The truth of an idea is not a stagnant property inherent in it. Truth happens to an idea. It becomes true, is made true by events. Its verity is in fact an event, a process: the process namely of its verifying itself, its veri-fication. Its validity is the process of its valid-ation.
- William James, Pragmatism
Many years ago, I developed the habit of investigating the etymology of words after looking them up. During one of my forays into the back of my trusty American Heritage Dictionary, I discovered that tree and truth have the same root, deru, which means “to be firm, solid, steadfast, hence specialized senses of ‘wood,’ ‘tree,’ and derivatives referring to objects made of wood.” That truth and trees share a sense of firmness, solidity, and steadfastness is unsurprising – we admire and are attracted to those attributes in the face of an unpredictable, even arbitrary world. However, on another level, the organic, evolving nature of wood and trees is consistent with the idea of truth that lies at the heart of the philosophy of pragmatism – “Truth happens to an idea. It becomes true, is made true by events.”
The orientation, attitude, and approach advocated by William James, Charles Peirce, and John Dewey under the banner of pragmatism stands in stark contrast with firm, solid, steadfast, absolute truths advocated by religions and ideologies. In contrast to these positions, truth lives and breathes and adjusts to changing circumstances when viewed from the perspective of pragmatism.
For instance, truths appropriate to conditions found in the Middle East two millennia ago may not avail in the 21st century. Of course, ancient truths may continue to be relevant, but they must be evaluated through the lens of current conditions. This approach requires looking at circumstances carefully, clearly, and directly without prejudging them or applying stale mental models.
In a recent column in The New York Times, David Brooks describes the efforts of Chris Ward, the leader of the Port Authority, to rescue the rebuilding efforts in Lower Manhattan. Terms like “Ground Zero” are problematic because they become invested with symbolic meanings – truths – that block thought. Truths seem absolute when viewed in the context of current events. However, truths can take on different or expanded meanings over time.
For example, the term “Ground Zero” originated during the Manhattan Project that led up to the detonation of nuclear weapons during World War II. In June 1946, the Strategic Bombing Survey asserted: “For convenience, the term ‘ground zero’ will be used to designate the point on the ground directly beneath the point of detonation, or “air zero.’” The cruel irony is that the country that first detonated weapons of mass destruction during World War II is the same country that suffered an attack on 9/11.
According to Brooks, Ward demystified the meanings surrounding the rebuilding effort and concentrated on “the thing itself” – the massive, complex construction projects that were hampered by the conflicting “truths” that had grown up around what is essentially the burial site of 3,000 people. Sentiments interfere with the hard work of constructing massive projects. Brooks goes on to apply the idea of looking at “the thing itself” to various public policy questions – taxes, gun control, green tech – that have become hostage to interest groups on both ends of the political spectrum.
When things become invested with symbolic meanings or values, “You get politicians and commentators whose views are entirely predictable because they don’t care about the specifics of any particular issue.” Pro-life and pro-choice positions on abortion and Occupy Wall Street efforts to punish the rich and Grover Norquist’s demands that politicians sign pledges stating that they oppose all tax increases as a matter of principle are positions that allow no room for debate – no room for evolving truths.
Recently, David M. Kennedy was interviewed on Fresh Air. Kennedy is a criminologist who has looked closely at violent crime in inner city neighborhoods and has promoted programs that have been highly effective in addressing the problems. His approach entails looking at “the thing itself” – not the bumper sticker slogans, not the posturing of preening politicians who conjure up “headless bodies in the desert,” not the pious platitudes of those who promote self-esteem as a panacea for failure.
Most violence in inner cities is committed by an extremely small number of young, black men whose chances of death are orders of magnitude greater than those of the average American. However, the story goes much deeper. Those young men and their neighbors in inner cities believe – rightly or wrongly – that cops are racist and that drugs are weapons in a genocidal crusade aimed at eliminating the black race. In fact, many residents believe that the CIA invented “crack” cocaine and promoted its use in inner cities.
Frankly, it does not matter if we believe these assertions – the only thing that matters is if we look at the thing itself. Bottom line: No community can sustain itself if most of the male members are in prison or are ex-felons. Although a get-tough approach that locks up offenders is appealing in the short run, it is destined to fail in the long run.
Under Kennedy’s program, cops facilitate meetings between gang members and respected members of the community – ministers, ex-gang members, and even mothers of gang members. During the meetings, the cops and community members tell the current gang members that violence is ripping the neighborhood apart and that “we need you to stop.” They are told if they do not stop the cops will focus relentlessly on busting them. If they do stop they are given help with finding jobs and drug treatment.
The results can be dramatic – gang members and their neighborhoods begin to heal almost immediately. This is not a story with a fairy tale ending. Many communities slide back into old methods that do not to work. Although the viability of bipartisanship is questionable, many public policy issues are resolvable by reasonable people who are willing to confront the brutal facts. It is very difficult to keep looking at the thing itself.
No comments:
Post a Comment