 |
| Image credit |
Some people are so eager to obey, they act in compliance before a command is issued.
Today, I talked to a gentleman, who listed to me the newspapers that he absolutely trusts.
The gentleman was very nice, very intelligent and very well-educated — it was a pleasure talking to him. I found it all the more astounding that a discerning and astute mind such as his would exempt certain media outlets from the need to be subjected to critical thinking — of which the gentleman is capable of in ample measure.
There is no institution in my country that requires, still less forces, you to make such a commitment which is equivalent to swearing an oath to believe and defend as unassailable truth whatever is being reported by a (certain group of) newspaper(s).
Yet, the gentleman was absolutely adamant about guaranteed enlightenment by his sources of revelation.
He engaged in an act of religious conviction. But his posture was meant to assure me of the scientific/objective quality of information relayed to him and his right to draw indubitable conclusions from it.
Such a commitment is the sure sign of a person having joined a community of believers as opposed to being the participant of an open debate.
The remarkable thing is how that person makes it his own business to authenticate the infallibility of a (group of) newspaper(s).
An act of astonishing hubris born of zealotry — who is he to provide such authentication? —, especially in view of the fact that this person admits he/she has no time to ascertain facts and therefore relies on his preferred media outlets to acquire indubitable knowledge.
There is a grotesque circularity involved: I believe in the truth of what my newspaper writes, because the "truth" disseminated therein accords with my own belief. My belief is correct because it is being confirmed by a newspaper that I absolutely trust and that happens to report findings that square precisely with my belief.
The observation is significant as it seems to demonstrate how the best in our society can be made to switch off (of their own accord) their critical faculties for select purposes.
Certain issues are branded "taboo" in the sense that "you must not deny them" unless you are willing to be seen as committing a sin. They are turned into matters of faith (morally and socially) immunised against critical questioning.
Once an issue has been established as such a taboo-brand (something to be believed in as a matter of moral purity and absolute truth) in the mind of a person, the believer may be otherwise as well-educated and intelligent as one might wish, she/he will not be able to take a critical and questioning stance vis-à-vis the issue and be oriented toward revering any presentation of it that accords with the taboo.
That is why political correctness is so important to politicians — it is the system that establishes taboo-brands among the population.
The fact that political correctness is openly demanded seems to me a sign reflecting the willingness of many to act subserviently in rushing ahead of what they think they will be required to say, do or believe — as demonstrated in the adamant claim that the veracity of certain press organs is beyond doubt.
Obviously, a society that emphasises political correctness cannot be a society that advises its citizens to apply critical thinking to every issue — it is a dangerous society as it actively builds taboo-protected areas, where criticism is considered morally objectionable and socially worth of condemnation ("climate change deniers").
A white elephant of the proportions of the Energiewende is only possible in exactly such a society where vorauseilender Gehorsam, the uncritical acceptance of taboos and the naive identification of large parts of the public with the politically correct powers-that-be have reached an advanced stage.
A standard reply to criticism of political maldevelopments in my country comes in the form of a question: do you believe in a conspiracy theory?
Well, it would seem, there is no need for a conspiracy, people are eagerly playing along, confirming what they think they are expected to think and say even before anyone is demanding them to do so, or ever will (see the first underlined paragraph above).
This is not the place to go deeper into the question why people are over-compliant. But one aspect of it I will mention in concluding this post. Compliance with social norms is of the essence in any functioning society. In countless contexts, it is a positive thing to uncritically adopt social norms -—imagine every time I extend my arm for a handshake people start a vicious debate about the appropriateness of such a gesture.
Uncritical adoption of social norms is not unproblematic in every field. Politicians will try to inculcate their ideas through that mechanism, which is what political correctness is all about — a phrase that openly promotes the idea of a dress code of political convictions that needs to be adhered to by everyone — a blessing handed down from above. Again, a sign of just how sure politicians are of their ability to manipulate the population and their confidence in the gullibility and subservience of the people.
No comments:
Post a Comment