"Write your way out of it." – J.D. Salinger
Today I am out with a small booklet entitled “Stillhet” (Silence). It’s a philosophical essay written after a twenty day pilgrimage that I took with the artist Jeppe Hein this year in Norway.
The essay is a sidekick for the main event: Hein’s exhibition at Galleri Nicolai Wallner. See more here.
The essay (with illustrations by Jeppe Hein) can be downloaded here.
In Patti Smith’s memoir, Woolgathering, she writes that the “only thing you can count on is change.” Not change as a going from A to B. Rather as an ongoing movement: the world is constantly changing.
Graham Music, who is a Consultant Child and Adolescent Psychotherapist, pleads in his book, The Good Life, for a change. Unlike Smith, his metaphysical foundation is not that everything is changing or becoming. Instead, his approach favors that some things are not changing, e.g. what is good and bad. He is a moral Platonist.
Read the rest of the review here.
When we are faced with an undesirable behavior, for example, the use of performance enhancing drugs in cycling (or other sports), we try our best to understand it. Some might refer to the individual’s disposition: genetic makeup, personality traits, character, etc. However, this method doesn’t bring us any real understanding. Unless, of course, we truly believe that almost every professional cyclist until recently were rotten apples. Perhaps, it is more likely that the barrel is rotten (to use Zimbardo’s metaphor).
Does the situation seem familiar?
Once again it has become evident that leaders who are not ethical, are not really leaders.
For example, one might also ask questions such as:
The point with these questions is to understand what situations a system creates, or what culture the leaders of a society or an organization create. For example, what culture did the International Cycle Union (UCI) create? What culture did it maintain even when everyone knew that something was rotten after the Tour de France-scandal in ’98?
I guess we all know that answer.
For those who don’t know how to define culture it is often defined as a body of beliefs, traditions and guides of behavior shared among members of a society or a sport discipline.
If we go back to the three questions and view them in light of Lance Armstrong’s recent input, then we see how the former Head of UCI Hein Verbruggen (apparently) was neglecting his leadership responsibility. (Is he still an Honorary Member of the International Olympic Committee?). Hein Verbruggen was, we know that now, not really a leader since he didn’t have the courage and imagination to act responsible. He was shortsighted like a mole. He was letting things pass that were his responsibility to stop. He was too weak to lead. Probably to vague to imagine a different culture, for instance, one where cheating is not silently encouraged; or a culture where the use of performance enhancing drugs is allowed under strict control and advice from doctors.
To recapitulate: What conditions have contributed to the use of performance enhancing drugs (a culture that existed long before Armstrong and didn’t stop with him)? The answer is: The lack of ethical leaders. What conditions might be involved in generating such behavior? Well, knowing that the top leader know about your wrongdoings, but still give you the ok-sign might not make you change your behavior. (It doesn’t take way the individual’s responsibility, but helps us understand why approximately 90% of all Tour de France winners had been doped.) What was the situation from the perspective of the actor, for example, Armstrong? Weird and confusing, I guess, due to the fact that the rules of the games didn’t really have a function. The rules didn’t make any sense. The moral was: Everyone is doing it and no one wants to stop it, so let us just lie about it.
The Head of UCI could have stopped the continuation of a certain culture in 1999. He didn’t.
So, let’s not just blame Armstrong, Ulrich, Zabel, Zülle, Virenque, … for a rotten culture. They just followed the shared guidelines. (Just like we shouldn’t thank Indurain, Merck, and Hinault and so forth for being so pathetically silent right now).
Leaders are those who create a strong ethical context in the culture. Now, unfortunately, the ethical culture in cycling is being defined by jealous and revengeful former cyclist, while the sport – like always – looks for ethical leaders with the courage and imagination to change the culture for good.
Moral psychology is the branch of ethics concerned with the psychology of what happens when a person acts morally. For example, moral psychology asks what kind of actions are possible, what motivates certain actions, what emotions and cognitive mechanism that leads to certain actions and so forth.
I thought of this when I was re-reading David Foster Wallace’s (DFW) commencement speech This Is Water, I thought whether it places itself within moral psychology.
In the speech, he claims that what he says is not moral, but the truth as he knows it so far. Perhaps, he is just being ironic, at least he seems moralistic, but in a less moralistic way.
First, DFW says that the really significant education that people are supposed to get in a college is not the capacity to think. Rather, the choice of what to think about. It is a fresh change.
Also, I treasure his little didactic story with the two fish (I quote):
There are these two young fish swimming along and they happen to meet an older fish swimming the other way, who nods at them and say, “Morning, boys. How’s the water?”
And the two young fish swim on for a bit, and then eventually one of them looks over at the other and goes, “What the hell is water?”
The problem is that the two young fish are not paying attention to what’s going on right in front of them. So, how does one become aware?
The answer that DFW gives is: “Learning how to think really means learning how to exercise some control over how and what you think.” He continues: “It means being conscious and aware enough to choose what you pay attention to and to choose how you construct meaning from experience.”
It has something to do with exposing oneself to what happens. Basically, allowing oneself to be affected. Yet, I am bit skeptical whether one actually can choose. Based on what criteria’s does one choose? What motivates one to choose a positive versus a pessimistic approach? Rather than being free to choose, I think that one blends or mix with the world. One happens.
Nevertheless, I share his point about being attentive as an ethical practice even though I can’t control it. If one chooses, then he or she becomes moralistic, because how does one choose beforehand?
A little text that made me think sitting on the bench while waiting for my kids to finish school.
Most people like to see themselves in a favourable light. Most people predict that virtually all human beings will refuse to obey to authority – especially, if the authority is making you hurt other human beings. Most people, however, are wrong.
In the early ´70s, the psychologist Stanley Milgram conducted his famous “Obedience to Authority Experiment” (see the book Obedience to Authority). The experiment helps explaining why ordinary people can commit the most awful crimes, just because the crime is placed under influence of an authority. We have all heard the excuse: “I was just doing what I was told.”
The experiment: Two people come to a laboratory to take part in a study of memory and learning. One is “the teacher” and the other is “the learner”. A third person is present, “the experimenter”, who is also the authority telling “the teacher” something like “please continue” when he or she doubts the purpose of this so-called memory and learning-experiment. The real focus of the experiment is “the teacher”, because he or she is the one managing the shock-generator. For example, if “the learner” answers a question wrong, then “the teacher” should punish “the learner” with an electronic shock ranging from 15 volt to 450 volt – by the way, the electrical outlet in Denmark is 240 volt!
The purpose: “The aim of this investigation was to find when and how people would defy authority in the face of clear imperative,” Milgram writes.
The result: More than 60 percent of “the teachers” punish “the learners” all the way. Danger: Severe shock it says on the generator.
Milgram conducts many experiments (which have been repeated many times elsewhere by other psychologists); he changes the independent variables, for instance, the proximity of “the learner” to see how it might affect the dependent variable, “the teacher”. Also, this experiment tells that women are no less likely to punish than men. The situation or the circumstances affects both genders equally.
The book is a detailed description of the method, the approach, the theses and experiments, as well interesting reflections. It also describes those heroic person´s who actually have the courage to act out their beliefs. No more of this! Similar, Milgram emphasizes that the problem of obedience not only is psychological, but also reflects the form and shape of a society.
Let us turn back the time. Years before Milgram´s experiment, the world witnessed how ordinary Germans could commit the most sadistic crimes (and the world have seen it so many times afterwards: The Chinese invasion of Tibet in the fifties, to Vietnam´s My Lai, up to the abuses in the Abu Ghraib prison (for more info: see).
In 1968, the philosopher Hannah Arendt wrote a very disturbing book Eichmann in Jerusalem. Here she coined the concept “banality of evil” when she described Eichmann as a pathetic and uninspired bureaucrat, and not as a monster. Eichmann required that hundreds of people submitted to his authority. And this form of obedience he required sitting safely behind his desk. The distance between the decision-maker and the people doing the job plays an important role, as Milgram´s experiment also illustrates.
”How are we to account for the diminishing obedience as the victim is brought closer?” Some of the answers that Milgram gives: Empathy, narrowing the cognitive field (difficult to exclude one from one´s thoughts, if he is close by), reciprocal and unity experience, etc. Furthermore – to continue with Eichmann – the Holocaust was staged through an intense devaluation of the victim. Call it brainwash.
Another psychologist, Philip Zimbardo has stressed the intimate relationship between the system, situation and individual. For instance, it is the leaders and decision-makers who maintain or create a system or society that opens up for more or less dehumanizing situations (or flourishing situations). Afterwards, these situations affect the behaviour of the individual. A simple example might illustrate this: You plan not to drink more than one glass of wine before going to a party, but then at the party everything changes due to the people, the good mood, the laughs and the flirting – the situation – that all makes one forget his or her moral imperative. It is part of being human to affect and be affected.
The point of these studies is not to condemn those who obey authority. Sometimes it might be advisable to follow: Do not cross this bridge! Rather, the main point is to acknowledge the great impact that situations have on our actions. Also, to be aware when one might fall for various forms of pressure due to simple needs of belonging or identification, and how one might overcome these obeying actions from actually to happen. For me it is a matter of freedom, that is to say being free to resist the blind or habitual obedience, as well as being willing to risk something by trying to match what happens the best possible way. It is the basic courage to take the decisions that actually liberates oneself. Do today what makes it easier to live a life worth living tomorrow.
“For empirical knowledge, like its sophisticated extension, science, is rational, not because it has a foundation but because it is a self-correcting enterprise which can put any claim in jeopardy, though not all at once.” – Wilfrid Sellars
The philosophical tradition of Pragmatism challenges the implicit assumption that our practices are necessarily inadequate and require backup from some standard or unchangeable principle that lies beyond them. This tradition argues, among many things, that there is no other world to which we can refer. Philosophy is not religion by other means; it is not babysitting, but an ongoing struggle for survival.
The reason for this post is the book Pragmatism: An Introduction, by Michael Bacon that I recently read.
Pragmatism is mainly an American story, and to some extent American philosophers tend to debate with each other. It is a closed party, which is both an advantage and a disadvantage, since, for example, the debate becomes intense but sometimes also too parochial. This book tries to provide a broader and more inclusive view.
The themes of Pragmatism are not just an American phenomenon but an interesting American phenomenon. The main difference between European and American philosophers is that many European philosophers understand philosophy, I think, as a form of life (such as the existentialist tradition from Kierkegaard, Nietzsche, and Sartre to Deleuze), which has formed many thinkers regardless of their differences. The way a person thinks, feels, and acts are part of the way they live their life. Americans (I generalize) are more philosophers by profession, although this is also a tendency that is growing in Europe.
Enough of this; let us deal with the book Pragmatism. It starts with Charles Sanders Peirce, but only because William James refers to him in a lecture given in 1898. Bacon´s book presents the history of Pragmatism through a series of profiles of prominent Pragmatists: Dewey, Rorty, Davidson, Putnam, etc. Most of these are familiar faces regardless of one’s knowledge of Pragmatism per se. The book also presents profiles of a few interesting thinkers I haven´t read; yet, such as Brandom and Bernstein.
There are beliefs that the Pragmatists share, such as the view that ideas should never become rigid ideologies that refer to transcendent norms. They believe that everything is fallible and nothing is certain in all eternity, which they understand to mean unquestionable. Several Pragmatists deal with the relationship between “the game of giving and asking for reasons.” The goal of philosophy is not truth; rather, philosophy is an ongoing inquiry that may make us wiser in overcoming the various struggles or setbacks that fill our lives.
Personally, I like the style of James and Dewey, because they write very clearly, without too much jargon. The same can be said about Rorty, although some may find him too jovial at times. In my opinion, he has written some interesting essays, for instance, one on Nabokov and cruelty, which argues that the trouble with rights is that they address predetermined forms of cruelty; the idea that everything is given makes our thinking shrink (Badiou was saying something similar in a previous post).
In one interview, Rorty said, “If we take care of freedom, truth can take care of itself,” thereby emphasizing that what is most important in philosophy is freedom, not truth. The truth does not set anyone free; it is just another example of an unquestionable postulate. Being free, however, makes one amenable to a richer understanding of life.
Another interesting figure that Bacon presents is Sellars. Sellars deals with the myth of the given by stressing that the human being is distinct in his or her ability to bring understanding to the world through the creation of concepts. His ideas lead to the views of Brandom, or some of them. One very interesting idea is that language is not merely a tool. Rather, what we do is intrinsic to the structure of language. Language is not a tool to reach a goal, as some pop-coaching methods claim; rather, the interests in a goal cannot exist prior to language. If they do, then they do not have any transformative potential, which may be why some forms of coaching often comprise a never-ending story, trying to convince the poor victim (or paying client) about the significance of the goal. This idea is also related to Brandom´s idea about negative and positive freedoms, which appears to place itself in alignment with Foucault´s idea about resistance and Deleuze’s understanding of the will to power as a will to create–that is, freedom being understood as becoming through a mixture of resistance and creation. “Without a suitable language there are some beliefs, desires, and intentions that one simply cannot have.”
Some portraits, of course, I find less interesting—es lo que hay—but in general, the book serves it purpose: it introduces the reader to a vast number of thinkers related to Pragmatism in a very precise and clear way.
In conclusion, Bacon emphasizes that Pragmatists are united in what Putnam calls “the supremacy of the agent point of view,” and what Brandom calls “the primacy of the practical,” whether this concerns knowledge, communication, reasoning, etc. A very interesting result of Pragmatism is that we—all of us human beings—are in a constant clash of mentalities (not cultures, por favor!), or of standpoints and beliefs.
New readers may start to think now.
***
If interested, see also my comment on Richard J. Bernstein’s book, Why Read Hannah Arendt Now
In the novel The Broom of the System, David Foster Wallace writes: “Are you listening on the intercom, Foamwhistle? If you’re listening make no sign that you’re doing so. I thought so.”
This quote might serve as an example of how the communication has been, and still takes place, within sport – especially cycling. Just imagine how a journalist might asks: “Are you using performance-enhancing drugs, Froome? If you’re using doping make no sign that you are doing so. I thought so.”
Some might call it critical journalism. To me it looks more like qualms of conscience.
I’ve published an essay that tries to answer the question: Who lives a life worth living?
I’ve published an essay that deals with the death of the French philosopher Gilles Deleuze. If you feel like, you can read it here.
The philosopher Hilary Putnam famously argued that, “meanings ain’t in the head.” In other words, it’s possible to talk meaningful about X even if you personally can’t distinguish X from Y. The reason for this is that other people might have the required expertise about X and Y. To use a language as a tool depends on the social context more than what is in your brain. Language is a public thing, something we share, something we use to connect or disconnect.
Let me give an example: What do we talk about when we talk about Lance Armstrong? Some might talk about whether he is cheater, whether he deserves his titles, whether he was a tough leader of US Postal, etc. The meaningfulness of these questions depends on the context. Just as what is morally right or wrong depends upon social circumstances, for instance, a person’s form of life or cultural background.
For a simple example we might ask: Is Armstrong being punished severely hard because so many other athletes (especially bikeriders) have done their share of doping undiscovered? Is Armstrong paying the price for the falling reputation of cycling as such? Is Armstrong the scapegoat of UCI’s lack of capability to ensure a clean race? Is the sentence (stripped of titles and lifetime ban) based more on an explosion of feeling rather than reason (afterall the UCI president, Pat McQuaid, later told that he felt disgusted after reading the USADA-report)? Is Armstrong being punish so severely, because he was (is) such a big icon?
Let us move on. The philosopher Gilles Deleuze once stated that we all deserve the feelings, thoughts and emotions that we are having. The questions that Deleuze proposes are: “Does this feeling, increase our power of action or not?” – “Does it help us to come into full possession of that power?” Basically, it is only when one is not free that one feels impotent. So, who is impotent in this story?
It is obvious that many people feel cheated. Parents complain that Armstrong was not a true hero for their kids; people say that he was a fake inspiration; sponsors claim that he represents the wrong set of values, etc. All the comments, of course, resemble what the involved deserves. For instance, if Armstrong inspired me back in 2000, then what? Should I go back in time and claim that the inspiration I felt was wrong, should I refuse to acknowledge that I needed the push that he gave me? Similar, should a parent refuse to admit that he or she as well has a responsibility to explain to his or her kid why Armstrong did as he did, for instance, put Armstrong’s wrongdoing in perspective. It might open up for an interesting conversation between father and son. Afterall the most important role-models for kids are their parents, not Armstrong, Zidane or Agassi.
Okay, what is the overall context? Business seems to be the answer. Sport is business, but so is everything else – including moral. When something did not smell right, all of Armstrong’s sponsors abandon him. The question is whether Nike and Trek would refund my money, because I once bought a Trek-bike solely because of Armstrong. If not, then, of course, they should stop the hypocrisy.
Writing all this, I might sound like a fan of Armstrong; I’m not. I‘m not a fan-kind-of-guy. Furthermore, during those years I was hoping for Ulrich. But even now, after the huge amount of evidence from many sad people (grown ups who apparently could not take a decision by themselves, and now needs to justify this lack of personal responsibility by blaming another), I still see Armstrong as an extraordinary athlete. Armstrong might be tough, he might be a bastard, he might be arrogant, but reading the Tour-story most of the winners aren’t exactly Santa Claus. Instead they are pushing their bodies to the limit. They live on the limit of their capabilities, doing what is necessary to follow their desires. Eddy Merck was afterall called “the cannibal”. If this is too much to handle, then maybe one should drop elite sport and stick with Disney.
Going back to Putnam’s statement, then the context is, next to business, elite athletes. Here nothing comes for free. Or as the biochemist Chris Cooper says in Run, Swim, Throw, Cheat: ”Laboratory tests are almost never on elite athletes … Instead normal healthy athletes are used. However, elite athletes are abnormal. We are not even sure that the biochemical mechanism underpinning a performance enhancement in the average athlete are exactly the same as in the elite athlete.” And later: “There is no substitute for time spent in the gym.”
Do I then salute Armstrong’s use of EPO and blood doping? No, but it doesn’t really change the picture: He won the Tour de France seven times. He was the best. When I read the confession of other athletes, then it becomes clear what actually was the tipping point – especially if you read The Secret Race thoroughly. Hamilton might be able to grid his teeth, but he did not have the same amount of willpower, self-discipline and self-control as Armstrong. Hamilton obviously lacks self-esteem, but self-esteem comes as a result of self-discipline and self-control, it seems like he naively thought it could come the other way around. In the book, Hamilton also tries to use Armstrong’s desire to win to show how inhuman Armstrong was. Yes, on a family-come-together-level he might be, but anyone who wants to be the best will in the eyes of his or her peers – once in awhile – be considered an asshole. On a psychological level it’s a childish book (but interesting regarding its description of Hamilton’s extensive use of doping). I guess even the Holy Pope might have used an elbow once or twice in the cabinet.
The Armstrong-case is interesting, because it poses new questions. What is a human being capable of? Where do we draw the line between constitutive rule and strategic rules in sport? (Armstrong was following the rules otherwise he would have been disqualified long ago)? What does sport tell us about the society we live in? Are we in general too obsessed with winning and then, afterwards, overwhelmed with a feeling of remorse and guilt? Just like Christmas-time can be a time for love, kiss and donations, so we can go on living like we do for another eleven months. Do we need something bad in order to appear good? The moral in this story is that only the hero or villain change, the rest remains business as usual.
Personally, I couldn’t care less if Armstrong admits or not. If he chooses to, however, I do hope that it will not be a pathetic performance like Tiger Woods that forever have made it impossible for me to wear Nike. Some might say that Armstrong only will admit if he gains something, for instance, a reduction of his penalties; some might call him calculative, strategic, etc. I guess he is, but does this make him that different from the rest of us? How many of us do deliberately take decisions where we consciously know that we will not benefit from it? Maybe he just wants to continue with his life. Maybe all the turbulence has made him aware.
So, do I feel pity for Armstrong, of course not. But, to judge is far to easy, I leave that for those who have these preferences. Basically, it is not moral we need, but the courage to face the world we live in. Understanding one another may be hard, but it never starts with judging, just as it doesn’t require that we come to agreement. Instead it requires an interest in the people that we live with. For instance, people who cheat, people who judge, people who feel betrayed by its broken illusions, etc. Armstrong is too good a story to be forgotten.
Let us see what 2013 brings.
FINN JANNING 