Tom Walker:
>What both Charles and Ed are talking about sounds to me a lot like 'hubris'.
>Hubris is a widespread character trait (or behaviour) affecting members of
>this list and the general population of ranters and railers alike. But,
>taking a cue from the Greeks, it is the hubris of the rulers that inflicts a
>plague on society.
My dictionary defines 'hubris' as "exaggerated pride or self-confidence that
often resulting in retribution". It is an apt term to apply to ranters and
railers and political ideologues - indeed to anyone who has a sure-fire
answer to a complex and uncertain social question.
What is the process by which a theory is taken over by leaders with 'hubris'
and then transformed, firstly, into an ideology and, secondly, into a
political movement? Where does theory end and ideology begin?
In the realm of phenomena dealt with by the social sciences, theorizing can
very easily slip into an ideology in which the real world is forgotten and
an assumed world takes over. Failure to recognize this can have tragic
consequences. In Marxist theory, the exploitation of the worker by the
capitalist occurs in a market economy. Marxist ideologues typically assumed
that a planned, non-market economy was needed in order to do away with
exploitation. The result, at least in the Soviet Union, was a monstrosity
which crushed millions of people and ultimately collapsed of its own weight.
Similarly, right-wing ideologues believe in 'competition'. Even when it is
obvious that competition is not the usual state of the world, they pretend
it is. When people are then hurt and crushed, the pretense is extended into
blaming the victim and cutting social programs to get people off their
backsides and make them compete. Some on this list have idealized a world
fragmented into a very large number of 'local economies'. They suggest that
this is the world to which we must repair if we are to avoid social
disaster. Undoubtedly, there are theoretical constructs which support such
fragmentation, including models which predict that the economic world as it
now exists must implode. But would we really want to live in a world in
which the span of our thoughts and actions would be no more than a hundred
miles? Could we be stuffed into so small a space?
We cannot avoid theorizing about social issues or what is best for the
world. However, in putting theory to practice, we should be very careful to
get the sequence right. We must not let theory put ideological blinders on
us. In using theory, we must recognize it for what it is. We must first try
to understand the real world in all its complexity and only then refer to
our theoretical tool-kit to see if it can help us. Ideologues are inclined
to proceed the other way; to go to the tool-kit first and then limit the
complexity of the world to fit what they have found.
Thank you, Tom, for the reference to Ellsberg's work. I remember
encountering Ellsberg many years ago when I was doing graduate work, but I
had forgotten about him. Was he not accused of espionage or giving away
secrets to the Communists or some such thing?
Ed Weick
