It has always been the work of politicians, as “artisans of the possible,” to use whatever means they have available to advance their own particular agenda. But when this culture of disingenuity spills over into the popular debate, it impoverishes our political culture. With the battle lines between the two major parties so clearly drawn, representing broader cultural battles between the highly educated and sophisticated urbane and the more traditional rural populace, the political conversation often feels like little more than attacks blindly volleyed over well-fortified ideological embattlements. How can we counter this disturbing trend? By turning our critical gaze from the discussion at hand to the sinews of the debate itself.
Foremost among the fallacies that plague the political debate is that of ascribing irrationality to one’s opponent. A particular set of data or facts is presented, and the conclusion is seen to emanate immutably and irrevocably from there. This progression from theories to conclusion is assumed to be iron-clad in the very laws of logic; whoever reached a different conclusion simply made a logical error. There is an important element of self-disclosure missing here, however, that it was William James’ great insight to point out – at the heart of every line of reasoning is a value judgment, an emotional atom that can’t be further reduced. Very often the value judgment that’s assumed as a given is that statistical or ‘scientific’ thinking is more prescriptive than everyday experience. There is a further implied value judgment that then directs how this abstract knowledge should be used – towards greater equality, towards a lower national debt, whatever the case may be. This value, this guide for all thought and action, is the ratio or reason in the word ‘rational,’ the human core of logic that never exists outside of a particular person’s perspective.
Having a particular set of data often gives people the mistaken impression that their position, the course of action they are describing, is beyond reproach. It is important to remember that empirical data and its statistical analysis is a highly specialized and abstracted form of inductive knowledge. The primary characteristic of this inductive knowledge is that it provides justification to hypotheses, but only in the realm of probabilities, never affording certainties. Inductive reasoning is at the same time the effortless mode of all everyday knowledge, and it is this direct, unmediated experience that molds the aforementioned values that often find themselves opposed to abstract justifications. Why should anyone ever accept a highly abstracted and sanitized form of knowledge over the immediate and genuine values that they come by through experience?
If we’re to make any progress in swaying people over to our point of view, we need to approach any debate with a kind of sympathetic understanding. What values are at the core of the opposition’s argument, and what possible life experiences could have led them to that mindset? If we don’t take this basic preliminary step, we’re wasting our time and preaching to the choir of those who have already internalized the same value-set as our own.
The scientific method is an amazing tool for gathering data in a consistent and repeatable way. Unfortunately, it sometimes gives the mistaken impression of one ‘best’ solution to human problems. Human perspectives always initiate and then valuate the results of scientific endeavors. Far from being a detriment, this has always been the great worth of scientific research: we owe the engine, the electric light and all the wonders of the modern age to this principle. Accumulated data is lifeless, inert without a value system to direct its use; these value systems are formed through direct, unmediated experience. Therefore, we ought not to dismiss a political point of view as invalid for being “unscientific.” All arguments are branches from the same tree of valuation; some are just closer to the rootstock than others. If we think a particular abstract argument has great merit, then we ought to take care to craft it in a way that resonates with the wisdom of everyday experience, instead of belittling those who don’t have the time to devote thought to such matters.
There was a school of philosophical thinking in America that arose out of the ferment of the Industrial Revolution at the turn of the last century. Dubbed “pragmatism” or “instrumentalism,” it sought to understand how democracy could exist, even thrive, in a society that contained an unprecedented array of cultures and value systems from around the globe. In this time of contentious political debate, their analysis is remarkably insightful. Above all, we need to keep the channels of communication open to maintain the health of this wonderful political system from which we all benefit so greatly: democracy. For democracy, as John Dewey put it, is not “an alternative to other principles of associated life. It is the very idea of community life itself.”
Gavin Beeker is a Collegian columnist and can be reached at [email protected].
