What Makes for a Dead Idea?
Rules of play with flexibility in mind
In the vast universe of ideas, this is an almost unanswerable question. It begs another, more fundamental question, “What is an idea?” In turn, that question leads us right down a philosophical rabbit hole that could occupy us for centuries. Plato himself, the father of the Theory of Ideas, did not wager a definitive answer.
But Plato does provide us with an interesting basis on which to start forming our rules of play for subsequent discussions of ideas on Bring Out Your Dead. Let’s call this BOYD Philosophy 101.
Plato believed that the universe is divided into two categories: the world of Ideas (or Forms) and the world of Phenomena (or Reality). The greatest of those Ideas is the concept of what is Good. Within Good, Plato couched concepts he considered absolute — justice, beauty, virtue, equity, sameness, difference, change, and changelessness. He believed that, as humans, we constantly strive for what is Good. But in his view, the world of Phenomena is by nature imperfect, so we are destined to fail before we begin. The striving for the ideal is our human experience. (Plato must’ve been super fun at parties.)
Further, he believed that, because the phenomena of Reality are perpetually and inexorably imperfect, our human striving must constitute the invention and reinvention of solutions that get us as close to the Ideal as possible, despite impending and unavoidable failure. For example, Plato might have examined the Democratic Ideal against our modern version of democracy in practice and simply said, “See what I mean? Duh.”
Ok, so Plato sets us up with a philosophical foundation for what we already know in life: Most ideas are flawed in some capacity. They are experimental, preliminary, unproven. So how do we even begin to judge when an idea is viable? And by whose standards? This is where we get into the concept of Social Norms, the informal rules that govern how societies function.
In social sciences, like anthropology, we take the basis for Plato’s theory of human striving and examine how it organizes itself in practice. We are not a species in theory, we are species in reality whose most fundamental interest is survival, or in this example, striving towards Plato’s ideal of Good. We have formed Societies as a means of organizing two things: language and behavior. Social norms are the connective tissue by which that organization is held together. Over time and repetition, norms engender expectations of behavior that grease the wheels of human survival and success. They create belief systems that foster cooperation towards a common beneficial end. Often, those shared belief systems come with the security of belonging to specific groups that help to better define “self” and “other” in society — family, geography, faith, profession, politics. Social shorthand of shared expectations and beliefs creates safety in numbers.
But what happens when a member of a social group behaves counter to the expectations of that group by society, or the expectations of the group among its own members? In reality, our behaviors frequently run afield of our beliefs. This is where we see ideas (or norms, or expectations) begin to flounder. The mental convenience of normative identity groups can lead to stereotype, misunderstanding, animosity, and even hate. And, its reverse is just as common — willful group ignorance in the face of evidence to the contrary of the norm. I mean, what are our feeble human brains supposed to do with the idea of a gay man who is a devout practicing Christian? (The need for intersectionality as a very alive idea will most certainly be on the docket for future posts.)
For BOYD’s purposes, we are talking primarily about social and cultural norms. Interestingly, we can get even closer to a working definition for dead ideas by looking to the world of economics and its own norms. A norm is at its best in economics when it is considered optimally efficient, with respect to any kind of market system. We can extrapolate this idea to see where efficiency impacts the social and cultural viability of certain norms as well.
Particularly useful in this effort is The Pareto Efficiency. This economic theory holds that a given economy is optimally efficient when resources cannot be reallocated to one individual or entity without making another individual or entity worse off. Sadly, not unlike Plato’s model, economists agree that the Pareto Efficiency is a practical impossibility. But economic ideas arise regularly in pursuit of this normative ideal. Likewise, society is full of mechanisms for Almost-efficiency, or Almost-goodness, in all it’s Platonic subspecies. In this sense, an ideal society, or true utopia, is also an impossibility. Intent, it seems, is everything. The further we get away from the efficiency/parity/ideal, the more we experience conflict, division, and personal hardship. The closer we can get, the better off we will all be. Again, the virtue is in the striving.
In social terms, we can, at best, establish a loose premise that echoes Plato’s and Pareto’s intents: All human ideas are flawed. We, as societies, are constantly seeking the least flawed idea that does the least amount of harm to the fewest people.
Hmm. Not super encouraging. We know already that this premise does not play out in the real world of power, money, and breakneck consumption of ever-scarcer resources. And it assumes that humans’ intentions to each other are, in fact, good, or at least, not bad. Are they? (More on the nature of human kindness in the future.) For now, let’s give this a try.
So what IS a dead idea? (loose foundations for thought and discussion)
One that does more harm to more people than good to fewer people
One that has been proven irrelevant or incorrect given current factual knowledge
One that divides us rather than unites us
And then there are the follow up questions:
Can an idea come back to life in a new form? Is there such thing as idea redemption under new circumstances?
Are there zombie ideas that should be dead but still hang on in undead form for lack of a better alternative - crusty but functioning at a minimum, like some elder members of Congress?
Who gets to declare an idea dead or not? People try to cancel ideas they don’t like all the time. Cancel culture is expedient, but is it truly impactful? (Farewell, Mr. and Mrs. Kutcher.)
We can also measure a dead idea by what it is not. Age alone does not make an idea dead. Newness is not always a virtue. Many ideas have stood the test of time brilliantly. They evolve with humanity, reinventing themselves as new iterations require. Discussion of timeless ideas and what makes them immortal is just as valuable to our exploration.
Maybe this is a good jumping off point. Maybe not. As I said in last week’s post, flexibility of thinking is definitely required for discussion of the relative deadness of any idea. Plato was on to something when he refrained from making assertions of fact about his musings. We are all just trying to figure it out. As long as we stay curious, and continue striving, anything is on the table.
So let’s start here. It’s time to take a leap and Bring Out Your Dead. I’ll go first.
-IWW
P.S.
If you are craving more from this week’s rabbit hole of research, here are some interesting links that are not already linked in the text. Hereafter, this list will simply be called The Rabbit Hole.
Even Bad Social Norms Promote Positive Interactions