Understanding the other: resisting the tyranny of singular narratives

By Lloyd Hawkeye Robertson

Lloyd traces the Enlightenment as a long, interconnected process of loosening institutional control over knowledge and individual judgement, reflecting on the challenges this legacy continues to face. He explains the purpose of the New Enlightenment Project, of which he is President, and recounts a rejected proposal to the World Humanist Congress as a missed opportunity to use Enlightenment skills to understand ‘the other’.

The emergence of modern individualism, scientific inquiry and pluralistic thought did not occur first in Europe because Christianity was uniquely compatible with Enlightenment values, but because the Roman Catholic Church gradually lost its monopoly over the dominant narrative accepted as truth. From this vantage point, the Renaissance, Protestant Reformation, Scientific Revolution, Commercial and Industrial Revolutions, and 18th century Enlightenment philosophy were not discrete historical episodes. Rather, they formed a single, interconnected evolutionary process – one that progressively loosened institutional constraints on individual knowledge, expression and volition, allowing diverse perspectives to challenge singular, authoritative accounts of reality. From this perspective, the Enlightenment began with the Renaissance and continues to this day.

By the mid-twentieth century, it had become apparent that the Enlightenment with its associated scientific, technological and humanist revolutions had produced a civilisation with greater life expectancy, lower child and maternal mortality, less homicide, less discrimination and greater human rights than any other civilisation in human history (Pinker, 2018). While modern societies are not without inequality and injustice, the Enlightenment ideal of democracy, in which every citizen has the right to participate, is made meaningful through freedom of speech. Karl Popper pointed out that authoritarian societies such as theocracies or totalitarian dictatorships cannot foster the rich practice of science, or any real growth of knowledge, since the practice of science depends on the free play of criticism.

Resistance to the Enlightenment's core technology – the empowerment of individual reason, empirical inquiry, and volitional judgment – has taken many forms across history. It began with the systematic repression of the Roman Catholic Inquisition, the brutal executions of Anabaptists (often by drowning as a mocking ‘re-baptism’), and the intense communal shaming and moral scrutiny of the Great Awakening (a series of religious revival movements in the American colonies in the 1730s and 1740s). These gave way in the 20th century to the far more lethal totalitarian collectivism of fascist and communist regimes, which subordinated the individual entirely to the state or party ideology.

In the late 20th century, a subtler but equally pervasive challenge emerged with postmodernism. This intellectual movement, often presented in benign academic terms, argued that all knowledge is composed of socially constructed narratives with no objective foundation. It popularised the notion of ‘different ways of knowing’, relegating science and reason to merely one culturally contingent perspective among many. The consequence is profound: if no single standard of evidence or rationality can adjudicate disputes, disagreements cannot be resolved through argument or data. Instead, truth becomes whatever narrative gains dominance – whether through seizure of institutional power, cultural hegemony or sheer volume of assertion. In this framework, the collective imposes its preferred reality, and the Enlightenment ideal of an independent, evidence-guided self is once again undermined, this time not by brute force but by the denial of any shared ground for truth.

The New Enlightenment Project: A Canadian Humanist Initiative was established to advance humanism – defined as the integration of science, reason and compassion – in an era increasingly dominated by collective identity politics. In alignment with the guiding theme of the World Humanist Congress in Ottawa, Canada, this coming August – ‘Humanism as Resistance’ – the New Enlightenment Project proposed to sponsor a symposium titled Understanding the Other: Resisting the Tyranny of Singular Narratives. It aimed to explore contemporary humanist practices for fostering empathy, critical inquiry and pluralistic understanding in the face of dogmatic or monolithic narratives. A function of the symposium was, to echo Steven Pinker, the open acknowledgment and utilisation of Enlightenment values such as freedom of thought and speech, human reason, scientific inquiry, and continued improvement of the human condition, while steel-manning those who would question or oppose them. The symposium was to be more about listening and discussing rather than judging and drawing political lines in the sand. By considering what and why the ‘other’ side holds counter viewpoints to our own is to appreciate and understand how biases influence our views within particular contexts. During this symposium, we would seek to illustrate:

1. Stating – in argument form (see note 1) – beliefs or points of view.

2. Being cognizant of one’s biases, and stating them to the best of one’s ability.

3. The ability to reiterate the argument of the ‘other’ back to them so they are aware that you understand their point of view and vice versa.

4. ‘Steel-manning’ (see note 2) their argument, illustrating fairness and a high level of epistemic respect for one another.

5. Acknowledging good points and areas of common agreement prior to critical assessment.

6. Critically assessing the other's argument with all due respect.

7. The acceptance of criticism with grace and decorum.

We had hoped that by using these principles within the context of a series of controversial issues, we would demonstrate that it is possible to gather in a public forum and discuss very sensitive issues in a respectful and helpful manner. This public exercise in epistemic humility was to have been a clear demonstration to the public that: ‘It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it’.  Unfortunately, we received the following response from the conference representative:

‘I've discussed your proposals with my colleagues on the Program Committee, and we all agree that they are not very well aligned with our vision and the theme for the Congress. We will, therefore, have to kindly decline your generous offer of support as we are unable to facilitate this breakout session.’

It is, of course, the Program Committee’s right, indeed its duty, to make determinations such as this. We, on the other hand, believe that the future of humanism will involve acknowledging diversity of opinion and using Enlightenment skills to understand the other, and use that understanding to grow our own knowledge. Your advice as to how we might promote this New Enlightenment Program within the humanist community would be appreciated.

Notes

1. In the form of a house, an argument consists of a Conclusion (the roof) supported by a number of Premises (the walls) which sit upon a foundation of universal criteria: consistency, relevance, simplicity, reliability and sufficiency.

2. To interpret another’s argument in its best possible light. It can even include improving upon it where possible.