Solzhenitsyn and Today
Part 2 of 2.
We left off last week’s article on the note of personal responsibility and standing up for the truth in times when the collective is looking to overtake the narrative and reframe communication to suit the ideology. Cancel culture is an antic proving successful to further this goal. This is not obviously unique to the times today, and a look through history can show that it is in the beginning of all tyrannical periods, all totalitarian states — the Soviet Union being one example of this, and Solzhenitsyn being its whistleblower.
Once individuals feel they cannot talk freely in their own circles, there is cause for concern this “muzzled freedom” will inevitably spread to institutions, and thus “the permanent lie becomes the only safe form of existence…every word, if it does not have to be a direct lie, is nonetheless obliged not to contradict the general, common lie.” In the same chapter of the “Gulag Archipelago” as in part 1, Solzhenitsyn refers to the common lie being spread through “ready-made phrases” in which professionals could take their pick instead of upholding intellectual honesty. It got to the point that:
“not one single speech nor one single essay or article nor one single book — be it scientific, journalistic, critical, or ‘literary,’ so-called — can exist without the use of these primary clichés. In the most scientific of texts it is required that someone’s false authority or false priority be upheld somewhere, and that someone be cursed for telling the truth; without this lie even an academic work cannot see the light of day”
We are obviously, and thankfully, not in the same dire point just yet. But the stirrings of the sentiment are unfortunately with us. One way to notice this is the way language is being changed to fit an ideology — for example in the “trans rights” movement today. Though biology has not left us, we seem to have forgotten it in order to further the goals of advocacy groups claiming that the aversion to addressing someone as “they/them” is not an actual infringement of freedom of speech but rather transphobic. It is now considered bigoted to not refer to a “non-binary” person as “they/them.” Merriam-Webster has even added this into the dictionary. One can easily grant that it is an individual’s right to feel and be whoever they want to be, but that is not the debate in question. Imposing language on another human being is the issue. “They/them” has always been used as a plural pronoun…used to describe more than one person. An individual is one person. Biology also subscribes one to each gender. This is all termed “bigoted,” when it reality it is just factual statements that counteract the narrative. It is not an assault towards any specific person who does not feel like either gender, nor is it infringing on any human right because it is not prohibiting them from living their life the way the choose to live it. It is only stating that language cannot be forced onto others. Biology, sex, and gender have been studied for generations and it is not until recently that studies (most of which have not been statistically validated) have come out to counter decades’ worth of research. Yet the appeal to this false authority is much stronger, given its’ alliance to the loudest narrative in our society.
In 1984, Orwell created a dystopian world where “thought police” were omnipresent, and dissenting opinions would get you killed. He wrote about this nation adapting language and eliminating words to therefore eliminate the very possibility of any citizen in the society to even try and step out of the forced beliefs of the country. If we don’t see the real life cases for what they are, and if we do not step out of our ideological convictions to look at examples such as this critically and honestly, are we so far behind 1984’s fictitious world, or Solzhenitsyn’s reality?
Is that view bordering on paranoid? We can look to our colleges, universities, and our scientists to see how they are doing. In “The Coddling of the American Mind,” Greg Lukianoff and Jonathan Haidt make a good case of good intentions gone wrong. They talk about the restriction of debate and the increase of safe spaces. Safe spaces, though antithetical to open intellectual debate, are not the only issue hindering it. They argue:
“the loss of political diversity among professors, particularly in fields that deal with politicized content, can undermine the quality and rigor of scholarly research…when a field lacks political diversity, researchers tend to congregate around questions and research methods that generally confirm their shared narrative, while ignoring questions and methods that don’t offer such support…research studies drawn from the left half of the range…are likely to come down to the ‘left of the truth.’ ”
They cite a similar study to one which found the ratio of democrat vs. republican professors as a 11.5:1 ratio. Another study found in New England, the ratio was 28:1. Both, and further analysis on this can be found here. So, if there is mostly one side being heard, and the same side largely responsible for teaching the future generation, it is not far off to say the quality and rigor of research is at stake. If only one voice dominates, it can essentially delete the other and turn it into “thoughtcrime” i(to use the Orwelian term). It can get to a point where, if it does not feature the “primary clichés” as Solzhenitsyn puts it, it is not allowed validation, never mind publication.
Furthermore, when looking at the scientists of the country, per the Pew Research Center statistics, 9% are conservative, while 35% ascribe themselves to be moderate, and 52% liberal. Only 6% affiliate with the republican party, while 55% with the democrat party. 52% of democratic scientists are employed by the government, and 60% are employed by academia. Republican scientists share only 7% and 5% of those spaces, respectively. The reality these statistics start to show is one that reinforces Lukianoff and Haidt’s point — there is not enough viewpoint diversity to maintain rigor of scholarly research. To take it one step further, given the percentages of scientists, it appears there is not enough viewpoint diversity to maintain the rigor of conversation, debates, and intellectual honesty from the people leading research, spreading their findings to the media to only propagate the bias, and affecting policy. The only way to uphold the truth that is as close to reality as we can get to, we have to talk to the other side, and allow for debates in regards to research findings from the other side. A balance can only drawn if both sides are being heard.
The decline in intellectual diversity is one of the major factors of the polarization that has occurred in our recent past and present. Being surrounded by people who only affirm the biases of the individual is ideal breeding ground for perceiving the other side not with curiosity and open-mindedness, but with a disdain and an ignorance that keeps “them” irrevocably wrong. One can argue this is already the case, if you look at this graph from the Pew Research Center:
If we continue, on both sides, to dismiss the other before true and honest curiosity and conversation can take hold, we will get to the point to which:
“the prolonged absence of any free exchange of information within a country opens up a gulf of incomprehension between whole groups of the population, between millions and millions. We simply cease to be a single people, for we speak, indeed, different languages.”
To end, no matter what side of the aisle you are on, the simple way out is to let truth lead the way. Not the truth shrouded in bias, but a truth that comes from rigorous and diverse research, reviewed and approved by academics from all sides of the political and opinionated spectrum. It will take the media refraining from clickbate titles that only reiterate confirmation bias and actually start to report the news objectively. And it will take a society of individuals willing to look at their own shortcomings instead of the “other” and come into public discourse from a humble point of view, knowing that no one can ever know all, we can all be wrong, and with good faith that the person who disagrees with you might just have something to teach you too.
There is no truth in an ideology — not one that takes into account the complex nature of humanity and all that we have created. Nothing is as simple as black vs. white, oppressor vs. oppressed, trans activism vs. transphobia. A very large and more honest gray area exists. Logos and the values of the Enlightenment are what helped grow into the advanced society we are today, and to push those values aside without regard to all they have helped us achieve, all the while ignoring history’s warnings of what results when we do just that, is an error we cannot afford to commit. Solzhenitsyn is just one of the many examples of what happens if we do.
