Tuesday, January 01, 2008
On truth in a culture of corruption
On the changing explanations for Benazir Bhutto's death:
Truth is an infinitely malleable quantity in the Third World because corruption has put every fact up for sale. Driver's licenses, diplomas, identities, deeds of sale, sworn testimony -- all of it can be bought and sold for a fee. The ultimate consequence of a culture of corruption is the destruction of the belief in objective truth. A fact becomes an inconceivable thing. Reality itself becomes negotiable.
If it were possible to plot the breadth and depth of conspiracy theories prevalent in a society against the extent of its corruption, I suspect the correlation between the two would be very high.
7 Comments:
By 
Steve M. Galbraith, at
Tue Jan 01, 02:17:00 PM:
Hmm, putting on my amateur sociology hat on, I can't see a linkage or connection between ubiquitous corruption and an absence of truth or objectivity. How does "A" - no ethical standards - lead to "B" - no empirical standards - here?
Instead, I see pervasive corruption leading to a view that one is victim to larger uncontrollable and unregulated forces. The weak individual is prey to powers - large and small - that requires him to pay off everyone just to get basic services. Just to survive each day. Havel noted some of this, for example, in his essay "The Power of the Powerless".
From that, Occam's Razor leads one to believe that the most powerful force - in this case the US - is behind everything. If everything is corrupted, if everything is simply the war of all against all, then the most powerful of the "all" is actually in control, is actually manipulating events.
That is the US.
By 
, at
Tue Jan 01, 03:34:00 PM:
Ethics have departed from government and the press.
I was watching Bill's press conference, live from the Rose Garden, when he clearly said as part of his government reduction that he was going to reduce the number of cattle guards in the Western US. CSPAN cut right away from the Rose Garden to their DC office where the talking head said that he didn't know exactly what the President meant and immediately rolled into an unannounced replay of a previously recorded program. Later our glorious press announced that the Bill never said what he said.
There's nothing to see here folks. Nothing at all. Just move along.
By , at
Tue Jan 01, 03:43:00 PM:
Hmm, amateur sociology...now there's a useless hobby.
But even if you're attempting to apply some sort of pseudo-scientific principle here, how do you leap to Occam's razor? As I understand it, OR states that when two competing theories explain something equally well, the simpler solution is preferable in scientific terms.
Where do you find similarity in the conclusions of the two hypotheses you've stated?
A. ubiquitous corruption in a society leads to an absence of truth or objectivity, and
B. ubiquitous corruption in a society leads to powerlessness of the individuals
They seem to me to be reaching entirely different (although perhaps related) points unless your syllogism is that the absence of truth or objectivity = powerlessness of the individuals.
If that is the case, I think TH has already stated that one.
By Steve M. Galbraith, at
Tue Jan 01, 04:25:00 PM:
OR states that when two competing theories explain something equally well, the simpler solution is preferable in scientific terms.
Committing sociology, second offense.
I wasn't attempting to link (A) and (B).
My point was that I wasn't convinced that the presence of corruption qua corruption led to the belief in a malleable, protean truth.
If people in the Third World (or elsewhere, as Hofstaedter pointed out in a different way) embrace a relativistic view of events, it's largely due (my guess) to their sense of living in a world that they have no control of. That more powerful forces manipulate their world, controlling events and their lives.
The truth is something that these more powerful elements force on everyone else. Today they say "X" occurred; tomorrow they say "Y" and not "X" took place.
Havel mentioned this in his essay "The Power of the Powerless" where the powerless (so he thought) grocer is forced to place a "Workers of the World Unite" sign in his window.
Corruption may be a manifestation of this powerless; but it's not corruption itself. It's the fact that corruption represents larger forces that they have no control over.
I'm employing Occam's Razor not through my eyes but as seen through those of a powerless individual living in a completely corrupt society.
If one lives in a society where corruption is pervasive, where to even survive day-to-day requires paying others to provide basic goods and services, then one is living in a sort of anarchic situation, a war of all against all where the powerful and rich can prey over the weak and poor.
The rich can get better police protection. Or better medical care. Or clean water. Or food.
Under such conditions, doesn't it make sense (Occam's razor), that the ultimate source of the way the world works is that most powerful element?
In this view, that would be the US.
Oy, way too much flapdoodle from me.
By , at
Tue Jan 01, 05:35:00 PM:
If it were possible to plot the breadth and depth of ACTUAL conspiracies against the extent of corruption, I suspect the correlation would be very high.
By Purple Avenger, at
Tue Jan 01, 10:41:00 PM:
The US must be pretty corrupt (which it is).
Truthers, Area 51, UFO's, big foot, Kennedy assassination, "wars for oil", etc.
By , at
Tue Jan 01, 11:02:00 PM:
Re: Sociology
I understand that a component of this branch of inquiry is an attempt to understand how various constituencies of a given social structure see themselves and the milieu in which they exist.
And one reason that many people (myself included) have a disdain for this particular branch of social science as it is practiced today is that it is fact-neutral.
So amateur or not, I think we have to consider that the role of the Western media in subverting truth would, indeed, potentially lead uneducated people in corrupt societies to see an oversimplified view of America - monolithic and uniformly wealthy. Everyone who lives here knows that that is not the nature of our society. And most naturalized citizens (I always assume they are such) learn quickly about that. So the perception in corrupt societies that the US is the source of all corruption is fostered by the oversimplifications of a disastrously unprofessional journalistic cadre.
Again, I think that this is the logic behind TH's statements, but I do not presume to actually speak for someone demonstrably capable of his own expression.
