Orwell's definition can't be put forward too often, especially for those Conservatives who believe that "we create our own reality" (and are well-funded to do so):
The power of holding two contradictory beliefs in one's mind simultaneously, and accepting both of them... To tell deliberate lies while genuinely believing in them, to forget any fact that has become inconvenient, and then, when it becomes necessary again, to draw it back from oblivion for just so long as it is needed, to deny the existence of objective reality and all the while to take account of the reality which one denies — all this is indispensably necessary. Even in using the word doublethink it is necessary to exercise doublethink. For by using the word one admits that one is tampering with reality; by a fresh act of doublethink one erases this knowledge; and so on indefinitely, with the lie always one leap ahead of the truth.
I thought of doublethink reading tristero on the tender sensibilities that Christianist
loons like Huckabee display when the very word "evolution" is mentioned.
You can be sure that if a child unlucky enough to have a Christianist for a parent is in the hospital and gets an infection from a superbug, the parent will demand, and rightly so, the very latest antibiotic for treatment--even though the superbug evolved, in historical time, from an "arms race" by micro-organisms against anti-biotics, and even though anti-biotics were originally evolved by fungi or bacteria in an earlier arms race. [Apologies in advance to any scientists reading this!]
And yet that same Christianist parent who reaps the benefits of science will go home, go to the school board that night, and try to get a teaching scientist fired for espousing the very science that saved his child's life; will, in Orwell's prophetic words, "deny the existence of objective reality and all the while ... take account of the reality which one denies."
Sure, the Christianists and the latest head of their secular church, Mike Huckabee, can go Fuck themselves, right out in the public square, I hope, and with a great deal of fuss and noise, but what I want to know is this:
Is a cure for doublethink possible?
Because think about it. In 1984, Orwell describes an end state; a final, stable condition to which society had, er, evolved. Everybody's doublethinking, except for the occasional fluke outlier, and the very few nails that stick up get hammered down.
Fortunately, our society is still dynamic, but again, what's the cure for Christianist doublethink? Is there a deprogramming facility for Christianists? What techniques would it use? How should it be funded? A grant from the NIH? That's not likely, though it would be fun to ask our presidential candidates about it. How about private sources? Where is the countervailing, institutional force to the forces that promote Christianist doublethink?
Granted that a capacity for doublethink is part of the human condition--the ability would never have evolved in nature unless it selected for--but not all humans succumb, and not all humans exhibit it, virulently, on a mass scale, and then turn it into a political movement. Why? And what is to be done?
What if--for the thirty percent Kool-Aid drinkers -- the clocks just keep striking thirteen?
- lambert's blog
- Login or register to post comments
Front page
Comments
McClatchy's John Walcott's response...
... to the GOP's slam of "reality-based" people and politics:
Good questions
Fortunately, our society is still dynamic, but again, what’s the cure for Christianist
doublethink?
The traditional cure is public education--a public, politically controlled process of educating and socializing members of society as they grow into adulthood.
Is there a deprogramming facility for Christianists?
These deprogramming facilities are in plain sight: schools that are usually named after secular heroes and heroines rather than saints or deities. You may have noticed that many of these facilities are in various stages of abandonment or disrepair.
What techniques would it use?
Many of the techniques are crude and even misguided, but no technique that discourages learning or that encourages ignorance will be viable in an open, accountable educational system.
How should it be funded?
Taxes, which also provide a means for defunding.
A grant from the NIH?
Every little bit helps. Children may be naturally greedy, but they're not nearly as successful as the adults who trade educational excellence for athletic entertainment.
How about private sources?
Again, every little bit helps. But if private sources would simply pay the taxes needed to fund public education, they wouldn't have to worry themselves about trying to control what the students learn and don't learn.
Where is the countervailing, institutional force to the forces that promote Christianist
doublethink?
Public discourse and accountability, in school and out.
I was at first reluctant to put these answers in public, for fear that the forces of ignorance (who must be ignorant themselves) might suddenly realize that education threatens their dominance. But then I suddenly realized that they must have figured that out already, as evidenced by the strangulation of public education while religious schooling, private schooling, charter schooling, home schooling, vouchers, and resegregation metastasize across the country.
yes, but it's not easy
...you have to have the christist come down with the superbug, and medication withheld while they are prayed over by their shamans.
Reality-based treatment can start when the subject throws out the shamans (pref. with violence) and begs for treatment.
The "cure rate" is certainly less than 100%, and there's going to be relapses, but with a few generations of natural selection hopefully there will be some change.
be careful what you ask for?
doublethink is a universal condition. *everyone* uses it. it is a coping mechanism for conscious existence in a universe of transience. every one of us must live with the absolute reality that every good thing, every loved one, will someday be ripped away from us, all at once, or bit by painful bit.
a "reality"-based worldview is a question of degrees. how much reality can we take? and, what makes it worth the considerable effort? this is a sales job.
enjoy!
Sorry, but your nicely
Sorry, but your nicely crafted argument rests on an incorrect premise - that "Christianist
" parents actually have a clue how antibiotics work. Don't ascribe to doublethink anything that can be adequately described by ignorance.
It’s a question of boundaries
Lambert’s amuse-bouche notwithstanding, no one progressive actually wants to control the minds of others; difficult enough to manage our own. It really is nothing more than respecting boundaries, something the Christianists are all over if their turf is being stepped on but when it comes to the domain of others they feel perfectly empowered to intrude.
Just as no Christianist
church would tolerate an atheist rising from the pews to deliver a lecture on the mechanics of a water-into-wine magicians’ trick or a discourse on Guillain-Barre syndrome, no science class should be required to include faith-based concepts like “creationism’s” 6,000 year-old Earth.
If, however, the Christianists insist on continuing to shove their faith down everyone else’s throat, it should be equally appropriate for the rest of us to put their faith to scientific tests. I suggest lions, in a den, with any survivors escorted directly into a fiery furnace.
The Pay-per-View alone should be enough to fund universal health care.