The Human Experiment: I argue: Type One isn't really denial, whether we call it strategic or tactical. The denier can create large-scale strategic lies that give cover to the genuine denial of others, or smaller tactical deceptions to confuse an honest discussion. The strategic "global warming as hoax" frame, propped up by faked statistics and creationist logic, still finds a gullible audience. The tactical denier doesn't expect to convince us of his non-truth, but merely wants to muddy the issue, postpone the discussion and obscure rational debate. "Clean Coal" is another good example.
|
In a group that shares a complex worldview, whether based on hard-won research or dogmatic doctrine, new information will be rejected even when individuals believe it. The peer group's commitment to the (now obsolete) "known" is overpowering. A soldier may know the imminent battle is pointless and suicidal, but it will take more courage to say so than to march to a certain death. Five: Identity denial blinds me to the news that will force me to change my self-image or my role in the world. Anything that makes me feel part of the problem will not be seen. Upton Sinclair observed, "It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his job depends on not understanding it." This is similar and related to: Six: Responsibility denial. I will deny factual information and common consensus if they suggest I must change my behavior or take responsibility. I unconsciously refuse to admit any contribution I may have made (to the environmental damage, to the failed relationship, or to any other troubling reality I may occupy). I can't bear the yoke of responsibility the denied belief will bring to my shoulders. Observe the Neo-Conservatives trying to disown the Iraq debacle. (Richard Perle: "Who? Me? No way.") Follow the words... |