| OCR Text |
Show Rationality and the Structure of the Self, Volume II: A Kantian Conception 361 with particularly strong motivation to realize in both our beliefs and our actions the ideal descriptive theory which that consensus has conveyed to us. This is the weight of social pressure the whistleblower resists. Both the authority of fact and the authority of consensus carry with them rewards for accepting the ideal descriptive theory of social reality as factual: a sense of cognitive stability and of inclusion in social community, respectively. But there are, in addition, mature rewards in a more straightforward sense that are attendant on accepting this theory, and these, too, have authority. The authority of reward consists in the approval, status, goods, resources, and favorable treatment bestowed on us for "toeing the party line." For sincerely avowing as true this culturally transmitted theory, dismissing any doubts, questions, or theoretically anomalous information that might tend to disconfirm it, and fashioning our own behavior in conformity with it, we present ourselves to others as increasingly reliable, predictable, and trustworthy, and view others who behave similarly in the same light. These virtues elicit the approval and rewards of those whose own projects require them, and whose convictions are the same. By contrast, questioning the truth of this theory too closely and doggedly, or disputing it, or ridiculing it, or drawing attention too publicly to anomalous data that embarrass it, or directly and repeatedly disconfirming it in one's behavior provokes anger, disapproval, and the devaluations of status and social standing consequent on these reactions: parental reproof for being "nosy," "fresh," "rude," or "inquisitive," perhaps; or, later in life, a reputation for contentiousness, cynicism, unreliability or disruptiveness, or iconoclasm. Even in a family or subculture ostensibly and sincerely committed to the ideal of unrestricted inquiry and research, there are usually quite inflexible constraints - constraints unnecessary for the prevention of physical harm - on what we are socially and morally permitted to ask, investigate or do. These constraints protect from criticism theoretical assumptions commonly viewed as axiomatic, as foundational and necessary for the possibility of any shared understanding at all. In fact there are very few theoretical assumptions of this sort. Most function more precisely to protect the interests of those who have benefited from them, and are defended energetically by their beneficiaries for that reason. The authority of fact, consensus and reward thus not only helps to inculcate in us the culturally transmitted theory of social reality at very early stages of socialization. It also sustains, strengthens, and further entrenches our adult habits of thought and action throughout our social lives. A measure of the motivational force of these three sources of authority is the fear and anxiety with which we invest those forbidden topics and actions that disconfirm the ideal descriptive theory. To deviate from this ideal too radically or continually is to court punishment, social ostracism, and ultimately madness. © Adrian Piper Research Archive Foundation Berlin |
