A basis for societal cohesion
Our epistemic attitudes matter when we want a coherent society, but we are going in the wrong direction
If there is one thing that everyone agrees on today, it would likely be that our societies are becoming more fragmented, polarised and tribalised. While there is a certain irony in this fact that we all agree that we no longer agree, this rarely generates any change in attitudes as most people blame the other side, whoever that may be for them. This fragmentation is, I have argued before, not just because we disagree on many important matters, but as there are "fundamentally different views on the processes by which we acquire trustworthy knowledge." Our societies are going through a period of epistemic fracturing. We are splitting into different groups that have different norms about how we decide on what is true.
A recent post generated some discussion, both offline and in the comments, about the conditions under which societies can be cohesive and what it might mean to reverse the fracturing we are going through. The point of that post was to think through the impact of foundational epistemic attitudes on the ability of organisations to create a healthy culture that allows them more easily to discover genuine knowledge. However, the same type of thinking applies at a broader scale, leading to the suggestion (by Sean in the comments) that "only humility provides the conditions under which a collective society (and a society of collective societies) can truly flourish." While this isn't universally true as a historical observation about human societies, it does describe the best way forward for modern societies.
Epistemic attitudes and societal cohesion
The history of humanity has many examples of cohesive societies that thrived and were stable across many centuries or longer. Some of these we consider as empires or civilisations, such as in Japan, China, India, Egypt, Rome, the Incans or Mayans and so on. Others were smaller scale and didn't leave richly documented histories, like many Indigenous tribes and communities across the world. Most commonly, these societies had a social order built on a strongly unified, and fixed, socio-religious set of beliefs and rituals - and dissent from these was rarely tolerated. To frame it in terms of epistemic attitudes, these societies assumed they had epistemic certainty for a fairly wide set of core beliefs. The society was unified around the fact that they all knew, with a certainty that couldn't be socially questioned, certain important things about the nature of the world and society. For example, in many of these societies, everyone knew that the Emperor (or King or Chieftan) was a deity and therefore deserved deference and authority.
A strongly hierarchical, or authoritarian form of government, naturally coincides with a societal acceptance of epistemic certainty. If we know the truth with certainty, then there isn't a lot of need for debate and so we can trust those who are in charge and have the truth. At the extreme, it is also the structure of cults - which are often highly internally cohesive societies that we'd clearly recognise as dangerous in many other ways.
This form of society, based on the assumption of epistemic certainty, created many stable and long-lasting societies. However, the continuation of these societies broadly depended on a combination of two factors. One is that there was sufficient separation from other societies with dramatically different religions or worldviews. It is hard to maintain epistemic certainty across a society when there is regular and widespread contact with another religion or worldview that seems to function just as well as yours. A second factor is that the society needed to stay strong or successful. Being invaded, or just living in the shadow of a different society with a different religion, also makes it hard to maintain epistemic certainty.
Through history, the main alternative to building a cohesive society based on epistemic certainty is to follow Sean's suggestion. For example, a turn towards epistemic humility that occurred across Western European political thought following the various Wars of Religion in the 16th and 17th centuries. Concepts like representative democracy, human rights and modern rule of law emerged as a result. But it is also an attitude that was practically adopted by many large, multi-ethnic empires through history. So long as they adhered to certain behavourial norms and expectations, empires like Rome or the Ottomans (to varying extents over time) allowed local peoples to maintain their own beliefs.
In short, accepting that knowledge is hard and we get things wrong opens up much more space for tolerance of different ideas and worldviews. If we think that knowledge is easy, then anyone who disagrees with what we know with certainty must be misguided or malicious. This makes it very hard to build any sort of collective society with people of very different worldviews. On the other hand, if knowledge is hard then we are naturally far more understanding that others may see things differently (even when we are still sure they are wrong). It also means we might be able to learn something from them, building societal or communal space for discussion and mutual respect (even without agreement).
On the surface, it looks as though another epistemic attitude - scepticism - would similarly open up space for disagreement. However, while it allows us to accept that others have different views, as it doesn't allow that there is any genuine knowledge or truth, it leaves us without any common ground between groups. If we both have fundamentally different views, but believe there is a reality or truth we can describe (even if it is hard to get it right), it gives us a common frame and something to work together on. This may be minimal, but even a Buddhist who believes that all physical reality is an illusion and a strident scientific materialist who believes that matter is all that exists, can have a genuine dialogue if they both believe they are describing a reality that can be experienced. If neither believes there is a truth of the matter, there is little reason for or benefit to such a discussion.
Of the epistemic attitudes, it is humility that can create space for very different views to be heard and discussed, and also a common focus as we agree there is a reality that is worth debating. To borrow again from Sean, it creates a communal space that can underpin a functioning society.
Societal cohesion today
Building societal cohesion upon epistemic certainty, and around a set of unarguable beliefs or statements, is not only the historical norm but very common today. We see it in many countries with authoritarian forms of government. We see it in many businesses who seek to define themselves around a narrow and distinctive set of (unarguable) values. We see it in the attitudes of many sides of different political groupings who insist that the debate is settled and things will work smoothly once everyone follows their views. This approach is, however, increasingly unstable and untenable - for practical, philosophical and moral reasons.
Practically, building societal cohesion around epistemic certainty is increasingly difficult because of, in short, the Internet. While we may not actually live in a Global Village, the information flows and connections due to digital technologies mean that very few societies can maintain space or separation from strongly different worldviews or ideas - which used to be the norm. Ideas and information contrary to any consensus are always circulating and accessible, so maintaining cohesion around a particular set of beliefs that are held to be epistemically certain and unquestionable is practically very difficult. It can work where people can self-select into a group or society, but is far, far more difficult than it ever used to be. The Chinese Government, to pick the obvious example, has effectively built a large firewall around the Internet in China and employs millions of people as censors, and it still struggles to maintain conformity around core beliefs it holds to be epistemically certain.
Morally, epistemic certainty often licenses awful behaviour from those who are certain they are right. If you are certain that you are right, and you believe knowledge is easy to find, then those who disagree with you must have something wrong with them. They must be misguided - perhaps brainwashed or just stupid - or malicious - acting with ulterior motives, being paid off or are just evil. None of these options encourage you to treat others with respect or dignity. It is notable that many of the measures taken in the mid-twentieth century to try to prevent atrocities occurring in the future, such as the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, contain practical expressions of epistemic humility. It only makes sense to claim that everyone has a right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion, if we don't believe in epistemic certainty or confidence.
Philosophically, I have argued repeatedly here that we should accept epistemic humility because it is true and it works as an approach to building knowledge. More broadly, thinking about societal cohesion, if we want to build a collective society that flourishes then it makes sense to base it on reliable philosophical commitments. Building a society on epistemic certainty, or epistemic scepticism, will be fragile over time as those philosophical attitudes are themselves unstable.
Rebuilding cohesion
To go back to the start of this post, there is at least one more point on which almost everyone in our societies agree, beyond the way our societies are coming apart. While many wouldn't put it in these terms, we almost all agree that epistemic certainty is the correct attitude. There are many different ways people justify it: for some, Science allows them to be certain; for others, it is one of a number of different religious beliefs; others rely on social justice precepts and others on various economic or social theories. Regardless of any group's justification, the broad acceptance of epistemic certainty is a factor that is driving societal fracturing. If we are epistemically certain, then we tend to start treating those who disagree with us as stupid, evil or corrupted by vested interests and money. And there is copious evidence across political and social media commentary today that people are doing exactly this. None of it promotes a communal space or a collective society.
On the other hand, if you listen to any advice for how to fix social breakdown or fracturing, it invariably starts with genuinely listening, treating others with respect and trying to see things from the perspectives of others. These are the distinctive attitudes that come when we accept that knowledge is hard and so remain humble about what we know. In other words, epistemic humility is a precondition for the genuine actions needed to rebuild relationships and societies.
One common issue is that governments, commentators, businesses, influencers and many others say they want to do all these things to help build a more cohesive society, but don't accept they could be wrong about what they know. So they might know they need to listen and understand the perspectives of others, but struggle to actually do it as they are still convinced they are right and the others are wrong. This means we end up with sham consultations, condescending or patronising explanations and betrayed trust.
Unfortunately, if we maintain a broad societal commitment to epistemic certainty, we will likely continue to fracture and tribalise into different groups that don't mix. The question then is whether we can build more epistemic humility into our societies and so create the space for a functioning society that isn't founded on a strict set of common beliefs.
It should be possible, and there are signs around that people are interested, but it isn't a straightforward change to achieve. For now, I can only offer the obviously self-serving advice that you should convince everyone to read this Substack! More seriously, I'm very interested in comments and thoughts from readers on how this might be possible - and I will come back to the topic in the future.
Thank you for an interesting article. I would like to share my thoughts, if I may.
The ability to learn and remember has its evolutionary advantages – it enables group members to predict the future and adapt to new situations. However, it seems that every now and then the ruling western elite goes through a collective retrograde amnesia (difficulty in retrieving old memories).
Group remembering is a constructive process, more a negotiation within a group – an agreement partly based on lived experience. Each individual remembers only a part of what a group needs to know. Some events are stored, others are discarded. A collective memory is based on consensus. Frequently renegotiated. An assumption that we agree on common values is necessary.
Whenever a person leaves a group, a memory is lost. Knowledge is lost. When a generation, such as those who experienced the horrors of war, depart over time, those left behind try to enhance cohesion. Still, if the ruling elite separates itself from the rest of society and demands obedience, social norms are not internalised. When there is no feeling of belonging, there is no motivation. So, all the new elite has are platitudes (‘we are in it together’). Those who never endured suffering impose ‘consensus’ onto others. If led by Machiavelians, they will feed each other’s ignorance, arrogance, and delusions. Platitudes lower self-reflection and humbleness (a personality trait important in testing (HEXACO) for indicators of personality disorders, such as the Dark triad), which the new elite sees as a weakness.
Complex emotions, such as guilt, shame, and pride, most children develop by about age three, and their emergence depends, in part, on cognitive development. Due to our ability to reflect, even at such a young age, we learn about ourselves and the world. To consider another’s point of view is essential for developing empathy. This ability is later crucial in developing self-awareness and healthy skepticism.
Loneliness reigns over individualism. In a world of greed, where everything is a commodity, distrust impacts social cohesion and social ability to predict the future and adapt to a new environment. Hence, society’s survival is compromised.
Well, how I am supposed to disagree with that ;-)
Science fiction literature might provide an interesting backdrop to the practical question. My, admittedly limited, understanding of the genre is that most future universes depict two 'truths' coming into conflict. Ultimately, one truth is proved to be 'right'. In reality, though, one way of looking at it is that the hegemony simply shifts from one dominating view to another. I wonder if, within this, lies an element of human nature that humility and tolerance will never overcome.
Herman Hesse's The Glass Bead Game might provide potentially interesting literary insight. While set in the future, it isn't really science fiction. But it might provide a counterpoint to your musings about the internet.