Hey Cyberspace. It's another beautiful day in Halifax.
Today's topic is another that is borne of my reading of 1984. I'm sorry I just can't help it...there were a few themes in the book that really stuck with me...and this one is by far the scariest - history.
I've long been a supporter of the idea that both individuals and society must learn from their mistakes in order to move forward. We must use past mistakes as a template of what not to do. After all...trial and error will eventually give a workable solution to any problem as long as time and resources are available.
Having said that, it is extremely easy to make the argument that we as a society haven't learned anything from past civilizations. While we say we live in a democratic society, we live more in a world of corporatism. While this exact model hasn't necessarily been used before, the inherent problems that have ruined entire Empires (such as the Romans) still exist. The power and influence lies in the hands of a few...and those few are easily convinced to go against the wishes of the many. So have we really learned?
I don't know...but I also can't say for sure that the Romans ever even existed. I'm told that they did...I'm told that there is lots of evidence. But how do I know for sure? I don't write the history books. I don't have any connection to the people that do. And this is what's scary. I can sift through every single website on the internet and every book in the library that have to do with any subject - but I can't prove that those words are true. I mean, how could we ever learn from a society that never existed? Interesting thought if nothing else.
"And if all others accepted the lie which the Party imposed – if all
records told the same tale – then the lie passed into history and became
truth. "Who controls the past," ran the Party slogan, "controls the
future: who controls the present controls the past." That is a quote from 1984...Book 1, Chapter 3, Paragraph 18.
It's a scary principle. I've done a lot of research into a lot of different things. After reading 1984, I began to question the very facts and ideas that have formed my personality. The idea that everything I know is completely manufactured...it scares the shit out of me.
Of course, I don't believe that our leaders have gone to such extremes at present (although I can't say so for sure)...but I can definitely see it happening in the future. I guess that my education concerning Public Relations is the reason that this idea bothers me so much. PR involves picking and choosing which information to release and when to release it...once the flow of information becomes controlled, how far are we really off of completely altering the facts? While I will concede that withholding the truth is not necessarily the same as lying, it becomes a very fine line - a line that will eventually be crossed.
While the internet remains an invaluable resource and forum for free thought and expression, legislation such as the SOPA bill in the US even being proposed show that our leaders are nervous about the spread of unedited and unfiltered information. And yes, I am aware that the SOPA bill's goal was to stop copyright infringement (yeah right)...but if I'm not mistaken, if passed it would have given the government the power to shut down ANY website.
The idea is scary...the "tangible" evidence for the enactment of such an idea is even scarier.
Just a few thoughts that I had to get out.
Peace and Love
The Critical Stranger
As always thoughts, comments and suggestions are encouraged and appreciated!
I just had to share this idea.
Brandon,
ReplyDeleteYour post had a lot of potential, but unfortunately it is fraught with overly broad statements.
First a comment on "history" -- to borrow a cliche, it's written by winners. The narrative of the Second World War would have likely looked nothing like it does now had the Axis prevailed. The question is a good one--whose history do we trust? Sadly, there is no easy answer.
The head of the New York Times book review said in an interview last year when asked how much of recorded history is true, remarked: "Probably about half." Now even he is guessing, but the point is, it's not nearly as much as we have been led to believe. There are methods of course of verification--peer review, original source material, etc. But that doesn't mean there isn't a lot of speculation. All that notwithstanding, you're citing the reason that we shouldn't be so alarmed--Geo. Orwell. He and many like him write. And it's out there to be consumed. So the idea that governments feed us information might be true to an extent, but in open societies like mine and yours, we have plenty of access to information. So much so I will be bold enough to suggest that if people aren't well-versed on issues, it's their own fault. That people are more inclined to 30-second TV spots than thick, information-laden books can't really be blamed on the state.
But specific to your post:
You mention the aphorism that we repeat mistakes when we don't learn from them. That can only be described as a truism at best. What I would consider a mistake, you may not, and vice-versa. A good example is the dropping of the atom bombs on Japan in 1945. Personally, I think it was a huge mistake, but here in the US, I can assure you I'm in the minority. It isn't generally seen as a mistake. Thus, we're bound to have more of an inclination to repeat it.
Similarly, you suggest that trial and error is bound to rectify any problem given time and resources. If you reflect upon that statement and still hold your contention I would be surprised. What is a workable solution? Don't most workable solutions involve a lot of conflict. I can't speak for Canada, but here in the US it seems strife stemming from solutions is higher than I can remember in my lifetime.
All I'm suggesting is that tightening your statements to include specifics of what you're talking about would make your positions clearer.
Another example:
"...we haven't learned anything from past civilizations..."
Really? Nothing?!?! Sure, there are plenty of examples of how we've not matured or "learned from the past," but there are countless examples of how we have. Scientific discovery, for example. Without the work of our forebears, each generation would have to begin anew. Certainly this can't be what you're saying. But it reads that way.
(continued in next post)
(continued)
ReplyDeleteAlso a comment on "democracy" and "corporatism." There is absolutely nothing that says they can't co-exist. Leaving aside our lazy use of the term "democracy," all it really does is give people choices--to a point. What those choices are can be just about anything--including corporatism. We may agree on the undesirable aspects of a society beholden to corporations, but we at least have to understand our political and economic systems.
You can indeed reasonably be assured that the Romans existed. Maybe not 100%, but I'm certain that upon review you would find a lot of credible evidence from sources you yourself would trust. I really hope Orwell hasn't scared you too much. He's an important author to be sure, but remember that his writing was largely a commentary on his own times, not just as a harbinger for ours.
If Orwell has somehow caused you alarm, I'm going to recommend an author who may help restore some of your faith in humanity: Herman Hesse. Try any of his older books--Steppenwolf, Damien, Narcissus and Goldmund, etc.--and see what you think. They're short, but extremely valuable in my estimation. And remember, I'm a misanthrope. But Hesse even gives me faith in some of my fellow human beings. If he does nothing else for you, he will at least reinforce that beauty you were talking about in one of your other posts.
Thank you for another enjoyable post.
As always, peace to you.
Phineas
Phineas,
DeleteThis is an excellent comment, and I will definitely be responding to it later on when I am less pressed for time. Just wanted to let you know I read it, and I'm really looking forward to where this conversation will go - especially if it leads to you giving me suggested reading material, something I am always on the hunt for, especially from people who are rational and capable of critical thought. Thanks so much, I'll get back to you very soon.
First of all, sorry for taking so long to get back at you on this.
DeleteLet's begin with learning from the past. You're absolutely right that I'm absolutely wrong when I say that we haven't learned anything from past civilizations - what I should have said was we haven't learned anything from the mistakes of past civilizations. We obviously have learned and extracted from people who were here before us, otherwise things like democracy and science couldn't exist. After all, how could you ever have a forward motion in science if you've always started from the same point.
I do still feel that we haven't learned from the mistakes of the great civilizations. We have the same problems in government now that they did then (supposedly) - a balance of power that allows very few to impose their will on the many.
It is an inarguable fact that society needs some semblance of order to run effectively. There has to be people in power to take leadership roles, otherwise it would be chaos. The basic principle of democracy says that the people will elect a representative to state the opinion of the people and fight for what the people want. When a corporation can simply bribe this representative and get said representative to go against the wishes of his or her public, democracy has failed.
This is why I say that we live in a society of corporatism, not democracy...a society where big businesses and central banks are the puppeteers of our elected representatives.
As far as your point on having access to information, you are partially right. We do have a vast amount of information literally at our fingertips. However, as you said yourself, there is a lot of speculation. If only half of our recorded history (just for the sake of argument) is true, then how can one truly distinguish what is fact and what is fiction? I'm not religious, but the Bible is a perfect example of how one piece of literature can be interpreted in countless ways. I would even go so far as to argue that there is so much information from so many different sources that an individual is able to literally find the facts that back up whatever their preconception happens to be. Google, for example, tracks all of your searches if you are signed in and tailors your results to your interests - so if I've done extensive research about say, cars, and I do a Google search for "Best modes of transportation" cars will most likely compose the majority of my search results. This is why checking sources is of extreme importance - although we run into the same conundrum, as what you may consider a credible source may not necessarily be the same as what I consider a credible source. As a PR student, I'm only beginning to see the many different ways that "truth" can be modified in order to send a certain message.
DeleteWhen I was speaking of the groups/organizations that may alter or withhold truisms, I wasn't speaking only about the government. In our modern mass media based society, every organization has to release information about their activities, be it a governmental agency, non-profit organization or a giant business mogul. As a PR student, I'm only beginning to see how many ways truth can be altered or withheld and still be considered "true."
Having said that, I do believe that there are lots of reliable sources that give accurate information...it's up to whomever is looking for the information to decide for themselves whether their source is credible or not. It's the difference between Fox news and CNN. I'm definitely more of a CNN type.
The fact still remains that it's a scary thought. I mean, who actually knows if Area 51 exists? There information on each side...it might not be the best example, but it's a yes or no question that is unanswerable to the laymen. Orwell combined with studying PR have really put my guard up when it comes to filtering information.
I will definitely be checking out some Herman Hesse - thanks for the recommendation.
Look forward to your response!
Brandon,
ReplyDeleteThank you for the response. And there is certainly no need to apologize for a late reply. I know how much juggling is involved in accomplishing any given activity.
I think that upon a first reading of your response, I must not have been entirely clear in my point about learning from past mistakes. Your prior statement and now your current one have exactly the same element with which I take exception, namely the use of "...anything...."
Admittedly, I have a harder time than most with such absolute terms being used in a non-absolute sense. Maybe it's my economics training; maybe it's just me being obstinate. I don't know, but 'anything' applied in this way leaves me with a bit of a queasy feeling. Why? Because one example wreaks havoc upon the entire proposition. So when you say we haven't learned anything from past mistakes of great civilizations, there are countless examples to the contrary. The importance of public health, the importance (and detriment) of choice, the effects of the consolidation of power (and the dispersal thereof), to list a few.
A much stronger statement might be something alluding to a perceived failure to address a certain problem. But that is fraught with peril, too.
Like you, I would change many things about my nation and my nation's government. For example, I would like to see a single-payer health delivery system. Sound familiar? I can point out countless examples why, but at the end of the day, I'm still in the minority here in America. Most Americans--for whatever reason--still think the rationing-based-upon-means model is preferable. But those are opinions, mine and theirs. I can't say they're wrong for not wanting what I want, anymore than they can say I'm wrong in what I want.
I bring that up as an example because so much of how history is viewed depends upon your point of view. It's not all about facts. A lot of it is opinion. True, opinion becomes fact to many people, but that's not the fault of history. That's the people doing the investiging (or lack of it).
Similarly, I could make a strong argument that America's "Founding Fathers" didn't really want a democratic government. We have a "college" of electors pick our president, senators weren't elected by the people until the early 20th Century, several groups were excluded from participation--blacks, women, non-property owners, etc. So calling America a democracy isn't a slam-dunk, even in a historical context. But to many of my countrymen, it is.
Remember, history--his story--is just that. You raise a damned important question--how do we know how it actually happened? We largely don't. And it's left to learners to determine which sources they trust, and even then, history, like science, is always "...until proven otherwise."
Also, don't forget that metaphysicist Bertrand Russell, who famously "proved" that 1+1=2, said, near the end of his life, that he knew nothing for sure--not even what he "proved."
History should be read and studied with a salt shaker nearby.
(continued)
(continued)
ReplyDeleteWith regard to your critique of my statement about the abundance of information, I don't see how it can be partially correct. What you're arguing is about the substance; I'm simply arguing that information is extant.
Personally, I believe the Bible is a poor example in this instance. I don't know any historian not of a religious bent who looks upon the Bible as a history text or fact--it's too metaphorical. Mostly when I hear that "the Bible proves itself." it's from particularly religious folks. But I've not read a book yet with a bibliographical reference to itself. So I remain skeptical.
You make excellent points about the question of which knowledge we should trust and the editorial nature of information. Google, as you mention, returns to you information about which you've inquired. Or does it? You put in search terms. You define the condition (as best you can) and Google responds (the best it can, given what it has been programmed to perceive what it is you're asking for). So in your example, the "best modes of transportation" might return articles on cars--because it's designed that way. It could easily return walking, or planes, or trains--if it were designed thusly.
But the issue isn't Google as much as it's what I would deem an overly simplistic inquiry. "Best" has more than one connotation, not to mention "best" isn't a universal term. And I'm sure you know a few people, like I do, who exclaim "chocolate ice cream is the best!" until the next time, when they say the same about strawberry. At some point, it is up to the researcher to put the search and search results into perspective (there's that word again). Or do you disagree? (One small side note: I hate Google and never use it for searches and data. I find their privacy policy revolting.)
As a PR student, I'm sure you've studied countless examples of how most content is naturally editorial. I mean, if someone writes a story, aren't they deciding what is germane to the story? I don't see a way around that. Facts and information can be shared in a highly biased way. But even the most neutral pieces are editorial in nature, by virtue of someone picking what is put into them, and perhaps more importantly, what is left out. Is not that also something consumers (in all facets of that term) must deal with when consuming news and information? Isn't it up to us, ultimately? Not to determine what is fact, but to determine what is important? And that is of course a matter of personal preference.
Like you, I am leery of Fox News. I am not leery of CNN to the same degree (though it's damned close). The important thing to recognize is that they both editorialize. They must make decisions what to run and what not to. That, by definition, is an editorial choice.
Let's say that both Fox and CNN are reporting about a press conference that already happened. Unless both show the same thing from the same camera angle, they are having an editorial effect. If they show clips, they choose what clips. That is editorializing. But even if all they do is show the same press conference with the very same camera angle, they've made an editorial decision--to show or not show it. Again, it's hard to get around that.
For the record, nobody here in the US questions whether Area 51 exits. It does. As do area 54 and others. The question Americans ask is what's there. Absent positive proof that something notable is, most of us assume nothing is, that it is merely another conspiracy theory to keep us entertained.
Here's an exercise for you (relax, it's just a mental one and one that you don't have to put to paper nor be quizzed on later). Next time you write a paper of any kind, think about how you would tailor it for each of the Fox News and CNN audiences.
Stay well.
Phineas