculcation of civic capability, which we all need in order to function as effective members of a self-governing society.  Unquestioning subjects who submit to arbitrary rule may get by without it, but citizens cannot play their part in sustaining their own governance in the absence of such capability.  There are three critical aspects of this capability that should be looked at more closely.  

 

First, it is vital for us to develop our sense of Civic Identity.  We all have multiple identity markers associated with culture, gender, belief, economic status, ethnicity, language, locality, family, work, etc.  But none of these should be accepted as a status-defining trait in a society of citizens where diverse members are all accorded equal respect.  Furthermore, the foundational commitment to equal citizenship means that the readiness to stand by others and the expectation that others would stand by one, must not be pushed aside through the invocation of any other affiliation or attachment. Citizens should therefore learn not only that they have a political bond that binds them through the rights and responsibilities they share in upholding their collective self-governance, but also that any attempt to undermine this bond by privileging some ‘higher’ value should be guarded against.

 

Secondly, we need to have the ability to make Objective Judgement.  For citizens to advance their common wellbeing through public policies and practices, their participation in activities that guide how the state will act on their behalf needs to be carried out with an accurate understanding of the relevant facts, proposals, and arguments. This goes beyond basic reasoning skills, and covers competencies for dealing with rhetorical misdirection, seeing through prejudices and fallacies, as well as seeking out reliable sources of information, assessing evidence and the veracity of testimony, and weighing up rival interpretations.  Citizens need to be trained from an early age so that they can differentiate unsubstantiated claims from reliable assertions.  It is also important to be able to recognise when a belief or decision should be revised in the light of new findings, especially through critical exploration with others.

 

Thirdly, it is essential to comprehend the importance of Accountable Governance and what it entails in practice.  No society can operate without a large number of collectively binding decisions being made by people who hold public offices through elections, delegation, or appointment.  If the people in these positions are to act consistently in the interest of the public they serve, then members of the public must be able to ensure that they can be held to account for their actions.  This involves grasping how state actions work, how people may attain positions with state power, and who has what responsibility for the impact on society.  Ignorance of accountable governance can lead to dangerous apathy at one extreme, and susceptibility to manipulation by demagogues at the other. Citizens need to learn when they should trust or challenge those in public office, what accountability arrangements are necessary, and how they should act to secure due accountability.

 

All three aspects of civic capability outlined above barely feature in contemporary education.  The neoliberal-minded may think that it does not matter too much so long as people acquire the skills to get a job.  Some cynics may even welcome the fact that many citizens can be easily divided, deceived, and deprived of political efficacy.  But if citizens are the ones to govern themselves without manipulation or domination by a ruling clique, then education has to step up and help people develop their civic capability.

Freedom to Harm Others?

No society can hold together if people were to have unlimited freedom to harm others.  Without fair rules, objective adjudication, and impartial enforcement to counter injurious behaviour, there would be no peace or order, let alone solidarity or cooperation.

 

Yet some people are set on pursuing their own desires and interests at the expense of others’ wellbeing.  They want to be able to do whatever that suits them regardless of the damaging consequences for other people.  And they dress up their callous arrogance as their right to freedom – as though it is unquestionable that they should be free to act as they please, and any attempt to restrain them from hurting others is an outrageous violation of their liberty.

 

Although the abuse of freedom – e.g., to deceive customers in the sale of goods, to steal or rob, to inflict pain on others, to overthrow democratic governments – is readily seen to be unacceptable, all too often the mere invocation of ‘freedom’ (even by the most shameless charlatans) is enough to keep legitimate intervention at bay.  This sleight of hand must be exposed.  Its harmful effects are already spreading way too far.

 

The freedom to push discredited claims about MMR vaccines was allowed for so long that it was almost forgotten that we should stop false information from endangering lives.  Now anti-vax promoters are turning their attention to the Covid-19 vaccines, and unless effective means are deployed to halt not simply campaigns of mass deception, but the reckless behaviour of infecting others with a life-threatening virus, we will all suffer.

 

The freedom to intimidate others directly or by inciting followers to threaten particular groups has also been protected as a result of the misguided belief that the freedom to express a ‘view’ is sacrosanct.  Now we see Trump and associates taking it so far as to encourage their supporters to threaten the lives of public officials involved in safeguarding the electoral process, and overturn the results of a democratic election.

 

There is also the freedom of a sovereign country to do as it pleases – something the UK’s Brexit-obsessed government invokes to break international law and reject independent arbitration over disputes regarding any agreement it has entered into with other countries.  In essence, Boris Johnson wants to be free to renege on any commitment he has signed up to regardless of the harm it may cause others.  By the same token, countries around the world seeking to act aggressively and exploitatively towards others can also invoke their sovereign freedom to do so – proving all the more that there is a need to have global structures to secure and enforce arrangements for peace, trade and security.

 

There is no moral or political reason to confer on anyone the absolute freedom to act without due consideration for others.  Only flawed thinking has led some well-intentioned people to side with non-intervention when intervention is palpably needed to stop the thoughtless and unscrupulous from ruining the lives of others.

 

It is vital to remember – freedom without limits is just a licence to harm.  

It's a Wonderful Greeting

In countries like the UK, US, Canada, and many others, the winter break has for a long time been celebrated with cultural references to Christmas.  People with different religious beliefs or none have put up decorations, sent each other greetings, and talked about the ups and downs of family gatherings over this period.  Despite the contrasts in religious/secular backgrounds; preferences for food; inclinations to shop, drink, or watch TV; they share a common experience of ‘Christmas time’.

Thus, we greet each other ‘Merry Christmas!’

 

Appreciating that there are other cultural festivals that may be celebrated by other groups, some of us take note of these events, and send tailored greetings to friends and colleagues who follow, for example, Jewish, Islamic, Hindu, Chinese, or other traditional customs.  That is all well in itself.  But then, there are a few who seem to lose the plot.  They go from appreciating the customs of diverse groups in society, to calling for distancing from the inclusive customs that prevail across society.  In short, they want to see all references to Christmas removed.  They want us to give each other ‘seasonal’ greetings, and regard any display in public or personal communications mentioning ‘Christmas’ as unacceptable.

 

Not surprisingly, that led to a reaction against the perceived attack on prevailing customs.  Many feel that it was untenable that the diverse cultures of individual groups in society should be respected but the general culture characteristics of the whole society must be erased.  Unfortunately, this understandable reaction has been swiftly exploited by bigots and charlatans who try to turn it into a platform to condemn diversity and challenge multiculturalism.

 

In this season of goodwill, let us remember that Christmas in our society is a cultural event that promotes kindness, joy, and in truth, a fair amount of indulgence.  No one is pressured into going to church, sing carols, dress up as Santa, eat turkey, or watch the latest Xmas Special on TV.  Indeed, people are to enjoy themselves in whichever way they like.  It is fully compatible with wishing people with their own ethnic/religious/local customs the very best with their celebrations.  Anyone who try to hijack Christmas for their own fundamentalist sect poses as much a threat to Christmas as those who misguidedly want to blank it out.  

 

Christmas is a time for, not petty demarcation, but coming together.  It is a splendid tradition, as the year draws to a close, of reminding everyone to spread joy and hope.

 

Merry Christmas everyone!

What is Offensive?

People argue passionately about what is offensive and whether or not anything offensive should be banned.  But passion without reason tends to end in an incoherent mess.  Consider the following:

 

·      Should everyone – in the name of art, religion, freedom – be allowed to behave as they wish regardless of how offensive others may find it? Should racists, sexists, homophobes be given free rein to taunt and denigrate others in the most offensive manner?

·      Should everyone – in the name of tradition, sacred teaching, decency – be supported in stopping others from behaving in any way they find offensive? Should calls for racial equality, same sex marriage, rejection of creationism, all be ruled out as some people may otherwise be offended?

·      What about people, who demand to have the right to be offensive as they wish AND the support in banning others from being offensive in any way they would not tolerate?  How can anyone even begin to reconcile such arbitrary and conflicting demands?

 

The fact is that different people at different times find different things offensive.  If everything deemed offensive subjectively is to be banned, then few acts can escape from being banned as someone, somewhere, in sound mind or not, may well find it offensive.  Trying to differentiate what is truly offensive in itself from what is wrongly so regarded is futile since the nature of offensiveness is inherently subjective.  What we must recognise is that being offended by something does not necessarily render that something ban-worthy. 

 

How then should we respond when people complain about offensive behaviour they have encountered?  This question can only be answered in relation to our understanding of what kind of society we want to live in.  If we are to have any rules, assessments, and sanctions that are to apply to everyone, then it is a societal – rather than individual – matter as to what should be done.

 

This moral understanding of appropriate behaviour changes over time, but it does not mean that it is incapable of developing in a thoughtful direction.  If society is predominantly influenced by unreflecting views which overlook cruelty and neglect but hang on tightly to oppressive prejudices, then it could end up condemning as unacceptably offensive any expression that does not conform to some arbitrary sense of ‘purity’ or ‘tradition’, while concerns with, for example, racist or sexist behaviour will be dismissed as symptoms of over-sensitivity and misguided outrage.  But if society is moving towards greater thoughtfulness that brings with it deeper awareness of the difference between the manifestation of nastiness, callous neglect, or spiteful provocation, on the one hand, and the inherently harmless acts of people seeking love, creativity, or recourse against injustice, on the other; then that difference will be discerned and reflected in the rules and policies being advanced.

 

It is society that sets the norms regarding what causes of offensiveness should be restrained, and what should be allowed.  The challenge for us is not to come up with a definition of ‘offensiveness’ that can be used universally as the basis for banning behaviour that fits with it.  Instead, our endeavours should be directed towards promoting the moral culture of thoughtfulness, mutual respect, and generosity of spirit.  And we need to spread that ethos both educationally (so more people come to appreciate it) and politically (so governing institutions will act to safeguard it).

Trumpism: Old Con in New Bottle

There is a lot of talk about Trumpism – a new ideology, a new movement, a new kind of politics, etc.  Nothing like a new ‘ism’ to get commentators going.  But what Trump has brought to politics is actually just the same old Con, albeit in a gauche new bottle.

 

Con politics has always been exploiting lamentable tendencies in people who are susceptible to being manipulated into acting against their own interest.  

 

Here are four classic Con tricks:

 

[1] Recruit cult followers

Target people who would feel valued by joining a cult where a shameless and arrogant leader would be perceived by the flock as faultless chief to be followed with total devotion.  Give them a misguided sense of belonging, and they would back the cult regardless of its wrongdoing.

 

[2] Scam gullible buyers

Target people who would fall for con merchants selling snake oil, Ponzi schemes, or anything that would cost them and give them nothing in return but false hope.  Deflect them from good offers, and mislead them into buying into worthless, or even harmful deals.

 

[3] Feed rumour mongers

Target people who would gladly pick up and circulate malicious rumours to help stoke outrage, prejudice, mistrust, fear, etc., as that would get them attention from propagating shocking ‘news’.  Make them feel ‘special’ in spreading ‘information’ that established experts assess to be false or unsubstantiated.

 

[4] Gather law-breaking fodder 

Target people who would embrace any excuse to break the law to suit themselves, especially when it is dressed up as some self-righteous cause.  Encourage them to intimidate, or even attack, scapegoats and enemies with the help of verbal threats, display of weapons, and physical violence – all in the name of ‘freedom’.

 

Trumpian recycled Con

 

So-called ‘Trumpism’ is little more than recycled Con.  For decades we have seen the aforementioned tricks deployed, and Trump has simply made more brazen use of them.

 

First, evangelical cults have always tried to claim ‘God’ for the politics of exploitation, while trampling on religious values of love and fairness.  Like many cult leaders, the morally vile Trump was able to take on the role of the ‘one who can do no wrong’ in the eyes of his followers.

 

Secondly, the ‘free market’ scam is there to con people about the economics of redistribution from the poor to the rich.  Regulations are imposed or removed to suit the wealthy elite.  Trump continued to sell to the public that cutting funds for the less well-off to enrich the few at the top is a great bargain for all.

 

Thirdly, malicious fabrications to denigrate immigrants, public institutions, climate science etc are integral to the Con rumour mill to stir up distrust and animosity, so that the needed public policies are thwarted.  Trump extended the web of deception via social media and reached even more who preferred lies to reality.

 

Fourthly, Con politics has consistently waved the banner of Law & Order while whispering threats of disruption and violence.  From gun-toting gangs to supremist groups, Trump endorsed intimidatory behaviour, and encouraged rejection of the rule of law whenever his failings were being exposed.

 

Pour the old Con away

 

Many books and articles will be written about this tacky bottle called ‘Trumpism’, but what everyone should focus on is the dreadful old Con that it contains.  These tricks can be played in different ways by different performers.  But they all follow the same patterns, and should be thoroughly exposed.  Don’t let the face on the bottle distract you; keep the spotlight on the lies and misdirection. 

The Identity Trap

Careless talk about who we are supposed to be can throw us into a dangerous identity trap.

Some may think that pinning down someone’s identity is an unequivocal matter. But what is one’s identity is a question that depends on the context in which it is asked. Is one being asked about one’s nationality, religion, moral outlook, attachment to customs, workplace position, cultural preferences, sporting allegiance, socio-economic background, biological traits, role in one’s family, or membership of some group that holds special significance? None of the elements just mentioned is sufficient by itself to cover every possible question about one’s identity. Furthermore, just because one cites a particular category in relation to any of these elements, it does not follow that it must be part of one’s identity to possess all the features some people may choose to ascribe to that category.

For example, pick any nationality, and there will be some who associate it with all that is noble and heroic, and some who regard as the embodiment of untrustworthiness and aggression. The truth, for just about every nation, is that there are proud and regrettable moments in its history, and while its members may be judged on how they feel about these moments, they can’t be held accountable for those occurrences over which they had no influence. Similarly, one may have grown up with certain customs, but it does not follow that one will continue to embrace all those customs and related beliefs, or interpret their meaning in the same way. Short-hand labels like ‘Catholic’, ‘Buddhist’, ‘Shiite’ can be totally misleading if we assume everyone with that label must resemble one another in every vital respect, and share responsibility for the actions of anyone who happens to apply that label to themselves.

Biological features could be relevant when referred to in specific contexts, but are likely to distort how people are viewed if invoked on the basis of dubious generalisation. If information relating to DNA, X/Y chromosomes, bodily health, etc can help to determine the diagnosis and treatment of people, then it should be factored in. However, to talk about someone’s ethnicity, gender, or age as though from that element alone we can deduce every significant statement about that person is clearly absurd. Identity politics may rely on rigid categorisation of people into pre-conceived ‘black/white’, ‘female/male’, ‘old/young’ types; but every attribution of inherent psychological or behavioural traits to these types has been refuted by experience.

Equally unfounded, but just as commonly made, are identity claims formulated about people in connection with their socio-economic circumstances. For instance, people who cannot make ends meet and are socially marginalised (because, e.g., they are hampered by the deprivations in their neighbourhoods, recession has left too few job opportunities, disability limits what paid work they can find, dire conditions back home have forced them to become refugees) may have in common the need for external support to obtain food and shelter, but how they see their predicament and what they do in response vary greatly. Yet, to group them as ‘benefit seekers’ and project them disparagingly, especially by equating them with a small minority who attempt to claim benefit payment on false terms, is simply misleading and viciously hurtful.

The identity trap is one of the most insidious propagandist tools. To counter it, we should:
[1] stress we have multiple characteristics and not any single one of these can be picked out as all-defining of who a person is;
[2] expose any attempt to make arbitrary generalisations about what any partial identity label is supposed to encompass; and
[3] remind everyone that there are other characteristics that are all too often overlooked – e.g., the important self-identification as someone who seeks to be a thoughtful person, a caring parent, an enemy of cruelty, a defender of reason.

Humans are complex beings. We must never let others stick us down with a simplistic label.