I find one of the most intriguing aspects of the debate about lies in politics is the impact of social class. Sissela Bok opened her article with some thoughts of other political thinkers on this difficult topic. Jean-Paul Sartre, author of Dirty Hands, justified lying on, basically, the grounds that everyone did it. I think this argument, which was also used by Lynn Pasquerella and Alfred G. Killilea, is extremely weak and will not hold up in its justification of any type of behavior. However, what I think is particularly interesting about Sartre’s views is his explanation that follows his faulty rationalization of lies. Lying, Sartre claims, “grew out of a society divided into classes…We shall not abolish lying by refusing to tell lies, but by using every means at hand to abolish classes” (Bok 175). Bok introduces the concept of ‘noble lies’ (‘noble,’ as Bok explains, as in ‘high-minded’ or well-bred’) which again frames the question of lying in the name of politics as directly tied to class. I know that Dave also discussed this quote, but I think it bears repeating in its relevance to political lies and social class: Bok writes that rulers “have seen themselves as high-minded and well-bred—whether by birth or by training—and as superior to those they deceive” (Bok 177).
I think Bok makes another interesting point when she writes that “The disparagement of inquiries into [political deception] has to be seen as the defense of unwarranted power—power bypassing the consent of the governed” (Bok 179). The idea that morally justifying our representatives’ deceit of the public is entirely inconsistent with a democracy (in which the people have the indirect power to make decisions), is, I think, very true. However, we run into issues with class again when we examine the issue of voter turnout. It has always been true that people of higher socioeconomic class have more political efficacy and are therefore more likely to go to the polls on election day. So, while Bok is absolutely correct in concluding that people will be less likely to vote if they view politicians as deceitful, the system of consent of the governed is far from devoid of class indifference even if lies were never used. It seems that class always has and always will have far too great of a role in our political system and deception by the government only succeeds in making the system even more elitist.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I'm really glad you brought up the role of class in the political system, especially concerning lies. Elitism and classism has so much to do with this subject. People with the most resources and money are bound to have better access to information, and I wonder if this is inescapable. We tend to have the idealistic values of pulling ourselves up by our bootstraps, without realizing that in todays society this is often impossible. Many of us believe that if people really want to educate themselves on issues to avoid being deceived, we can do so. But unfortunately, it is incredibly easy for the government to spread mass deception, because despite the "fact" that we have an open class system, people who are born into poverty simply do not have the same resources to become educated on political issues.
ReplyDelete