Thoughts About Cognitive Dissonance

Cognitive dissonance is defined by Wikipedia as "a psychological term which describes the uncomfortable tension that comes from holding two conflicting thoughts at the same time, or from engaging in behavior that conflicts with one's beliefs."

How do people resolve cognitive dissonance. An example is when something in the bible appears to differ from scientific observations that appear incontrovertible; those who believe the bible to be revealed truth suggest that their interpretation of the bible must then be in error. Lincoln thought that both the North and the South in the U.S. Civil War believed in the bible, both shared the same religion, and both thought God favored their side. He thought that human interpretation of the bible and God's will to be uncertain, praying that he would choose the right path.

I wonder whether there is a national aspect of cognitive dissonance. Democratic peoples do not want to believe that they exercise superior power in pursuit of greed. (It may well be that this isalso true for theocratic peoples, and those who simply live under coercive governments.) When their nations embark on courses that appear to others in that light, they seem to rationalize. Slavery was justified as acceptable by describing the enslaved races as inferior or sub-human in the enslaving cultures. Imperialism has been justified as a civilizing mission, or as necessary to bring people to "the true religion".

Thus there is a social construction of the meaning of an action to make it consistent with the socially constructed myths of a nations character. The United States sees itself as "a city on a hill". In his City on a Hill Speech, John F. Kennedy indicated that that status required that U.S. governments act with courage, judgment, integrity and dedication. Others see the U.S. led war in Iraq, or it efforts to maximize the profits of its industry in foreign markets as naked imperialism. The emphasis of the U.S. government budget on military spending and its minimal expenditure on foreign assistance seem inconsistent with Kennedy's vision:

"For of those to whom much is given, much is required."

I think the resolution of this cognitive dissonance is why the Bush administration has been trying so hard to paint the invasion of Iraq as part of "the war on terror" and "bringing democracy to the Middle East". The spokespersons for the administration want to drive the social construction of the meaning of the invasion in ways that are supportive of its political objectives.

The mass media provide hugely powerful tools to those who have access to control that social construction of governmental acts. Elected officials have such access by the very status. It is important that those elected to legislative office speak out to argue against those holding executive branch offices. It is equally important that the media organizations have independent news desks that seek to assure fair coverage of the debate; and that the mass media make space available for the intellectual leaders of the nation, whether they be academic or cultural leaders, to argue the issues. I share with Jefferson and Lincoln a faith that a vigorous democratic process in an ecology of free expression will eventually get the construction right.

In an era of rapidly changing information infrastructure how do we keep that ecology alive? I think it should be possible to do so, but doing so will not be easy. Our elected officials must keep the media honest and open; the social responsibility to the nation must not be sacrificed in the name of corporate profits. The citizenry must be willing to demand its rights, and willing to exercise them vigorously. The educational system must prepare our children to do so; it must assure their information literacy in the sense of their abilities to find and evaluate information.

Last night I watched the Frontline program examining the history of U.S. policy toward North Korea over the past two administrations. I was struck by the enormous effort the North Korean government appeared to be making to formulate the social construction of its actions by its people. I assume that it must be very hard, especially in light of the economic success of South Korea, to get a nation to accept the sacrifices the risks that the government of North Korea demands of its subjects. The success of the North Korean government in doing so illustrates the power of the modern nation state, and I suspect the power that the government of North Korea has achieved by appropriation of the media for the purposes of its dominant elite.

In don't think we in the United States appreciate how different the social construction of the world's events is in different nations than in the United States. I am sure that this is true of the general public, but I think it is too often true in "the halls of power". I wish Karen Hughes, who is the guru in the State Department in charge of public diplomacy, good luck in modifying that public opinion in foreign nations so that it their social construction of the world is closer to reality. Indeed, I hope we in the United States also find ways to construct a more accurate mental map of the real world.