The tendencies for us to invoke our ego defense mechanisms to gag intellectual debate and discourse demands serious individual contemplation. Time and time again we have employed the same thoroughly worn-out tools to attack the messenger as a diversionary tactic from considering the merits and/or demerits of the issues presented.
If and when we consider ourselves educated, we should be able to humor ourselves, accept criticisms from onlookers about our faith, our race, our tribe, our belief systems, our government and governance.
How else can we improve our looks if we inculcate the habit of breaking the mirror that gives us a true image of the physical dimension (in as much as we may be infatuated with self love of our inward being)?
After this we who consider ourselves educated must be messengers of reshaping the opinions of the masses. We so often fail in this when our base line never transcends our religions, politics,tribes and races.
SELF-CRITICISM AND CULTURAL DEVELOPMENT.
Self-criticism stands at the heart of any experiment in civil society.
Only when we can acknowledge errors and commit to avoiding making them again, can we have a learning curve. Only when scholars can express their criticism of academic colleagues, and those criticized are able to acknowledge error, can scientific and social thinking develop. Only when religious believers can entertain the possibility that they may not have a monopoly on truth (no matter how convinced they might be), can various religions live in peace and express their beliefs without fear of violence. Only when political elites are willing to accept negative feedback from people who do not have their power, only when the press can oppose those who control public decision-making, can a government reasonably claim to be of the people, by the people, and for the people.
But self-criticism is difficult, especially if it takes place in public. Public admission of fault can provoke a powerful sense of humiliation, and involves an obligation to cease the erroneous behavior and attitudes. Most people actively dislike admitting error, fault, or failure, and will go to great lengths to avoid public concessions. We all develop elaborate means to protect ourselves from such public shame and obligation, by rationalizing or finger pointing at some other party whom we try to coerce to take responsibility for the problem, either by manipulating public opinion or using force. The extreme expressions of such efforts to avoid responsibility involve scape-goating and demonizing, in which the sacrifice of the assigned guilty party is necessary to cover our own refusal to admit any fault.
And yet, self-criticism can become a valuable acquired taste. All positive-sum outcomes depend on some degree of willingness, if only implicitly, to admit fault, to share the blame, and to make concessions to the other side. Without self-criticism and its accompanying learning curve, there is little progress. Hence progressives rightly emphasize self-criticism.
MOS AND THE PATHOLOGIES OF SELF-CRITICISM
In some cases, however, self-critical progressives can fall into the trap of taking most or all of the responsibility for something even if it is not of their doing. . This reflects the notion that it takes a big man to admit fault, and that if we progressives are stronger, we should make the first, second and even third moves of concession and apology, in order to encourage those with whom we find ourselves in dispute. Combining inflated rhetoric with a therapeutic notion that the disadvantaged should not be held to the same standards leads one to fall into self-critical pathologies.
In the most extreme cases, we encounter masochistic omnipotence syndrome (MOS): it is all our fault; and if we can only be better, we can fix anything/everything. This hyper-critical attitude can be seen with particular clarity in the response of some progressives and radicals to both the 9-11 attack in 2001 in the US, and the 7-7 attack in 2005 in London.
At some level, this operates as a kind of prophetic rhetoric: by inflating the sins, by self-flagellating, one hopes to whip the offending Western party into changing their behavior, a kind of public shaming designed to provoke so much outrage and guilt as to change the situation. While one can debate the value of such rhetorical moves, one must at least become aware of the significant distortions in perception it can lead to. The tendency to self-criticize leads to a kind of self-absorption in which one loses any sense of the other side of any conflict. Any attempt to put matters in perspective by comparing gets dismissed: refuse to judge myself (us) by their standards.
THE DISTORTIONS OF NOT FACTORING FOR SELF-CRITICISM
While such an excellent sentiment prevents us from using the moral depravity of them as an excuse to neither self-criticize, nor to hold ourselves to higher standards, it can backfire when we forget how much people dislike self-criticism and will do everything to avoid it. All zero-sum outcomes depend to some degree on the ability of one side to impose its blame on the other (they deserve to lose). In tribal warrior cultures, there is no need for such arguments since the basic understanding of all the tribes is my tribe is right or wrong,and plunder or be plundered. But in cases where such political cultures deal with civil societies, where positive-sum rules discourage routine aggressions, aggressive zero-sum (offensive war) must use the language of demonizing to inspire one’s own people to take arms against a malevolent enemy. The culture of paranoia and conspiracy that sees every act by those on the outside as part of an evil plot to destroy one’s own group, expresses precisely this mentality, where self-criticism is unthinkable, and dissent is viewed as treachery.
Our understanding of the Middle East conflict suffers from a peculiar twisting of the dynamics of self-criticism. As a result, many people do not understand the nature of the rhetoric they hear and, assuming it all comes from the same place, mis-interpret the information they get. In the case of the information coming from Israel and the Palestinian or Arab media, for example, much even-handedness has insisted that the Arab media is every bit as reliable as the Israeli, and vice-versa, that Israeli media can be as dishonest and propagandistic. From one perspective it would seem obvious and straightforward to distinguish between the unusually self-critical Israeli press willing to air its disagreements publicly and the exceptional reluctance of the Palestinian press to express serious criticism of their own side, to allow any dirty laundry to go public. And yet, a wide range of highly intelligent and well-informed people tell us the exact opposite.
For uninformed observers, this may seem bewildering. In order to understand the problem, one must understand a critical cultural issue: civil societies thrive on self-criticism, and authoritarian ones thrive on scape-goating and demonizing. To take the narratives from both sides as equally legitimate (or worse, to primarily trust the demonizing narrative from the authoritarian side because they are losing the battle with civil society), is to make critical category errors. In the battle between a totalitarian society and a democracy, even-handed approaches will always favor the totalitarian state. Rather than appreciate the value and difficulty of self-criticism, reward it, and encourage it on the other side, it punishes the self-critical and rewards the demonizers.
Top of Form
Bottom of Form
¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤
To unsubscribe/subscribe or view archives of postings, go to the Gambia-L Web interface
at: http://listserv.icors.org/archives/gambia-l.html
To Search in the Gambia-L archives, go to: http://listserv.icors.org/SCRIPTS/WA-ICORS.EXE?S1=gambia-l
To contact the List Management, please send an e-mail to:
[log in to unmask]
¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤
|
