The inability or unwillingness to reason critically plays into a host of problems. We all are too quick to accept blindly information that matches our own desired narratives. It is so easy to see when our adversaries fall into this trap, but it is so very difficult for us to consider that we ourselves are also prone to this behaviour. I was thinking recently of a
report that
Cornwall voted to leave the
European Union, then made an immediate appeal for replacing the millions of pounds of subsidies it gets from the EU. At a casual glance, the vote with the aid plea seems a paradox. But actually, this case is classic thinking within the confines of a distorted narrative. The
Leave campaign did make vague references to placing EU funding lost, if it were in the
UK’s interest to do so. There was also the now infamous
Boris battlebus (pictured below) with the quite explicit statement ‘We send the EU £350 million a week, let’s fund our NHS instead. Vote Leave’ Of course, those two positions are incongruous.
Journalists, reluctant to screen such contradictions from their content by way of informed analysis, favour instead entertaining us with spectacle by regurgitating viewpoints sourced from those with a particular agenda. The result is, of course, confusion. Despite wide spread coverage of the rather specific and explicit battlebus promise that seems to suggest that all of the EU withdrawal ‘spoils’ will go to the
National Health Service, in the confusion, a Cornwall voter can convince him/herself that the NHS promise is hyperbole, while the Cornwall funding prospect is reasonable: surely
Westminster cares more about Cornwall than
Brussels. Likewise, another Leave voter, maybe completely unaware of the EU Cornwall subsidies, may have had the NHS in mind with his or her vote. Wide scale dissemination of conflicting information lead to people with conflicting goals to voting in favour of the same outcome.
It’s not just
Brexit. This kind of thing happens all too frequently. It is so easy to construct flimsy narratives based on selectively chosen, unchallenged details, especially in an environment where journalists amplify rather than screen out distortions. The recent release of
the Chilcot report echoes a similar theme.
Blair’s opponents and critics are falling all over themselves to level blame. I am no fan of Blair. In my own biased narrative, he destroyed
the Labour party. The criticism being levied against Blair in the report is largely along the lines of failing to scrutinise information that supported his favoured narrative: why didn’t he question the accuracy of the intelligence. Well, why would he? That intelligence was exactly what he was looking for. If I am in the mood for chocolate cake and on my way to the fridge, my brother walks up to me, hands me a slice of chocolate cake, and says there’s more in the fridge, I don’t then go and check the fridge, I just take the slice and eat it. If I am unwilling to scrutinise my own biased narratives, why would someone with a rival view? This is why I think it is so important for us as voters to scrutinise our own narratives if we want effective
democracy. The question we should all be asking ourselves is not 'why did Blair do what he did', but 'am I doing the exact same thing right now'.
I have a supposition. If you find yourself blaming everything on the one politician you love to hate over and over again, or if find yourself labelling those with rival views with monolithic slurs like lunatic, racist, fascist, commie, (insert a slur of your choice here), then you might be a victim of selectively chosen and unchallenged information. We cannot rely on so-called journalists. They are much more interested in appealing to an audience demographic than in educating. If we keep pointing fingers at the ‘other’, we will continually find ourselves in these predicaments over and over again. I think the answer is for each of us ourselves to look at all information with a discerning eye. The next time a slice of cake magically materialises exactly when I needed it, out of nowhere, maybe I shouldn’t just gobble it down. Instead, maybe, just maybe (brace yourself now), I should scratch the surface myself so that I can draw my own conclusion rather than allow myself to be emotionally manipulated by stories intended to amplify my own distorted narrative. This is not something that the ‘other’ has to do. We have to do it.
Photo Credits
Cake:
ode to goodness
Battlebus:
Harrogate Informer
Blair:
BBC
I recently found myself with an unexpected opportunity to visit Reculver Towers. The current towers are a rebuild from the 1800s as a navigation aid. At the time, the existing church was rebuilt on safer ground as coastal erosion encroached. The church that was relocated was built in the 1100’s. There is also a partly exposed foundation for an Anglo-Saxon church from the 600s in the middle of the newer one. All of this is in the middle of a former Roman fort from the 200s. Parts of the wall are still there. Sanctified ground fading into the sea.
