Anonymity and introspection
This may seem rather obvious.
My wife is a public person. She is careful about what she says because she assumes, what with Google and other modern search tools, that whatever she says is easily attributable to her. Likewise, I personally have always been careful to say what I mean and to mean what I say. You could say that we are both engaging in self-censorship, being always careful to keep unpalatable ideas to ourselves. Intelligence services are said to operate under the principle that they should be willing to face the consequences when they are caught, not if they are caught - that seems to be a prudent rule.
On the other hand, it could be that such realizations make us more likely to constantly evaluate ourselves, to make sure not only that we don't let slip with particularly indefensible ideas, but also that we do not hold them. I can't speak for her, but I find that I am constantly checking my ideas against (for lack of a better term) Adam Smith's "impartial spectator". It is worthwhile to seek out contrarian views for a better trial of my own views in the same way that the American court systems prefer the adversarial rather than the cooperative search for truth or justice. Of course, my own methods may suffer from similar problems, or it may not be as efficient at arguing the opposing view.
Is the internet the ultimate Panopticon for those who participate through newsgroups, blogs, and comments? If so, is that necessarily a bad thing? They do, after all, participate by choice. There are at least two views of this idea of a social control, of which the panopticon is an extreme example: one that it suppresses and reduces freedom, the other that it only suppresses and reduces the darker side of human nature. If the former, who benefits? That is a power argument. If the latter, do we all benefit? Equally? In any case, that is a utilitarian argument. I'm not sure I buy either.
Returning to the point, it seems to me that lack of anonymity may lead to greater introspection, but not necessarily. The President, after all, is in a fishbowl, but seems to find insulation from the negative consequences and does not appear to engage in a great deal of introspection. Or perhaps he does and we aren't aware of it. A Reagan biography that came out a few years ago detailed how he agonized over some of his public statements and actions, especially in his public debate with his daughter over nuclear weapons. Reagan was the California governor who legalized abortion in that state, but later wrote a book explaining why he thought abortion was harmful. Those aren't the actions of a man lacking introspection. Is that then a left-wing myth: that Democrats are thoughtful and appeal to reason while Republicans shoot from the hip and appeal to emotion? Is the corresponding right-wing myth that Republicans operate on proven principles and convictions (tradition) while Democrats are nihilists who pander to the current state of mass opinion? Or is the truth close to: both sides hold certain convictions (right or wrong), but both attempt to exploit widespread emotions as they are revealed in order to expand their own power?
The opposite seems easier to prove and to accept: anonymity leads to lack of introspection. Drive-by posters on newsgroups, drive-by commenters on blogs. On the other hand, anonymity enables whistle-blowers. The anonymity doesn't lead to their introspection, but it does allow them to share with the public those lessons learned through introspection.
I therefore favor an easy mixture of non-anonymity and anonymity. Anonymity allows people to speak truth to power without fear of retribution, but non-anonymity lends weight to public statements because it requires a certain amount of courage. It signals introspection. Gandhi achieved greater goals faster with public demonstrations than he would have with anonymous bomb-throwing.
My wife is a public person. She is careful about what she says because she assumes, what with Google and other modern search tools, that whatever she says is easily attributable to her. Likewise, I personally have always been careful to say what I mean and to mean what I say. You could say that we are both engaging in self-censorship, being always careful to keep unpalatable ideas to ourselves. Intelligence services are said to operate under the principle that they should be willing to face the consequences when they are caught, not if they are caught - that seems to be a prudent rule.
On the other hand, it could be that such realizations make us more likely to constantly evaluate ourselves, to make sure not only that we don't let slip with particularly indefensible ideas, but also that we do not hold them. I can't speak for her, but I find that I am constantly checking my ideas against (for lack of a better term) Adam Smith's "impartial spectator". It is worthwhile to seek out contrarian views for a better trial of my own views in the same way that the American court systems prefer the adversarial rather than the cooperative search for truth or justice. Of course, my own methods may suffer from similar problems, or it may not be as efficient at arguing the opposing view.
Is the internet the ultimate Panopticon for those who participate through newsgroups, blogs, and comments? If so, is that necessarily a bad thing? They do, after all, participate by choice. There are at least two views of this idea of a social control, of which the panopticon is an extreme example: one that it suppresses and reduces freedom, the other that it only suppresses and reduces the darker side of human nature. If the former, who benefits? That is a power argument. If the latter, do we all benefit? Equally? In any case, that is a utilitarian argument. I'm not sure I buy either.
Returning to the point, it seems to me that lack of anonymity may lead to greater introspection, but not necessarily. The President, after all, is in a fishbowl, but seems to find insulation from the negative consequences and does not appear to engage in a great deal of introspection. Or perhaps he does and we aren't aware of it. A Reagan biography that came out a few years ago detailed how he agonized over some of his public statements and actions, especially in his public debate with his daughter over nuclear weapons. Reagan was the California governor who legalized abortion in that state, but later wrote a book explaining why he thought abortion was harmful. Those aren't the actions of a man lacking introspection. Is that then a left-wing myth: that Democrats are thoughtful and appeal to reason while Republicans shoot from the hip and appeal to emotion? Is the corresponding right-wing myth that Republicans operate on proven principles and convictions (tradition) while Democrats are nihilists who pander to the current state of mass opinion? Or is the truth close to: both sides hold certain convictions (right or wrong), but both attempt to exploit widespread emotions as they are revealed in order to expand their own power?
The opposite seems easier to prove and to accept: anonymity leads to lack of introspection. Drive-by posters on newsgroups, drive-by commenters on blogs. On the other hand, anonymity enables whistle-blowers. The anonymity doesn't lead to their introspection, but it does allow them to share with the public those lessons learned through introspection.
I therefore favor an easy mixture of non-anonymity and anonymity. Anonymity allows people to speak truth to power without fear of retribution, but non-anonymity lends weight to public statements because it requires a certain amount of courage. It signals introspection. Gandhi achieved greater goals faster with public demonstrations than he would have with anonymous bomb-throwing.
Labels: philosophy
<< Home