Those of us who grew up admiring Solzhenitsyn and Havel long ago recognized how power survives solely through lies. Havel wrote in The Power of the Powerless “Obviously the greengrocer is indifferent to the semantic content of the slogan on exhibit; he does not put the slogan in his window from any personal desire to acquaint the public with the ideal it expresses. This, of course, does not mean that his action has no motive or significance at all, or that the slogan communicates nothing to anyone. The slogan is really a sign, and as such it contains a subliminal but very definite message. Verbally, it might be expressed this way: ‘ I the greengrocer XY, live here and I know what I must do. I behave in the manner expected of me. I can be depended upon and am beyond reproach. I am obedient and therefore I have the right to be left in peace.’ This message, of course, has an addressee: it is directed above, to the greengrocers superior, and at the same time it is a shield that protects the greengrocer from potential informers. The slogans, real meaning, therefore, is rooted firmly in the greengrocers existence.”
We have been faced with the combination of compelled speech and censorship for some time now. We regularly read surveys of college students who hide their beliefs while others readily admit that violence to compel/suppress expression is acceptable.
At work and in professional associations we are required or coerced to write ideological statements. It would be no surprise to either Solzhenitsyn or Havel that the more ridiculous the compelled speech is, the more effective it is. Naked emperors are all around us all of the time,
Excellent post, which echoes some people active in the current protest movement against authoritarian overreach. They've been encouraging us not only to dialogue with our friends, neighbors and acquaintances, but to use bumper stickers, yard signs, t-shirts, badges, and etc. to demonstrate to others that a lot of people know what's going on, and don't like it. (See discussions about this on the.Ink by Anand Giridharadas.
A lie repeated enough becomes the truth. It’s a bit depressing that we have to be having this conversation in America. I thought we were better than this, but it seems that we are drowning in disinformation. Thanks for this essay Dr. Pinker, looking forward to reading your new book. In my humble opinion Enlightenment Now should be mandatory reading for all Americans!
> common knowledge need not be deduced from an infinite chain of musings about other people’s mental states (“I know that you know that I know that you know...”), which no mortal could ever think.
As famously demonstrated by Vizzini's "battle of wits" in The Princess Bride
"Dictators" is sprinkled around the piece, but all the examples are collectivist regimes. There are few dictator regimes today, but many collective authoritarian regimes. And in terms of the history of human misery and death, collectivist regimes get the trophy by and order of magnitude.
> They know they are lying. They know that we know they are lying. We know that they know that we know they are lying.
I wonder how many 'layers' it takes before nothing more is added.
I know.
You know I know.
I know you know I know.
You know I know you know I know.
But:
I do NOT know you know I know you know I know.
Is the last sentence possible? At what point do we reach the fullness of mutual knowledge? Does each layer add something add infinitum, tho perhaps on a hyperbolic curve that approaches zero but never reaches it? Seems to me that after the 4th layer, nothing more can be added, but I'm not sure.
Those of us who grew up admiring Solzhenitsyn and Havel long ago recognized how power survives solely through lies. Havel wrote in The Power of the Powerless “Obviously the greengrocer is indifferent to the semantic content of the slogan on exhibit; he does not put the slogan in his window from any personal desire to acquaint the public with the ideal it expresses. This, of course, does not mean that his action has no motive or significance at all, or that the slogan communicates nothing to anyone. The slogan is really a sign, and as such it contains a subliminal but very definite message. Verbally, it might be expressed this way: ‘ I the greengrocer XY, live here and I know what I must do. I behave in the manner expected of me. I can be depended upon and am beyond reproach. I am obedient and therefore I have the right to be left in peace.’ This message, of course, has an addressee: it is directed above, to the greengrocers superior, and at the same time it is a shield that protects the greengrocer from potential informers. The slogans, real meaning, therefore, is rooted firmly in the greengrocers existence.”
We have been faced with the combination of compelled speech and censorship for some time now. We regularly read surveys of college students who hide their beliefs while others readily admit that violence to compel/suppress expression is acceptable.
At work and in professional associations we are required or coerced to write ideological statements. It would be no surprise to either Solzhenitsyn or Havel that the more ridiculous the compelled speech is, the more effective it is. Naked emperors are all around us all of the time,
Excellent post, which echoes some people active in the current protest movement against authoritarian overreach. They've been encouraging us not only to dialogue with our friends, neighbors and acquaintances, but to use bumper stickers, yard signs, t-shirts, badges, and etc. to demonstrate to others that a lot of people know what's going on, and don't like it. (See discussions about this on the.Ink by Anand Giridharadas.
A lie repeated enough becomes the truth. It’s a bit depressing that we have to be having this conversation in America. I thought we were better than this, but it seems that we are drowning in disinformation. Thanks for this essay Dr. Pinker, looking forward to reading your new book. In my humble opinion Enlightenment Now should be mandatory reading for all Americans!
> common knowledge need not be deduced from an infinite chain of musings about other people’s mental states (“I know that you know that I know that you know...”), which no mortal could ever think.
As famously demonstrated by Vizzini's "battle of wits" in The Princess Bride
"Dictators" is sprinkled around the piece, but all the examples are collectivist regimes. There are few dictator regimes today, but many collective authoritarian regimes. And in terms of the history of human misery and death, collectivist regimes get the trophy by and order of magnitude.
> They know they are lying. They know that we know they are lying. We know that they know that we know they are lying.
I wonder how many 'layers' it takes before nothing more is added.
I know.
You know I know.
I know you know I know.
You know I know you know I know.
But:
I do NOT know you know I know you know I know.
Is the last sentence possible? At what point do we reach the fullness of mutual knowledge? Does each layer add something add infinitum, tho perhaps on a hyperbolic curve that approaches zero but never reaches it? Seems to me that after the 4th layer, nothing more can be added, but I'm not sure.
Why aren't race and sex quotas authoritarian? Why is forced integration not authoritarian? Why is forcing someone to bake a cake not authoritarian?
I think these, and many more, are legitimate questions that modern liberals need to answer, at least to themselves.