It seems obvious to me that the ability and willingness to question and articulate them; to search for their answers and disseminate them comprise one of the fundamental forces that have and continue to shape human society. Fueled by curiosity and sustained by the breadth of the mental faculties of man, argumentative men and women have challenged the status quo, maintained checks and balances on power wielders and perhaps most importantly, have been the source of that most essential ingredient of change, ideas.
Why is it so that cultures through the ages have created mechanisms to stifle dissenters? Languages have so developed that arguments or their synonyms have distinctive negative connotations? Why has human society not been able to internalize change?
If I may speculate -
ReplyDeleteBecause we are opposed to change. That is why ideas and thoughts that can change, are put forth in negative context, as to hinder them. All change thus comes slowly, painfully and with great resistance.
In a world that relies on evolution of its species through natural selection, shouldnt we by now have come to a stage where people are more tolerant of radical ideas? If not, why is it that societies have failed to evolve in that direction despite allusions to same passed on through received wisdom like - change is the only constant (and other such idioms). Or is it that societies dont follow the biological pattern of evolution?
ReplyDeleteI think the more fundamental question is that of power. Change of any sort - in scientific ideas, social structures, religious beliefs etc, change the power balance of society. It is from this perspective that Marx still makes a lot of sense..
A related idea is that of dogmatism in science, that one human pursuit that was to be devoid of such malaise. To draw on an example from a BBC documentary - when string theory was in vogue, theorists from other streams of thought were starved of funding, ridiculed, not granted tenure etc..string theorists knowing the fate that awaits them if their theory was debunked would then (and very rationally so) likely go to extreme lengths to ensure that other streams of thoughts are not voiced in the academic space..(economics too has great examples of the sort)..
I'm not really sure how correct i may be but somehow this delay in tolerance between societies strikes me as a case of ideas and their validity in localised societies( micro-societies if we may call them). When an idea moves outside that society, it is met with resistance from all other such ideologies that have been gaining support in these other micro-societies..Now the question of which theory survives escapes me as of now.. Need to read more
ReplyDeleteWhen ideas travel across societies there is bound to be resistance. I would think we still have vestiges of being a pack animal, members of other packs (in this case societies/cultures/civilizations) are not easily trusted let alone the ideas they espouse.
ReplyDeleteHowever, as can be observed throughout history, ideas have travelled to bring about change in distant lands. In most cases these changes have been for the better. Why then do societies prefer to be insular (however, the modern consumer culture has for some reason overcome such tendencies)?
We talk of reason as a basis for inspecting the world, yet have failed to come up with a robust and commonly acceptable definition of what constitutes reason. Although having a strict formal definition would preclude any argument on the subject, thus defeating its purpose.
Digressed too much, should stop now..