From: Arlo J. Bensinger (ajb102@psu.edu)
Date: Tue May 03 2005 - 04:14:57 BST
MSH had submitted a short article by Sam Smith for consideration.
Arlo replies:
What a good launching board! Without getting into specifics off the bat, it's
basic question is very similar to one Peirce had asked, namely, "How do we fix
our beliefs" (reprinted here: http://www.peirce.org/writings/p107.html)
Briefly, Peirce outlined four fundamental ways we fix (or assign) our beliefs:
(1) tenacity, (2) authority, (3) a priori reasoning and (4) scientific
methodology. Peirce also proposed that "doubt" was an "uneasy and dissatisfied
state from which we struggle to free ourselves". The mind abhors doubt. Thus we
are driven into the four "fixations" to escape a state of displeasure (doubt),
which Peirce called "inquiry".
It's fairly evident that tenacity and authority are the "quickest" fixes. Either
to stubbornly believe what we want to believe to be true, or to turn the
"doubt" over to others and rest our belief on their proclamations have also
historically been the most "used" fixations. Of tenacity, he writes: "the
instinctive dislike of an undecided state of mind, exaggerated into a vague
dread of doubt, makes men cling spasmodically to the views they already take".
Tenacity, in Peirce's analysis collapses (ideally) when the individual finds
him/herself exposed to others who hold different beliefs, and "in saner
moments" ask "why".
Authority, then, as a fixer of beliefs emerges to homogenize "belief" among the
popultion. Peirce states: "Let an institution be created which shall have for
its object to keep correct doctrines before the attention of the people, to
reiterate them perpetually, and to teach them to the young; having at the same
time power to prevent contrary doctrines from being taught, advocated, or
expressed. Let all possible causes of a change of mind be removed from men's
apprehensions. Let them be kept ignorant, lest they should learn of some reason
to think otherwise than they do. Let their passions be enlisted, so that they
may regard private and unusual opinions with hatred and horror. Then, let all
men who reject the established belief be terrified into silence. Let the people
turn out and tar-and-feather such men, or let inquisitions be made into the
manner of thinking of suspected persons, and when they are found guilty of
forbidden beliefs, let them be subjected to some signal punishment."
Sound familiar? Here is where I will pause in Peirce's analysis and state that
my opinion is that the media is an extension (or force) of authority. It's job
is twofold, one is to convince people to look "outside themselves" for "belief"
and the second is that should in turn look to an "external authority", usually
serindipidously supplied BY the media.
Back to Peirce, for the time being. Peirce believed that those for whom a given
authority was not able to subjugate, would rebel against authority upon
exposure to other authority systems. At this point Peirce believe that the
natural impulse in man was towards "reasoning". He states: "The willful
adherence to a belief, and the arbitrary forcing of it upon others, must,
therefore, both be given up. A different new method of settling opinions must
be adopted, that shall not only produce an impulse to believe, but shall also
decide what proposition it is which is to be believed. Let the action of
natural preferences be unimpeded, then, and under their influence let men,
conversing together and regarding matters in different lights, gradually
develop beliefs in harmony with natural causes. This method resembles that by
which conceptions of art have been brought to maturity. The most perfect
example of it is to be found in the history of metaphysical philosophy."
The final step, however, would be to resolve our doubts by moving from "internal
reasoning" to "external analysis": "To satisfy our doubts, therefore, it is
necessary that a method should be found by which our beliefs may be determined
by nothing human, but by some external permanency -- by something upon which
our thinking has no effect."
OK. Done with Peirce. Suffice it to say that the last two "fixations" require
some amount of (1) exposure to diverse opinions, and (2) practice in critical
thinking.
With the media functioning as a sublime homogenizer, and an educational system
and culture that devalues critical inquiry (and promotes acceptance of
authority), its easy to see why most people in this country turn to the "media
as Authority" to outsource the fixation of their beliefs. The problem is not,
as Platt has indicated this criticism seemed to be, that "people are stupid",
only at worst that "people are lazy (in how they fix their beliefs)", but not
inherently so, they are made to be that way by an enculturation process that
emphasizes homogeneity and authority.
Back to the Smith essay. Anyone who gives it enough thought, I think, would
agree that the two-party system is mostly a false distinction. While there are
minimal "party platform" differneces, they both represent about 1 degree of
separation on the political-philosophical scale. The bitter "feud" makes good
theatre, but it should be seen, as I agree with Smith, it is a ficticious
distinction "not one which exists".
Although Smith only eludes to the power-reification aspect of the media in
supporting elite capital interests in this particular article, it is a theatre
Marx would call "opiating". By keeping us distracted from asking relevant
questions, and focused on creating an atmosphere akin to a high-school football
game, people will spend their time "cheering for the home team", rather than
examining policies that always benefit the wealthy and privileged. It is, as I
have called it, manipulated xenophobia. By playing to (perhaps natural) fear
tendencies, authority can solidify its power and keep people focused on the
"war".
Platt had asked an interesting question a while back, and that is "can the media
ever be objective?" Foucault suggested that "all history is fiction", in that
it is written to support ideologies. Obviously, there is bias in Fox and in
CNN. Peirce would say that while individual bias may never be defeated,
exposure to hetereogeniety and getting people involved in thinking the issues
through themselves is as close as we can come to a "media" that is not merely
"propaganda".
This is why I like NPR. On the news the other day, about oil drilling on an
island inhabited by eskimo fishermen communities, the report gave equal time
(over 2 minutes) to both the eskimos who feel oil interests have decimated
their fish populations, to oil interests who argue that the majority of
pollution was caused by Soviet oil drilling on the northern coast that occured
with no pollution safeguards; from voices urging protection of indiginous
peoples to voices urging bring indiginous peoples into modern activity systems.
In the end, it was merely a presentation of various opinions and the listener
was left to begin to formulate an opinion on his/her own.
Now, whether or not this is 100% indicative of NPR reports, I can't say. But it
is representative of my listening experience. However, Fox News would have
reported "Energy Production Threatened By Communist Environmentalists", while
CNN may have said "Oil Companies Destroy Fishing Villages". It's not that "only
NPR" can do this, but they are the only ones who I have found to be currently
doing it.
Well, so much more to say, but I will end it here for now.
Arlo
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archives:
Aug '98 - Oct '02 - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
Nov '02 Onward - http://www.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/summary.html
MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Tue May 03 2005 - 06:30:41 BST