271 Dumping the deep
In addition to the unravelling of rationality,
discussed in the preceding item in this blog, there are problems even in the
effort to be rational, with knowledge becoming more shallow, with less depth, in
a dumping of the deep.
There is a widening gap between an increasingly
complex and fast changing world, requiring a greater depth of insight to cope
with it, intellectually, psychologically, and politically, and the decreasing
depth of actual knowledge and learning.
There is less time and less capacity for depth of
knowledge. One has to deal with a fast and vast surge of information. Slogans
replace expositions. Slow, focused, printed knowledge is replaced by faster,
wide range, pictorial, iconic digital information.
In the economy there is a prerogative of the fast and
the short term, in finance and investment, knowledge and learning, organization
and work. This crowds out deep investments, in knowledge, products and
production, and this holds back economic growth.
Politics is focused on votes in the next election. This
crowds out orientation to structural change, reflection on novel ideology,
changes in the undertow of politics, pressures building up, which then break
out unawares, as in Brexit.
What deeper, slower knowledge there still is, is often
disregarded by policy makers. Absorbing and implementing the deep knowledge
offered by scholars and scientists requires a horizon that goes beyond that of
policy and the incumbency of politicians and managers. By the time the ideas
bear fruit the manager or politician has moved on.
This demotivates the providers of deep knowledge, and tempts them to throw in the towel. There is a demand for quick application of knowledge, discouraging more fundamental, long term research. Newcomers at universities see this and are motivated to dodge the deep and go for the quick and shallow. Scientists also have to reduce their findings to catching sketches.
Or I am being too pessimistic? Is this the muttering
of a grumbling old man? If what I say concerns individual deep, specialized
knowledge, could this be compensated by patterns of complementary knowledge in
groups? Can individual wisdom be replaced by wisdom of the crowds? Bees in a
hive rather than in a single bonnet? But if individual knowledge is shallow,
how can pooling provide depth? Scientists increasingly work in teams, with a ream
of authors crowning a publication. But there, individual depth of knowledge is pooled,
in division of labour, to cover complex issues.
Many things are still individual. Choosing a job, an
education, a profession, a home, insurance, health care, and forms of saving
and investment. And take voting: one can deliberate with others, but in the
booth one has to make up one’s individual mind about a whole political
programme. And in a drive for more democracy there is pressure for more voting,
in referenda, even on complicated things like exiting from the EU or not. In
the existing system of representative democracy the voter votes for a party
with a programme, delegating expertise. In referenda that is bypassed, and the
shallow wins.
No comments:
Post a Comment