{"id":365,"date":"2018-01-29T10:00:59","date_gmt":"2018-01-29T10:00:59","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/?p=365"},"modified":"2018-02-02T09:32:43","modified_gmt":"2018-02-02T09:32:43","slug":"arrogance-and-the-space-of-reasons","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/arrogance-and-the-space-of-reasons\/","title":{"rendered":"Arrogance and the Space of Reasons"},"content":{"rendered":"

 <\/p>\n

A democracy is more than a form of government; it is primarily a mode of associated living, of conjoining communicated experience.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

—John Dewey[1]<\/a><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

One of the truly baffling things about the Trump era in the United States is that just when you think our political life could not become any more fractured, it does\u2014as the events of this past week, and the week before that, and the week before that<\/em>, sadly illustrate.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Democracies aspire to what Dewey thought of as a common space\u2014a space where disagreements can be navigated without fear of violence or oppression. <\/em>Operationally speaking, this common space of reasons is public discourse\u2014discourse in the public square whether that is online or off. The ideal is that public discourse should be reasonable<\/em>\u2014that is, allow for an exchange of reasons both practical and epistemic that are recognizable as reasons by those willing to engage in that discourse. Meeting that ideal requires citizens having convictions they believe in, but it also requires a willingness to listen\u2014and maybe even learn from\u2014each other.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

It is in the nature of ideals that they are rarely realized. But the fear in the U.S. at the moment is that political fracturing has become so great that it is undermining its very possibility. And I believe that part of the explanation concerns the increasing prevalence of a particular state of mind<\/em> amongst portions of the public and their political leaders. It is a state of mind, not coincidentally, exemplified by Trump: a kind of know-it-all arrogance of belief. People who are arrogant in this way think that other people have nothing to teach them. They already \u201cknow\u201d their beliefs are superior\u2014hence they don\u2019t need to listen or even be accountable to any one else\u2019s experience.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

The arrogant aren\u2019t arrogant just because they overestimate the correctness of their view\u2014although the arrogant almost always do. True arrogance of belief is not based on a mistaken assessment of the correctness of one\u2019s view, but as Alessandra Tanesini has noted, on a self-delusion about why<\/em> it is correct. The arrogant are committed to the superiority of their view not because it reflects the world, but because it reflects their self-esteem.<\/em> They are under the delusion, to varying degrees, that their worldview is correct, just because it is their worldview. <\/em>Rather than seeing self-confidence as the natural effect of actual achievement, the arrogant come to treat it as an end in itself. That fact rarely if ever rises to consciousness, of course; and when it does, it will typically be denied. \u00a0But that is to be expected. The arrogant rarely believe they are so.<\/p>\n

\u00a0<\/em><\/p>\n

Hence epistemic arrogance almost always involves a degree of self-deception, an act of epistemic bad faith.\u00a0 The arrogant fool themselves about the basis of their confidence. This means that arrogance of belief involves a kind of distorted relationship to truth. At the extreme, the arrogant have either fallen into thinking, irrationally, that whatever they think is true or\u2014more likely\u2014they have ceased to care about truth altogether. Truth is irrelevant to them, at least with regard to some aspect of their worldview. What matters is something else\u2014something connected to their self-esteem.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Perhaps the most obvious harm arrogance of belief does to the ideal of reasonable public discourse is that arrogance can encourage us not to engage in discourse at all\u2014reasonable or otherwise. This can happen for two broad reasons. First, other things being equal, the arrogant citizen is not inclined to engage in reasonable public discourse at all. Indeed, she is apt to regard the prospect of exchanging reasons with those who have differing views with suspicion, both because if you think your views are unimprovable, then talking to those who disagree can be a waste of time, and because it might encourage those with less conviction to waiver. To the dogmatic, the demand that public discourse be a space of reasons is both a bother and a bad influence. As a result, the more prevalent epistemic arrogance is, the less likely the arrogant citizens will be motivated to engage in discourse with those they are arrogant towards.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

The arrogant also don\u2019t see themselves as accountable to those they are arrogant towards. This is another way this state of mind can harm public discourse. As noted, the ideal that democracy should be a space of reasons is founded in part on the thought that people are answerable to each other. To hold each other accountable in this way requires\u2014at a minimum\u2014treating each other with what Robin Dillon and Stephen Darwall have called \u201crecognition respect\u201d. That means treating each other with dignity\u2014both as agents and as believers. Yet the arrogant believe they are only accountable to themselves. And that is a fundamentally anti-democratic attitude. It violates basic recognition respect and in turn undermines the norm of mutual accountability central to liberal democracy.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Importantly, when it comes to political matters, interpersonal epistemic arrogance is often due to what we might call tribal arrogance<\/em>. That is, it stems both from group identification and is directed at a group. Some white people for example, will adopt an attitude of arrogance towards minorities with regard to some aspects of their worldview because of a sense of superiority of \u201cwhite culture\u201d. Thus some whites can take themselves to be unaccountable to members of another group. For whites feeling this way, the experiences of injustice brought by minorities, and the evidence thereof, are not worthy of consideration or refutation. They are discounted, and disrespected.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

The harm wrought on the ideal of reasonable public discourse by this kind of phenomenon is profound because it undermines the very basis\u2014equal respect\u2014of egalitarian democracy. This is, I suggest, an intrinsic harm. It stands whether or not the particular consequences of a particular act of group arrogance are particularly widespread or damaging.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

In fact, however, the consequences often are <\/em>widespread and damaging. Arrogance not only encourages the arrogant to forgo discourse, it also encourages those on the receiving end of that arrogance to bow out of public discourse. Moreover, and more insidiously, those subjected to systematic group arrogance can have their self-respect undermined as well. To fail to recognize that another may have something to teach you\u2014even if the lesson you draw isn\u2019t perhaps quite the same as they intended\u2014means you not only fail to recognize their dignity as an epistemic agent, you can make them question their own self-regard as fellow rational agents and knowers.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

References<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Dewey, J. (2012), Democracy and Education<\/em> (Start Publishing LLC).<\/p>\n

Tanesini, Alessandra (2016), ‘\u2018Calm Down, Dear\u2019: Intellectual Arrogance, Silencing and Ignorance’, Aristotelian Society Supplementary Volume,<\/em> 90 (1), 71-92.<\/p>\n

[1]<\/a> J. Dewey, Democracy and Education<\/em> (Start Publishing LLC, 2012) at 101.<\/p>\n

Image from Flickr “Let Me Fall into the Dream of the Austronaut” by Thomas Hawk CC BY-NC 2.0<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"  A democracy is more than a form of government; it is primarily a mode of associated living, of conjoining communicated experience. ---John Dewey   One of the truly baffling […]","protected":false},"author":1319,"featured_media":369,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_jetpack_newsletter_access":"","_jetpack_dont_email_post_to_subs":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_tier_id":0,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paywalled_content":false,"_jetpack_feature_clip_id":0,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":"","jetpack_publicize_message":"","jetpack_publicize_feature_enabled":true,"jetpack_social_post_already_shared":true,"jetpack_social_options":{"image_generator_settings":{"template":"highway","default_image_id":0,"font":"","enabled":false},"version":2},"jetpack_post_was_ever_published":false},"categories":[19],"tags":[4,23,71,22,25,28],"custom_author":[115],"class_list":["post-365","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-open-for-debate","tag-arrogance","tag-changing-attitudes-in-public-discourse","tag-democracy","tag-humility-and-conviction-in-public-life","tag-self-esteem","tag-trump","custom_author-lynch-michael-p"],"jetpack_publicize_connections":[],"jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_shortlink":"https:\/\/wp.me\/p8KPlM-5T","jetpack-related-posts":[{"id":1625,"url":"https:\/\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/truth-and-the-facebookians\/","url_meta":{"origin":365,"position":0},"title":"Truth and the Facebookians","author":"Alessandra Tanesini","date":"February 6, 2023","format":false,"excerpt":"Imagine a community\u2014call them the \u201cFacebookians\u201d\u2014whose politics is deeply polarized. Their political discourse reflects this divisiveness, but to a very unusual extent. For in making political claims, Facebookians are guided by just one rule: only say (or post) what is liked by your friends and which you are willing defend\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Open for Debate"","block_context":{"text":"Open for Debate","link":"https:\/\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/category\/open-for-debate\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"Neon sign with zero \"likes\"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/533\/2023\/02\/prateek-katyal-xv7-GlvBLFw-unsplash.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/533\/2023\/02\/prateek-katyal-xv7-GlvBLFw-unsplash.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/533\/2023\/02\/prateek-katyal-xv7-GlvBLFw-unsplash.jpg?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/533\/2023\/02\/prateek-katyal-xv7-GlvBLFw-unsplash.jpg?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/533\/2023\/02\/prateek-katyal-xv7-GlvBLFw-unsplash.jpg?resize=1050%2C600&ssl=1 3x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/533\/2023\/02\/prateek-katyal-xv7-GlvBLFw-unsplash.jpg?resize=1400%2C800&ssl=1 4x"},"classes":[]},{"id":432,"url":"https:\/\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/poisonous-words-arrogance-bullshit-and-accusations-of-lying-in-public-discourse\/","url_meta":{"origin":365,"position":1},"title":"Poisonous Words: Arrogance, Bullshit and Accusations of Lying in Public Discourse","author":"Alessandra Tanesini","date":"April 23, 2018","format":false,"excerpt":"As is common with international incidents today, the Skripal case, in which a Russian double agent and his daughter were poisoned with a nerve agent in Salisbury, England, has generated an abundance of fake news, conspiracy theories, deceptions, misleading, bullshit and lying. There have been many accusations of lying and\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Open for Debate"","block_context":{"text":"Open for Debate","link":"https:\/\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/category\/open-for-debate\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/533\/2018\/04\/all-explanations-arerubbish4754734_43ced6dc.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/533\/2018\/04\/all-explanations-arerubbish4754734_43ced6dc.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/533\/2018\/04\/all-explanations-arerubbish4754734_43ced6dc.jpg?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x"},"classes":[]},{"id":419,"url":"https:\/\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/reflections-on-transcribing-multimodal-texts\/","url_meta":{"origin":365,"position":2},"title":"Reflections on Transcribing Multimodal Texts","author":"Alessandra Tanesini","date":"March 26, 2018","format":false,"excerpt":"Since the election of Donald Trump in 2017 the media has often seemed to be in a continual state of shock at the brusque manner of the forty-fifth president\u2019s speech. During the summer of 2017 I conducted a research project into transcription methods for multimodal discourse, contributing to the Changing\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Open for Debate"","block_context":{"text":"Open for Debate","link":"https:\/\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/category\/open-for-debate\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/533\/2018\/03\/4244624289_70b27dc8a6_z.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200},"classes":[]},{"id":21,"url":"https:\/\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/open-for-debate\/","url_meta":{"origin":365,"position":3},"title":"We are now open for debate","author":"Alessandra Tanesini","date":"May 18, 2017","format":false,"excerpt":"Welcome to 'Open for Debate', a blog associated with the project Changing Attitudes in Public Discourse.\u00a0We hope to use this space to debate all aspects and forms of debate. Ultimately, we would like to develop together, in the spirit of collaboration, some suggestions to improve the quality of discussions in\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Open for Debate"","block_context":{"text":"Open for Debate","link":"https:\/\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/category\/open-for-debate\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/533\/2017\/04\/19945231246_a0ea274061_k.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/533\/2017\/04\/19945231246_a0ea274061_k.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/533\/2017\/04\/19945231246_a0ea274061_k.jpg?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/533\/2017\/04\/19945231246_a0ea274061_k.jpg?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/533\/2017\/04\/19945231246_a0ea274061_k.jpg?resize=1050%2C600&ssl=1 3x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/533\/2017\/04\/19945231246_a0ea274061_k.jpg?resize=1400%2C800&ssl=1 4x"},"classes":[]},{"id":163,"url":"https:\/\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/hubris-as-prime-ministerial-vice\/","url_meta":{"origin":365,"position":4},"title":"Hubris as Prime Ministerial Vice","author":"Ian Kidd","date":"July 31, 2017","format":false,"excerpt":"When Theresa May\u2019s snap election backfired decimating her majority, many commentators were quick to use a language of vices to describe her errors. \u2018May\u2019s astounding arrogance has now paved the way for another General Election\u2019, complained the Independent, echoing attacks by the Guardian and Mirror of the various forms of\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Open for Debate"","block_context":{"text":"Open for Debate","link":"https:\/\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/category\/open-for-debate\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/533\/2017\/07\/Paradise_Lost_12-1.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/533\/2017\/07\/Paradise_Lost_12-1.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/533\/2017\/07\/Paradise_Lost_12-1.jpg?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/533\/2017\/07\/Paradise_Lost_12-1.jpg?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x"},"classes":[]},{"id":149,"url":"https:\/\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/arrogant-pride-and-alternative-facts\/","url_meta":{"origin":365,"position":5},"title":"Arrogant Pride and Alternative Facts","author":"Alessandra Tanesini","date":"July 17, 2017","format":false,"excerpt":"\"Pride...is a very common failing\" (Jane Austen, Pride and Prejudice). What Austen calls \"pride\" is these days better described as arrogant pride to distinguish it from the rightful pride of those opposing discrimination on the basis of race, gender or sexual orientation. Austen characterises it as \"a feeling of self-complacency\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Open for Debate"","block_context":{"text":"Open for Debate","link":"https:\/\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/category\/open-for-debate\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/533\/2017\/07\/Alternative_facts_are_falsehoods.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/533\/2017\/07\/Alternative_facts_are_falsehoods.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/533\/2017\/07\/Alternative_facts_are_falsehoods.jpg?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x"},"classes":[]}],"meta_box":[],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"https:\/\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/533\/2018\/01\/Hawk.jpg","_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/365","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1319"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=365"}],"version-history":[{"count":7,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/365\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":374,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/365\/revisions\/374"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/369"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=365"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=365"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=365"},{"taxonomy":"custom_author","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/custom_author?post=365"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}