In praise of bad faith

Tom says that I sometimes make claims in bad faith. He intends this as a compliment, and I take it as one. But this raises a paradox. Whilst bad faith is ubiquitous in some fields - pretty much every corporate statement is, I hope, insincere - there is too little of it in writing and in intellectual life.

I'm thinking here of a remark by C.I. Lewis which Isaiah Berlin often quoted: "There is no a priori reason for supposing that the truth, when it is discovered, will necessarily prove interesting."

This creates a space for bad faith. Most things that are incontrovertibly true are dull: 2 + 2 = 4; genocide is wrong. But many ideas that are interesting are not so obviously true; this might be because they are new and untested, or because - as is the case for almost every claim in the social sciences - there are exceptions to them.  

If I am to say something interesting therefore - and for me the sole purpose of writing is to say something interesting - then there must be a distance between what I believe to be true and what I write.

This is not to say that I write in bad faith. It's more often that I just don't know what I believe. And I don't care; things are true or not whether I believe them or not. Not only do I not give a damn about your opinion, dear reader, I don't give a damn about my own.

What I'm expressing here is the notion of liberal irony. Though most closely associated with Richard Rorty, it is a characteristic of traditional Oxbridge dons, who would often provoke their students or high table interlocuters with outrageous statements which they might or might not believe, simply in order to get people thinking.

I fear that in both blogging and MSM writing, this approach is lacking. Writing is about the revelation of character, of ego, of "judgment". I have four objections to this:

1. It's dull. If you want to show that you're a good person who believes in the right things, then you naturally stick to ideas which are familiar to your readers, and confine yourself to facts they find comfortable; I'm thinking here of Peter Hitchens as much as Polly Toynbee.

2. It's anti-intellectual. We are invited to judge ideas not upon their merits, but upon whether they are held by the right people.

3. It breeds fanaticism and tribalism. If we confuse who we are with what we believe then we fall prey to the confirmation bias - the tendency to look for things that corroborate our beliefs to protect our ego. This gives us fanaticism. It also gives us the sort of silly tribalism that leads people to defend Julian Assange - they cannot distinguish between the merit of his ideas and the content of his character.

4. It has a class bias. If writing is about the revelation of character rather than the analysis of ideas, then nice middle-class people have an advantage over awkward technocrats from the wrong side of the tracks.

Now, readers might object that I sometimes (often) fall short of the ideal of liberal irony. No doubt. But the point is that I regard it as an ideal. I aspire to insincerity.

Comments

[Tom Addison]

"Not only do I not give a damn about your opinion, dear reader, I don't give a damn about my own."

I try to adopt this attitude, but I often find people try to use it against me. Their train of thought seems to be, "You don't have an opinion on x and I do, therefore it's more likely that I know more about x and am correct."

Prats.

[chris]

Yes, Tom. People mistake overconfidence for ability, not just in themselves (which true by definition) but in others. Here's one I prepared earlier:
http://stumblingandmumbling.typepad.com/stumbling_and_mumbling/2010/09/overconfidence-pays.html

[David Blake]

On point 2 you are right. Bertrand Russell recognised this problem. He said that we should always make judgements based on the strength of the argument not the fame of the person making it. And if Bertrand Russell said that it must be true.

[Mil]

Just pouncing here: "It also gives us the sort of silly tribalism that leads people to defend Julian Assange - they cannot distinguish between the merit of his ideas and the content of his character."

Conversely, it leads people not to distinguish between the content of his character and the merit of his ideas ... which sadly is also happening (in other cases too, I'm sure). The latter may deserve our respect even as the alleged nature of the former does not. Great ideas may come from the least savoury of people, after all. Doesn't mean we shouldn't examine them (the ideas I mean) on *their* merits.

Love the idea that bad faith has a place, though.

[Chris Purnell]

Perhaps this piece is better entitled 'In Praise Of Intellectual Posturing' or, 'If It Sounds Good Let's Go For It'? Sixth Formers love this sort of thing. A missed your vocation?

[Churm Rincewind]

So let me get this straight. When you express an opinion, you reserve the right to disclaim it. But when politicians and other public figures express an opinion, you do not afford them the same luxury.

For, of course, they may claim the same defence. Pehaps George Galloway often seeks only to provoke debate (and this would seem to fit with his apparent interest in public attention). Heaven forfend that we should simply dismiss him as a twat.

[chris]

@ Churm - I don't deny politicians the right to change their mind. Quite the opposite; I wish they'd do so more often:
http://stumblingandmumbling.typepad.com/stumbling_and_mumbling/2011/07/consistency.html
If I thought Galloway were insincere, my respect for him would soar.

[Churm Rincewind]

Thanks for your reply. But I'm not convinced. The late Nicholas Fairbairn MP used to excuse the misogynism, homophobia, and racism of his public statements by saying that he was only seeking to make politics interesting. Bad faith, as you define it, excuses everything and is therefore no excuse.

As for George Galloway, it seems to me that his desire for attention often overrides his judgement. In short, he strives always to be "interesting", which you say is also your sole aim.

Wth respect, I don't believe you. You're better than that.

[Thenewcomer]

Fascinating. I too make a conscious decision to be "interesting", both in my daily real-life interactions and in my blogging, but I guess you need to keep a delicate balance between being "interesting" and being "true to yourself", or being credible. More than once I have found myself crying out that such-and-such a blog post must be read "ironically", not as a statement of fact.
It is not just Julian Assange- pick up any tabloid- we all suffer from the malaise of wishing to see our adored celebrities morally pure and imperfect- see the outrage ensuing from any misstep.
I don't know about Richard Rorty- I thought the practice of making provocative statements in order to stimulate thought and good conversation went back to Socrates?

[iepngbackgro icons]

This rather valuable message

P.S. Please review our icons for Windows 8