In Local Knowledge Clifford Geertz examines the relationship between the nature of fact and local laws.  His analysis delves into the ways different cultures think and create associations about how the world should work.  His basic conclusion is that there is no clear understanding of fact which can be applied across cultures.  His conclusion seems, at least in part, due to the many variations in the ways local cultures think about what’s right in the world.  Geertz introduces an idea I found especially interesting when he suggested, there is a rising expectation, among some people, for determining the facts of any given situation.  I agree with him.  It does seem many people feel an entitlement to know.  This entitlement, many times, expresses itself as a blind reach for a science or religious text as if within we will only find certainty.  Specifically interesting to me is: under what significant conditions might lacking clarity in fact determination be a desirable condition?

            Fact determination seems to be an extension of the age old quest to discover the Truth.  The Truth has captivated philosophical debate for centuries, but Truth could be a hollow answer.  The facts leading to the Truth could very well provide a need for everything we know to change drastically.  If the Truth were told, the facts support that many people in the United States of America have gained at the expense of others.  If this were determined in the public eye with a specific degree of clarity how could we as a country continue to allow exploitation to continue or even the current benefiting from past exploitations?  Was the Truth to be known, many modern corporations may find a need to restructure their financial portfolios.

            Money and greed would be the greatest evil in this scenario.  If it were necessary because the facts were determined, and the Truth were known, to balance the financial ledgers; many of the haves would probably not react in a positive manner simply because the Truth came out.  Many of the haves would resist losing their spot in the economic-tiered system of our culture.  The backlash from the struggle that most assuredly would result could cause the collapse of the American economy in a rush to send money overseas (and therefore away from local jurisdiction) or a war could be fought along class lines.  Neither of these scenarios would be desirable. 

For better or worse, even the bottom rungs of the United States social ladder benefit from a well functioning U.S. economy.  There has been no real alternative federal social government other than the economy for quite some time.  If the economy collapses then the poor will more than likely feel it worse than the rich.  The rich have ways of holding their wealth no matter what.  In this scenario, knowing the Truth in the United States might be a bad situation that leads to even worse results.

            Another scenario in which lacking clarity in determining facts might prove beneficial is with regard to our heroes.  Most people need an example of someone who has done good things.  By nature or by accident, the people who are held up to a spotlight as being a glowing example must- in our society- remain spotless in character and action in order to maintain their elevated status.  People like Martin Luther King Jr., John F. Kennedy, Elijah Mohammed, Abraham Lincoln and Thomas Jefferson are given a popular white-washing for public consumption that looks past misgivings they may have exhibited during their life.  Jefferson owned slaves and this seems to be a commonly known fact; however, it was my experience that first I was told what an honorable man he was as a Founding Father long before I realized that he was a determined racist.  Jefferson, to many Americans, stands out as the true humanist forefather who redeems many of the others through a myth of compassion and understanding that was really quite relative and provided a one-sided portrait.  Jefferson’s image is a good one though and probably does benefit some people by giving them something positive to which to aspire.  Jefferson was a lot of things and lacking clarity in fact finding among the entire population may not be a bad thing for his many accomplishments and the dreams they may instigate in future generations.

            The Honorable Elijah Mohammed carried his title like a shield.  He did many bad things but deflected a large amount of criticism with his title “The Honorable.”  Had the facts been determined about him earlier, and the Truth been commonly known; it is possible that America would’ve never known the presence of Malcolm X.  Due to his lack of clarity, Malcolm Little became Malcolm X.  Malcolm Little didn’t know that Elijah Mohammed largely flouted many of the laws that the Nation of Islam purported to be sacred.  Malcolm Little cleaned himself up and inspired many others to do the same.  He became his own man and defined a way of thinking for a generation of disenfranchised black Americans.  Only when he began to understand the Truth about Elijah Mohammed did his life become incredibly complicated leading to an untimely end.  Malcolm X’s untimely end was not of benefit to the Nation or to Malcolm X and his family.  The world gained a good man because of lack of clarity in fact finding.  The world seemingly lost a good man because of sense of clarity.

            This is not to say that it would’ve been better for Malcolm X to live with blinders on, but only to illustrate that little good resulted from his discoveries concerning the less than Honorable Elijah Mohammed.

            The uncertainties behind determining facts (or discovering the Truth) also can pose a problem and make the state of not knowing possibly better than the benefits of discovery.  It is hard to rationally discuss what we don’t know, but if one religion were determined to factually be the one True religion I sincerely doubt that all the others would immediately fall in line.  Take for example the Muslim followers of Islam.  If it were discovered tomorrow that Islamists are the true followers of God, I cannot imagine the Roman Catholic Church passively accepting such a pronouncement.  It would take God itself descending to Earth in a grand show of opulence and pageantry expressing the Truth for most people to accept it as fact.

            Then what? 

Some Christians, Buddhists and Hindus may well convert to Islam immediately and take up the True work of God.  There are likely others who would continue to doubt.  My impression is that they would not doubt in quiet either.  There very well could be a large contingent of Christians and Jews ready to die for what they’ve always believed.  History has given many examples of fanatical zealots more than willing to lose their life for their commitment to their faith and beliefs.  History has also shown that it is highly unlikely that God itself would reveal such a Truth.  Therefore, if the facts were found that there is one True religion: who would be the credible source for such a discovery?  Who could provide the credibility and depth of knowledge necessary to emphatically share such a Truth without the final result being bloodshed?  My gut tells me there is not such a source.  Revealing the True religion- supported by fact- would more than likely result in religious persecution and retaliation by the various religions jockeying for position and justification.

            In the scenario presented above, again maybe it is better to lack clear understanding of the facts.  Coupled with the above scenario, there is another possible pitfall of knowing the Truth as determined by facts.  Many people may not like the facts when they are explicated out loud.  The facts very well may be that there is no meaning to life.  How many people are ready to hear such a thing?  Better yet, how many people are ready to accept such a notion?

            Although facts may be clear, clarity does not directly correlate with the populace’s ability to accept them.  There are many other facts that may not receive a warm welcome in addition to a True religion or the True meaning of life.  If the facts were to determine one race is indeed better than another, what good may come from such a line of reasoning?  History has shown such thinking leads to oppression and persecution.  I’m not by any means suggesting any of these scenarios are true; I am merely supposing it’s possible there may actually be an answer to uncomfortable questions asked throughout history. 

If 13^th century France could be proven, rightfully and factually, the natural emperor of the world; who would fall into line first?

            As with religion, it is unlikely the United States of America- or England- are simply going to sacrifice their hegemony and turn over control of the world to France simply because the facts have been shown as clear and reasonable.  Facts have been ignored for eons in exchange for warfare and conflict.  The revelation of the True natural ruler of the world would not be something easily accepted- or liked- by any group of people other than those deemed to be the natural ruler.  In all likelihood, the rest of the world would still remain united in its own private self-absorption.

            The status quo really seems to be the main enemy of the facts.  Unless the Truth supports the status quo then violence may possibly erupt.  The reason for this may be visible in the acceptance of the term conservative.  A conservative in the United States of America does not necessarily dredge up a good image.  What exactly are we trying to conserve?  To some extent, the KKK can be considered a conservative organization.  They are after all trying to conserve a long held American view of race relations.  The businessmen and women who ask for a return to laissez-faire, free-market capitalism are also conservatives.  Getting rid of labor laws and allowing the owners of property to dictate the nature of work in this country has a longer established mainstream history than its inverse.  A less radical example of the conservative of which I speak is former Senator Strom Thurman.  He was a Senator until 2003 and yet had been around long enough to have publicly voted against civil rights measures.  He was until his day of retirement a conservative.

            When Americans discuss conservatives today, it is my belief; they don’t generally apply any sense of history to the term.  The term conservative is very much rooted in history though.  You have to have a pattern in order to conserve it.  If the facts were ever publicly determined that conservative can be linked to some very bad historical facts, then we might find a less conciliatory atmosphere in the country than we have today.  These types of revelations would almost certainly result in name calling and divisiveness the likes we’ve yet seen.  I’m not saying this is certainly the case, but it could be better that we get along with each other as we do today rather than discovering how bad our future could be with facts linking words such as conservative with the factual historical practices being conserved.

            Possibly the best reason to avoid determining facts is an aspect of the chase being the greatest part of the adventure.  If we could ever discover for certain everything there was to know beyond a shadow of a doubt: what then?  Where is the spark to life we all need to put on our shoes and walk out the front door?  Looking for the Truth always leaves us with more questions in order to find it.  The Truth!  It keeps people in many parts of our world on the move by giving them something to do with their time.  If these people suddenly lost their reason for being, we could find a world filled with apathy and depression.  Drunkards and dullards have lost the quest for the Truth.  Some truth.  Discovery is a beautiful idea, but a final discovery (such as discovering the Truth) leaves nothing more for tomorrow than regurgitating the same facts ad nauseum.  It may well be a better place to live if we still must continue to determine facts and then debate.  Without the conversation their may be no point to living.

            The nature of the Truth as gathered by determining facts is an interesting area of study.  Facts, in themselves, hold a very high place in our society.  There seems to be an unstated conclusion that with knowledge, and the facts revealed; we will all somehow end up in a better place.  The mystery here is how we do know that?  How do we know facts will lead us somewhere better?  I have summarily demonstrated here that I believe the mainstream status quo will resist facts at every turn, unless the facts support what we already know.  The questions that may then are:

à        What is the likelihood we already know the Truth?’ 

à        If what we already know is the Truth, then is this as good as it gets?

à        Without referring to scripture, what specifically is it the Truth will do?

As bad as things may be today when the status quo is upset, money withdraws from economies and the well off protect themselves.  The emotional-types turn violent.  The rest of the race is left to fend for itself in the resulting turmoil.  For this reason, it may be better to lack definitive facts about the world or figure out how to make difficult changes happen without bloodshed.

5 Questions

• What symbols of power have been consistently associated with the President of the United States of America?
• Has love ever been an inherent part of the U.S. President myth?
• Is there truly any “advance” in the way cultures associate their place in the world (i.e. a hierarchy of social thinking?)
• What are the downfalls of being predominantly the result of an imperial British legal system?  Is our legal system any more than that?  Are we an amalgamation or simply an adaptation?
• Is there still a belief that one nation will ever populate the Earth and form the “good” government?  Could one nation ruling the Earth be a good thing?