november 16, 2020
I went back to my drafts and realized I've been thinking about the concept of oversimplification in other contexts as well - specifically history.
First, a detour to the concept of legibility (explained in this essay). My summary: rather than admitting we can't process the complexity of our subject, we argue that the subject is irrational. We insist that our condensed view is the rational explanation (without admitting that there are complex factors that have built the framework for our comprehension).
The essay argues that obsession with legibility is a pattern of human history - in fact, the existence of government institutions and the need to organize societies around codified rules is itself proof.
Obsession with legibility explains how we were taught history. A sequence of linear events that seemed to logically fall in to place. We were taught a narrative of intentionality, rather than grapple with how much of history was chaotic, multi dimensional, and purely left to chance. Historical figures were presented as all-knowing monoliths, not fickle humans whose random decisions are now enshrined as obvious.
I've been thinking about how the Constitution was written. Was its structure inevitable and unanimous? Or was there influence buying, someone who owed someone else a favor for a vote, a guy who spoke a bit louder - and suddenly we have the electoral college over representative democracy?
I used to think MUN was nothing like real governance, but I am now convinced it is more like real governance than I'm comfortable with.
Instead of framing history as immutable and inevitable, should we frame things as a result of chance? (This is going off topic, but this framing really makes me question textualism as a legal philosophy.) Does that make it easier for us to say, as a country, that maybe some of the decisions of the Founding Fathers were random and suboptimal? Therefore, we have the agency to change institutions and principles to reflect our current values?
Maybe our obsession with legibility is a constraint of language - while we experience things in parallel, we can only get one word out of our mouth at a time. Language itself is the constraining factor in its structure - with grammar and conventions to communicate quite unstructured things.
Since we don't have an alternative to language at the moment, it starts with being comfortable with multiple versions of reality rather than forcing history into linear narratives. It would help us realize that monumental achievements are not set in stone as logical conclusions, but that people have the direct agency to make the outcomes they want far more likely.
To reply you need to sign in.