I live in a short street that connects a 15th-century convent to a Napoleonic-era theatre. On one side there is a park full of ornamental trees, in the middle there is a via crucis flanked by a double row of plane trees and the other side is lined by a row of elegant palazzi. The street is paved with flagstones and parking is forbidden by law. My neighbour parks her car outside her front door every night. She does so even though it is only 30 metres to a legitimate car park, there is a sign forbidding parking and the local police occasionally fine her. We have tried gently to reason with her, pointing out that the street is nicer without cars in it, that bad behaviour encourages others to do the same, that the neighbours disapprove, and that the sump of her car leaks oil onto the flagstones. We have even pointed out that Pope Francis says that obeying minor laws is important, a Christian duty and an example to others. Yet in her mind none of this is sufficient to overrule the convenience of being able to go out of her house straight into her car and drive away. If the police fine her, then they are at fault and so is the law. If the neighbours disapprove, then they are misguided.
This is a very minor example of something that is multiplied a thousand times every day. Collectively, it amounts to a move away from rationality. Rational argument no longer convinces many people. It does not even overawe them if they are unable to grasp it. The result is a sort of ‘alternative reality’, in which things are as they are, not because this is a reasonable outcome, but because people have convinced themselves that this is what they believe.
Technology compounds the problem. As long ago as 1997 Henry Quarantelli observed that it “leads a double life. one which conforms to the intentions of designers and interests of power and another which contradicts them.” In the so-called information age, rational argument is increasingly impotent. In the words of Louis Theroux, “Dodgy algorithms have weaponised our anger and fear, enticing us into liking and sharing content that is false and divisive. ...[and left us] powerless to resist the spread of junk information.”
The potential conclusion of this situation involves an ancient concept called, in French, anomie (it has also been absorbed into standard English as anomy but it not widely known). The French sociologist Emile Durkheim rescued it from obscurity and used it in his 1893 book De la division du travail social (translated as The Division of Labour in Society). Anomie, or anomy, is a condition of instability resulting from a breakdown of standards and values or from a lack of purpose or ideals. Corruption, bad leadership, vested interests, marginalisation, poverty, the rise of the ‘precariat’, grievance and polarisation are some of the factors that underlie it. Collective anomie amounts to a form of nihilism.
A second very pertinent concept is akrasia (ἀκρασία), the state of mind in which someone acts against their better judgement through weakness of will or want of self-command. This is sometimes intertwined with cognitive dissonance, simultaneous belief in two concepts that are mutually incompatible. For example: “dangerous earthquakes occur here; I live here; I am not endangered by earthquakes”. We might further tie these concepts into the model of information dissemination propounded by Herman and Chomsky in their book Manufacturing Consent. Chomsky elaborated on the model in his subsequent work, Letters from Lexington: Reflections on Propaganda.
I was trained as a scientist, which means that I was taught to believe that there is only one reality, which should be pursued and can be revealed by objective, rational thought. More than 40 years later, I am convinced that instead there are innumerable realities, and who is to say that my reality is more real than anyone else’s? This may seem like a false argument when it comes to conspiracy theories or judgements that are amply disproved by information that has been rigorously obtained and properly vetted. However, we live in an age in which, increasingly, information is manufactured and thus so is reality, simply because people believe the information.
I end this set of reflections with two models that are intended to show how reality is created by the power of perceptions and their transformation into shared opinions through socialisation using the powerful new tools that are available in modern mass communication, particularly social media. For many citizens, ‘reality’ has become a construct based on some degree of consensus about what is happening. This may or may not be derived from real events or legitimate interpretations of them.
I still believe in rational communication and objective reality. However, we are increasingly short of the means of bridging the ‘perception gap’ and getting people to appreciate the value of rationality. I do not have the answer to this conundrum but I do believe that we have to defend the Enlightenment, even 300 years later!
Technology compounds the problem. As long ago as 1997 Henry Quarantelli observed that it “leads a double life. one which conforms to the intentions of designers and interests of power and another which contradicts them.” In the so-called information age, rational argument is increasingly impotent. In the words of Louis Theroux, “Dodgy algorithms have weaponised our anger and fear, enticing us into liking and sharing content that is false and divisive. ...[and left us] powerless to resist the spread of junk information.”
The potential conclusion of this situation involves an ancient concept called, in French, anomie (it has also been absorbed into standard English as anomy but it not widely known). The French sociologist Emile Durkheim rescued it from obscurity and used it in his 1893 book De la division du travail social (translated as The Division of Labour in Society). Anomie, or anomy, is a condition of instability resulting from a breakdown of standards and values or from a lack of purpose or ideals. Corruption, bad leadership, vested interests, marginalisation, poverty, the rise of the ‘precariat’, grievance and polarisation are some of the factors that underlie it. Collective anomie amounts to a form of nihilism.
A second very pertinent concept is akrasia (ἀκρασία), the state of mind in which someone acts against their better judgement through weakness of will or want of self-command. This is sometimes intertwined with cognitive dissonance, simultaneous belief in two concepts that are mutually incompatible. For example: “dangerous earthquakes occur here; I live here; I am not endangered by earthquakes”. We might further tie these concepts into the model of information dissemination propounded by Herman and Chomsky in their book Manufacturing Consent. Chomsky elaborated on the model in his subsequent work, Letters from Lexington: Reflections on Propaganda.
I was trained as a scientist, which means that I was taught to believe that there is only one reality, which should be pursued and can be revealed by objective, rational thought. More than 40 years later, I am convinced that instead there are innumerable realities, and who is to say that my reality is more real than anyone else’s? This may seem like a false argument when it comes to conspiracy theories or judgements that are amply disproved by information that has been rigorously obtained and properly vetted. However, we live in an age in which, increasingly, information is manufactured and thus so is reality, simply because people believe the information.
I end this set of reflections with two models that are intended to show how reality is created by the power of perceptions and their transformation into shared opinions through socialisation using the powerful new tools that are available in modern mass communication, particularly social media. For many citizens, ‘reality’ has become a construct based on some degree of consensus about what is happening. This may or may not be derived from real events or legitimate interpretations of them.
I still believe in rational communication and objective reality. However, we are increasingly short of the means of bridging the ‘perception gap’ and getting people to appreciate the value of rationality. I do not have the answer to this conundrum but I do believe that we have to defend the Enlightenment, even 300 years later!
Further reading
Chomsky, N. 2004. Letters from Lexington: Reflections on Propaganda, Paradigm Publishers, Boulder, Colorado, 192 pp.
Durkheim, E. 1893. The Division of Labour in Society. (De la division du travail social, trans. G. Simpson.) The Free Press, Glencoe, Illinois, p. 431.
Herman, E.S. and N. Chomsky 1988. Manufacturing Consent: The Political Economy of the Mass Media. Pantheon Books, New York 306 pp.
Quarantelli, E.L. 1997. Problematical aspects of the information/communication revolution for disaster planning and research: ten non-technical issues and questions. Disaster Prevention and Management 6(2): 94-106.
Durkheim, E. 1893. The Division of Labour in Society. (De la division du travail social, trans. G. Simpson.) The Free Press, Glencoe, Illinois, p. 431.
Herman, E.S. and N. Chomsky 1988. Manufacturing Consent: The Political Economy of the Mass Media. Pantheon Books, New York 306 pp.
Quarantelli, E.L. 1997. Problematical aspects of the information/communication revolution for disaster planning and research: ten non-technical issues and questions. Disaster Prevention and Management 6(2): 94-106.
