Majority truths and social lies
The world's a stage: would-be actors and political beasts concoct the most elaborate stories in order to oppose truth and right—in the name of common interest, of course! Meanwhile, the "compact majorities" are kept entertained by various arts of stagecraft, never confronted with harsh reality.
Quite a statement, indeed. A realistic one! So the masses are doomed to stay ignorant by charmers and ingenious conversationalists?
What if this isn't always the case? Aristotle, in his Politics, Book 3, deals with the question of the sovereign power in the city-state; and his way of argumentation in favor of the multitude or the many is quite interesting:
"For it is possible that the many, though not individually good men, yet when they come together may be better, not individually but collectively."[1]
The soundness of judgement of individuals assembled together seems to be proportional to their number:
"[…] for where there are many, each individual, it may be argued, has some portion of virtue and wisdom, and when they have come together, just as the multitude becomes a single man with many feet and many hands and many senses, so also it becomes one personality as regards the moral and intellectual faculties."[2]
Can this collective wisdom judge adequately on matters political and moral? Usually, we don't trust the volatile masses—we, the obviously logicians and philosophical critics. Besides, "ordinary" people are mostly keen on securing their daily bread, instead of fighting for bright ideals. Maybe the masses know very well what's in their best interest, and that's the knotty part.
Here's what I mean: in Ibsen's theatrical play An Enemy of the People the multitude is scolded for its adherence to falsehood and deceit. In fact, the people recognize what's good for their community, but this is where the controversy begins: Stockmann, the main protagonist, sees his fellow citizens ready to build their town's prosperity on barefaced, damaging deceptions.
At the core of this position, as per Stockmann, lie certain crowd-pleasing beliefs he dubs social lies: old and rotten dressed-as-truth illusions that harm societies internally. Let's see two popular examples mentioned in the play:
- "the majority has always right on its side"
- "the common folk have the same right to govern as the virtuous and excellent individuals".
What became of Aristotle's argument then? Can it be that the many are indeed able to govern themselves and perceive what advances their welfare, yet only to build this well-being upon self-pleasing illusions?
And what's the role of those "hyper-virtuous" individuals? For Ibsen, only this avant-garde type of free-spirits can stand out against the self-deceiving masses and their ideologues (e.g. would-be-politicians, the press). Fresh ideas require broad-mindedness, passion and openness towards the world. Wise is the person "who stands most alone", steering clear of public opinion and its social lies—in the likes of Heraclitus and Nietzsche perhaps.
 |
| Caspar David Friedrich, The Monk by the Sea (Der Mönch am Meer), before restoration. Source |
[1] Aristotle, Politics, Aristotle in 23 Volumes, Vol. 21, translated by H. Rackham. Cambridge, MA, Harvard University Press; London, William Heinemann Ltd. 1944, 1281a-1281b. Find the excerpt in Perseus.
[2] Ibid., 1281b.
