Social Matter

The noble lie.

The concept was formulated by Plato in his Republic. He describes a myth which would be told to the Republic’s citizens. Its people were born of the Earth and should care for it as their mother; the gods used gold, silver, brass and iron when they created people. This is why people differ in their abilities. Everyone should achieve the potential they were born with. But people mix, and so we might see a golden child born to a silver or brass father, or a silver child born to a golden one. The myth contains a prophecy that the city will be destroyed if the man of brass or iron rules over it; if the guardians of the Republic give in to nepotism, they will tempt the wrath of the gods. A populace seeing the guardians abuse their rank will likely revolt. The guardians must seek out golden children born to other castes, and not let their own children become guardians if they don’t deserve it.

Because the citizens believe this myth, they take stewardship for the earth and maintain an effective, responsible government. In short, a noble lie can be defined as a myth which will lead people to work for the greater good when they believe it – regardless of the fact that it isn’t true.

To some it represents the most dangerous sort of cynicism: state guardians lying to their people in order to keep them in line.  For others, Plato had stumbled upon an unpleasant but necessary truth about how politics works.

Fast forward to the stormy decades following the French Revolution.

Joseph de Maistre wrote in defense of royalism and Catholicism – Throne and Altar – and denounced the project of the Enlightenment. He believed that its intellectuals had severely misjudged human nature. De Maistre also believed that human societies functioned better when informed by a myth. Isaiah Berlin in his lecture on de Maistre calls it “a form of government which reason cannot reach to”. While the Enlightenment trumpeted the glories of rational inquiry, de Maistre believed that a State which could have its legitimacy undermined by reason and critique was a dangerous thing. De Maistre viewed human nature as essentially sinful, vicious, and corrupt. Considering that he saw the utopian dreams of the revolution drowned in the blood of the Terror, we can hardly blame him. Like Plato, de Maistre upheld the necessity of a strong authority which would direct Man away from his bloody and destructive passions and allow him to achieve his potential. For this reason he defended the Holy Inquisition in Spain; though it employed techniques which many (even in de Maistre’s day) found deplorable, it prevented religious conflict which could have ultimately destroyed the Catholic monarchy. Thus, authority is preserved and greater potential violence curbed.

Catholicism formed the unassailable myth which the kingdoms of Western Europe had to base itself on. De Maistre advocated ultramontanism – the view that the Pope should exercise political as well as spiritual authority. He believed that the authority of the Pope and Church provided a bulwark so firm that, wonder of wonders, serfdom could safely be abolished! He did not think so highly of the Russian church, which was why he advised Tsar Alexander I to maintain serfdom there. If Russian serfdom were abolished, de Maistre was sure that “a few mutineers from the universities” assisted by subversive elements at home and the “sect that never sleeps” abroad would ultimately annihilate the Russian monarchy.

De Maistre even targeted science as a threat to the state. Berlin explains that “scientists are undesirable because they establish doubt”. Doubt as the foundation of inquiry eventually becomes doubt undermining the legitimacy of authority. When this authority is eroded, only the vice and violence of Man at his worst can follow. As far as de Maistre is concerned, great rulers eschew science “which is why the Romans imported Greeks to do their science for them” (Berlin).

These views shock the modern reader at first. Isn’t our whole world built on science and its technological fruits? Aren’t our political systems dependent on the idea that anyone can question the government? Aren’t Plato and de Maistre planting the seeds of totalitarianism and fascism?

Perhaps we assume too much of ourselves. Let’s take one last leap forward.

In 2009, a fellow named Jason Richwine wrote his PhD thesis at Harvard on the topic of hereditary intelligence and the variation of IQ between ethnic groups. An explosive topic? Doubtlessly. One which many might challenge? Certainly. A few years later, Richwine completed a study about the costs of immigration for the conservative Heritage Foundation. Activists promptly dug up his PhD thesis and used it to get him purged from the organization. Soon after, Scientific American blogger John Horgan published wrote this post. In it, he suggests that research on race and IQ should be banned outright.

Think about that a moment. A magazine dedicated to informing people about science published an article suggesting a ban on scientific research. Why?

“For the most part, I am a hard-core defender of freedom of speech and science. But research on race and intelligence—no matter what its conclusions are—seems to me to have no redeeming value. Far from it. The claims of researchers like Murray, Herrnstein and Richwine could easily become self-fulfilling, by bolstering the confirmation bias of racists and by convincing minority children, their parents and teachers that the children are innately, immutably inferior…Why, given all the world’s problems and needs, would someone choose to investigate this thesis? What good could come of it? Are we really going to base policies on immigration, education and other social programs on allegedly innate racial differences? Not even the Heritage Foundation advocates a return to such eugenicist policies. Perhaps instead of arguing over the evidence for or against theories linking race and IQ we should see them as simply irrelevant to serious intellectual discourse.”

Horgan likely doesn’t realize how radically anti-Enlightenment his sentiment is. Doesn’t rational inquiry value knowledge for its own sake? Aren’t the heroes of the scientific tradition precisely those individuals who defied convention? Imagine if Copernicus had thought that no good would come of upsetting geocentrism and Man’s central place in the universe.

Most radical of all is the principle embodied in his thought. When scientific research upsets the common good and the social order, it is no longer desirable to pursue it. It doesn’t matter whether Richwine and his fellows are right or wrong. As a society, we base ourselves on the values of democracy and equality. This research threatens that foundation. That is the end of it. The place of democracy and equality appears to be one which “reason cannot reach”. The position which scandalized us in the pages of de Maistre is openly promoted in the pages of popular magazines.

Lest I be accused of anecdotal evidence, let me point out the broader context. As we saw in my previous article, free speech seems to be losing fans these days. This shift is occurring both in establishment institutions and among young activists. Recently the American Association of University Professors had to denounce the impact of trigger warnings on academic freedom; this happened after growing support for the concept from activist circles, including many students. Professors defending academic freedom against students? Imagine telling that one to the Free Speech Movement. This goes beyond speech codes that at least 60% of American universities and colleges already have. Across the pond, the University College London discovered that a student club was discussing books and political philosophies which they didn’t like. Hitler or Chairman Mao? Nope, Nietzsche and Heidegger, amongst others. The university decided that right wing ideas had no place on campus and simply banned the club. The Daily Beast article on the subject reported that similar bans have been placed on everything from songs to newspapers across UK universities. The latest support for this shift comes from over at Harvard itself. The Crimson, Harvard’s student paper, ran an opinion piece by Sandra Korn which openly opposed the concept of academic freedom. Instead, the author suggests that the university must run on the principle of “academic justice”.

“Yet the liberal obsession with “academic freedom” seems a bit misplaced to me. After all, no one ever has “full freedom” in research and publication. Which research proposals receive funding and what papers are accepted for publication are always contingent on political priorities. The words used to articulate a research question can have implications for its outcome. No academic question is ever “free” from political realities. If our university community opposes racism, sexism, and heterosexism, why should we put up with research that counters our goals simply in the name of “academic freedom”?”

Like most of us, Ms. Korn probably learned about Galileo’s trial at some point. It seems she has decided that the Inquisitor’s chair is more comfortable than the free-thinker’s. We moderns are not so different from Plato and de Maistre after all. Yet surely if Ms. Korn and her comrades shouldn’t fear research if they are right in their views? The scientific method is built on trying to disprove hypotheses and theories. Does politics need more protection than science? It’s hard to see why when you consider that politics must accept reality as much as science does. As an extreme example, let’s say your religion holds that diseases are caused by negative emotions and that germs are a myth invented by heretics. When a plague hits, how likely are you to survive? Before the plague, you might be a peaceful society united by positive thinking. Afterwards, you’re a feature in the history of medical imbeciles. The noble lie walks a fine line. Push too much, and you become very fragile very quickly.

The question we should ask is, what truths become obscured because of our myths? Let’s say that we extend the Horgan-Korn philosophy to any sort of research on differences between ethnic groups. After all, won’t the idea that differences exist between ethnic populations erode egalitarianism and feed racist biases? Well, then we’ll be extending that to medical research. That  means not knowing that Asians can face greater risks of Alzheimer’s or  that some medicines be more beneficial for black people. If you’re an Asian or black person, those might be facts you’d like to know. Westerners overwhelmingly trumpet liberal democracy as the best form of government for everyone. Accepting that wholeheartedly will blind us to critics like Eric X. Li. We will refuse to examine the pros and cons of alternatives because the question is already settled.

And what about Plato? While his Republic was fictional, religion was central to the Greek city-states. Athens was under the patronage of Athena. These myths had teeth; when Socrates was executed, one of the charges against him was impiety. Yet this city also produced Plato, Aristotle, Xenophon, and other eminent philosophers. Greece produced a huge variety of philosophies, from Democritus and his materialism to Pythagoras and his mathematical mysticism. Despite being founded on religious cults, the cities did not feel threatened by the many interpretations (and even rejections) of these myths. Even Socrates was not attacked until people believed that he supported the bloody rule of the Thirty Tyrants. The city could find a place for both the mystical interpretations of philosophers and the simple devotion of the peasant. By contrast, our universities seem to be narrowing the boundaries of interpretation and discourse by the day.

If our society requires myths and common narratives to bind us together, not all myths are created equal. A narrative which encourages cooperation and is open to interpretation is beneficial; it doesn’t blind us to the pursuit of truth, and it creates a functioning social order. A narrative which forces you to deny reality and encourages conflict does the opposite. Thus the current generation of progressives find it necessary to clamp down on everything from philosophy to science to maintain their grip. Sooner or later such a myth has to evaporate. Human beings are experts at denying the facts right before their eyes, but even we have our limits. No, those dinosaur bones weren’t put there by Satan. No, racists didn’t come in the night and sabotage that medical research. The earth really is that old. That medicine really is better for black people.

The noble lie causes its believers to work for the greater good. But if our myths cause us to deny reality, we will stagnate instead of improving. A myth which destroys us is not noble – it is only a lie. Modern Westerners find religious myth far more archaic than ideological myth. But America now relies on Orthodox Russia to send them to space. India and China are getting in on the action as well. Their students are expanding the search for knowledge at the very moment ours don ideological blinders. The “sect that never sleeps” may simply be outcompeted. Nature and whatever gods brought it forth do not suffer fools. Perhaps the factions in our academies will have their way; but we may just discover that the right demigods can deliver truth and liberty better than the blind mantras of Social Progress.

Joseph de Maistre Neoreaction Noble Lie Plato