Using fragmentation to seek truth

In his latest piece, Stanley Fish argues that, in a secular state, cognitive dissonance is inevitable. it is impossible, he says, for every person's belief or idea to apply equally in every situation. "An attorney may believe that a client is guilty as sin, but that belief, while not abandoned, is put to one side in deference to the belief that everyone is entitled to a defense. A professor of literature may believe that a particular book is barely worth reading, but if a departmental syllabus requires it, she will teach it because she also believes that she has a duty to abide by departmental decisions. An administrator may believe that a policy is foolish and counterproductive, but he will nevertheless implement it because he also believes in the chain of command. A mother might preach a lesson (like don’t ever stop to help someone) that she would not defend in a philosophical discussion, not because she was being dishonest, but because she was honoring the difference between being a parent and being a philosopher." In this particular piece, Fish is implicitly arguing for the division of labor in life, not merely as practiced by a capitalist firm or corporation.

The problem with Fish's analysis is that he fails to recognize the mediating role of fragmentation. The claim of nearly every religion is that there is a single truth that can be accessed only through that religion. The claim of the liberal state is that, while there may be a single truth, it is not the duty of the state to help an individual seek that truth. Instead, the liberal state claims to protect the rights of individuals to seek that truth, as long as one individual does not infringe on the rights of another individual to either seek a different truth, or no truth at all. Most people would agree that the liberal state should make this claim, but Mr. Fish is going further, arguing that there may be no single truth to begin with, only different, not competing paradigms. Hence, Mr. Fish switches from a debate between a theocrat and a democrat to a debate between a believer in a single truth and a believer in multiple truths. For the believer in a single truth, the idea of multiple truths is tantamount to nihilism, or the belief in no truth. It’s just like the debate between the theist and the atheist, with the theist claiming that “if there is no God, then anything goes”.

Most people, including me, agree with the theist’s argument, but we don’t want the state to be an enforcer. Few people are willing to accept compartmentalization and fragmentation as the natural condition of human existence. Instead, as pragmatists, we accept compartmentalization as part of an ongoing debate between opposing ideas about the nature of a single truth that we believe in. I do not agree that this compartmentalization is an end in itself. If that were the case, there would be no basis for civilization because we would have no reason to even communicate with each other. Compartmentalization would extend to language, philosophy, politics, religion, and economics. We would create an infinite number of paradigms with little or no incremental progress. Indeed, the very idea of progress would be abandoned.

One reader, John Webb, argues that Fish is echoing Isaiah Berlin's argument in “The Crooked Timber of Humanity”. "Berlin’s argument is that there can be no ideal form of organization of public or private life. (Humanity, whether as individuals or collectively, cannot build a permanently safe house, only an imperfect house.) All ideas, when taken to their logical conclusion, are destructive of other equally valid ideas. As we live day-by-day and year-by-year, we encounter, we absorb, we reflect on several basic questions about life - personal relationships, knowledge, history, love, work and so on. At any time what conclusions we reach are not compatible with each other, if pursued to their logical ends. 'Liberty and justice for all' is an impossibility, so are industrial organization and human rights, good government and self-government. Our knowledge and commitments exist together in an unstable equilibrium which will collapse if we try to push one idea to its logical end. That is why the journey of life, not the end of it, is what matters."

For me, the fundamental problem posed by Fish and Webb is one of scale, not of belief. On a small scale - in a family, a village, a small town, or a tribe - it is quite possible to be consistent in one's beliefs because one rarely, if ever, finds contradictions. More important, the division of labor that produces all of these inconsistencies can only exist in very large systems: large families require a division of labor, as do large corporations, large governments or bureaucracies. When the scale is kept small, one person is often forced to perform many different tasks, and that one person can use those different tasks to pursue a single goal. After all, an painter will use many different colors and brushes to paint a single portrait. As the scale enlarges there is a natural push toward functional specialization to improve efficiency. Specialization of function leads to specialization of thought, which in turn leads to specialization of ethics. Hence, one ethical system that applies to one specialization will contradict an ethical system in another specialization.

Fish is trying to pay respect to this specialization and the different ethical modes that go with it. I aim to eliminate this specialization and keep systems small. Fragmentation is fine, but only if you can use it to pursue a greater truth. When you lose sight of the greater truth, fragmentation begins to serve its own ends. Fragmentation must always be a means to an end, not an end in itself.