The Chicken and the Egg: Fear and the State of Nature
Nick Boyd
Fear has perhaps been the most influential force on politics throughout history. A politician who can play off existing fears, or who is capable of instilling fear and establishing himself as its alleviator, has vast power over the masses. After the 9/11 terrorist attacks, a large portion of society gladly gave up many fundamental freedoms in consenting to the Patriot Act. This is not the only instance in history where the masses have forfeited liberty for the perception of security. This all sounds very Hobbesian; however, what comes first - the idea of a chaotic, dangerous state of nature, or fear itself? Does fear and the subsequent instability lead to the Hobbesian definition of the state of nature, or are such definitions used to produce fear, and allow for easier control of the masses? At least in the case of Hobbes, I think defining the state of nature is a self-fulfilling prophecy used for political gain.
Through school, politics, media, and culture, American society is barraged with an overwhelming amount of things to be afraid of - some based in reality, others pure fantasy. The modern American political arena revolves completely around fear - If the other guy wins, you'll all lose your jobs, healthcare will suck, the American dream is over, and he might be a communist with a secret agenda of sabotage. Where substance should exist, there is only fluff meant to induce a state of panic in the masses.
During World War II, the American population supported the internment of Japanese-Americans - a feat now viewed with a sense of shame. If a government can cause panic among the governed, it no longer has to function according to reason. When reason is dead, tyranny reigns.
During the second red scare and the period of McCarthyism, the American government successfully injected the public with a sense of extreme paranoia. Joseph McCarthy created a fantasy through which he derived mass power. A paranoid populace is a malleable and vulnerable populace.
Even in the current election cycle, old fears are being re-hashed for political gain. The Romney campaign has referred to Russia as "the Soviet Union" several times this campaign, creating a false antagonist. Although our politics may not be in line with those of modern Russia, the Soviet Union has not existed since 1991.
Are we naturally fearful beings? Or is society designed to instill a sense of fear in the individual to promote widespread obedience and passivity? Many times, I believe fear is taught through illusion. Teach people to be scared of freedom, and to be scared of one another, and they will look to be controlled. Create an enemy, and people will seek out a savior.
In the context of this argument, Kant would consider the vast majority of people immature. It is easier to do as we are told, to fear what we are taught to fear, and to follow those who represent familiarity and security than to seek the truth.
Sometimes, the veil is pulled so tightly over our eyes that it hard to realize the existence of a truth separate from what we are told - In other words, we are all living in Socrates' cave. Our lives revolve around shadows of things manipulated behind our back. The shadow of a monster could simply be the result of a man's hand puppet.
Most of us take the blue pill - whether we recognize it or not.
The problem with searching for the truth in the modern context is it often involves supposed dire consequences. For example, if we hadn't gone into Iraq, Saddam Hussein may have continued to "develop (non-existent) weapons of mass destruction."
So here lies the problem in seeking out the truth - If someone tells you to stay out of a room because there is a beehive inside, you do not have much incentive to go see for yourself. If the discovery of truth is associated with the potential of personal harm, we are less inclined to confirm the truth for ourselves. In that sense, we are chained in the cave at the mercy of our politicians - who cast shadows behind us.
Is there a solution to this problem? Is truth more dangerous than fear? Or should we seek out the truth, regardless of supposed consequences?
In my opinion, Hobbes' definition of the state of Nature creates fear and chaos, not the other way around.
Some say, "ignorance is bliss". If you do not seek the truth then you will be content because you won't be burdened by the problems of the world. For this reason, many people count on others to tell them what is right. Children expect their parents to make good decisions for them, and society expects politicians to be seeking the good of the nation. Is this because we as humans are fearful? Do we think these authority figures can keep us safe? I think it is more because we as a people are trusting- we trust our parents to take care of us and we want to trust those in charge of the government to uplift the United States as well. I think the public thinks of politicians, parents, and others like them as knowledgeable; as in the example above, they "know" that there is a beehive in the room, and so we trust them.
ReplyDeleteFirst of all, I thought this post was incredibly well planned and thought-provoking. I really liked some of your quotes, and I would like to make some points regarding what you said. In the context of "A paranoid populace is a malleable and vulnerable populace," one could take into consideration the "Hostage's Dilemma." In game theory, this dilemma presents a situation in which there are two types of people: the sacrificial person, and the selfish person. In the situation that a number of hostages are locked up in a room (knowing the password), the bad guy will ask each hostage for it one by one. If the hostage speaks, he or she does not die, but the game is over and the bad guy wins. In this case, the sacrificial person will feel bad about dying but feel even worse about having the bad guy win. The selfish person will only feel bad about dying. This video is specifically informative of the situation: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g2Oxg1oAKpk. Anyway, it turns out that because of the overlying fear of each of the hostages, the first person to be asked for the password will speak, regardless of whether he or she is a sacrificial or selfish person. This is just because (as stated in the video) a selfish person will speak up regardless, but a sacrificial person will fear that there is a selfish person in the crowd. Since the sacrificial person cannot control another's actions, he or she will result in speaking up to minimize personal harm. This does not exactly mean that the sacrificial people are bad people based on their actions, it just means that their fear of others makes them do things that they otherwise would not. So, this is a perfect example in which "when reason is dead, tyranny reigns" (another one of your quotes that I like). The bad guy will always win when fear is added to the equation.
ReplyDeleteIn my opinion, truth is not more dangerous to fear, and "there is nothing to fear but fear itself." I feel that being fearful is just part of human nature, so there really is no solution to the problem, because we cannot try to go about controlling/limiting how people feel. We should seek truth regardless of its consequences, but then again that is easier said than done.
Nick, thank you for saying what I've been thinking - "state of nature" theory is often an ad hoc means to a political end. Certainly Hobbes was arguing his stance in the English Civil War. However, I think it's probably a bit of a stretch to argue that the "Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism Act of 2001" (a ridiculous title; there's an argument to be made against creative backronyms in the interest of more reasoned consideration of bills taken up by Congress) was a sinister power grab; I think that its provisions are spooky, but I believe that the people who authorized it were as much subjects of The Fear involved as the people at large were. This is one of the interesting things about living in a liberal democracy: because the difference between the sovereign and the subjects is largely one of semantics, the sovereign is as likely to be a prisoner in the Cave as it is to be one of the shadow puppeteers. (I was impressed that you were able to draw from both Plato and Hobbes in your argument, by the way.) To answer your final question, I think that we might have to turn to Mill, who would ask us to weigh the potential pleasure of knowing the truth against the pain of the... okay, the room full of bees, apparently, is the potential pain here. If the truth would be worth the pain, we should always go for it.
ReplyDelete