In my last installment I made reference to ideology and ideologues as one of the great enemies of a functional, fruitful marketplace of ideas. This is self-evident to most people if you cite their least-favorite ideologues as hijackers of intellectual discourse. But it isn’t ideologies per se that I find harmful, so much as the characteristic tactic they always deployed when they can’t or won’t marshal carefully considered and factually supported arguments.

First, we need a digression into some evolutionary biology. The battle of ideas rages across the animal kingdom and is not unique to humans. By this I mean the battle of ideas such as, “I am the alpha male and thus have access to the best food and this female” or “this is my territory and you will stay out of it”. Evolution has equipped countless species, including humans, with a mechanism for resolving conflicts of social status, resource allocation, mating, and so forth by (usually) non-lethal means. Biologists call this “ritualized combative behavior”, but I prefer the martial arts term “Posture/Submit Response”. I think it’s more descriptive.

The Posture/Submit Response is what happens when two males of the same species are competing for the same female or food supply or what-have-you. Generally they growl or scream or butt heads a la mountain sheep until one of them decides they’ve had enough. Often, one of the contestants will make a clear gesture of defeat, such as when a male wolf who submits to a stronger male will lie down on his back and expose his throat in a clear gesture of submission. Humans do this all the time if you watch for it. For example, the average bar fight will begin with posturing, but if one side doesn’t show any sign of submission, then things go to the next level. I believe that the Posture/Submit Response is why most wars end in surrender and not annihilation of the losing side.

Now I said in my last post that ideology is about social dominance and group cohesion, and Posture/Submit behavior is the tool of social dominance par excellence. It is not about who is right or wrong, but who can display enough aggressive bluster and bullying to flip the “submit” trigger in the more primitive parts of the brains of his listeners. This is SOP for ideological discourse.

Academics and others who deal in ideas for a living have known this at least intuitively for centuries. This is why in the halls of academia there are rules of civil debate. To wit, any hint of behavior associated with posturing—argumentum ad hominem, name calling, making the same refuted arguments only louder—are seen as proof that the speaker not only has no sound arguments, but is too stupid or arrogant to admit it. Anyone whose discourse deteriorates to this level is presumed to have lost the argument.

But consider the posturing we see in the media punditocracy. Purveyors of the ideology de jour such as Rush Limbaugh, Shawn Hannity, Michael Savage and Bill O’Reilley are supreme posturers. What is worse, they have redefined the rules of discourse so that the person who postures best is assumed to be “right”. Their thoughtful, usually academic opponents upon being so assaulted get this deer-in-the-headlights look, utterly baffled by the fact that not only is their host showing every sign of having no good argument, but the realization that most of the viewers will believe the host. Too many people have come to assume that the facts support the one who yells the loudest and the longest, although that may be starting to change. But it won’t change easily or permanently; we all are wired for posture/submit behavior. The thoughtful person must remain aware of it and learn to recognize it as a screen for (usually) weak or even harmful ideas. And those who participate in the marketplace of ideas must adhere to those rules that will leave the best ideas standing.