Part one of this essay looked at the anguish felt by individuals living in a confused society and the need to deal with it head-on, by admitting our frailty and being willing to revise our understanding through reflection on evidence, rather than jumping to fight-or-flight mode. Part two shifts our enquiry to the level of society as an entity in its own right. Toward society’s overall wellbeing, individuals contribute and from its combined resources, we all benefit.
Contents of the three parts
Part one: Anguish — what causes it? What heals it?
Part two (this part): Responding to the anguish of a confused society
Part three: Making our unique moment count
Manacled by our own illusions
Let’s now consider the collective anguish of a society grappling desperately with survival challenges. An atmosphere of struggle for physical and mental survival has proliferated worldwide during the Covid-19 pandemic, and the body politic is in turmoil.
In every cry of every Man
In every Infants cry of fear,
In every voice: in every ban,
The mind-forg’d manacles I hear— From “London”, by William Blake1
One of our principal human frailties is that when gaps in our knowledge appear, often we fill in the gaps with imaginings, rather than admit our ignorance. No doubt this is a mostly unconscious process, as facts and imaginings merge in our minds to create a single picture that looks consistent enough to get by on, until some confounding event proves us wrong. This proclivity for deceiving ourselves is universally our human plight. Losing our illusions is hard work that we have to persist with constantly.
At the societal level, present survival challenges are making it imperative that major illusions get shaken off rapidly. At the same time, uncertainty fuels a frantic backlash of efforts to hold on to certain ideas widely assumed in the past to be true, at least by those whose privileges depended on these ideas, but which are now found to be built on the slippery mud of prejudice and complacency. I’m referring to ideas such as the belief that the Earth will always sustain us, no matter how badly we treat the environment, and assumptions by dominant groups that they are rightfully entitled to privileges that rest on past or present exploitation, with no thought of a duty to redress the injustices involved. These are just two examples. Environmental degradation is obviously a survival issue; and, less obviously, so is the maintenance of unfair privilege, because it hinders the resolution of tensions that could end in civil disorder if left unchecked, and civil disorder can be deadly. Besides, unwillingness to redress injustice is heartless.
As the pandemic crisis struck and relentlessly carried on wreaking havoc, stark questions were presented to the minds of a generation that had never experienced such huge disruptions from a contagious disease, especially in affluent countries. Naturally, minds have been slow to adjust to such an unforeseen impact. We have tended to cling to the perceived safety of our various existing world views, even as evidence mounts that some common ways of thinking are less viable than previously supposed. This has created a climate in which the contest of ideas has taken on a desperate tone. The accustomed strategy of smoothing over differences by “agreeing to disagree” has been less practicable than it was in easier times, because the stakes of the contest have increased abruptly as we see that policies based on different belief systems have major consequences, good or bad, for masses of people. Humanity is being confronted with the need to reexamine its beliefs quite profoundly. A fair bit of kicking and screaming is happening in the process. This is understandable, but it really is imperative that lovers of humanity acquire the personal composure to foster a calmer, more effective mode of public discourse.
Recently, against a background of increased anxiety and uncertainty, voices of misinformation and bad-natured protest seem to have gotten louder in New Zealand, generated by three linked dissenting mindsets — fascination with conspiracy theories, fears about loss of freedom, and scepticism towards mainstream institutions, notably those in the sectors of media, academia and health. A disinformation researcher at the University of Auckland, Sanjana Hattotuwa, told the stuff.co.nz news organization: “I can’t stress this enough. The social fabric of New Zealand is being tested and threatened daily, in ways that are historically unprecedented. … Covid-19 conspiracy theories and mis- and disinformation have increased exponentially since August 17, when Auckland went into Level 4 lockdown.”2
Injecting a personal note — in my ninth floor nest, as Auckland’s lockdown period ended, a couple of my Saturday lunchtimes were disturbed by the angry noise of blaring car horns and the roar of motorbikes in packs, as motorised freedom protests clogged the streets below. Here was a palpable sign of commotions that were bubbling up amongst New Zealanders on social media, as the country moved using towards vaccines (and vaccine mandates for certain professions), instead of restrictions on movement and meeting up, as its main pandemic control strategy. Vaccine mandates seemed to be triggering a small sector of the population in a way that the lockdowns hadn’t. Dissenters were volubly and visibly making their presence felt on the streets. Their rowdy attention-seeking was evidently not calculated to win over residents of the district who would have preferred a quiet Saturday! Such is the price of freedom of speech, and not terribly onerous in this instance. Overall, the protesters were treated tolerantly by the police, they had a chance to make their point, and they have not returned to Queen Street recently. They appear to have moved their activities elsewhere.
Another poignant glimpse into the anxieties troubling people is in a report from Australia’s ABC News, headed “Dentists say teeth grinding has increased during the pandemic”. Dr Emily Pow, a Melbourne dentist, told the news service: “I’m seeing more and more teeth grinding in people because of the stress from coming in and out of lockdowns and the uncertainty — the constant changes back and forth.”3
Going back to those three dissenting mindsets — none of them is entirely baseless. The affairs of the world are in fact often badly upset by forces conspiring against the wellbeing of the people for the sake of power and profits – such as the nefarious activities of Big Tobacco that were exposed with great effort years ago. There are, indeed, many real and substantial threats to people’s freedom in today’s world. Many credible criticisms can be made of the mainstream media, scientific bodies, and governmental structures. Instances are often heard, of large corporations grossly prioritising their commercial goals over their social obligations. Big Pharma is not immune from criticism; nor is the “wellness industry” when hawks its products on the basis of flimsy evidential claims; nor are the big social media companies and the content-creators who use social media platforms to build a large following with their gaze fixed on profit and fame, rather than ethics and accuracy. Dirty politics and shady business practices run rampant. We inhabit an environment where numerous divergent sources of so-called “truth”, each with their own agendas, play on our fears and prides. This makes it tough to distinguish truthful voices from deceitful ones.
Justice is turned back, and righteousness stands at a distance;
for truth stumbles in the public square, and uprightness cannot enter.— Holy Bible, Isaiah 59:144
The primary concern we should worry about is the pervasive sense of mistrust that stokes agitated dissent by energetic personalities and inflicts hopeless passivity on the timid. The rising flood of conspiracism and other divergent thinking is a symptom of fraying societal trust, so if we want to treat these problems at their root, we need to be thinking about how to rebuild trust. For the sake of this, in terms of what we can do individually, it seems important to sustain relationships with friends and family members who hold views opposed to one’s own about such matters as government vaccination campaigns (which, as a citizen, I happen to support).
A few reflections help me to keep a sense of proportion about such disagreements. One is that eventually the pandemic is going to be over and with it some of the friction over pandemic control measures will fade, at which time I will be much happier if I haven’t burned my bridges with any of my friends and loved ones. Another is that so long as the great majority of the population largely cooperate with necessary measures (which in New Zealand appears to be the case), as a society we can afford to accommodate a number of nay-sayers in a tolerant spirit. Most importantly, disagreements on certain issues should not be allowed to obscure significant commonalities, such as mutual vested interests in family welfare, i.e. love for our families, and even shared beliefs about other matters. Further, looking for “the precious point of unity” provides a starting point for dialogue in a truth-seeking mode, free of an adversarial tenor. If there are certain principles that we can agree on, there is always a chance of expanding the scope of agreement through joint exploration of the agreed principles and their implications.
I have tried to encapsulate the balancing act between honesty and tolerance in this little “manifesto”:
A brief manifesto of wise honesty
If I’m honest
I won’t slyly mask my true opinions
but I need not stir up controversyIf I’m honest
I may offer criticism
but I need not be unkindIf I’m honest
I will admit my errors to fix them
but I need not humiliate myselfIf I’m honest
I may get pushback for what I say
and I will happily learn from itIf I’m honest
I must hope that I can trust others
to be honest as wellBe honest, be kind, be confident!
Faith as the key to rebuilding trust
How can religious faith support the rebuilding of trust? Crucially, the standpoint of faith, if widely accepted once more in a revitalised form suitable to our times, will provide a solid foundation for a sense of being involved in a common enterprise within an agreed framework of understanding. The foundation will be solid, and foster trust, because it is based on a sound concept of truth, and ethical principles that prioritise universal human flourishing over private profit. (Dear atheists amongst my readers, I know this point runs counter to the popular assumption that faith is the opposite of evidence-based truth, therefore, in your eyes, anything but solid; but perhaps you could pause to consider that this assumption might be a misunderstanding. I hope to show that a different reading of “faith” is not only possible, but compelling, by presenting a defence of rationality with faith in God at the heart of a coherent theory of truth.)
Because the business of faith is to draw nearer to God, which means apprehending reality more fully, and this can only be done with a spirit of integrity, faith calls upon us to be fair in our judgement. Here, we recall Bahá’u’lláh’s admonishment, mentioned in Part One, to not let love or hate, i.e. partiality or prejudice, influence our perceptions. It’s not easy to step back from the views of our in-crowd in order to reflect impartially, but this is what’s required.
By “impartially” I don’t mean adopting neutrality between opposing camps, but certainly listening to evidence from any plausible quarter, and weighing it in the balance of logic and wisdom. We should armour our minds against simple slogans that are cunningly designed to advance partisan agendas. Quoting Claire Berlinski again: “… modern communication systems … favour short, familiar slogans … that on inspection make no sense”.5
Humbly acknowledging the expertise of scientists and scholars, we should refrain from overstating our personal capacity to grasp complexities which they have studied for decades, such as the knowledge gained by researchers who have gone through the mill from undergraduate studies to doctoral degree, then joined a lab, studied a problem for years, formed a hypothesis, gathered evidence, tested the hypothesis, formed conclusions, reported findings, and cleared peer review. Only to be mocked by some random person on the internet who has the chutzpah to disagree. 6
Let us, almost always, pay ample attention to the consensus or majority views of any scientific discipline, for these are the views have been most rigorously tested in the procedures and forums of that discipline. Let us not be so cynical as to automatically impute wicked motives to anyone whose views differ from our own, nor so naïve as to rule out ill-will and greed as the hidden drivers of an opinion campaign that resonates with one’s prior assumptions.
If the human family is getting increasingly fractious, efforts to overcome the divides become more crucial than ever. ‘Abdu’l-Bahá said: “If only men would search out truth, they would find themselves united.”7 Therefore, opportunities for respectful discussion between diverse parties are highly valuable. At the root of all fractiousness is an inability to see others as partners in a common enterprise; but unavoidably, as inhabitants of one globe, partners is what we are. We need to be pooling our insights, not amassing our antagonisms. Those settings where sincere consultation happens become fruitful fields, while enclaves of isolationism become bunkers of despair. Pope Francis made apposite comments in his Christmas 2021 address:
In this time of pandemic...Our capacity for social relationships is sorely tried; there is a growing tendency to withdraw, to do it all by ourselves, to stop making an effort to encounter others and do things together… On the international level too, there is the risk of avoiding dialogue, the risk that this complex crisis will lead to taking shortcuts rather than setting out on the longer paths of dialogue. Yet only those paths can lead to the resolution of conflicts and to lasting benefits for all.8
Alienation, dissension and disunity
One form of reaction to societal disruptions is isolationism. It can be tempting to try to escape from confusion by withdrawing from involvement in mainstream society, and to become entranced by any counter-narrative that offers an alternative to the establishment view. To some extent, I can identify with the feeling of alienation from the mainstream, being a minor misfit myself, for reasons of background and personality. And, I’m as sympathetic as anyone to Margaret Mead’s aphorism: “Never underestimate the power of a small group of committed people to change the world. In fact, it is the only thing that ever has.” But to routinely reject almost anything “mainstream” is going too far, as it amounts to othering the majority of one’s compatriots, who must be assumed foolish or unscrupulous for participating in a space which is held by the more extreme doubters to be flawed beyond hope of reform. The slogan I have heard from some quarters crying “tear it all down”, vastly differs from the attitude displayed by positive change-makers who want to link arms with their fellow beings in order to push obstacles to happiness away from everyone’s paths. In short, an isolationist mindset, which conspiricism betokens, is inconsistent with a belief in the oneness of humanity.
The recent rise of conspiricism tells us something about the shaky state of rationality in contemporary society. The fatal flaw of this mindset is that it perceives the happenings of the world through a distorted lens that tends to hugely magnify small problems and minimise large ones. It turns a blind eye to problems and solutions that are obvious and out in the open, and goes looking for the same in imaginary cabals and secret remedies. It selects evidence with an overwhelmingly partisan bias. Its emotional atmosphere is one of anger at the ways of the world and a fearful desire to escape from having any part in it. Those who retreat in this way due to sincere feelings of anxiety and dread are not to be blamed, but it seems clear that there are a few individuals who deliberately and cynically promote conspiracy theories for completely selfish reasons, and any voices that might be doing this should be treated with great caution.
The Chinese sage, Confucius, long ago identified the chaos that proceeds from misidentifying reality through the faulty use of language. In the following quotation, note that the Chinese word “li” denotes those customs and ways that guide the proper functioning of society. The word seems similar to the Māori word “tikanga”. Also note that in Confucius’ thought, music (of an appropriate quality) is highly regarded as a means for creating harmony.
If names are not right then speech does not accord with things; if speech is not in accord with things, then affairs cannot be successful; when affairs are not successful, li and music do not flourish; when li and music do not flourish, then sanctions and punishments miss their mark; when sanctions and punishments miss their mark, the people have no place to set their hands and feet.
Therefore, when a junzi [ideal gentleman] gives things names, they may be properly spoken of, and what is said may be properly enacted. With regard to speech, the junzi permits no carelessness.
— The Analects of Confucius9
Going back to Aristotle’s views (cited in Part One) about negative emotions undermining rationality, we can see that an intellectual syndrome like conspiracism, with its anger and fearfulness, bears red flags denoting an ineffective mode of reading reality. Nevertheless, the conspiracists have rightly perceived that civilisational survival is under threat, so there is perhaps a kind of instinctive awareness evident here that has its own validity as a signal of trouble, even if the trouble has been analysed erroneously.
Another qualification I should make is that everyone has their blind spots, so we should not harshly pass judgement on those whose apparent blind spots we perceive, lest our own blind spots likewise be harshly judged. Further, the line between a loopy conspiracy theory and the reasonable suspicion of underhanded dealings may not always be clearcut. Conspiracies by one group to do another group out of their coveted resources can and have happened, on a vast scale. Imperialisms down the centuries have often practiced some truly grim manipulations, and evil gamesmanship has not yet come to an end in politics and business. Suspicions within communities that have suffered under exploitation are not to be scorned.
Freedom and responsibility
An eruption of vigorous disagreements on issues urgently bearing on survival, as is happening now, naturally focuses our minds on the question of freedom. In the name of societal survival, what limits on freedom are justified? Which restrictions are so draconian as to be counterproductive or outright tyrannous? To tackle such questions, I propose analysing freedom at a foundational level, in terms of the human individual as a being who has been called into existence with the power to acquire knowledge and make choices based on that knowledge. As this is us, freedom is central to our welfare. The denial of freedom is dehumanising. This undoubted truth leads some to place so high a value on individual freedom that they feel it morally authorises them to disobey societal impositions with which they disagree, or merely find inconvenient. The more extreme forms of this line of thinking, at least, exhibit a lamentably shallow understanding.
Choices are possible only with the support of background conditions that enable them. For instance, as a young person I get my driving licence and now I can drive. This option for me depends on a host of contributions from society that go into the background conditions — contributions of the car manufacturer, the road-builder, and all the rest that are quite obvious. Even more basically, the car will only stay on the road (so long as I steer it right), due to the laws of physics. Ignore the laws of physical reality and I could soon be discovering my freedoms in the Kingdom of Heaven!
The most perplexing and glorious of all the background conditions is the freedom of other people. As Sartre says, “I can take freedom as my goal only if I take that of others as a goal as well.”10 Perplexity arises when others’ choices impact negatively on me, and glory shines forth when I amplify my understanding in collaboration with others through consultation and cooperative action. Quote Desmond Tutu: “All of our humanity is dependent upon recognising the humanity in others.”11 The social reality created by the sum total of human interactions to date, in combination with the bounties of nature, provides all the opportunities available to us.
That said, the fact that each individual, in their inmost soul, is an autonomous knower and actor, even while doing so in relationship to others, requires that freedom of belief be resolutely upheld by a just society, whilst freedom of speech and action, although justifiable to put limits on in some cases, deserve considerable latitude. The autonomy of the soul is the bedrock of human rights such as freedom to practice one’s faith and freedom of speech. The major limiting factor is, of course, that actions impact others, positively and negatively, to a greater or lesser extent, depending on circumstances. Therefore, society has to implement systems and methods for determining and reaching agreement on how best to maximise group wellbeing while minimising the inequities that individuals may suffer at the behest of group interests.
Hence, there is a tension between freedom and one’s duty to society. It is impossible to be a member of society and partake of its benefits without giving up some of one’s personal sovereignty, and this includes accepting that one’s personal opinion will be overruled, at times, by a legitimate institution serving the general welfare, which, acting as the accepted hub of the group mind, so to speak, forms its own conclusions on the facts of a current challenge and what must be done about it. Such institutional hubs for our collective efforts are essential to the survival of civilisation. They include not only governments but also various other public and private bodies, such as boards of directors, courts, police chiefs, military officers, school principals, parents, etc., etc.
However, let’s be very clear that while society has a right to punish actions that are deemed by lawmaking bodies to be injurious to the common good, the state enforcement of beliefs is in a totally different category. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights states, in Article 18:
Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance.12
Article 19 states:
Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.
In view of this principle of the freedom of belief and opinion, I’m bothered when I sometimes read overheated rhetoric on social media expressing the wish to shun or crush people who hold minority views, such as opponents of vaccination, on the grounds that they are deluded cultists; or characterising them with dehumanising language like “rat”. Such comments spring from a perhaps understandable annoyance with actions that appear to weaken the collective fight against the pandemic, but the majority needs to show restraint in the words it uses in responding to minority opinions. Thankfully it does to a large extent, but intemperate outbursts only serve to confirm dissenters in their fears of creeping oppression. On the other hand, it is deeply disturbing to hear of the egregious interference in freedom of opinion in the form of threats and abuse against prominent scientists and officials who are in the forefront of fighting the pandemic. This abuse is perpetrated by individuals who reject the message and feel entitled to use intimidation to silence the messengers.
Freedom of speech being intimately related to freedom of thought, deserves to be highly honoured and protected. Nevertheless, speech is a form of consequential action, therefore cannot be left entirely unregulated. When it comes to appropriate limits on free speech, determining where the appropriate boundaries are can be a complex process. An example of making such determinations is the work of the New Zealand Classification Office whose purpose is to prevent harm to the New Zealand public by restricting the availability of publications containing harmful material. One way it does this is by classifying films and games according to their suitability for different age groups. It even has the power to totally ban material that it finds outrageously harmful, as it did in the case of the March 2019 Christchurch terrorist’s livestream and manifesto.13
Another delicate exercise in boundary-setting has arisen in decisions about vaccine mandates. A case that went before the New Zealand High Court, dealing with vaccine mandates for border workers, is illuminating. The case is entitled “Four Aviation Security Service Employees v Minister of COVID-19 Response” and the judgement was issued by Justice Cooke on 8 November 2021.14 As part of the reasoning in the judgement, Justice Cooke addressed whether the Order under which four aviation security employees were under a mandate to be vaccinated (or be dismissed from their jobs) was unlawful because it introduces measures that are not a demonstrably justified limit on the freedom to refuse medical treatment.
The judge explained that his task was to decide “whether the measure itself is compliant with the Bill of Rights. If it is not, it is unlawful.” He concluded that the measure was, in fact, lawful. The Bill of Rights allows limitations on the freedoms it enshrines, if the measures are “demonstrably justified”. To test whether the limitations in this instance were justified, the judge applied accepted legal tests, as set out in paragraph 90 of the judgement. These tests are questions that may be summarised as asking if the limitations serve a sufficiently important purpose, and if so, whether they are proportionate, i.e. they should be a rational response to the problem and not impair freedom more than necessary. Taking into account scientific evidence presented on the government’s behalf, and objections to that evidence presented on the Applicants’ behalf, Justice Cooke concluded that the government’s position held up to scrutiny. He noted: “At the heart of the argument are questions of science upon which the views of experts have been provided on the effect of the vaccine to inhibit the transmissibility of COVID-19 and particularly the Delta variant.”
I have outlined the Christchurch terrorist censorship case and the border workers’ court case to illustrate issues that come into play as a result of tension between individual rights and the protection of society as a whole. The meticulous work done in cases like these to reach fair decisions ought to win the respect of the public. A society with the wherewithal to perform such functions with integrity and intellectual rigour would not appear to be in the brink of collapse or in imminent danger of falling under tyrrany. But, there is no room either, for complacency or slackening in our efforts to improve.
Societies throughout the world, including New Zealand, appear to be going through an intense process of re-evaluating the balance between individual freedom and the demands of societal solidarity, in terms of acting collectively to combat the health crisis, providing mutual help economically, and collaborating on other aspects of wellbeing, while also allowing scope for individual flourishing. The re-evaluation is happening because legal frameworks, institutional structures and intra-community relationships clearly need reform, not to say transformation. The very philosophical principles on which governmental institutions are based seem woefully undeveloped. The discourse varies in details from country to country, according to their histories and political cultures, but the main themes seem to be universal.
Whilst these problems are worked through in often-chaotic fashion, citizens live with uncertainty that can be unnerving. To deal with the uncertainty, the most severely unhelpful reaction is rebellion. The challenge for our rational souls to ponder is how to contribute constructively and patiently. It will help to recognize that we are all participants in a vast collective learning process. The individual has an inviolable right to seek truth and come to their own conclusions, but collaboration with others aggregates our powers mightily. After all, we wouldn’t even have the words with which to express our thoughts had we not been taught language skills by our parents in infancy, and the same sort of thing continues in all settings that we enter as we go through life, interacting with peers and superiors.
It seems fair to say that all advances in civilization are associated with advances in the means and methods of collaboration in the pursuit of knowledge. Institutions for this purpose have been organically developing over millennia. Scientific and practical disciplines have gradually evolved their practices and procedures to ever-higher levels of reliability and they have established governing bodies with the capacity to determine the consensus view on important issues. In a certain sense, science is profoundly democratic, although the symbol of its spirit is not the ballot box but the peer-reviewed academic journal. In the forums of a discipline, open questions are thrashed through by the testing of evidence and the examination of arguments, until the truth becomes clear. It’s not exactly that scientific truth is determined by majority vote, but in a way it is. No scientific question is ever decided with finality, for the expansion of knowledge is always causing re-evaluations of existing theories, and at any point in time, the consensus view is the most reliable guide to the current well-confirmed evidence and understandings. Since scientific research is done by human beings using human capacities, and there is no external source of final objective judgement available to us, the only standard we can rely on is the expert consensus, as described.
The history of science is sometimes told as a narrative of mavericks bucking the status quo, but even for a Galileo or a Newton the scientific community provided the background conditions necessary to their achievements. Indeed, Newton famously wrote: “If I have seen further it is by standing on the shoulders of Giants”. From time to time, outliers prove to be right, like the English doctor, John Snow, who in an 1849 essay traced the cause of cholera outbreaks to contaminated drinking water. He was mostly disbelieved by his medical peers for at least 15 years, despite his success in stopping a cholera outbreak in 1854, in a district of London, by having the local council lock down a neighbourhood water pump.15 But instances like this do not justify preferring every “alternative” view that happens to be promoted vigorously by folks who are good at spinning a yarn. The John Snows of the world are usually meticulous investigators who come up with the goods to eventually convince their professional discipline to accept their findings. The reckons of popular podcasters are not in the same league.
The upshot is that opposing the scientific or professional consensus on a question may be called politely, a daring move, and if one comes across an outlier in a profession advancing controversial opinions, such a self-proclaimed expert is likely on a fool’s errand; at least, more often than not. The likelihood is even greater for outsiders who spout theories on fields where they have no professional standing at all. The mistrust of expertise on which such bogus experts feed is debilitating for a society. Again, as previously stated, among the most significant background conditions needed for successful societal functioning, is trust. Confucius (“the Master”) pithily summed an aspect of this:
Zigong asked about governance. The Master said, “Provide people with adequate food, provide them with adequate weapons, induce them to have faith in their ruler.”
Zigong said, “If you had no choice but to dispense with one of those three things, which would it be?” “Dispense with weapons.” “If you had no choice but to dispense with one of those two things, which would it be?”
“Dispense with food. From ancient times there has always been death. If the people do not have faith, the state cannot stand.”
— The Analects of Confucius16
As citizens of a nation, we function as members of an “imagined community”17 of people in whom we place trust as fellow citizens. Our large societies of today contrast with the small groups of an earlier stage of social evolution, where everyone knew each other personally and any unknown person encountered would automatically be treated with mistrust. Within nations today, the working assumption is that others we happen to meet in the course of our day are not, by default, our enemies, just on account of being a “stranger”.
So, when we start regarding pillars of our society with suspicion that they are secretly out to do us harm, this indicates a worrying state of affairs. I am thinking, for example, of mistrust of public health experts with decades of experience in public service, and who are acknowledged by their professional peers for their expertise. A relevant Tweet from @ClydeRathbone:
Mistrust of the establishment appears proportional to one’s grievances. Sadly, the over-correction against institutions seems to be driven by lived experience and anecdote rather than rigorous assessment of the facts and a healthy dose of epistemic humility.18
Necessary reforms
My defence of mainstream science and the valuable role performed by mainstream institutions may give the impression that my position leans toward conventionality and conformity. As I’m an eldest child, there may be a streak of conventionality in my nature that flavours my style slightly, but I am also deeply disturbed by the obvious deficiencies in the present order of things, and in this sense not at all a slavish disciple of the status quo. What I am advocating is:
That mainstream institutions are necessary and “belong” to all of us, so we should all support them. Those who feel excluded from them should not let themselves be shut out in despair, but should seek to take their rightful place at the consultation table.
That the merits and failings of institutions should be assessed proportionately and addressed in good faith.
That transformation is best achieved not by tearing down, but by building up.
Notwithstanding point (3), admittedly some institutions at certain junctures prove so badly broken that they collapse from within. When any such collapse kicks off, those who believe in transformation rather than violent revolution must not be distracted into taking up arms, either literally or figuratively, in struggles that break out.
Today’s conditions call for not only the reform of existing institutions, but also the creation of a number of new ones, supplementary to existing ones. This need is most obvious at the international level. A few mature statespersons and far-seeing thinkers are talking about how much better things could be if international institutions were greatly strengthened. They recognize that many of the insecurities that threaten us are caused by an international situation verging on anarchy. This is the problem of ungoverned freedom writ large, with the protagonists in this case being the independent nations, pursuing their agendas in various alliances and factions, in disregard of the interests of the world as a whole, which suffers in chaos because our planet does not yet have a defender of its cohesion that is up to the job.
The failure thus far to bring the pandemic to heel, through globally coordinated resourcing and action, is but one example of the consequences of inadequate global governance. Further, the semi-anarchic situation tends to fuel nationalist paranoia, setting off a vicious spiral of mutually reinforcing suspicions and countermeasures. The paranoia will not disappear merely as a result of national governments trying to be more tolerant and polite to each other. Only when solid provisions are agreed on to provide for mutual safety, will fear lose its sting. Such a collective security system will require the nations to relinquish a portion of their sovereignty, just as citizens are obliged to do so in order to enjoy the benefits of living in society.
Everything is connected
To summarise the discussion in this section, I have argued that healing society’s anguish requires healing its confusion. Just as self-deception solves nothing for the individual, society cannot progress by indulging illusions. Getting a full and accurate grasp of our situation is an endeavour of collective learning, in which individuals can best participate by equipping themselves with skills of rational discourse. Mindsets such as conspiracism and withdrawal from the mainstream are counterproductive as they undermine the collective learning endeavour and foster anger instead of creative problem-solving. The lens of extreme partisanship, epitomised by conspiracy theories, distorts reality by exaggerating insignificant problems and minimising real dangers. Freedom is a meaningless buzzword unless it is coupled with responsibility. It does not justify ill-tempered acts of protest.
On the other hand, the dark side of mainstream consciousness is its weakness in confronting genuine existential challenges, thus making the population feel insecure, and driving those suspicions which produce conspiracy theories and the like. A large proportion of our insecurity results from humanity’s inability to meet challenges collectively, due a lack of strong and just international governance institutions. This is the elephant in the room. To heal our societies, we must heal the world. To heal the world, we must heal our family and community relationships. Everything is connected.
Next:
Part three: Making our unique moment count
Quoted from the New Revised Standard version of the Bible
Claire Berlinski, “Epistemic chaos and the Delta variant: Part I”
Source of this list: tweet by @SciencePunk, quoted in a tweet by @JudithExtreme
‘Abdu’l-Bahá, Paris Talks
Reported by France24 — Pope calls for dialogue in 'Urbi et Orbi' Christmas address
Confucius (孔子 Kǒng zǐ) The Analects of Confucius, 13.3
Jean-Paul Sartre, Essays in Existentialism, 58
See The Universal Declaration of Human Rights (pdf), published on the website of the New Zealand Human Rights Commission.
High Court judgement: “Four Aviation Security Service Employees v Minister of COVID-19 Response”
“Imagined Communities” is the title of a 1983 book by Benedict Anderson on the nature of national identity
