As a person on the internet I have come to dread the fact that everybody seems to have become an insufferable know-it-all, at least in their online interactions (I am not entirely immune to this tendency myself). In Know-It-All Society: Truth and Arrogance in Political Culture, Michael Patrick Lynch does a great job diagnosing the problem and some of its causes. Like Lynch, I find this problem to be pervasive on both the political right and left. Although it takes different forms at opposing ends of the political spectrum, the phenomenon is annoying in both forms (although I think far more dangerous on the right these days).
I was honestly a bit worried to see discussion of "identity politics," but it turned out to be a nice surprise when Lynch not only defined what he meant but distanced himself from the problematically dismissive ways in which that term gets used by the right and even by some on the left. I was also pleasantly surprised by Lynch's incorporation of philosophy (especially epistemology) in a relatively jargon-free, accessible way (I have a few quibbles with his understanding of ancient skepticism, but I have those quibbles with almost all contemporary philosophers, so I'll let it go).
For all his insights, I found it odd that Lynch never questioned who this "we" is that he refers to constantly. American intellectuals? Upper middle class white people? Coastal elites? Philosophers?
I was also disappointed by the use of the word "tribalism." I'm sure Lynch didn't intend it this way, but it does have the unintended consequence of reinforcing the idea that Indigenous people are "primitive" or "uncivilized." Why not use the word "factionalism" instead? It's more precise and doesn't have that connotation.
Maybe some of these imprecisions are a function of Lynch's mostly successful attempt to write for a popular audience rather than an academic audience who would expect more pedantic qualification.
As much as I am a fan of open and honest discourse between people who disagree with each other and as much as I want to wholeheartedly agree with Lynch's prescriptions in the final chapter, I have to admit that the last five years or so have made me a bit more cynical. Certainly some--I would like to think most--people who are leftist elitist know-it-alls or white men suffering from imaginary status threat are at least in principle capable of open democratic dialogue, as much as they may seem to be disinclined to engage in it. But lately I have come to suspect (non-dogmatically, of course) that some people may be too far gone. What do you do when democratic dialogue is no longer possible, and when some partners in dialogue seek the disenfranchisement or outright destruction of other partners? And how do you tell who is and who is not too far gone, anyway? And what do you do when the avenues of dialogue and epistemic authority are unequally distributed in a society?
I have no idea how to answer these questions (so I guess I did learn some of that intellectual humility after all!). But I would maybe have liked to see Lynch at least seriously ask them. Perhaps it is enough for the reader to do so, prompted by this interesting book.
See also my Goodreads review.
No comments:
Post a Comment