One of my readers--"i"--made some excellent points about the difference between compromise and cooperation. In particular, "i" reminded me how productive and hopeful cooperation can be for democratic practices. Rather than assume from the outset that our differences and disagreements are irreconcilible, we enter into discussions "open" and ready to actually discuss and educate others and ourselves about how to think about the political issues challenging us. If we think of democratic discussions as opportunities to actually discover the truth (in J.S. Mill's view of truth seeking in On Liberty), then our orientation to debate would be quite different: we would enter into them relishing the opportunity to learn by letting the best argument(s) win.
The only way that we can actually have such democratic conversations--in my mind--is if we presuppose that we are fundamentally capable of cooperation. We can acknowledge that we arrive at our views differently via different life experiences, access to information, and exposure to counter-arguments. And yet, we don't see the difference of opinion as insurmountable--as a "non-starter" (to use some good jargon). We have "faith" in our ability to listen and learn from others, which would entice us to seek out those who disagree with us to "test out" our own positions. Cooperation, nonetheless, requires some "animal faith" in human beings (that is for you "i"). Namely, we need to trust that humans are thoughtful, inquisitive, reasonable and communal creatures.
Another important ingredient necessary for cooperation is to subordinate the acquisition of "power" to truth seeking [remind me to spend some time talking about what I mean by truth in another blog]. This criterion is hard to fulfill. In a conversation with the public relations officer of Planned Parenthood (PPFA) in Central Pennsylvania today, I had a painful reckoning with the sad state of our democracy. I met with him to discuss how I can volunteer my services to PPFA this summer, and we ended up discussing the reality of not only Pennsylvania politics, but national politics as well. My mouth dropped when he explained gerrymandering to me. I finally realized why my Political Science students are so different from my Philosophy students: they are simply more jaded. It turns out that legislative districting is so rigged that we have little hope in electing new leaders to Congress (or elsewhere). Apparently, there are only 30 House Seats where either a Democrat or a Republican can win. When you combine that knowledge with some observations about how the Republican leadership works, then your hopes of the power of democracy can be seriously jeopardized. Things are fixed. Only a god can save us now!
As long as our "representatives" care more about amassing power, and less about listening to us, we are damned. We are beholden to power hungry politicians whose appetite for power has convinced them of their infallibility. And, as far as I am concerned, convincing yourself that you are infallible is deadly to a cooperative democratic process. Mill writes:
"We can never be sure that the opinion we are endeavouring to stifle is a false opinion; and if we were sure, stifling it would be an evil still. First the opinion which it is attempted to suppress by authority may possibly be true. Those who desire to suppress it, of course deny its truth; but they are not infallible. They have no authority to decide the question for all mankind, and exclude every other person from the means of judging. To refuse a hearing to an opinion, because they are sure that it is false, is to assume that their certainty is the same thing as absolute certainty. All silencing of discussion is an assumption of infallibility."
Connie Bruck profiles John McCain (certainly a real burr to the Republican Leadership at the moment) in this week's New Yorker (May 30, 2005: "McCain's Party"). In discussing his experiences as a POW, Bruck reports the following:
"As a young man, he said, he had thought that all glory was self-glory, and that he was so strong he could achieve whatever he wanted; but he learned in prison that he was dependent on others. There he was the recipient of a thousand acts of courage and compassion and love . . ." (my emphasis).
I mention this passage from Bruck's article to point out how odd we are about the concept of cooperation. This passage points out yet another aspect of cooperation: the acknowledgement of how important dependence on others is for weathering the vicissitudes of life. My deepest fear is that an ideologue, who preaches competition and denounces cooperation as "socialism" (or worse yet "fascism"), will read McCain's description and romanticize the sacrifice and compassion that fellow POWs show each other, while dismissing the general insight of his comments: that we are fundamentally dependent on each other.
Every day, every minute, every second nameless and faceless individuals make courageous and compassionate sacrifices for their fellow human beings. They choose to cooperate. And, I would venture to say that it is far more advantageous to the human animal to cooperate than to compete to win.
Thanks for this. This is something I've been thinking about lately (among other things.) You know about my wacky friend who is registered Independant, but stands behind most Right Wing views. He has become something I never expected him to become; completely, utterly selfish and self-serving. Nothing matters to him if it doesn't directly affect him. He has no interest in helping his fellow human beings. He supports capitalism at the expense of human rights. And he justifies all of this by stupidly falling back of "survival of the fittest."
ReplyDeleteHe thinks this is the right thing to say to me, because I appreciate Darwin. He thinks that somehow he's got me here...if I support evolution, how can he possibly be in the wrong?? It seems my friend has either forgotten, or is merely relying on the strangely popular tagline for evolution--**survuval of the fittest**--without also paying some attention to the neccessity of symbiosis. Many species, in order to survive in their particular ecosystem, absolutely depend on other species. As human beings, we're no different (which is why it's astounding to me that we ignore the damage we do to our environment and other species.) Not only do we depend on other species, we depend on each other. If our society is an ecosystem, people like the afforementioned friend--if successful--will damage it for themselves along with everyone else.
...please excuse my typos...(eek)
ReplyDeleteYou mad feminista, you!
ReplyDeleteI am most honored to have been influential in your musings...and you have similarly sparked my imagination. I'm thinking about the possibility of faith in others in this jaded (and proudly so) political community. My mind turns to game theory. A flawed analogy, to be sure, but what sticks with me is what they found about "generous tit for tat." Basically (and as I loosely recall from my first year of grad school), strategies used in the prisoner's dilemma were tested for their "adaptive" success (defined by which cells on a computer program would survive and propogate similar cells), and generous tit for tat was the most adaptive. This strategy, when given the opportunity to cooperate with or defect from the cell next to it, would first cooperate, and if the other cell defected, would defect in response. Take this out of the computer world and you get "I'll give you a chance, but if you let me down and don't work with me, I won't trust you or work with you." Sounds rather adaptive, doesn't it?
So, here's the problem: in this jaded political world in which both sides have totally "defected," how do we restore the possibility of faith in other people? I think the local level is the only place to start, because people who actually have to work and live together will be more likely to risk and find common ground than people who never have to interact on more than an idealogical level. Maybe that's why this is becoming NOW's strategy and the strategy of Democracy for America. They know the national level is so twisted and corrupted it would take an inhuman act of altruism to reach across the party line that divides the legislature in anything but a calculating act of "compromise" (in the bad sense). And it actually WOULDN'T be adaptive at that level to be altruistic, is the other point. There has to be some sign that real communication is possible in order to take that risk. A bit of a Catch-22. Sigh.
Inre. other matters, I hope Dr. Yehudster will be keeping us up to date on the plight of the Oompa Loompas. (I don't know....those little monsters scared the crap out of me when I was a kid...let 'em make chocolate.)
Kriscinda:
ReplyDeleteIf only we could force those social darwinists to actually READ Darwin or take a course in what the major axioms are of evolution. Good lord! I am so tired of hearing folks use this survival of the fittest crap. If he knew what that meant, it could imply that those who "cooperate" (because of some odd mutation) are likely to thrive. But, the issue is that (a) we cannot yet measure behavioral genetic mutations and (b) probably the last time we saw an adaptive mutation in humans was when we became humans--(e.g. there have not been any evolutionary changes). So, what we will ultimately argue about--using evolutionary theory--is what exactly is the "nature" of humans: to cooperate or kill, kill, kill?
Madame Feminista-aspazia:
ReplyDeleteMcGowan is taking up our theme on Berube's blog! Perhaps his readers need another redirect to yours!
Democratic bloggers of the world unite! You have nothing to lose but your illusions about discourse and cooperation!