The Freedom of the Press (Animal Farm) (p. 888)
Politics are such a common and addictive mechanism that they don't really guide discussions, but dictate them. They aren't simply relegated to the legal or juridical sphere though. Just as a Nation is essentially a preconceived ideal for levying power over another group and doesn't indicate a geographical place, a Politic is a system of tacit agreements and maxims which are purposed toward creating more palatable, useful circumstances. They're terms of engagements, not specific legal applications.
Politics are certainly used in the determination and practice of law, however when speaking of politics it's important not to merge law and politics merely because law is an overt form of politics. Tacit agreements are overt when they tuck their basal assumptions into outright premises. This gets the audience to follow along not knowing that they complied with assumptions. For example, "How are we going to stop species X from going extinct?" There are multiple assumptions tucked into this premise: That we can stop a species from going extinct; that it's our place to stop them from going extinct; and that it's good for the environment to do so. But once someone starts answering the initial question, they implicitly adopt the assumptions, unwittingly being a pawn in a political manipulation. This doesn't mean malevolent or vicious or vengeful, just manipulative, which by definition means conforming others to the self's wants or needs. This happens all the time in discussions, from juridical spheres to coffee shop conversations. The less aware we are of the premises we make and hear, the more we tacitly agree because we haven't identified them as distinct.
Say you hit the gym before work, and decide to work in your gym clothes, considering it's the slow season and you're going to take half the day off. Big no-no. And not because you take half a day; actually your employer would appreciate that timing because they end up paying you to do nothing while there's nothing to do, instead of paying you to do nothing when there's a lot to do. The big no-no is breaking the dress-code, which in productive society is eerily compulsive. Despite being capable of producing just as much--if not more, because you're more physically comfortable--your unconventional attire threatens and offends basic beliefs.
Tacit agreements dictate behavior extremely well because they're a derivative of wink-and-nod behaviorism. Instead of having to be up front and uncomfortable about something, you use insinuations, implications, and tucked premises to carry out your affairs. Modern philosopher Kristhoffer is highly critical of politics, because they essentially purpose engagements toward feeling good rather than being truthful. Can politics and truth be in alignment? I just slid a premise by you. Politics is a system of networking assumptions and palatable affairs, and truth is a direct reflection of reality. They're two completely different categories. Since politics are designed to make us feel good and in control and truth isn't, if we're politically interested we prioritize feel-good versions of what we believe the truth is, over the ugly, uncomfortable truth.
A valid point to be made is that honesty and truth are not the same. According to Kristhoffer, honesty is the self's best-attempt at representing what they're feeling or thinking, whereas truth, again, has nothing to do with any specific species, argument, or mechanism. Truth is an objective reflection of reality, and although I'm not going to delve too deep into it because that's not the main topic, nor am I an expert, here's an example of a truth: Every cause has multiple effects. No matter what species you are, or what your political, religious or governmental affiliation is, it's true that no cause has one isolated effect. Reality is just too big and interconnected. So while honesty is a device purposed toward relaying what's in our mind the best we think we can, truth is objective and completely uninterested in humans.
Politics are superb socializers, because they allow us to tuck, hide, and sneak premises in on one another, relying on honesty to lubricate the engagement. Hence, tacit agreement is simple, easy, and reinforced by others. Kristhoffer calls this the "contract of stupidity," in that all those participating agree not to make a movement toward truth through judging or arguing the validity or invalidity of premises. Hence, as long the tacit agreements are upheld, and no one disturbs the sl premises, politics can--and do--be applied to any interaction.
Click the RSS FEED button below to receive notification of new Orwell 365 posts.