socialized truth

It's too easy to accuse the other side of being mindless. I can say that back when I was also someone whose life and thoughts revolved around sincere belief in supernatural concepts, thinking in depth about those concepts wasn't that strange. People would at least admit that it was good to love God with your mind and to learn more than the basics of the religion rather than be shallow. Of course, this part of the subculture sits side by side with a strong anti-intellectual bent of "stop analyzing and have faith instead". And fearful hostility toward publicly funded universities has only grown as the political divide between college attendees and the rest of society is purer than ever.   

Within that group, the strategy is to channel critical thinking into approved directions, similar to how there were approved "Christian" contemporary songs, approved "Christian" movies, approved "Christian" games, etc., etc. One approved direction for contemplation was to "engage with society" by focusing on specific targets. Scary postmodernism was a popular one: a caricature of postmodernism that claimed all beliefs were completely produced by, not merely colored by, cultural context. In a sense the traditional notion of "truth" didn't exist at all in scary postmodernism. It was often linked with total moral relativism, which was another approved target. 

The general line of argument was to contrast scary postmodernism to the timeless and objective statements of religion. Religion was a fixed point, neither coming from the surrounding society nor changing itself to fit in. Attempting to poke holes in scary postmodernism was a smug intellectual pastime that appeared in Christian media. The shoe was on the other foot; those postmodernists were the ones who weren't thinking coherently. Followers of religion obtained solid truth through time-tested methods. They weren't controlled by the ever-changing whims of popular sentiment. 

However, recently I had an amusing realization. Despite the attention that this subculture devotes to contrasting itself with scary postmodernism, I'd say that in practice it is an excellent example of truth that's been socially determined. One might call it socialized truth in order to playfully invite a comparison with the socialized medicine they dread. It seems to me that their truth is thoroughly socialized. Pursuing ideas that are too individualistic is one definition of grave heresy, after all.

They gather not only for mutual support but to hear other people tell them what the truth is (sermonize). They read their prized book, but it's sufficiently difficult and ambiguous that they're forced to rely on other people (or a predigested lesson written by other people) to decode it into "timeless objective truth" that has something comprehensible to say about current everyday life. They adhere to their inflexible moral rules, but deciding on what set of moral rules to have, such as minute restrictions about behavior and diet, depends on the other people in their particular religion and sect. Negative reactions from them are enough of a deterrent from committing violations. 

They vote as a bloc according to nonnegotiable political platforms, but the political opinions they hold, as well as the categorization of opinions into negotiable and nonnegotiable, come from what other people tell them is core to their identity. As for a wide variety of topics that are entirely separate from their supernatural beliefs, strangely their thoughts about those are still directed by other people who have supernatural beliefs that match theirs. (For instance, their thoughts about the best course of action to safeguard their own health and their community's health might come from their group rather than people who know what they're talking about.)

Overall, the overwhelming pattern is that their thinking is transparently steered by their social context. "I think about it this way because that's just what we think." Most followers of supernatural beliefs aren't hermits or prophets. They may not even be especially countercultural, really, if their beliefs are in fact held by a large subset of the people around them. Although they may loudly object that no one tells them what to think, I'm inclined to assume that they haven't worked very hard at deeply examining the beliefs that they say are precious to them. What an amazing coincidence that everybody in their context happened to "independently" reach the exact same conclusions over and over again...

On the other hand, their reliance on socialized truth is far from unique. Each individual has limits. Everybody needs to get truths from others. The vital distinction is the manner in which someone relates to socialized truth. As always the question to never stop asking is "How does the speaker know what they say they know?" The problem with cultures that explicitly endorse faith is that it encourages the mental habit of brushing over that important question! Socialized truth should be considered and chosen, not thoughtlessly absorbed. Trust in the speaker's credibility is essential, but credibility isn't a total substitute for the speaker explaining the work they did before they spouted something. To the contrary, the speaker's reluctance or inability to explain the work they did is a hint to lower trust in their babbling. If they worked hard to back up their statements then they should be proud to explain!

There are helpful signs either that someone is deliberate about socialized truth or that they're the opposite: nothing more than a yo-yo yanked to and fro by a culture they identify with. The signs I'm listing here aren't a complete list but only some of my favorites that echo the themes I tend to return to. First, a bad sign is when the socialized truth is conspicuously vague. "Truths" that seem to be avoiding verifiable details should raise suspicion about whether these supposed truths are undergoing any scrutiny before being accepted. Generalizations rest on top of specifics, not motivate frantic searches for justifications to shore up the generalization that came first.

Second, lack of nuance can be a possible sign of an undeserving socialized truth. The reality of many people is that they could claim multiple social groups, and the groups might not be in strict agreement. Reconciling the competing truths of their groups would take effort. They'd need to compare the "truths" coming from each and the basis for the truths. The end result would be a more complicated view with many sides and compromises. "As a _____ I think this, but as a ______ I also combine it with that." 

The lazier albeit less confusing alternative would be to make a blanket choice of a singular group and then enthusiastically accept whatever that group proposes. Then the socialized truths pushed by someone's other social groups have no moderating effect. The villains of that singular group can do no right, and the heroes of that singular group can do no wrong. Therefore another sign is when there's virtually no difference between all of someone's thoughts and the common thoughts of the group they idolize. One can be partially affiliated or allied with a group without reflexively echoing it in every way. Is someone thoughtfully choosing to identify with a group because some of its socialized truths are good matches, or is the group rewriting someone's ideas with socialized truths?  "I once thought ____ but now I realize this is something our enemies think, not us."

Third, when a socialized truth fits perfectly with preconceptions, that might be a reason to doubt. Just as the full reality of a person's social position is a complex mixture of group cultures, the full reality of all facts is a complex mixture. The expectation should be that some facts fit well with a preconception, some are merely compatible with it, and some clash with it. Each situation isn't identical with another, so the facts of the situations might or might not be identical. The speeds of falling feathers and hammers on the moon are famously different than the speeds observed at the gas-wrapped surface of Earth. Disagreements between facts and preconceptions can point to the need for deeper understanding. Socialized truths that solely confirm could be coming from someone who either intentionally selects facts to flatter and strengthen the group's beliefs...or twists facts to be more suitable...or passes along the unsupported rumors they like...or fabricates stories from start to finish.

Fourth, extremely rapid shifts in beliefs can be a sign of an improper acceptance of socialized truths. If there are established reasons for holding one belief, then uprooting that belief and replacing it would be a process. Those reasons would need to be carefully judged side by side with reasons to reject the belief. But if a socialized truth was adopted without much analysis, then replacing it is far easier. The one reason it was adopted was that it was belched out by the group; when that group belches out something else then that one reason for the old "truth" no longer exists. An individual who dances to the group's tune will switch dances immediately when the tune switches. (Cue the obligatory reference to Nineteen Eighty-Four: we've always been at war with Eastasia.)

That said, I wouldn't recommend beliefs that never shift at all. These could also be signs of an unreasonable group loyalty that controls someone's thinking. Some groups' cultures have foundational precepts, especially if a group is supposedly defined by commitment to such things. Even to ponder the limits or flaws of these precepts is forbidden. Doing that is viewed as a loathsome betrayal of the group. In countless times and places, people's own innermost thoughts have been effectively corralled by their desire to not be seen as a "traitor". Although it's been said that the one freedom that cannot be violated is the freedom of innermost thoughts, the tyranny of socialized truth does so all the time—and with the consent of people who can't be bothered to think for themselves.