The Role of Trust in the Culture Wars
The culture wars, persistent throughout history, have intensified in our modern, digitally interconnected world. At their core, these conflicts aren’t just about ideological battles but hinge upon where we place our trust in diverse knowledge sources. Though this age promised unparalleled access to knowledge and the democratisation of information, it has also presented us with a new quandary: the overwhelming task of discerning signal from noise.
Platforms like social media amplify a diverse range of voices. But they also introduce a cacophony where misinformation can be as loud, if not louder, than verifiable facts. What determines the credence we give to varying information? The trust we place in knowledge sources.
Trust is a complex phenomenon, especially in today’s rapidly changing information landscape. It’s not static but fluid, shifting with time, geography, and socio-cultural dynamics. What follows are categorisations of knowledge sources offered as simplified representations and illustrative tools for understanding different trust sources in Western societies today.
Institutionalised Knowledge and Stigmatised Knowledge
The insights of renowned scholar Michael Barkun, a Professor Emeritus of Political Science at Syracuse University, can help us better understand the intricate dynamics of trust in contemporary society. In his seminal work, “A Culture of Conspiracy: Apocalyptic Visions in Contemporary America,” Barkun categorises knowledge into two main spheres: ‘Institutional’ and ‘Stigmatised’. He defines institutional knowledge as information accepted and validated by mainstream institutions. In contrast, stigmatised knowledge comprises claims yet to gain such institutional validation.
For the purpose of this piece, the present author further delineates these categories into ‘Orthodox’ (rooted in the mainstream, this represents the bedrock of trusted information, reflecting societal consensus), ‘Unorthodox’ (on the periphery of the mainstream, it is alternative but only partially sidelined. It indicates evolving perspectives and challenges to established norms), and ‘Heterodox’ (pertaining to stigmatised knowledge that stands outside institutional acceptance). Below is a spreadsheet that lists 30 examples across categories.
Where we place our trust determines our worldviews and, in many ways, our identities. Let’s consider some examples across the three categories:
1. Medical Knowledge and the Public Health Crisis:
The COVID-19 pandemic brought the dynamics of trust into sharp relief.
Orthodox Practices: Vaccination and Masks: In the wake of the pandemic, the majority of the global scientific community, along with governments, championed orthodox measures like vaccinations and the use of masks. These were based on rigorous research, clinical trials, and data-driven evidence. Many international health organisations and experts vouched for their efficacy. However, these endorsements, though well-intentioned, were occasionally met with resistance. Some segments of the population perceived them as authoritative impositions, fueled by narratives that portrayed them as infringements on personal freedoms or questioned the speed at which vaccines were developed.
Unorthodox Approaches: Herbal Treatments and Natural Remedies: With the onset of the pandemic, a surge in interest in unorthodox treatments like herbal remedies, vitamin regimens, and other natural solutions emerged. While these treatments have been used in traditional medicine systems for centuries, their application as a response to the pandemic was seen as a deviation from mainstream medical advice. Advocates believed they could either prevent the disease or alleviate its symptoms, positioning them as potential alternatives or complements to standard treatments. However, sceptics, including some medical professionals, cautioned against relying solely on these methods, labelling some as potentially misguided or even hazardous without more conclusive studies on their efficacy against the virus.
Heterodox Beliefs: Conspiracies and Unfounded Remedies: Amid the pandemic’s uncertainty, heterodox beliefs found fertile ground. Conspiracies like microchip implantation through vaccines or claims that the virus itself was a fabricated hoax became popular in certain circles. Other baseless remedies, such as consuming bleach or using ultraviolet light internally, were dangerously touted as cures. While divergent from mainstream thought, these beliefs were not merely fringe opinions; their widespread acceptance in some communities underscored a profound mistrust in traditional institutions and the prevailing narratives. Social media often amplified such beliefs, creating a whirlpool of misinformation that further distanced these groups from orthodox understanding.
2. Economic Paradigms and the Search for Alternatives
The economic landscape post the 2008 crash showcased trust dynamics vividly.
Orthodox Economic Models: The Capitalist Framework: Capitalism, emphasising private ownership and free markets, has been the orthodox economic system in many Western nations for centuries. Its proponents argue that it promotes innovation, economic growth, and personal freedom. However, this model was under intense scrutiny following the 2008 financial crash. Many critics pointed to unchecked speculative behaviour, lack of oversight, and systemic flaws in financial institutions as indicators that capitalism, in its contemporary form, either directly led to the crash or failed to provide mechanisms to prevent such a catastrophe. The aftermath of the crash saw massive bailouts, unemployment, and economic downturns, further intensifying the debate about the sustainability of this orthodox economic model.
Unorthodox Economic Theories: The Rise of Marxism and Beyond: In the wake of the economic downturn, there was a noticeable resurgence in unorthodox economic theories. Marxism, with its emphasis on class struggle, the issues of wealth disparity, and the idea of state ownership, became particularly appealing to a new generation. Many young individuals, burdened with student loans, facing a volatile job market, and witnessing unprecedented income inequality, began questioning the capitalist framework they grew up in. This led to a renewed interest in socialist ideals as they sought alternatives to what they perceived as the failures of unchecked capitalism.
Heterodox Ideas: Radical Economic Alternatives: Going even beyond the realm of orthodox and unorthodox, heterodox economic ideas emerged that challenged the foundation of contemporary monetary systems. Some advocated entirely decentralised financial systems, like cryptocurrencies, that would operate independently of central banks and traditional financial institutions. Others proposed utopian economic structures where concepts like “universal basic income” would ensure that every citizen had a basic level of financial security, regardless of employment status. While radical and often met with scepticism, these ideas underscored a deep yearning for transformative change in the economic landscape, particularly in the wake of widespread disillusionment after the 2008 crash.
3. Political Trust and the Rise of Conspiracism
The digital age has supercharged the spread of political narratives, allowing for enlightening discourse and misleading information propagation.
Orthodox Political Systems: The Pillars of Democracy and Republicanism: In many Western societies, democracy and republicanism are the backbone of governance. Democracy, with its emphasis on majority rule and individual rights, and republicanism, focusing on the rule of law and civic virtue, are often perceived as the gold standard of political systems. Their long-standing nature and proven stability in many countries give them an aura of reliability. However, as with any system, they have their detractors. Critics often point to the influence of big money in politics, the possibility of the ‘tyranny of the majority’, and the challenges in truly representing the diverse needs of all citizens. Claims of voter suppression or the exclusion of marginalised groups also present persistent issues, leading some to view these systems as flawed or incomplete in their promise of equitable representation.
Unorthodox Political Systems: Exploring Alternatives in Governance: For those feeling disenchanted with traditional political structures, unorthodox systems like technocracy and direct democracy offer fresh alternatives. Technocracy, where decisions are made by experts in various fields rather than elected officials, promises efficiency and data-driven governance. Meanwhile, direct democracy, where citizens have a direct say in law-making, aims to bring power back to the people and reduce bureaucratic barriers. While both systems have their merits, they also bring their own set of challenges. Technocracy might sideline the layman’s voice, and direct democracy can be cumbersome for every minor decision. Yet, their rising popularity underscores a global desire to experiment with and improve existing governance models.
Heterodox Views: The Allure of Conspiracy Theories and Fringe Beliefs: Beyond the mainstream and even the alternative lies the realm of the heterodox: ideas and beliefs that often challenge the methods and the foundation of governance. This realm is fueled by a profound mistrust of traditional institutions. Conspiratorial narratives thrive here, such as governments being manipulated by secret societies or global events being puppeteered by hidden hands. While these views are often sensationalised and lack substantive evidence, their traction in some communities underscores a deep-seated feeling of powerlessness or manipulation by the ‘established order’. The appeal of such beliefs is often emotional rather than logical, tapping into fears, anxieties, and the need to make sense of complex global events.
Possible Pathways to Reconciliation
A central player in the trust dynamics is the algorithm-driven digital platform. These algorithms often create discourse echo chambers. Here, what’s reiterated isn’t necessarily the truth but what keeps users engaged.
Consider the discourse around climate change: in orthodox circles, the consensus is that human activity is the primary driver, based on extensive scientific research and data. Unorthodox perspectives include those who accept human-driven climate change but differ on its implications, proposing alternative solutions or emphasising natural climate cycles in conjunction with human impacts. On the other hand, Heterodox views might deny the human role altogether, attributing climate changes solely to natural cycles or even propagating conspiracy theories about global climate agendas.
This layered landscape of knowledge emphasises the pressing need for effective communication. Only by recognising these layers can we hope to bridge understanding across diverse beliefs. While reconciliation remains a daunting task, it might begin with a thorough appreciation of the underlying dynamics of trust. Let’s consider three possible pathways to a potential reconciliation:
Education Reforms: In the digital age, our educational curriculums should evolve to address the complexities of the information landscape. Traditional reading and comprehension skills should be supplemented with training to recognise and counteract fake news. This involves identifying false information and understanding its origins, motivations, and the psychological techniques used to make it appealing. Additionally, understanding the algorithms that dictate our online experiences is crucial. These invisible rule sets decide what information we see, and by demystifying them, individuals can be better equipped to navigate digital platforms critically and independently.
Platform Responsibility: Digital platforms, especially social media giants, have a responsibility that extends beyond profit margins. Their algorithms, designed to keep users engaged, often reinforce existing beliefs and shut out diverse perspectives – creating the infamous “echo chambers.” While changing these algorithms might impact short-term profitability, it is essential for long-term societal health and the platform's credibility. Platforms can introduce features that promote diverse content, fact-checking mechanisms, or even user education initiatives about the potential pitfalls of algorithmic content delivery.
Dialogue: In our polarised world, dialogue becomes a potent tool for bridging divides. But it’s crucial to approach conversations with the right mindset. Encouraging dialogue isn’t about convincing someone to abandon their beliefs but understanding their perspective and sharing your own. Empathy forms the bedrock of these discussions. An empathetic dialogue isn’t just an exchange of words; it’s a mutual journey of understanding. By creating spaces where individuals feel safe to express their beliefs without fear of ridicule, we pave the way for shared experiences and mutual learning. Over time, these dialogues can break down barriers, reduce misconceptions, and build a more cohesive society.
Conclusion
In conclusion, the culture wars, though often perceived as fierce ideological confrontations, are at their core about trust and its evolving dynamics. In our ever-complex societies, not only must we be conscious of which knowledge sources we deem trustworthy, but we must also cultivate an understanding for those who place their trust elsewhere. This journey of understanding and empathy holds the potential to bridge divides, planting the seeds for a future united in its diversity rather than polarised by differences.
