Inequalities, societies and “alternative facts”

by
Editor
My articles My siteMy booksMy videos
Follow on:Twitter

from Ken Zimmerman

There are inequalities and then there are inequalities. In any society, some members are taller, smarter, run faster, are better at math, build houses better, etc. than other members. In most societies these are not converted into inequalities in food, clothing, housing, wealth, and the other necessities for staying alive. And they have little effect on one’s status and prestige and power within the society. Durkheim wrote about it. It’s called “division of labor.” Everyone does her or his part and shares equally in the necessities for life. For example, regardless of how they’re depicted in popular literature and movies, Vikings of 1000 years ago had very much this kind of society.

Does this mean there were no feuds, personal hatreds, marital infidelity, taking advantage of one’s neighbors? No. It just means that when uncovered these were appropriately discouraged and punished. In the effort to end them and prevent them happening again. All societies are always “best efforts” ventures. All social rules and commandments must continually be interpreted when applied. Working all this out takes time, and the work is never finished. All of this is too often taken-for-granted today. Many people no longer feel the need to work at making the societies in which they reside. Societies don’t come ready made. If enough of society’s members bow out of the construction process or are forced out, the society can collapse, fold in on itself and become violent, or become mired in great inequality. There are dozens of problems in most modern societies impeding this work, from job requirements to religious barriers to making every difference a battle front.

For example, let’s consider the current matter of “alternative facts.” Bruno Latour’s latest book, “Down to Earth,” is an illuminating and counterintuitive analysis of the present post-truth moment. What journalists, scientists and other experts fail to grasp, Latour argues, is that “facts remain robust only when they are supported by a common culture, by institutions that can be trusted, by a more or less decent public life, by more or less reliable media.” With the rise of alternative facts, it has become clear that whether a statement is believed depends far less on its veracity than on the conditions of its “construction” — that is, who is making it, to whom it’s being addressed and from which institutions it emerges and is made visible. A greater understanding of the circumstances out of which misinformation arises and the communities in which it takes root, Latour contends, will better equip us to combat it.

One could argue this is how the great and pervasive inequality Scheidel describes in his book is created. When one monarch, a small group of aristocrats, a dictator, or similar has the power to change any aspect of the culture (e.g., the facts of celestial movement, the ownership of land, the distribution of property) facts, customs, expectations, etc. soon become both hollow and useless for judging one’s future in society or the expected future of the society itself. But it’s not the monarchs, aristocrats, etc. whom we should blame for this situation. It is those who are none of these but just ordinary people who give up their power in constructing the society. Societal construction is often hard and frequently conflictful. But it is work that must be done. If not by ordinary people than by the monarchs, aristocrats, and those like them.

https://rwer.wordpress.com/2019/05/02/inequality-conundrums/#comments