Main menu
You are here
Response to collective error as recognized and reframed
Collective Mea Culpa? You Must be Joking! (Part #4)
[Parts: First | Prev | Next | Last | All] [Links: To-K | From-K | From-Kx | Refs ]
There is an obvious tendency of collectives to deny the possibility of any errors of significance. The errors cited by others are thus typically denied as characterized by misinformation or arising from questionable motivation. The challenge is seen as one of how to avoid admission of error and to avoid any consequence that may imply, notably resulting in forms of media bias, necessarily perceived as erroneous by critics (Biased coverage of controversy by news media, 2014)
Collective assumption of error-free innocence: Most notably in the case of religion, there is a sense in which the collective enterprise, as the embodiment of a flawless belief system, is inherently innocent -- if not as "white as snow". Being right by definition, every alternative perspective must then necessarily be held to be at fault. Phrases appropriate to this belief include "can do no wrong" and "faultless".
Whilst most obvious in the case of religions, the pattern is also evident in science (and its various disciplines), in corporate enterprises, and in government. Questioning core assumptions in the light of purported error may be subject to the severest sanction -- as in the case of the "unbelievers" and heretics of religion. The pattern can be speculatively explored in terms of a set of rules (Evil Rules: Guidelines for Engaging in Armageddon Now, 2015). Science also makes the interesting distinction of "not even wrong".
In practice, when potentially questionable initiatives are undertaken in the name of a collective, these may be carefully conceived in terms of plausible deniability. This is the ability for persons (typically senior officials in a formal or informal chain of command) to deny knowledge of and responsibility for any damnable actions committed by others (usually subordinates in an organizational hierarchy) because of a lack of evidence that can confirm their participation, even if they were personally involved in or at least willfully ignorant of the actions. Deliberate use of "negative campaigning" or "dirty tricks" may be undertaken with the aid of such distancing devices. Their very existence may be used to claim that purported error derives from biased reporting as separately reviewed (Vital Collective Learning from Biased Media Coverage: acquiring vigilance to deceptive strategies used in mugging the world, 2014).
Processes of error recognition: For those collectives based firmly on the assumption that they are necessarily error-free, it follows that no resources would be allocated to the detection of fundamental errors of significance. Any error-detection process then tends to be focused on the detection of anomalies, especially those evident in behaviour reflective of any form of backsliding, namely failure in wholehearted adherence to the belief system in terms of which the collective is defined.
Obvious examples include political commissars and religious police, or their functional equivalents. In the case of religion, the detection of heresy has been a major preoccupation historically. In the case of both religious and political collectives, detection of tendencies to schism continue to be a concern. Peer review systems may constitute an equivalent in academia, for example. Error detection may take the form of financial auditing, or of quality control in manufacturing and service industries -- extending to the extreme requirements of Six Sigma techniques.
Reframing errors as a feature of due process: Any "errors" recognized or acknowledged by collectives may well be reframed as incidental and readily addressed, namely unrelated to errors of significance challenging the fundamental belief on which the collective is based. The concern is therefore to ensure that fundamental errors can be reframed as "technicalities". Examples of collective errors excused in this way include:
|
|
Of particular interest are those errors framed as due to "human nature" or to "lack of resources" -- namely beyond the responsibility of the collective. Even more challenging are those attributed to "evil" influences -- now curiously echoed in the framing of so-called wicked problems. The latter are characterized by their transboundary nature, thus readily claimed to be beyond the mandate of any particular collective.
As emphasized by the examples cited earlier, the detection of errors is typically the activity of "outsiders" -- readily disregarded as incompetent or having particular biases, especially if they are apostates. Ironically it could then be argued that critical thinking regarding any collective is effectively "outsourced" by that collective. Error detection is then left to whistleblowers who defy any security measures by which the collective seeks to protect itself from acknowledgement of error.
Tardiness in recognizing collective error (whether deliberate or inadvertent): Delay may be used as a device for avoiding immediate recognition of error. This is remarkably exemplified by the 400 year delay in acknowledgement of error in the case of the Galileo Affair regarding the heliocentric motion of the Sun. The current case of climate change offers another example. The delay in recognition of the error in cultivating continuing population growth, with its consequences in many domains, may be considered to be the most striking in the eyes of history.
The argument is made otherwise through the delay in declassification of those archives not already shredded. Arguments advanced include protection of the privacy of named individuals and the embarrassment to potentially responsible parties -- framed as the "public interest". In the UK the delay is 30 years; in the USA it is from 25 to 50 years. The recognition of error consequent on the activities of Wikileaks and Edward Snowden highlight issues as to how "public interest" is defined or reframed.
Quashing reports, archival shredding and tampering with evidence: Understood otherwise, it is clearly a matter of generations before responsible parties and their descendents are dead -- leaving the recognition of error to historians (as indicated by citations above). With respect to critical errors threatening a collective, a culture, a civilization, or humanity as a whole, such delay could well be recognized as a crime against humanity. As the policy of a collective, any failure "to keep the eye on the ball" recalls the remark of Arnold Toynbee: Civilizations die from suicide, not by murder.
Collective appeal to divine injunctions and mandates as providing unquestionable justification: This is variously understood in terms of the Mandate of Heaven, the Divine Right of Kings, fulfillment of the Divine Mandate, Chosen People (exemplified by the Jews as the chosen people and by the beliefs of various Christian religions).
Reframing to focus on detail (and avoid systemic implications): The previous instances point to a tendency to avoid systemic error recognition by systematically narrowing the focus of concern. This may be as a technicality of due process, through framing (or reframing) the mandate of a collective, or through delay. With respect to mandate this may be recognized in territorial terms as gerrymandering constituency boundaries -- a pattern replicated by the disciplines, and operating agencies, potentially to be termed "cognitive gerrymandering"
Avoiding systemic recognition thus involves a process of drilling down to identify how responsibility for error may best be isolated and the entity with which it can be most innocuously associated. Within the collective a first level is association of error with an unrepresentative extreme (as in the case of fundamentalism of any form). A subsequent level is a named collective, whether formally or informally organized. There is then the possibility of focusing on the collective leadership of that collective. The further possibility is identifying the leader of the collective as the source of error. More problematic is the identification of units within the collective -- which can be claimed to be "rogue sections" -- to which questionable tasks may have been delegated (under the guise of plausible deniability). Finally particular individuals can be isolated as the nexus of responsibility -- as exampled in many case of clerical sexual abuse of parishioners.
Cultivation of uncertainty regarding collective error and responsibility for it: The above points indicate considerable scope for obscuring the existence of error and identifying responsibility for it.
Especially interesting are the possibilities in the interplay between collective responsibility and individual responsibility, where the individual is held to be representative of the collective as a leader. In the light of the quality of thinking associated with the uncertainty principle of physics, this suggests the possibility of an analogue in which focus on the collective renders uncertain the responsibility of the individual, and focus on the individual renders uncertain the responsibility of the collective (Garrison Sposito, Does a generalized Heisenberg Principle operate in the social sciences ? Inquiry, 12, 1969, 3, pp. 356-361).
The issue is further complexified by the nature of the "existence" of any collective of which the "international community" is a prime example. The argument can be extended to the absence of "concrete proof" regarding the existence of the United States or the United Nations. Curiously, whilst all three are recognized as having the capacity to act through allocation of resources, none exhibits the capacity to acknowledge formally having made a mistake.
It is striking to note that whilst declarations are freely made in the name of science, physics, Islam, Christianity, conservatism, socialism, or the like, it is fairly clear that none of these are embodied in such a way that error could be recognized by that collective initiative. This is obvious in the case of the religions -- despite the (periodic) existence of the Parliament of the World's Religions, from which Catholicism has (periodically) excluded itself despite vigorously claiming leadership in interfaith discourse.
A more intriguing case is offered by science and its organization through the complex International Council of Scientific Unions. The issue is how the coherence of science as a collective initiative is then to be understood, as discussed separately within a context of "meta-science" (Metascience Enabling Upgrades to the Scientific Process, 2014). Again, however, this understanding of "science" excludes that of other disciplines which claim to be scientific -- replicating the pattern to be observed with respect to religions. It is relatively unimaginable that such bodies should acknowledge fundamental error in "science" -- presumably in anticipation of a paradigm shift. *** genetic/epigenetic
Use of statistical and accounting procedures to recognize collective error (or to avoid its recognition): There is widespread recognition of the misuse of statistics, namely when a statistical argument deliberately asserts a falsehood for the gain of the perpetrator. Wikipedia describes the following types of misuse -- which may be variously present in biased media presentations.
Use of legal procedures to recognize collective error (or to avoid its recognition)
Denial and cover-up of collective error: It is within this context that a more systematic approach to degrees (or stages) of avoidance of recognition of collective error. These can been organized into a remarkable typology of cover-ups in the relevant Wikipedia entry -- based on analysis of a number of typical cases.| Denial and cover-up of collective error | |
| Initial response to allegation -- Flat denial -- Convince the media to bury the story -- Preemptively distribute false information -- Claim that the "problem" is minimal -- Claim faulty memory -- Claim the accusations are half-truths -- Claim the critic has no proof -- Attack the critic's motive -- Attack the critic's character Withhold or tamper with evidence -- Prevent the discovery of evidence -- Destroy or alter the evidence -- Make discovery of evidence difficult -- Create misleading names of individuals and companies to hide funding -- Lie or commit perjury -- Block or delay investigations -- Issue restraining orders -- Claim executive privilege Delayed response to allegation Intimidate participants, witnesses or whistleblowers | Intimidate participants, witnesses or whistleblowers (cont.) Publicity management Damage control Win court cases Reward cover-up participants |
[Parts: First | Prev | Next | Last | All] [Links: To-K | From-K | From-Kx | Refs ]
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License
For further updates on this site, subscribe here