Philosophische Winterakademie 07. bis 10. Februar 2017 Wettbewerb Philosophischer Essay. 2. Platz

Transcription

1 2. Platz Name: Raphael Bellm Schule, Ort: Annette-von-Droste-Hülshoff-Gymnasium, Münster Outline: - Enhances difference between masses and individuals - Agreement: coming together of masses: intuitive, emotional reactions can distort individual s opinion à opinion of masses may not mirror the actual opinion of the individuals - Totally different understanding of democracy: when masses are deciding, the individuals are suppressed à that would take away the basis of democracy - Sounds like masses and individuals are two totally differnet entities. What about regarding masses as the accumulation of an enormous number of individuals (not abstracting mass as an entitity in itself) - Distortion: In the first place masses are accumulation of individuals with different views, opinions and so on - Don t keep it for themselves, but are tended to communicate them, to materialize their beliefs in action à influencing, convincing the other individuals, who again do the same - Causal structure: enormously complex system of causes and effects which makes up the dynamics of masses: system that keeps up itself without any input. (helplessness, desire to break through) - Reason for Emersons hate at the masses à Distortion (led by emotions, spontaneously) - Confronts this with the individual s opionion - How did the individual come to its opinion? àmultiple influences - Freedom of opinion = allow any influences - Multiple effects that influence in masses are nothing else à could be seen as determinants contributing to the development of a standpoint: - Distortion of individuals will = further development of it - The masses will get basis of political system there might be real distortion: differentiated variety whithin masses have to be summerized simplified and thus drawn away from the actual individual s opinion (especially minorities) in order to make it suitable for leading a state

2 Topic II Leave this hypocritical prating about the masses. ] Ralph Waldo Emerson, Considerations by the way When taking a closer look at masses of people that have come together for a certain purpose, let us say for viewing a sport event, one may recognize particular patterns or regularities in the way they behave: In many cases there is something like unity to them in the sense of crying the same slogans or reacting to certain events, which would be in the case of a football match for example a goal, in an emotional, outrageous but nevertheless quite uniform way. It is quite obvious that single individuals, even if it were the same as the ones the mass previously consisted of, would behave and act quite differently. Certainly, there is no doubt about the fact that there is some form of fundamental difference between numerous individuals and masses, not only as to their behaviour but, what is much more important, as to their character. What Ralph Waldo Emerson does in his statement is enhancing this difference in an extreme and radical way by insulting the one, even expressing the desire to destroy it, or to break them up, as he puts it, just in order to extract what he regards as valuable which is the individual. The fact that not only the masses actions and above all, what they want to express by them which I will call their opinion is quite different form each single individual s opinion, can already be verified by simple observation: The role of emotions is quite an important one when a huge number of people comes together. Already a great number of individuals can suffice to fundamentally change the individual s emotional state, which might be described as the tremendous feeling of being a part of something great. The individual s actions in such a state tend to get much more emotional and spontaneous and cease to be rationally planned. This role of feelings and emotions and of mutual influencing may even be so significant, that one could speak of a distortion of the individual s original opinion: The opinion of the masses does not accurately mirror the opinions of the individuals it is made up of any more. This distortion seems to be Emerson s main reason for criticizing the masses in such a harsh way and confronting it with the single individual so radically. But isn t the whole political system of democracy based upon what Emerson condemns so hard? If masses really were so different from the single individuals and distorted their

3 opinions in such a significant way, wouldn t this question the very first philosophical idea, democracy is based upon? The historical development of democracy was at the same time a rejection of any form of suppression, but actually distortion would again be a form of suppression: The individual s opinion is suppressed by the masses one. Democracy would not be any better than monarchy then. This way of interpreting Emersons quote as the condemnation of the masses will and taking away any democratic system s basis would actually have dramatical consequences. It may be sensible to have a closer look at this process of distortion, we interpreted as the starting point of Emerson critcs, first, before questioning the achievements of the Enlightment and the Frensh Revolution altogether. Emerson s way of formulating his statement as well as the term distortion I introduced, have an implicit premise to them: The mass of individuals and single individuals are regarded as being two totally different entities, so different that one can even confront them with each other. But what about taking a different view and regarding masses simply as an accumulation of a number of single individuals? At least such a way of ontologically characterizing masses would allow us to analyse the process of distortion in a much more detailed way: In the first place a mass of people just consists of many individuals of which everyone already has a form of opinion, at least some basic ideas and values. What I want to enhance, is that no individual s brain is totally empty before the mass event takes place, but that rather most of them go there with a certain attitude already. This turns out to be the starting point of what I will later call the dynamics of masses : As soon as the mass has come together, at least some of the individuals will communicate their opinion, they brought with them, and in some way will materialize it in actions. By expressing their opinions they cannot but to influence the other individuals present as well. In some cases they may even be successful in doing so, as for example by convincing other individuals of what they are thinking they might even motivate other individuals to express their new convictions as well. These individuals that have been convinced and motivated do the same again and influence other individuals as well. As a whole the sum of these processes of influencing makes up a causal structure of enormous complexity, we gave the name distortion : The effect of influencing is the change in an individual s opinion and this change again might result in actively influencing other individuals. This accumulation of cause-and-effect-relationships as a whole make up the dynamics of masses, whose development can be so difficult to predict that there are even scientists analysing it for the sake of security. What might be the most fascinating thing about the processes I just described, is that the dynamics of masses can keep up themselves without requiring any form of input. In physics such a thing would be impossible to realize, but as soon as the individuals opinions are various enough in the beginning of the get-together the processes of convincing, arguing or influencing each other might turn out to be unstoppable a system that enhances itself. Maybe it is this

4 trait of the dynamics of masses that makes Emerson even sound a little bit helplessly or maybe even desperate. His desire to break (it) up could be interpreted as the desire to put an end to the endless chain of causes and effects and in thus way stop what he regards as the ongoing manipulation of the individual s opinion. When confronting the individuals as single individuals before the get-together with the influences on the individuals taking place during it, this implies a strict separation: The way the individual s opinion has developed before the mass event on the one hand, and the way it is influenced my innumerable factors during the mass event on the other hand. But is this kind of strict separation really adequate? When reflecting about the question, in which way the initial opinion of the individual before it is influenced and manipulated by the mass has developed, one faces an enormous number of multiple determinants again: In fact the development of an individual s opinion is majorly the result of a variety of impressions and other things, too. Especially communication and conversations with other people, but also its education and experiences in childhood contribute to the development of an individual s opinion. So, why is the change of opinion taking place as soon as the individual enters an accumulation of many individuals so different from what has been taking place beforehand throughout the whole individual s life? In fact every opinion can, in some way, be regarded as the result of various influences, of which the ones the individual experiences in society, or more exactly when it takes part in gettogethers, are only a part. In this respect I would maybe even call the strict separation between the distortion as a fundamental critic and the development of opinions in general illegitimate. What we call freedom of opinion as one of the core principles of democracy means that every sort of influencing factor is allowed to contribute to the development of the people s opinion. So, actually it is the fact that we are permanently influenced in such various ways, that makes us feel free in developing our opinion. What we have so negatively called distortion in the first place could, as every other type of influence, just be regarded as a further development of the individual s opinion. In order to be able to develop a certain standpoint towards a particular topic or question it is even necessary to get into contact with other people and ask them - in other words - to allow multiple factors, including other individuals taking an influence on one s opinion. So, by having declared the difference between masses and individuals as well as the process of distortion taking place in masses as a possible critic, Emerson might have wanted to express by his almost aggressive statement about masses, we have even gone so far to question whether it is sensible to base a political system upon the distorted will of the masses. But then we decided to have a closer look at the process of distortion of the individual s opinion by the influence of masses and saw, that actually distortion is nothing else than a very complex and dense accumulation of processes that take place throughout our whole life: Speaking to other people, observing their reactions, listening

5 to great speakers who convince us of other opinions and passing these new convictions on to other individuals. This insight made us question the strict separation between what is going on in masses and what is happening in normal life and led us to a much less negative, maybe even positive view upon the processes taking place in masses: As every sort of influence contributes to form an own point of view, the various influences that take place when individuals come together in huge numbers and allow emotions to guide their actions for a moment could even be seen as an intensified form of development. So, by rejecting the explicit separation between individuals and masses and by regarding the influence masses take upon individuals as quite a normal thing making them build up their own standpoint, we have in some way presented an alternative to Emerson s view. But, getting back to what had been one of the starting points of our doubts, which was the role of masses as the basis of democracy, the complexity and variety of individuals making up what we call mass can never be fully understood to the very last detail. In order to base a state upon the will of the people as a whole one has to make use of an enormous set of simplifications: In fact a single will of the people does not even exist, as Rousseau enhances when declaring his volonté generale an abstract idea, because the each single individual has got a very individual opinion, which is changing permanently under the influence of other individuals opinions. But such a complicated and differentiated mass of different opinions, which are in most cases even contradictional, can never serve as an actor determining the future of a state. But a working democracy requires the simplifying and in fact really distorting principle of majority in order to reduce the innumerable individual wills to a single will thus making it possible that the people are the sovereign. So, coming to a conclusion, the effect described by Emerson as the hurrah of masses is what we described as the influence on the individual s opinion by emotions leading to such a type of uniform reaction. But what Emerson may call a distortion of the individual will actually is part of the permanent process of developing one s opinion. And if one wants to base the state upon the opinions of the individuals this complex, differentiated will of the masses, which actually is no single will, has to be dealt with in a cruel manner: The majority decides. The argument, that this decision of the majority does not adequately mirror what the individuals want and in this sense can also lead to a fundamental difference or even a distortion is certainly not totally illegitimate. But nevertheless, especially when comparing democracy to alternative political systems, it could be regarded as coming closest to the single individuals opinion.