Kneading Knowledge

 

Balachandran, or “Baal c” as I call him, my schoolmate, is not among my ‘good morning six’. But I read his message because he sends me only those that he thinks would interest me.  A few days ago, he sent me an hour-long video on communication. I sat through the video, watching and listening to a man labouring over both his breath and the subject. 

Communication, according to him, is a function of three elements: knowledge, Practice, and Talent.  C = (K, P, T) where knowledge is the predominant factor, followed by practice and talent, the least. Effectively, it meant that if one had the requisite domain expertise and had sufficient practice, one could communicate well even if one is short on talent. He went on to demonstrate various tools for effective communication. 

Explaining a physiological condition, solving linear equations in one or more variables, teaching the Pythagorean theorem, or dwelling on principles of management will require knowledge and practice. Taking students through game theory, exploring John Nash's Equilibrium, and explaining how equilibria come about when individuals attempt to maximise returns in competing and even mutually exclusive environments would require knowledge, practice, and even talent. I agree with that expert, but I felt he was talking about objective subjects that have defined boundaries and remain beyond subjective interpretations. The bag of tools he provided will certainly work well for classrooms or boardrooms. It was a value addition for me, as a public speaker and corporate trainer. 

The video also made me think beyond what was said.

I realised something interesting. I recognised a pattern in how political leaders galvanise the masses. They used a similar equation, a great tool for effectively creating and managing narratives and exercising unbelievable control over the masses, and making them do what the leader willed. The same equation C = (K, P, T), where C is Cause, K is Knowledge, P is Perception, and T is Threat, seems to have worked flawlessly ever since mankind. (I hope you also noticed the varying size of the letters in both equations.)

Let me first explain the concept and then give you some irrefutable evidence.

Making of a cause 

We all presumably live for a cause. Writing down the purpose of life is a common exercise in elite schools and homes. Others, for whom survival itself is the purpose, don't say such big words because they need to find the means. Anyone with a well-defined raison d'être knows what to do. What about those who don't have one? They easily become part of fulfilling someone else’s raison. Most people, irrespective of their economic or social status, become followers in someone’s pursuit of his or her raison d'être. It is called Common Cause. The more alluring a cause appears, the more compelling it becomes, and the more mass it collects. The more a cause is existential, the more stoutly it is defended or pursued. When it is all done, nobody actually asks what was promised and where they finally landed. Most causes create deluges that inevitably consume rationality, leaving no one fit enough to ask, “Did we get what we set out for?” 

The Tool Called Threat

A cause becomes powerful if it addresses a perceived common threat. The bigger the threat a cause promises to ameliorate, the more powerful the cause becomes. The Indian freedom struggle was fuelled by the threat of British oppression. The narrative promised liberation from dehumanising conditions. Freedom became the cause to live and die for. Young and old, rich and poor, took to the streets, and many died. Freedom was won. Many years later, corruption-free India became a cause. Power shifted. Oceans across, immigrants and loss of America's greatness became the threat and MAGA the resultant cause. Mr Donald Trump romped home to the presidency. 

Where there is a threat, there can be a cause. If there is a cause, there will be followers. The trick is to identify a threat, real or perceived and project it as existential. Manufacturing one if none exists is not disallowed. A projected threat doesn't have to do anything with truth. 

Why does threat work so well?

As individuals, we want to be safe today and safe tomorrow. In survival, we seek certainty over ambiguity, and overcoming uncertainty is often easier done collectively rather than individually. Since, at the base level, we are social animals with deeply ingrained tribal instincts, we naturally try to find others similarly threatened. 

The threat to early humans came from invisible forces, most of them natural phenomena, like storms, thunder, lightning, etc. Individuals would run for shelter and hide, but fear persisted. Procreation made individuals families, and soon families became tribes. Threats that an individual could not handle alone, tribes addressed collectively. Thus, witch doctors and sorcerers were born. They took charge, became powerful and held sway over clans and tribes. Soon, people realised death was inevitable. So, they found ways and means to ensure safety and salvation after death. Nobody questioned the claim, for no one came back from the dead to counter what was propagated. When survival mode kicks in, it becomes easier to abandon truth in favour of unchallengeable narratives. 

Have you ever wondered why religions thrive even when science has become so much a part of our existence? We might have evolved, but the innate fear of uncertainty still reigns unchallenged. Nobody is in search of truth over survival. Our invisible antenna is always out searching for existential threats. It is a subconscious act in self-preservation. Since the chance of survival is better collectively, we are also in a subconscious search for an identity that will promote belonging and provide hope for a better tomorrow. Family groups and clubs, elite or otherwise, all prove that longing for the collective is ingrained in us. Anyone not so inclined is often called a loner or a recluse. 

Threat galvanises people the most.  This innate human nature helps a clever person to present a threat, perceived or real, to the population he or she is part of. If that person offers a way to deal with that threat, people buy into it easily. A cause is born. If the projected threat is from a segment of the same community, the threat is better defined because the enemy is visible and close by to be tackled. This is why it is easy to create the “us versus them” in any society. Once this seed is sown, managing perception, the next element of the equation, becomes easy. 

Perception

Since everybody, by this time, is primed to receive inputs to arm themselves against the threat, the group assumes a coherent, visible identity. Loyalty to the group becomes a natural byproduct. The group will proactively defend their belief against any proof against it, however logical or truth-based it may be. The narrative becomes the truth. Any counter logic becomes irrelevant, and any evidence against their belief will be considered a ploy to perpetuate the threat on behalf of the enemy. Anything thought, said or done against this belief would be betraying the group. The perception becomes the only window through which individuals would absorb anything they see or hear. WhatsApp universities thrive, feeding the insatiable hunger for affirmation. Social media, driven by commercial aims, presses algorithms into service, feeding the frenzy. Soon, what was once mere perception becomes truth and dogma, unchallengeable in any form. 

Knowledge

Unfortunately, during the process of a perception transforming itself into belief, knowledge would have receded and almost become extinct. What has been acquired, however irrational, becomes unchallengeable knowledge even if it has nothing to do with truth.

Each individual, in his or her way, is keen to get over the threat. While some will become physically involved, others will pitch in with money, time and effort. Ideologues will emerge with new revelations, proofs strengthening the cause. Someone becomes the messiah, a few the apostles and some the choir, immersed in exalted praise. Others would toil away till the kingdom came. Sadly, even those who are considered educated and rational find new rationale to join the frenzy. Interestingly, most of them know that it is propaganda devoid of reason, but out of fear of being seen as differing or dissenting, for the assured safety in being part of the mob, they become more loyal than the leader and even compete for visible subservience. Truth is thrown out of the window; knowledge is replaced by the convenience of survival.

This is NOT a new phenomenon. It has existed ever since humans started community living. History tells us that when competition for resources intensifies, fertile land becomes contentious, or when a power struggle commences, divisive narratives become rampant. It happens because narratives define reasons, identify enemies, show ways ahead and promise remedies. It provides an illusory sense of certainty amidst ambiguity. This is a tried and tested method to grab power. 

Let me give some examples. 

According to the Book of Genesis, Adam and Eve were a happy couple in the Garden of Eden, living in obedience to the creator. They commanded all species and enjoyed everything they had access to. There was just one tree that they were not allowed to access. They enjoyed complete freedom except for the forbidden fruit. Then came Satan, who sold them the story behind the forbidden fruit and their chance to become on par with the creator. It was not an existential threat, not the least in a life of plenty. Yet, the narrative seemed real. God, their creator himself, was depriving them of something. Truth be damned, a narrative won, a promise lured, and what followed, mythology or otherwise, was the future of mankind, and we call it history.

All religions garner the flock, promising everlasting happiness after we die. The threat of what happens after we die is so powerful that most human beings are part of some religion. Each religion promises its own version of life after death, while professing love and kindness here on earth, overtly or covertly, works against other religions. That's faith, you would say. Yes. I agree, it is best left alone for one’s own good. Ever wondered why people have to fight to protect the all-powerful divine? Have we ever heard of any other animal species practising religion? The inter-religious strife is always driven by narratives, a tool to capture the mind space of the willing, with the promise of a fulfilling afterlife.

Let me give you some not-so-old real-world examples where “threats” were manufactured and effectively used to manage perception, to create conflicts for causes in which many died both for and against. 

The grand American offensive of 1990-91 in Iraq, commonly called the first Gulf War, or Operation Desert Shield (the defensive buildup phase) and Operation Desert Storm — the air and ground campaign was based on a manufactured threat, blatantly throwing truth to the winds. Men of honour argued that Saddam Hussein was stockpiling weapons of mass destruction. Everyone knew it was a lie even as it was being marketed across the world. The threat seemed so real that it compelled the birth of a coalition that laid Iraq to waste and threw its people into an unending cycle of sectarian violence. The truth? No WMD. Narratives compellingly told beat truth hollow every time. Those who peddled the false narrative still rule the roost.

The 1994 Rwandan Genocide started with the propaganda campaign by Radio Télévision Libre des Mille Collines (RTLM). Driven by the rumoured threat of domination by Tutsis, Hutus turned hostile. On 6 April 1994, President Habyarimana's plane went down near Kigali. Who fired the missile is still not proven. It is widely believed that members of his own party orchestrated the event. The radio station unleashed a propaganda campaign, convincing ordinary Hutus that Tutsis were an existential threat and had to be exterminated. It triggered a genocide with brutality never witnessed before. It is believed that in 100 days, more than 8,00,000 Tutsis were killed. Truth? Who cares? The dead don’t demand justice.

Why do people who otherwise appear normal suddenly become irrational, remorseless and murderous?

Behind each rational being is someone susceptible to irrational fear, easily incited and more than willing to inflict injuries on someone who was friends till yesterday. Violence becomes a moral obligation to the cause, a sacred duty towards self-preservation. People fall for false narratives because it is easier to find existential meaning collectively than to knead knowledge for truth. Even in modern societies, where institutions have been created to prevent such an eventuality, such occurrences happen. After all, these august, impartial, inanimate institutions are manned by humans with insecurities and emotions. Judicial systems, free press, and impartial academia often crumble under the weight of strong narratives. By the time realisation strikes, society would have left the point of no return far behind.

History, they say, repeats. What they did not say was that man never learns from history. 

Maybe it's time we learn to knead knowledge.

Maybe it's time to dream differently.