A Deeper Understanding of Our Societal Divide Beyond Simple Socio-Political or Socio-Economic Narratives.

Can we all agree that there is a societal divide happening? I would say there is, even though you might not see it on a day-to-day basis. I mean, I got a coffee today and no one asked me what my political views are – or what I think about LGBTQIA+ people. Does this make me a mindless, blind normie or does it provide a deeper insight into where the ideological divide is coming from? We can look at these divides from what we see on T. V. and say that it is not representative as a whole – but that doesn’t deny the larger, abstract understanding of a societal divide that is happening.

I refer to a recent speech by Tucker Carlson where he describes the real political differences that we are experiencing in our modern time. He brings up that there are people who believe in a god and people who believe they are god. What he concludes with is that it is virtuous to have something seen as more powerful than you as it humbles you. Of course, thinking you can become god is a way for self-centeredness and evil to corrupt you. Even with an agnostic, Jeffersonian view of spiritual autonomy, the fact that you can only pursue all knowledge and can never obtain all knowledge is humbling. For example, I am humbled by the fact I will not know what the Earth-like planet near the Proxima Centauri star is like, given its distance of 4+ light years (equivalent to 40,000 Earth years) is understood by the time they got there if traveling now, my children’s, children’s, children’s bones will be dust by then.

Using a Jeffersonian understanding, we can use god in an agnostic view as opposed to God in an ecclesiastical view. In this case, god takes on the agnostic meaning of truth – what is considered true and what is considered false? Truth is the agnostic view of god. This can also be the case in ecclesiastical texts of god, but I would argue it is more explicit in the agnostic view. For example, god – or truth – can be nature, biology, or the process of the universe. The main concept is that god is an acceptance of something greater than you. With that said, what, and who, does Tucker mean about the individuals who believe they are – or can become – god?

I can provide an example – consider the topic of transgenderism in our modern time. However, I don’t want to talk about the psychological component, even though that is key to the discussion (continue reading). I want to talk about the physiological outcomes of transgenderism (i.e., sex change operations for individuals). Even as an agnostic, you can accept that biologically there are two sexes, and theoretically you can be any gender you want, but you cannot change your biology. Again, this is not a psychological discussion, but a physiological discussion. We can say one who accepts biological reality out of their control believes in truth greater than themselves. However, individuals who do not believe in biological reality will naturally push to change the order of that reality and change what the truth can be – at the very least, subvert true meaning.

How do we describe this phenomenon as it seems to be binary? Too much of the debates are raging in small socio-economic, and socio-political narratives, largely empty from a greater meaning. It is the larger question of ideas like our future economy, climate change, geopolitics, etc., asking: how do you see individuality? Is the individual merely a human held to the governance of truth outside of themselves, or do individuals throughout time create truth? How do you see decision-making to answer complex questions? Does the individual rely on a set of truths established outside of themselves? Or do they control the destiny of the future? Is how we govern ourselves derived from a natural order to create laws? Or do we govern our nature through the laws created by ourselves? Here are three sets of competing ideas that I think can provide insight into the larger questions: Is god independent of us? Or are we god?

Socrates vs. Confucious

I would like to use a philosophical base to start this discussion as I think it can provide answers to this thesis. Even though these two philosophers don’t quite overlap with each other, I think they provide a good duality to understand our epistemological (nature of knowledge) divide. Socrates (469-399 BCE) of Ancient Greece is widely considered the father of Western Philosophy. He embraced the process of intellectual inquiry, and that knowledge of the good will lead to virtue when observing the secrets of the universe. Confucious (551-479 BCE) is widely considered the father of Eastern Philosophy. He embraced the process of didactic (critical, or ulterior motive) approaches to knowledge – basing his moral leanings on rituals to promote social cohesion.

In making sense of the divide, we can say that Socrates had a more rational approach basing his epistemological views on reason and critical thinking. Confucious, in contrast, took a filial (elder-centric) approach based on historical precedent and ritual to shape behavior. Their ethics on the role of society also explain a lot where Socrates embraced that individuals pursue knowledge outside of themselves to obtain truth. Confucious, however, believed the individual was only as good as the society it was in, and advocated individuals fulfill a role in society to each their strength.

Although not explicit, we can see that Socrates embraced the idea that knowledge is out there independent of humans; in contrast, Confucious felt that the individual owes a duty to society to learn knowledge from elders in a hierarchical order. We can draw comparisons to political ideologies where Socrates supports a populist idealism, and Confucious an elite idealism. One puts power in the hands of the general public to pursue truth, the other puts power in the hands of a hierarchical authority to display knowledge to the masses. We see this more today in our social divide that there are people who feel power is best handled with the larger population (populist), and people who feel the powerful are in their position because they know what’s best for the population (elitist).

Realism vs. Solipsism

The debate between realism vs. solipsism is perhaps the most psychologically significant topic related to our divide. Realism asserts that the existence of an objective reality is independent of our perceptions or consciousness. In comparison, solipsism tells us that only one’s mind is sure to exist. It raises doubts about the existence of an external, independent reality. This describes how one’s mind sees the world in front of them.

With that, each mind carries its defining characteristics toward truth. For example, realists believe in an external reality and that an external world exists regardless of whether there is an observer or not. They also believe in scientific realism, which asserts that scientific theories provide accurate descriptions of an objective reality. Solipsists hold the view of an objective reality which is that everything outside one’s mind is uncertain or may not exist at all. The only certain knowledge is the existence of one’s thoughts and experiences. They also hold the view of extreme skepticism which questions the validity of any knowledge that goes beyond the individual’s mental states. How might this look with different topics?

	Realism	Solipsism
Truth	Truth is formed independently from humans; we orbit truth moving toward the center.	Truth is formed by humans for humans; we are at the center and truth orbits us.
Identity	The continuity of the personal identity with the physical body is evidence of this continuity.	Questions the reliability of personal identity. The notion of identity itself is a mental construction.
The Universe	Observed through objective laws of nature, scientific understanding, and independent existence (existing with, or without, humans).	Observed through subjective construction, mind-dependent reality, and perceived existence (existing only perceived through the mind of the individual).

We can go deeper and provide more concrete examples. For instance, let’s go back to the transgenderism debate and change our focus to the psychological. You can see how this aligns with this psychological understanding of identity. Realists would align with the biological essentialists who suggest the two sexes male and female are evident through the continuity of our biological reality. Solipsists would align with the pro-trans idea that sex is unreliable and merely a mental construction. The phrase “assigned at birth” that trans activists use explicitly aligns with the solipsistic notion. If we take the universe, we see that the realist believes whether there are humans or not, the universe exists – solipsists believe there would be no conception of the universe without humans creating it.

Who is right? Both sides would debate their point fervently. However, one difference between the two emerges in a psychological framework. We can see this as realism = modesty, solipsism = egotistic. Realism’s modesty is rooted in that the individual is not the center and is independent of reality. Solipsism’s egotistic view is rooted in that the individual’s consciousness is considered the only certain reality in an extreme form of subjective self-centeredness.

Homo Seriosus vs. Homo Rhetoricus

The competing idea of homo seriosus vs. homo rhetoricus helps to understand our divide with language, argumentation, and communication. Up to this point, we have discussed competing epistemological ideals, competing psychological ideals, and now, competing communication/linguistic ideas. Ultimately, in the framework of truth, we have gone from how we obtain knowledge of truth, how we perceive and think about truth, and now, how we communicate truth to others.

This concept of homo seriosus and homo rhetoricus comes from Stanley Fish’s 1989 work Rhetoric, originally published in Doing What Comes Naturally: Change, Rhetoric, and the Practice of Theory in Literacy and Legal Studies. Homo seriosus (serious man) is someone who uses language to communicate “facts and concepts” with clarity and unabridged truthfulness. Society, and the laws to which we communicate with society, stand “out there” independent of man. Homo rhetoricus (rhetorical man) is someone who uses language to manipulate and distort reality for their changing orientations. They depend on “the reassurance of daily histrionic reenactment”, and that our society, and how we communicate within society, is not meant to discover reality, but manipulate it.

We can consider professions fitting this type of communication. For example, one may possess both forms of communication if one was a doctor during the day and joined a theatre group at night. You would see the serious man while they are treating patients with clarity and unabridged truthfulness about illness and care. However, once night falls, they turn into the actor, manipulating the reality of the audience to create a believable character. One might say, given the situation, the serious man or rhetorical man may be beneficial depending on the situation, but the challenge comes when these situations blur – specifically, when we have actors who manipulate reality, when they shouldn’t be manipulating reality.

I wrote about this concept in my book when describing the narrative of deconstruction in critical theory circles inside of education. We must ask ourselves; do we want our educators for the public to be serious or rhetorical? Do we want our educators expanding unabridged truthfulness or manipulating reality to create fun? This is a much larger discussion that I would like to have in future blogs as I think it can explain our sociological divide in how we talk to each other. Not to mention the challenge that comes from the vast difference between homo seriousus and homo rhetoricus. When you have no overlapping with communication, that’s when trouble can ensue.

***

So, an answer most people must be wondering is what path is the right path? Should I be Socratic or Confucian? Should I be a realist or a solipsist? Should I be the serious man or the rhetorical man? I know our hunger for truth extends to blogs and essays for guidance on how to live our best lives. But it does depend on many factors related to the individual. However, if we are to create groups for each of these paths; let’s say, the Socratic, realist, and seriosus are A – and Confucian, solipsist, and rhetoricus are B. At this point, I think it’s fair considering these competing ideas grouped have overlapping similarities to their structures.

Let’s consider the statement “my truth” used in critical theory circles. In this case, “my truth” is considered a Group B phrase as it mainly fits the tenets of solipsistic rhetoric. “My truth” as opposed to “the truth” (Group A) creates an illogical fractioning of truth making truth = not truth. I find this similar to “the universe’s gravity” and “my universe’s gravity”. One is correct, because there is one form of gravity and cannot be divided based on the individual. Linguistically, “my truth” is an illogical and contradictory statement, because when you accept “my truth” you accept multiple truths – and if you accept multiple truths, this creates a logical contradiction. Accepting truth is saying truth implies truth T → T. Or, you’re saying my truth is differentiating, and saying my truth is this truth but not the truth T → ¬ T.

	T → T	T → ¬ T
(T) Tautology / (F) Contradiction	T	F

Using an analytic framework and logical notation, in this instance, we can see that Group B’s ideals are regarded as contradictory, whereas Group A’s ideals are regarded as tautological (true in any form). Again, this does not mean Group A gets a win, because this is to be expected if you consider the ethos of Group B, notably the homo rhetoricus. All this truth table says is that Group B manipulates reality, to which someone who believes in Group B ideals would say: “Thank you, I do like to manipulate reality because reality is a social construction anyways”, consider reading the concept of Gödel’s Vortex to understand this on a deeper level.

Finding a “win” here is next to impossible. However, this provides a deeper meaning to what we “think” our divide is in society – deeper than left vs. right, conservative vs. liberal, Republican vs. Democrat, pro-life vs. pro-choice, free-market vs. Marxism, and even climate realists vs. climate alarmists. Although this means we cannot, at least easily, solve the larger divide in our society; conversely, we can at least characterize it. The best we can do is calmly characterize someone based on the views they espouse. If you are a solipsist, fine, embrace it. If you are a realist, fine embrace it. If individual psychological traits have realism aligned with humility, and solipsism aligned with narcissism – embrace it. It comes back to the Tucker question, is there a design bigger than you? Or do you create the design for yourself? Do you believe in a god? Or do you believe you are a god?