The Logical Community
Why do we need logic in the community? This is a more important question to ask than why individuals need logic. I suspect many think of logic as a reasoning tool that guides in decision making, countering an emotional mind (perhaps a compassionate mind?) and that makes the “tough decision,” as the current prime minister of New Zealand keeps saying. What are tough decisions? I suppose something like cold-hearted, non-emotional, goal-oriented, and maybe also profit-maximising decisions? The kind of cold, rational, masculine strong mind that isn’t afraid of doing what’s right, where “what’s right” is assumed to be some universal goal of individuals. I hope you get the picture. I do think logic isn’t about that at all, even at the individual level, but still think that countering that kind of view isn’t the primary need for logic we have in the modern world.
No, instead, and this is why I asked my original question as being about the community, I want to ask a tougher question about why a lack of logical interaction (not just a lack of logic) is a barrier to community development. What would be better logic? In Logic in the Wild, I develop logic as the communal tool that provides a “neutral space of dialectical enquiry.” It is a bit of a mouthful, but it’s easy to break down. An enquiry is a shared intellectual goal—to reach a decision, come up with a plan, figure out the truth, or express and hear each other’s stories. A dialectical enquiry is one that seeks different perspectives. If you have a group of people, each will have their own view guiding their interest and ways of thinking about the enquiry, and a dialectic practice is to entertain each on their own terms.
Neutrality, then, is what is hardest to establish in a dialectical space of enquiry. It occurs when people do not clash on their strong opinions or their fundamental beliefs, but instead seek to appreciate the coherence in each other’s views. If we can’t appreciate that others can reason coherently, even though we don’t share fundamental beliefs, we won’t be able to reach the more important step in the enquiry, finding a common ground for resolution that accommodates everyone. Neutrality here means that no one can impose a way of thinking or believing in a disproportionate manner, even if it is the way of the majority.
What I notice a lot in recent discourse, now that oppressed minorities are finding platforms to contribute to social enquiries, is a rejection from the majority for not wanting everyone to abide by the will of the minorities, as if dropping the imposition of their beliefs in dialectical spaces amounted to disproportionately valuing those of minorities. See how I phrased it? I didn’t say that the majority had to adopt the views of the minorities, but rather that they should engage neutrally and not impose their ways of thinking and being on everyone. Everyone needs to establish neutrality, in my opinion, to achieve better dialectical results. Seeking common resolutions that are equitable in a community requires the majority to recognise and accept that their ways of thinking, their fundamental beliefs and strong opinions, can be individually preserved without being socially imposed. That is the logical way.
