“Had you accepted that . . . counsel . . . you would have furnished all that man seeks on earth, that is: someone to bow down to, someone to take over his conscience, and a means for uniting everyone at last into a common, concordant, and incontestable anthill.” “Instead of the firm ancient law, man had henceforth to decide for himself, with a free heart, what is good and what is evil, having only your image before him as a guide-but did it not occur to you that he would eventually reject and dispute even your image and your truth if he was oppressed by so terrible a burden as freedom of choice?” Dostoyevsky These passages from Dostoyevsky, in which the Grand Inquisitor takes God to task for furnishing human beings with freedom of choice, are among his most thought-provoking – and haunting. Human beings, says the Inquisitor, don’t want freedom of choice. Freedom of that kind is nothing but a burden to people, and so their greatest desire is for someone to come along and tell them what to think. For all of our sakes, we had better hope that Dostoyevsky was wrong, because that desire and the existence of Democracy are mutually incompatible. In fact, Democracy is premised on the opposite conviction: that human beings are not only capable of being responsible for themselves, but want to be. That’s why a healthy Democracy makes demands upon the individual that are completely unknown in the many forms of despotism that have passed for governance in the course of human history. These demands derive primarily from the concept of citizenship – the idea, that is, that people can and should be responsible for their own governance. The legitimacy of governance, which we sometimes refer to as the rule of law, dervies in its entirety from the consent of the governed; and that consent is rightly extended only when those governing govern on behalf of the common good. That's why Democracy, when it really is Democracy, is morally legitimate, and all other forms of governance are not. History has shown us repeatedly that certain types of rule have a strong propensity to degenerate into governance on behalf of a privileged few. That's why Democracy is not governance by the man who has the most goons to beat up his opposition. That's why it is not government by a hereditary aristocracy. That's why it is not government by lobbyists. And that's why it most certainly is not government by businessmen, whether benevolent or sociopathic. Once again, Democracy is government by those governed, on behalf of the common good of those governed. Democracy isn't easy. It makes difficult demands of its citizens: among other things, that they be well-informed. Not entertained. Not infotained. Not subjected to commercials. Not titillated by the antics of celebrities. Not distracted by the details of who wore what to the Oscars. Above all else, perhaps, not propagandized against their own best interests. And the demands of citizenship don’t stop there. Once given the facts, citizens need to be capable of reasoning to valid conclusions regarding those facts. This dual requirement, that the citizen cultivate both an informed outlook and a sharp intellect, isn’t taken seriously today by the media, by most of those running for office, or, indeed, even by some educators. If anything, those who benefit from governance on behalf of their own selfish interests do everything possible to obstruct a clear understanding of the issues. The mass media today are regarded by those who own them as sources of revenue, avenues to empire, and opportunities to propagandize on behalf of their own interests. Politicians search constantly for divisive, hot-button issues, noble-sounding rhetoric, and marketing gimmicks to drive out rational thought and to elicit an emotional knee-jerk. Educators often enough have their hands full just baby-sitting students who often exhibit a strangely Dostoyevskian lack of interest in their own educations. But all of this, unhappily, is a custom-tailored prescription for the demise of Democracy. If there is any hope, at this late hour, of restoring some semblance of democratic governance to America, it must begin with a media that takes seriously its obligation to inform, and a citizenry that takes seriously its responsibility to be informed, to reflect, and then to act. In our Field Guide to Philosophy, we’ve provided the basic tools for citizens to see to the cultivation of their intellects, the most basic of all Democratic responsibilities. In the Field Guide to Progressive Media, we attempt to address the requirement that citizens also be well-informed. No reader should expect to encounter the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth in the resources cited here. The truth can be hard for anyone to discern, and even when the truth is apparent, the temptation to propaganda, even on behalf of the truth, is powerful. What we do think the reader will find in the Field Guide, on average, is a far higher percentage of the truth than she or he will ever find in the corporate media. (See our essay on the mass media for the grounds of our conviction in this regard.) So happy browsing, Citizen. And as you're browsing, you might remember this: every page you read proves Dostoyevsky wrong, and vindicates the struggle of the many people who have tried so hard to provide you with the demanding privilege of freedom of choice. |