Book contents
Knowledge and democracy: summary and conclusions
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 05 December 2015
Summary
The state … derives no inconsiderable advantage from [the] instruction [of the inferior ranks of the people]. The more they are instructed the less liable they are to the delusions of enthusiasm and superstition, which, among ignorant nations, frequently occasion the most dreadful disorders … They are more disposed to examine, and more capable of seeing through, the interested complaints of faction and sedition, and they are, upon that account, less apt to be misled into any wanton or unnecessary opposition to the measures of government.
Adam Smith [1776] 2000)Die Lethargie dem Staat gegenüber ist keine Naturqualität, sondern wird zergehen, sobald dem Volk vor Augen steht, daß es wirklich selber der Staat ist und daß dieser kein spezialistisches Ressort der Politik bildet, das Fachleute für den Rest der Menschheit verwalten sollen.
Theodor W. Adorno ([1951] 1986:292)The practice of democracy requires, following the ideal conception of democracy, the “development” and the presence of an “intelligent” public capable of raising, engaging in, comprehending and deciding on political issues. What exactly does such an ideal and such a practice mean? Does it mean, as George H. Mead (1923:244–245) stipulates, that the “advance in the practice and theory of democracy depends upon the successful translation of public policy into the immediate problems of the citizens”? Or does the ideal of democratic governance call for the participation of the possibly largest number of enlightened individuals in the political affairs of a society?
First, the central premise and, as is often maintained, the main empirical support is the idea that citizens in modern societies are extremely impoverished when it comes to political knowledge. But since political knowledge is assumed to constitute the high road to informed reasoning about political issues, the inference is that ordinary citizens have but a limited capacity to reflect independently and intelligently about political issues. Therefore, if they attempt at all to make up their minds in advance of a political decision, they are easy captives of motivated reasoning, presented to them by political propaganda disguised as expert advice based on the superior knowledge of a small cadre of knowledgeable individuals or groups of advisors, experts, and consultants. Technocratic reasoning and approaches in political decision making, however, are adverse to public debate, scrutiny, discussion, and judgment. The redefinition of the political as technocratic is antidemocratic.
- Type
- Chapter
- Information
- Information, Power, and DemocracyLiberty is a Daughter of Knowledge, pp. 336 - 338Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication year: 2015