Legislative Knowledge Systems

My daily newspaper informs me that the U.S. House of Representatives is considering a resolution that would term as "genocide" the process in which large numbers of Armenians died in Turkey almost a century ago. This would seem to be a question of fact. How many people died, how did they die, and what were the intentions of the people responsible?

I have pointed out in this blog that different social institutions approach questions of fact in different ways. Courts would hold judicial hearings with experts interrogated by lawyers representing the adversaries in the case. Forensic anthropologists would use an approach from their scientific perspective, presumably try to locate the remains of the dead, examine them, and determine scientifically the causes of death, extrapolating from such data the likely purposes of the perpetrators. Historians, dealing with so old an event would lack eye witnesses to interrogate, but would mine original documentary sources and the analysis of those sources by earlier historians. In both the latter case, professional bodies would presumably seek to form a consensus through peer review of alternative positions put forth by members of their professions over a period of years or decades.

Legislators vote to define the belief of the legislative body. In theory, they would do so after legislative hearings in which expert witnesses testify and are interrogated by legislators from the different parties. In theory, legislators would consult their constituents as to what they desired the results to be. The newspaper tells me that in this case, the legislators listen to the legislative liaison from the White House and State Department, as well as to public figures with international affairs expertise, not about the facts of the case but about the foreign relations repercussions of the possible House action.

I would make two comments:

1. I will not be more nor less likely to believe genocide actually took place no matter what the vote is, given the quality of the process.
2. Doesn't the House of Representatives have better things to do than argue about labels for an event that took place around World War I? How about doing something about the war in Iraq, for example!