The power of questioning power

Most things come full circle ... well, they do if you allow them enough time to take their course. The question of power and the question of questioning power is one of those things.

When you get right down to it, "power" -- whatever it is, whoever is exercising it, in which form it comes or in which systems it disguises itself -- has one, and only one, "tool": fear. Power is powerful, because you are afraid. It is that simple.

One of my biggest heros, one of the individuals who walked this earth for whom I have the greatest and utmost respect, used to preface many, many things that he said with the simple words, "Fear not, fear not ..." In modern phraseology: "Don't be afraid ... ". Yes, yes, yes, we have gone through all the trivializations of this simple idea, and so we haven't come to realize just how trivial the idea is. And now, we return, after such a long diversion, to the root of the problem. How can you "speak truth to power", or question, even challenge, authority without real risk of repression? It's quite simple, really: ask questions.

Although I grew up in an age that scholastically lauded the Socratic method, questioning authority was simply something "you just didn't do". It was impolite, cheeky, pushy, cocky, and downright, insulting. Still, there are ways to simply "ask a question" that is none of these. What is more, when asked in the proper way, in the proper tone, at the proper time, a question can, and most often does, appear as a simple quest for knowledge and wisdom from someone who apparently and supposedly "knows". It is one thing to rebuke a claim, an assertion, a statement, but it is quite another to not respond to someone who is early seeking "to know".

Power always has the responsibility to answer a well-meant question, even if it may not want to answer at all. Power cannot simply reject a question, for to do so would expose it for what it really is: power for power's sake. Yet, we can learn from the three-year-old: keep questioning until the questioned can no longer answer, until his/her own power-based logic simply collapses upon itself. And, believe me, it will eventually do just that.

While fear is an extremely powerful tool, if not a weapon, it suffers from a significant, inherent weakness: it cannot stand in the light of Truth. I may not know the "truth", that is certain, but I believe (and Power believes) that Truth can ultimately be found. The way to the truth is questioning: pursuing the path, via the method, of perhaps the greatest philosopher who ever lived, Socrates.

Power knows how to utilize fear to its own advantage. Of that much, I am sure. However, Power is not immune from fear itself. And, if there is anything that Power fears, it is the power of the question ... the simple question. So, never, ever be afraid to ask "the next question", for it is always, without doubt, the most important question to ever be asked.

Question power before it questions you.

Question power

Power can be all-powerful ... well, at least it can be conceived as such. Most folks that I know would rather avoid any association with power, let alone a confrontation with it. As the Germans put it, "offering your forehead to power" (Macht die Stirn bieten), can reduce your height by about twelve inches (30 cm) and your weight by about 11 lbs (5 kg) very, very quickly. That is a tried-and-true method that power employs, but, as we saw, over time, as the shift from the merely physical to the more ethereal has taken place, a shift in "execution" of power has taken place as well.

In most places around the globe, we don't lop off people's heads anymore. Most peoples and nations have come to the realization that the same effect can be achieved with a lot less visual vividness. Sure, you can still imprison folks for long periods of time, knowing full well that "out of sight" (that is, not in the daily press" means "out of mind" (that is, forgotten). Or, you can simply "talk louder". The volume of mainstream media is always higher than anything an individual can offer. Another approach is to discredit the questioner: given enough money, I suppose, everybody's missteps can be found out and exposed, especially in the days of the Internet. What all of these "methods" have in common, however, is fear. You could be charged with a crime, even if you didn't commit one; most people are tried "in the press" before they ever get to trial. Convictions are then merely insurance. The mainstream media, since it is privately controlled, is more interested in profits than truth, so they can afford to make you a case instead of making a case for you, and they will benefit (i.e., profit) from it, in the end. What is more, given the lax security and the reluctance of most "good citizens" to challenge the "status quo", innuendo, even in cyberspace, can literally destroy an individual before s/he has a chance to defend him/herself. I know very few people who would be willing to risk going through any of that for any reason. You don't have to chop off heads to instill fear. At least, not any more.

Still, as long as fear dictates our lives, as long as fear is our primary motivation, whoever or whatever is in power will succeed. It has always been this way, and it will continue to be this way, unless we change. And, I'm pretty sure, that's really far down on the ol' priority list.

It's too bad, really. One doesn't have to start a rebellion, a physical, military, violent, armed revolution to initiate change. The most effective change is never public, it is private. Here's a very simple thought experiment: imagine that you had no fear of anything any more: what would/could you do? Think about it. Because we hang on too many "things" (our house, car, savings account, possessions, you-name-it) we are afraid that someone can or will come and take it away from us. It could be a thief, but it could be the "government". Why the "government" would want it, given that it extracts exorbitant taxes from you, often without you even knowing it is doing so, and it has you regulated, legislated, controlled, and subdued by the mass of legislation you have to live with. You are allowed to "talk a good (maybe even "tough") game", but if they decide you're done, for whatever reason, you're outta here. And that, dear reader, is the price you pay for (alleged) freedom.

And that's why I say, quite simply, question power, before it questions you.

The question of power

Lord Acton, who most of us have never heard of, once said something that just about everyone of us has not only heard, but said: "Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely." That's not a direct quotation, but it is a direct expression of the sentiment he wished to express. This is one of those old sayings, those "wise, old" adages, that we let slip from our lips without a second('s) thought, which may be why we don't really get it; that is, really understand what the good Lord was trying to say.

As I confessed last time, questions really got to me. But if there ever was a concept that occasionally rivaled that enthrallment, it would be the notion of "power". Here is another used and abused notion that everybody talks about, that everyone thinks they understand, but that is, without a doubt, one of the most illusive notions that we've ever come up with.

First, we have the concept of "enabling things to function". We need power to drive the steam engine and power to run our computers and keep the lights on. Power is what is talked about when we think of any kind of machine or gadget. We also relate "power" to "authority": those who can tell us what we may or may not do, what is permitted and what is not. And, we also use the concept to describe whoever or whatever can ensure that certain things happen, as in legislative power, or "the power of the pen". OK, in the latter instance there is no ensuring, but potentially a lot of influencing. When it comes to physical power, we have lots of good science to "explain" to us how it works, why and how machines are efficient or why some people can benchpress hundreds of pounds and others can't do a single push-up. When it comes to other kinds of power, though, we're pretty much lost.

Again, Shakespeare's Macbeth is ready at hand: it exemplifies Lord Acton's statement, hundreds of years before Lord Acton expressed it. It indicates that this is not a new problem we are dealing with. In the meantime we know (probably more than we want to) about the "power of the sword", "power of nuclear weapons", the (fire)power of the American military, the "power of the 'almighty dollar'", the (alleged) "power of the press", even the "power of persuasion", and many more. We quickly begin to realize what a complex and intricate concept "power" can be.

All of these phrases show examples, to be sure, but none of them, and certainly not any one of them, defines the notion of "power". Why? Because "power" is always the same and never the same, all at the same time. There was a time when "physical power", in any of its forms -- strength, superior weapons -- played the dominant role. There was a time when "political power", in any of its forms -- diplomacy, alliances -- was most important. And now, we live in a time, when the "power of perceptions" plays the dominant role. We all still have to deal with the same, old same-old, but it comes in ever-changing guises.

It doesn't amaze me at all that most folks feel powerless in the face of power.

The power of questions

Anyone who knows me knows there is one "confession" I must always make, especially when I meet new people or have the opportunity to work in new groups: I absolutely and unequivocally love questions. I do. I am fascinated by them ... mesmerized sometimes. They stir my imagination and unlock secrets. They are, without a doubt, the most powerful intellectual and analytical tool -- if used properly -- that I have ever had the privilege to use.

These days, I believe that questions are terribly underestimated and their true power has never been properly recognized.

All of this started, of course, when I was going through teacher training at college, oh, so many years ago. In "my day", there was only one, accepted pedagogical (teaching) method: the Socratic method. Lesson plans described a topic, a digestible amount of material, and the way to get the students from wherever they were to wherever the lesson was to take them was to be achieved solely through the use of questions. It was frowned up that the teacher provide any "answers", be it information or -- heaven forbid -- interpretations or declarations. It was up to the teacher to guide the students to discover knowledge for him or herself, solely through the use of appropriate questioning techniques. This is considered more than old-fashioned these days, but, truth be told, this was a very old method when I became exposed to it. If you want to see brilliant examples of how it works, I recommend reading Plato. His writings are nothing other than Socratic dialogs (for Socrates always plays the main role), and they are every bit as informative and didactic today as they were at the time they were written. Some things simply refuse to change. (And anything that does, and anything that stands the test of time like questions do, deserve a second, third, or even an infinite number of looks).

And when did this fall out of favor as a teaching method? I don't know. I suspect, however, that it was about the time that "somebody decided" that the results of standardized tests or the regurgitation of factual knowledge was more important than the ability to think, to explore, to discover, and to search (for the truth). Oh, I'll be the first to admit it: questions can be uncomfortable, as any parent on the planet will tell you. There isn't a parent alive or dead who hasn't been exasperated (positively or negatively) by their 3-year old who will not give their questioning a rest. Once you fork down that "why" path, there is never an end in sight. Nor should there be. What we don't do as parents, or what enough parents don't do, or what most parents do not encourage, is that they continue asking those questions. If there is one ability in our children that we should never, ever discourage, it's the asking of questions. I firmly believe that the world would not be in the shape it is, that we would not be confronted with all the challenges that we have to deal with, if we had been encouraged as children to question more.

To me, it's never really been a priority to just "keep on trucking". No, for me, it's important to "keep on questioning."

Ideological subterfuging

It could be that I mentioned it somewhen before, but I love neologisms. New words, that is. I love thinking them up, and I love to watch the pained and sometimes even surprised expressions on people's faces when I use them around them for the first time. Oh, I've had downright "battles" with people over such words. They're argument is, if it's not in the dictionary, it's not a word. I say, in Shakespeare's day, they didn't have dictionaries and if they had had them, I'm not sure he would have cared. He is -- and I know I have said this before -- is my absolute hero, idol -- the Master of Masters of the English Language -- as far as I'm concerned. I don't feel even worthy to walk in his shadow, but that's not going to stop me from trying to sneak into the shade from time to time.

There has long been a lot of debate, not necessarily in public, but certainly in certain academic circles, about the relationship between language and thought. Whorf is probably the most widely known name in this regard. He postulated a direct link between language and how we access reality. I tend to think he's got a point, and whether language influences, or even determines, thinking or vice versa is not the real point for me. There is a relationship, undeniably. I am tending to believe it is symbiotic, not unidirectional, nor causal, but I still have to think a bit about that. What I am sure of, however, is that our experience of reality is most certainly influenced by the language(s) we speak.

Even this is, of course, too much for some people. They like to think they've got a complete, comprehensive, and objective grip on things. Nothing could be further from the truth. We can know a lot. We can be right about a lot of stuff. Our perceptions can conform to objectively verified, factual realities, but we never really have a sound "grasp" of things. We only know our experience of things, and that, dear reader, is the definition of subjectivity. You and I have different experience sets, hence we must, by definition, have differences in our perceptions of reality. This is not to say that we can't agree about many, many things, but there will never be a 100% match between your (perception of) reality and mine. That's OK. I can live with that. Unfortunately, there is a large (and growing?) number of people who can't.

Language is certainly one perceptual filter, but never, ever underestimate the power of ideologies (as I've talked about the last two posts) in filtering our experiences. Ideologies, once we believe in them, are personally dangerous in that they are so obvious to us that we fail to question them. We assume that their filtering is accurate. In most cases, we're not even aware that they are there and at work.

So, how does one "protect" oneself? Is there a way to at least mitigate their effects? But of course. There is no problem, no hazard, no disease or illness, no anything that Nature has not provided a cure/antidote/help for. In this case, our own human nature comes to our aid. We humans, believe it or not, are the only living species that can question.

Question everything.

Ideological abusings

The dominant ideology these days, as I said last time, is Neoliberalism, unbridled capitalism. Its purpose, of course, is the justification of the outrageous economic inequality that we are all experiencing and the exploitation of the climate and natural resources that are becoming ever more threatening.

The foundation of this particular ideology is what has become known as the Washington Consensus, first expressed in 1989 by John Williamson, the then chief economist and vice-president of the World Bank. Its goal is simple: the privatization of the world, and this by means of a very few simple principles:

• Tax reform: fewer taxes on the rich; more taxes for the working and the poor
• Total deregulation of all financial markets and the worldwide economic sector
• Protection of foreign investment and investors
• Increased protection for private property
• Reduction of national deficits
• Elimination of public subsidies
• Elimination of the public sector

Now, there is nothing in this list that we haven't seen being put into practice (well, except, of course, for the elimination of public subsidies ... as long as major corporations can get an extra hand from government, one shouldn't become too radical), but there is also nothing in this list that is a good idea because it is based on sound experience.

The rich and the benefactors of capital gains received preferential treatment, as was recently noted around Tax Day in America. The deregulation of capital and financial markets produced an economic meltdown that the little tax-payers got to bail out; the next (I believe, more severe) crash is on its way. And, we only need to look at what is being done to Greece (or look back to what was done to Chile, Argentina, Bolivia, Venezuela, Poland, or even Russia) to see what the results of these principles are. Yet, even though there is no factual evidence to support these principles, they are pushed and propagandized to such a degree that even their victims have begun to believe in them.

And so we are made to believe that this is how the world "is", that there are natural, economic laws that decide who succeeds and who fails, and yet not a word of it is true, nor can it be demonstrated by example. The propagandization of the ideology, however, and we should remember that all propaganda is based on fear, instills fear into the heart of the so-called middle class, those who thought they had risen above all that had been so painfully achieved on May Day.

I am ashamed to say that they got my generation to buy into this fantasy, but as is so often the case, converts are the worst. We have come to love and defend our oppressors. How sad is that?

Ideological musings

May Day could have been so worth celebrating. Too bad all we're left with is those long demythologized notions about the rights of spring. OK, that could be a reason for celebrating too, but we decided in our enlightened ignorance that anyone who came before ourselves really didn't know all that much in the end. We think so lowly of our forebears and ancestors that you really have to wonder how you can explain that we have survived as long as we have as a species.

Of course, we're poised to take care of that too. You can lie to yourself all you want, you can have governments censuring employees (in a supposedly free country), but you can't change the fact that we humans are doing our damnedest to pollute and heat up our planet so badly that Mother Nature will have no choice but to retaliate. But that's a discussion for another time.

No, what I wanted to pick up on was an idea in my last post that might have been overlooked by some of you, namely the part "ideology" played in the workers' defeat. We tend to think that when the Soviet Union collapsed it was because our own ideology proved to be "right", but as Wadsworth points out in the movie Clue, "Communism is simply a red herring." And that it is. No, there's a new ideology on the street to get us all, and it's known "officially" as Neoliberalism, or, for the less erudite among you, unbridled capitalism.

First, let us get clear on what an ideology actually is. In simplest terms, it's an "idea" posing as a "science" (-ology), that is an objective, clear, and proven way of knowing about the world. The key here, though, is the word "posing", for ideologies are diametrically opposed to science of any kind. When it comes to ideologies it is not so important that you know. It is much more important that you believe. And that's why they're so dangerous.

Every single ideology is there for one reason only: to interpret the world, to tell us how the world "is". To do this, it constructs a system of expression and symbols that follow the ideology's own internal, relative autonomous logic (cf. Jean Ziegler, Retournez les fusils!: Choisir son camp, Paris, 2014). While that all sounds relatively harmless, it ideologies are belief systems that provide justification for the actions of its believers. For example, the ideology of American Exceptionalism says it's OK for the USA to do things that they believe others have no right to do, such as overthrow governments or assassinate foreign politicians who resist America's right to do as it pleases, simply because it is in a unique position in the world. Or, the ideology of, say, Calvinistic predestination in the 16th century which was provided justification for the rise to political power of the commercial class and even the genocide of indigenous populations in the name of expanding trade, for example, in the American, Dutch and British colonies.

In other words, a given ideology is not based on facts, evidence or experience, rather it is a way of seeing and explaining the world that is grounded in a set of beliefs that are then used to say why what someone or some group is doing is good, right, and proper. Challenges, of course, usually come from outside, but not always.