2.2 Truth

2.2 Truth

10.08.2014

The time has come

to say the words

we want to hear

(David Lynch)

The fragility of European democracies can be be recognised from the obvious favour of mass media for strong leaders. History does not repeat itself, however patterns appear to re-emerge. One of these patterns is the quest for authority in times of perceived uncertainty and change. Like Moses led his people through the sea, fed them and quenched their thirst, Hitler, Mussolini and the likes were seen from simpler characters as anchors of their bourgeois existence during times of turmoil. More recent models are Berlusconi, Blair, Merkel, Renzi etc. However, de facto all fail(ed): Not to mention WWII and its outcome, modern Italy descended into decades of stagnation, one third of UK households are meanwhile officially poor, and Germany rather represents a labour camp with associated amusement park than one of the richest economies.

The democratic process seems by the majority no longer trusted to deal with the current problems of societies and economical models, which haven fallen out of sync with the progress opportunities presented and the concurrent constraints emerging. Only a ‘leader’ can provide adequate guidance? This discussion is however quite established. Already Machiavelli tried to define the ‚good’ prince, and it seems that today’s masses and their media are still longing for this prince. However, Gramsci already taught us, that this new prince and all the qualities she/he needs to encompass can’t be found in a single person, but rather historic adequate leadership requires an avant-garde representing the progressive masses to take the lead.

Nicely thought, but rendered inadequate by today’s reality, where the class destined to lead the transition to a new economic and societal model is lulled by the abundance of throw away items and the complete absence of any sense beyond consumption and entertainment.  They expect their leaders to declare the way ahead without ambivalence. Orders shall be followed. Straightforward expressions of interest instead of deliberative argumentation are requested, agitation instead of compromise. 

This is strikingly different from our personal relations, where – unconsciously aware of the fuzziness of an individual and its personal and societal relationships  – our communications consequently are fuzzy. Personal communications are often intentionally left open to interpretations and – on the downside - eventually lead to misunderstandings.  But such communication is also adaptable to changes of circumstances, without revising our basic positions.  

What may be the relation of directness, clarity and simplicity of expression to truth?  If we revert to Critical Theory we find that statements, discussion and expression need to be complex as the societal issues we are deliberating today. These are indeed complex and simplification does not help advancing our understanding, just leads to populism. Complexity can only be expressed with complex statements. Hence, being vague, considerate, indirect in our personal communications relates to the factual truth that our personal and societal relations are indeed complex themselves. If we use an excuse instead of flatly telling ‘I don’t want’ just provide a hint instead of saying ‘I wish you do this’ such communication may be essentially more ‘true’ than the blunt statements, as for example an excuse instead of denial reflects our multiple relational levels to the addressee of our communication and to many others, which we try to balance here. Yes, I may want to go out with someone, however at the same time I also think about the possible consequences for me, her/him, and other relationships.  Consequently I may leave it with an ambivalent smile …

However, we do not expect our political leaders to communicate the complex truth about the state of our societies like this.  We would rather find this irritating. Directness and simplification of statements are desired. We do not wish to see the world/ society as complex as our own lives. Rather most people wish that their leaders relief them from this kind of complexity.  Democracy in the sense of participating in and sharing responsibility for the development of the polity is out of fashion.  In addition, delegating this to ‘representatives’ every few years appears no longer attractive as elected representatives appear to represent rather their own interests and those of the capital than of their electorate.

People perceive their life as difficult enough already.  Hence they prefer simplified statements, even if they know such statements are wrong, even they know their leaders are lying – I refer to the list of liars at the beginning of this post.