http://www.opendemocracy.net/editorial_tags/the_thursday_essay Comments for "the thursday essay" en http://www.opendemocracy.net/article/globalisation/visions_reflections/denial#comment-438787 I understand the point the author is trying to make here, but he takes this argument way too far to the extreme. What, should we just accept science and what scientists say without question? Denial is one of the greatest intellectual developments and has contributed greatly to the evolution of our society. He uses in this article a "strawman" argument, showing only weak, prejudiced views as examples of "denial," but there are people who question scientific arguments using logic and facts. It is far better that we don't just accept everything explained to us by academics as the truth, because we can't understand its full complexity. Obviously someone who argues creationism only promotes this view because they have learned it in church or from their parents, but scientists are not fully objective either. Numbers and "facts" can be heavily manipulated by scientists and writers due to preconcieved notions of what they will find, kind of like a placebo effect. If you are anticipating that something will occur, you are far more likely to find evidence that it actually exists. How many times have people believed something, only to have to have been proven wrong 20 years later, and then perhaps have it proven right after another 50? Denial is a value tool and we should always be somewhat skeptical of what scientists, academics, and journalists write, because no one is perfect and everyone is capable of error. In 50 years much of what we believe will be considered strange, foreign, and backwards. That is why it is incredibly vital to deny certain "truthes" and not follow "objective" science blindly. Fri, 21 Dec 2007 14:22:32 +0000 McShelly comment 438787 at http://www.opendemocracy.net http://www.opendemocracy.net/article/globalisation/visions_reflections/denial#comment-437176 I agree, denial has become big business, enlisting high powered think tanks to build special agenda arguments and slogans that are financed by special interest groups with unlimited funds. Answering their ill-legitimate claims with the truth will never get these deniers to admit they are wrong, it's true. But the effort still needs to be made so that the truth is known and the public is aware that there is another side, even though it is often a case of their word against your word. Perhaps a solution might be to form an international organization of recognized authorities that reviews scientific, political and religious arguments for their truth and scientific basis in facts. That way this problem would be acknowledged and people would have a place where they could look up and see which positions have not yet been proven fallible. Play with that for a while. Sun, 14 Oct 2007 20:04:36 +0100 jonmicon comment 437176 at http://www.opendemocracy.net http://www.opendemocracy.net/article/globalisation/visions_reflections/power_of_few#comment-436951 I agree that it's an excellent article and confronts some troubling issues. In a world awash with intercommunication and information the potential for conflict is increased; and where, as Nicholas Negroponte observes, individuals can cherry-pick the slant on news stories that suits them, many feel cast adrift in a sea of uncertainty. Little wonder that the vacuum created by this uncertainty is being filled by religious extremists with their harsh 'certainties'. Many people have problems embracing the unknown, paradoxes, dichotomies etc... whether in the Middle East or the Rust Belt of the USA. Where is the wisdom we have lost in knowledge? Where is the knowledge we have lost in information? T. S. Eliot (1888 - 1965) , The Rock Sat, 06 Oct 2007 12:10:31 +0100 willow28 comment 436951 at http://www.opendemocracy.net http://www.opendemocracy.net/article/globalisation/visions_reflections/power_of_few#comment-436942 Excellent. Original and well written. Fri, 05 Oct 2007 13:31:34 +0100 ecassinello comment 436942 at http://www.opendemocracy.net http://www.opendemocracy.net/article/democracy_power/US_world/US_foreign_policy#comment-436813 Interesting discussion. I always find it odd when Kissenger is included in the canon of Realists. He's classically associated with them, yes, but his political career doesn't really accord very well with their prescriptions. I think the author's criticism of Realism is only partially founded. The chief problem is a seeming inability to recognize any kind of liberal imperialism. Lefty Realists recognize that this is possible. Wed, 26 Sep 2007 18:09:21 +0100 Kuri comment 436813 at http://www.opendemocracy.net http://www.opendemocracy.net/article/globalisation/visions_reflections/denial#comment-436781 Thanks afarrugia for your comment. I'm really glad you pointed me in this direction as I have been getting more and more interested in the practice of dialogue and conflict resolution. In fact I am involved in a group called New Jewish Thought (http://www.newjewishthought.org) which is attempting to develop dialogue within the Uk Jewish community. I have been interested in the work of the US-based Jewish Dialogue Group (http://www.jewishdialogue.org) which has pioneered guidance on dialogue on sensitive topics in the American Jewish community. I am prehaps overly optimistic in thinking that being able to openly share ones emotions would reduce the need for denial but it is certainly something worth exploring... Sun, 23 Sep 2007 20:25:29 +0100 kkahnharris comment 436781 at http://www.opendemocracy.net http://www.opendemocracy.net/article/globalisation/visions_reflections/denial#comment-436775 There are processes of conflict-resolution that start with people's feelings and emotions, e.g. Non-Violent Communication (www.cnvc.org) and Crucial Confrontations (www.CrucialConfrontations.com). Their first priority is to establish some safety, reassure people that they will not be attacked emotionally for speaking, and see what people's needs are (some feeling of power or control? self-worth? etc.). They then look at ways of meeting the various needs as best as possible. Our first priority is to meet our basic personal needs (including emotional needs), even if we are not consciously aware of those needs. The ways in which we try to meet those needs may be very ineffective, or harmful to others, or show no respect for objective facts (hence the denial that is described in this article). Tackling the denial without addressing people's needs, feelings and emotions, puts the cart before the horse. Unfortunately, many people (including myself), are not used to dealing with needs, feelings and emotions. We are often not even consciously aware of what we feel in our body (unless it is acutely painful). We may be aware of more physical feelings (thirst, hunger, fatigue, etc.) and use these to decide when to eat, drink, sleep, go to the toilet, etc. Note that we can do this without being slaves to our feelings, e.g. if we only have junk food close by, we can put up with our hunger for some time until we find more healthy food. It certainly helps that thirst, hunger, fatigue, and so on, are universally recognised needs, not associated with shame or ridicule. Now when we learn of some bad news, or hear an opinion that we find distasteful, we also have bodily reactions, e.g. some tightness in our stomach. These reactions influence us, because we feel uncomfortable, but dealing with them is not as simple as grabbing something to eat or drink, or going to the loo. Note that they influence us whether we are consciously aware of it or not; but, just as with hunger, being aware of these feelings does not mean that we have to become their slaves. But far from having the skills to recognise and deal with these feelings, they are often the target of shame and ridicule ("You are so needy", "Can't you control your emotions?", "Your judgement is clouded by emotion." etc.). The process of Focusing (www.focusing.org) is one thing that develops this awareness that many people currently lack. As a final point, I do not see the need to choose between "reason" and "emotion" (or between facts and feelings). A lack of logic, or a lack of emotional awareness, will both create problems in our life, while awareness and respect for our emotions can help us be more reasonable, not less. Sun, 23 Sep 2007 12:47:24 +0100 afarrugia comment 436775 at http://www.opendemocracy.net http://www.opendemocracy.net/article/democracy_power/US_world/US_foreign_policy#comment-436731 Michael Lind is right and wrong to use such categorial derivatives to explain realist and realpolitk vs. liberal/internationalist school of thinking when dealing with current perspectives on US foreign policy. I'm +70 and may have a bit different take on the same - having digested ALL (and sundry) socalled authorities Lind quotes in his essay in order to find "his" rational to what tics today's US foreign policy. To begin with, I accept the sovereignty of nation-state system based on normative international law and codified under UN Charter. I also accept US policy is out to pre-empt the historical nation-state. This is principally a consequence of its war on terror - the EU might find it, in the final analysis, unacceptable. In the meanwhile, the US, has developed its strategy of pre-emptive war! The nation-state has been more or less denigrated or de-stabalized by not only official rhetorics but manifest direction of international politics. We saw that in the Balkans and now in mideast. Using WMD and human rights, as an excuse, this unilateral intervention in the sovereign rights of the nation-state has now catapulted us into the quagmire of Iraq war and its aftermath! What next? Iran? Syria? Having studied/written about the Russian and Chinese Revolutions, I'm following PRC policy developments more closely, since US policy is most likely to be confronted by mainland Chinese emerging power on the international arena (not only in GDP terms!). The nation-state is central to PRC policy perspective. I suggest a return to the UN instrument, after 1938-1945 war, which delivered international rule of law, as long as all members accepted its authority. The same instruments - with a bit of political modernization - can carry us into the new century and beyond to deal with new power realities. A realist may not believe in the UN and its ability to order a peaceful world order. Yet, the UN can only function with the mandate of its members, including the security council. My hope and prayer is that a newfound EU External Relations Commissioner will have the legal mandate to enforce the authority of the UN irrespective of US policy. It's also predictable that Russia, China, India, Brazil and South Africa would support such an attempt to foreclose pre-emptive warfare by US command/control powers, etc. It's happening on the currency market (right now!) with Euro taking over implicitly the role of a global reserve currency! My reading is that this is just the beginning of the historical decline of American imperial power... Fri, 21 Sep 2007 15:53:52 +0100 hari_1 comment 436731 at http://www.opendemocracy.net http://www.opendemocracy.net/article/democracy_power/US_world/US_foreign_policy#comment-436718 You say "Such methods short of war brought down apartheid in South Africa and inspired Libya's rapprochement with the international community". Tell that to the Marines! Or more accurately to the thousands of Cubans who died in South Africa, while the intelligentsia were heroically digging up cricket pitches. While you are about it tell it to the pilots of the 45 or so aircraft who blasted Libya on April 14th 1986, just missing Ghadaffi in his tent. Causing him to change his foreign policy nearly as fast as his underpants. Fri, 21 Sep 2007 14:03:43 +0100 johnevans7 comment 436718 at http://www.opendemocracy.net http://www.opendemocracy.net/article/globalisation/visions_reflections/denial#comment-436701 Hi Keith I think you are on the right track. Enlightenment thinking has got some serious limitations that are very relevant now (in terms of climate change). The detachment of looking at the world as if it were constituted only of facts renders one unable to engage with the inner lives of others and yourself. It is these inner worlds which can render stable truth relations as part of something humanly meaningful. In other words, facts only really matter to humans, when translated into lived and felt human outcomes. Thus I suspect that enlightenment thinking, whilst having made it possible to understand the nature of the predicament we face, is also part of the detachment and inability we now face in engaging with it: Facts cut both ways, they can both reveal and deny at the same time, which is why a more complex appreciation of truth is required. Anyway, I comment more on my blog: http://taghioff.info/dant/?p=64 Daniel Thu, 20 Sep 2007 19:27:30 +0100 http://taghioff.info/dant/ comment 436701 at http://www.opendemocracy.net http://www.opendemocracy.net/article/globalisation/visions_reflections/denial#comment-436673 I am not suggesting that facts are simply arbitrary social constructs (though certainly I think their ontological status is complex). What I am arguing is that facts on their own do not necessarily convince and that truth and evidence-based reasoning do not necessarily prevail. I am certainly not advocating a 'fake equality between evidence-based rigourous reasoning and pure prejudice and confused thinking'. In fact I am trying to avoid the sterile debates between - for example - advocates of 'intelligent design' and evolution precisely because advocates of denial science can almost never be convinced. This is of course why Deborah Lipstadt has consistently refused to debate holocaust deniers. The question is, if scientific, reasoned debate with deniers is impossible, what needs to be done? My argument is that we need debates about values and values do not stem automatically from facts. Deniers tend to hide their values, partially because pseudo-science is superficially more convincing, but also because their values would ultimately be unpalatable to most people were they to be open about them. So for example, like Deborah Lipstadt I would never debate a holocaust deniers about whether the holocaust happened, however I would debate with them over whether Jews are evil (which is ultimately what holocaust denial implies). Similarly, I would not want to get involved in debates with global warming deniers about the validity of a table or graph, but I would want to discuss what the relationship between humanity, the earth and the economy should be. I am trying to develop an argument that avoids well-worn controversies about facts and science; one that is neither 'modernist' or 'postmodernist'. This is a work in progress but I think I am on the right track... Wed, 19 Sep 2007 15:32:22 +0100 kkahnharris comment 436673 at http://www.opendemocracy.net http://www.opendemocracy.net/article/globalisation/visions_reflections/denial#comment-436663 "Facts, without inverted commas, do exist. They are not some arbitrary social constructs. The challenge for modern society is emphatically not to enable "alternative" views without factual and logical underpinning: in other words, to create a fake equality between evidence-based rigourous reasoning and pure prejudice and confused thinking. The challenge for modern society is how to harness the huge power conferred upon us by science, technology and societal structures for the good of society as a whole." Good job, ai_1. As far as I'm concerned, you nailed it. Wed, 19 Sep 2007 00:52:07 +0100 dbaker221 comment 436663 at http://www.opendemocracy.net http://www.opendemocracy.net/article/globalisation/visions_reflections/denial#comment-436656 This whole area is a minefield of claims and counter-claims. First of all I am talking about denial of 'ancient Jewish links to Jerusalem', not Jewish 'ownership' or 'sovereignity' or 'rights' to the city . The fact that the Jewish temple was located in Jerusalem and that Jews lived in the city for centuries cannot be doubted. However, the rights and entitlements that follow from the fact of such Jewish connections to Israel should rightly be a matter of debate. The organisations that tend to unearth instances of denial and racism amongst Palestinians tend to be run by right-wing Zionists - organisations such as MEMRI (http://www.memri.org/). The agenda of such organisations is highly suspect and some have argued that they exaggerate how widespread Palestinian anti-Jewish feeling is, however there is no doubt in my mind that forms of Palestinian denial do occur and are far from marginal. It is the mirror image of denials of Muslim links to Jerusalem or of the existence of Palestinians. One place to start looking at this mutual denial is the Wikipedia article on the subject - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israeli-Palestinian_history_denial#_note-1 It's still a work in progress and it has more on the Palestinian than the Zionist side but it does have some links worth investigating. Tue, 18 Sep 2007 20:26:47 +0100 kkahnharris comment 436656 at http://www.opendemocracy.net http://www.opendemocracy.net/article/globalisation/visions_reflections/denial#comment-436648 Stated in second section, third paragraph. Could the author elaborate on / substantiate this claim? Tue, 18 Sep 2007 10:08:57 +0100 still curious comment 436648 at http://www.opendemocracy.net http://www.opendemocracy.net/article/globalisation/visions_reflections/denial#comment-436634 Thanks for the thought-provoking comments on my article. I'd like to make a couple of responses/clarifications: - a_1 implies that my approach is postmodernist and that I am idealising the pre-enlightenment period. I am sorry if I have given that impression! What I am trying to do is to highlight some of the more problematic consequences of enlightenment, together with its limitations. Pre-enlightenment there were much more limited possibilities for the improvment of the human condition, but at the same time there were more limited possibilites for the denigration of the human condition. Further, the phenomenon of denial shows how enlightenment can be used against itself. The answer to these issues is not to turn against enlightenment but to recognise its limitations. - I am sceptical about the possibilities for scientific/rational arguments to overturn denier arguments. If you look at how deniers work they rarely give up when faced with devastating critiques of their work. Look at David Irving's court case against Deborah Lipstadt: his work was torn to shreds in court but it hasn't made him or any of his other followers recant. Indeed, failure actually boosts deniers as they take it as 'proof' of their 'persecuted' status. I am not saying that debunking isn't necessary and yes it can work to reduce deniers to a hard core, but it is sadly never going to eliminate denial completely. This is why I have argued that we need to look to another strategy - talking about values. - I am aware that 'denial' is a highly problematic term and that it can be misused, particularly in its 'you're in denial' form. However, I see little alternative to using it, perhaps because I simply cannot find a better Engligh-language term! Suggestions for alternatives would be welcome... Thanks again for the comments. Mon, 17 Sep 2007 11:51:31 +0100 kkahnharris comment 436634 at http://www.opendemocracy.net