Ouija politics

The Devil’s Advocate™ →Go uptown In which the curmudgeonly old sod puts the world to rights. Index — Click ᐅ to expand: The Devil’s Advocate Tell me more Sign up for our newsletter — or just get in touch: for ½ a weekly 🍺 you get to consult JC. Ask about it here.

“I have called him a myth; and, in so far as there are few, if any, of his mind and temperament to be found in the ranks of living men, the title is well chosen. But it is a myth which rests upon solid and even, it may be, upon permanent foundations. The Reasonable Man is fed and kept alive by the most valued and enduring of our juridical institutions-the common jury. Hateful as he must necessarily be to any ordinary citizen who privately considers him, it is a curious paradox that where two or three are gathered together in one place they will with one accord pretend an admiration for him; and, when they are gathered together in the formidable surroundings of a British jury, they are easily persuaded that they themselves are, each and generally, reasonable men.”

—A. P. Herbert, Fardell v Potts

In which the JC plays amateur sociologist in the Christmas pantomime.

This I am making up from whole cloth: treat with due care.

Now every opinionated windbag knows the experience of trying in vain to dismantle a transparently fatuous “political” argument.

“Political” in the sense of being a generalised disposition attributable to a generalised class of people. These often are political dispositions, but need not be: “born-again Christians”, “conservatives” (with big or little “c”), socialists, bitcoin maximalists, Guardianistas, snowflakes, gammon, libertarians — any kind of group to whom one might attribute a membership by reference to generalized set of beliefs.

Of course, the group is a narrative, as is its agenda and its catalogue of values: unless someone has published manifesto, no two individuals in the group will share identical set of beliefs, and it may be that no single individual holds exactly the set of core beliefs ascribed to the group. Most struggle to hold values internally consistent with their own other views, let alone with random others apparently part of the same in-group.

As with all narratives, it is meant to filter out the noise of diversity to help render a meaningful signal.

The signal is often a phantom. In the same way that, in a group of 1000 people no individual will necessarily conform to the group’s average for height, weight, hand-size, inside seam, waist and chest measurement: the more dimensions you measure, the less likely that golden mean becomes.

Hence your struggle to mount an intellectual assault: your argument deconstructs the general average of a group to which no single member necessarily subscribes. Your intricate syllogisms resonate in the abstract; in the particular they snatch at thin air.

Hence, atheists and Christians shout themselves hoarse, rather enjoying the experience, making perfect sense to themselves and none at all to each other.

The curious thing is this: that phantom median view — albeit unheld in the particular — acquires an emergent influence of its own, untethered to a mortal mind. It is imputed, en masse. We can’t say who exactly believes it, but we suppose, by the law of averages, a multitude do, and this is enough to condition how we behave.

It is through this mechanic that we are vouchsafed middle management ouija where, privately, not a soul in personnel believes in, say, forced ranking, but every one of them holds the untested impression that everyone else does, it is somehow therefore canon law, nothing is to be done, and we should not waste our breath fighting against it.

See also

• Middle management ouija board