Global Warming is Simply "Legitimization by Paralogy"

"Legitimation by paralogy" roughly means "manufacturing 'truth(iness)' through (forcing) consensus," or, in simpler language, creating social enforcement of lies that must be believed. Lyotard rightly recognized that this is a disaster (he wrongly believed everything is that). (Source: https://threader.app/thread/1348828460161114117)

Phillip Anyetei, "Do we live in a network society?"

The Postmodern Condition: A Report on Knowledge by Jean Francois Lyotard (1984) is considered to be the so-called “Self help book” that help us to understand the era of post-modernity. In his book, Jean Francois Lyotard discusses about the idea of knowledge and argues that knowledge is developed through the applications of science and technology. He is considered to be a narrative philosopher who explains things from his experiences and defines post-modernity as incredulity, disbelief about a fact moving towards meta-narratives, which is a story about story or “Behind closed doors” or to “Think outside the box” explained from many perspectives. He believes that western societies are dominated by science and technology particularly cybernetics, where information is translated into pieces of data which is shared and easily accessible by us. In section 1 entitled: The Field: Knowledge in Computerised Society, he explain that people take advantage of technology to ameliorate their degree of knowledge by listening to information through media and communication, such as newspapers, televisions, radio etc. The purpose in which, he (Lyotard) could explain that technology creates a form of social cohesion via social networking sites, such as Facebook, MySpace and Twitter. Lyotard compares the principle of money to the notion of knowledge as in exchanging degrees of knowledge among subcultures and social classes through agreements and negotiations (Lyotard 1984: 6).

However, in chapter 2: legitimization, Lyotard applies the metaphor “terror” to argue that human beings are easily manipulated by the media influences of consumerism and materialism, and are unconsciously intimidated and coerced into obeying the rules held by authority, especially if the rules considered to be degrading to human mentality. This applies to the rules within transport facilities, where people are obliged to pay transport fees otherwise, they would face the consequences of paying a fine or even face prosecution. In contrast, the hypodermic syringe model is used to explain that we are injected with the knowledge by the media and those in the position of authority and would be faced with the terror on the penalty of ridicule, disapproval and social expulsion rather than knowledge from our personal experiences and experiences from members in the primary secondary socialisation process, such as family and friends and knowledge within religion and culture.

Howard Becker, a classical labeling theorist could explain from his book Outsiders, which is rumoured to be the blueprint of the labelling theory to explain that those refuse and violate the rules of the social norm would be branded as ‘deviants’ and be punished by exclusion as an outsider (1963). As a result, Emile Durkheim could argue that those who are excluded from mainstream society may commit one of the four types of suicide: Egoistical suicide, as a result of being excluded from mainstream society as an outsider. Anomic suicide, as a result of society constantly changing and feeling disillusioned with the rules. Altruistic suicide as a result of wanting to sacrifice one’s life to preserve the social norms and traditions within society and Fatalistic suicide, the result of excessive strictness of the social norms and traditions which are held in society suppressing individualism and personal autonomy (1897).

In section 3, Lyotard moves on to discuss the method, the language game, which he views the social system or social mobility as a game of chess which illustrates that people need to gain knowledge in order to survive the social system or progress from one social hierarchy to another. He argues that people are obliged to assimilate into learning the language and customs of its new culture with the expectation to adapt to their new environment such as the workplace and especially in academic fields, military and religious groups. This reflects the idiomatic proverb: “When in Rome, do what the Romans do”. In other words, Lyotard simply discusses about survival of the fittest where those survive and play the game well, receive rewards and mentions a single rule can change the whole game. However, some thinkers argue that we develop our own strategies to help us play the game successfully through creativity.

In sections 4 and 5, Lyotard highlights the debate between modernity and post-modernity in the nature of the social bond. In section 4, it reveals that Lyotard has a functionalist lens on modernity which was backed up by Talcott Parsons, another functionalist who argues that society is a self – regulated system. In clarity, people are drifting from a mechanical society where people share the same values, beliefs and norms to an organic society, where members are becoming independent (1967 cited in Lyotard 1984: 11). Lyotard also recommends that ethnography is essential to investigate and observe the behaviour and actions created by individuals in social settings to vindicate whether society is self – regulated. In section 5, Lyotard argues that our position in life and identities are shaped by race, social class and gender along with a certain degree of materialism, meaning our styles in fashion which reflects on the model of social stratification, a hierarchy that assesses our position within the social hierarchy and knowledge therefore is only option to give us the opportunity to increase our life chances of being successful and prevent us from falling prey to inequalities and exploitation by the bourgeois.

In sections 6 pragmatics in the narrative form, Lyotard argues that science comes in two versions, first is a subject is determined by an individual’s experience, such as near death experiences or adverse effects and second, a science that consists of a topic provided with a hypothesis and research is conducted in order to vindicate its hypothesis. It can be suggested that knowledge contributes to form a social cycle and we are dominated by the knowledge held by the bourgeoisie including members of authority. In the section 7 pragmatics in scientific form, Lyotard argues that scientific knowledge is considered to be hegemonic and dominates other forms of knowledge, as science is based on evidence to prove that whether a certain assumption is true or false. He also highlights that scientists could criticise narratives for developing mentalities among human beings which consists of stereotypes, thus creates prejudice and discrimination (Lyotard 1984: 27). His quotation: “A person does not have to know how to be what knowledge say he is” asserts that our personalities or actions does not have to be dictated by the stereotypes of our social characteristics. This usually applies to the topic, aesthetics where an old fashion wisdom which addresses low self-esteem: “It does not matter on what you are on the outside, but it’s what you are on the inside that counts” or “Beauty is only skin deep rather than outer perfection”.

In sections 8, The narrative of function and the legitimation of knowledge, Lyotard argues that legitimation is itself an issue rather than the language game of science where rules are constantly changing and people have difficulties of obeying the rules. For example, it can be argued this chapter reveals debates on how we should develop mannerisms, personalities and behaviours to adjust to the new rules. It can be suggested that the ruling class can define what is normal or abnormal, in regards of values, personality traits and our ways of looking at social changes. Doland and Maschler (1969 cited in Lyotard 1984: 30) argued that legitimation is considered as a contract among the legislators and social progress is seen as the outcome of the rich and those are in the position of authority that created these so-called “social norms”.

In chapter 9, The narratives of the legitimation of knowledge, Lyotard argues that everyone has the right to have access to science and knowledge regardless of race, gender, religion, social class etc. It can be suggested that the last sentence gives some readers the impression that he (Lyotard) has liberal views and believes in equality. He argues that laws serve the interest of the rich and powerful and the legitimators such as the government and citizens are passive and have no choice but to follow the rules which are set by the state. This can be supported by the hypodermic syringe model in which in contrast from the Marxist lens, that we are injected by the rules that serves the interests of the bourgeoisie rather than our rules and boundaries. In the section 10, Delegitimation, Lyotard argues that narrative knowledge has been rejected and the launch of technology was seen as the aftermath of the Second World War which motivated academic writers to concentrate on the motives rather than actions caused by individuals and the state. He also argues that issues in the private sphere were ignored, particularly within the home, such as child abuse and domestic violence and concerns of institutional discrimination based on race, gender and sexuality.

In the section 11, Education and its legitimation through performativity, Lyotard argues that higher education is seen as the best weapon to improve social progress and perfomativity of the social hierarchy as higher education provides us the tools to meet the criteria held in society and the ability to preserve social bonds. He also discusses that technology and media communications such as the internet, email facilities are replacing traditional teaching systems and data banks as they are considered as the “encyclopedia of tomorrow”. In other words, technology is the way forward. However, he argues that if education provides the reproduction of skills among social progress, then it follows into the transmission of knowledge. Marxist writers can argue that education can cause inequalities among social classes as the members from upper class backgrounds can enter higher education whereas their lower class counterparts cannot.

In chapter 12, Postmodern science as the search for instabilities, Lyotard notes that theories emphasises the creation of new motives and new rules for the language game. For example, scientific knowledge is now looking for answers and the hypothesis is now dominated by actions and means of the individual’s place in society. He highlights Brillouin’s argument in which he concludes that there is conflict between the addressee and sender and people begin to rebel against society’s expectations (Lyotard 1984: 55). Friedrich Nietzsche could explain this through the notion of ressentiment (resentment) and argue that rebellion symbolises the outcome of resentment fueled by the mistreatment of slaves by their masters and is perceived as a creative force.

Lyotard mentions that some social systems have boundaries including social norms that modify which behaviour is considered normal or deviant (Lyotard 1984: 59). In the final chapter, Legitimation by Paralogy, Lyotard analyses two of Luhmann’s argument on systems theory: The first one illustrates that the system can only function by reducing complexity. For clarity, individuals will be able to function in society if certain barriers which prevent them from achieving the shared cultured goal such as the American Dream or their personal goals are removed. In clarity, discrimination towards race, social class, gender, disability and sexism and poverty ought to be neutralized through charitable organizations and anti – discriminatory policies.

The second argument displays that the system should be adjusted to meet the aspirations of the players’ personal expectations rather than the aspirations that favours the interest of the ruling class and those held in mainstream society (Luhmann 1969 cited in Lyotard 1984: 61). Lyotard also argues that performativity criterion has its own advantages where stories are rejected and replaced by definitions of real meaning and players of the game should take responsibility for the statements they propose and more importantly, the rules of those statements (Lyotard 1984: 62). He also highlights what Luhmann describes terrorist behaviour in the social system and in the language game. He argues that if a player enters the game and has a high level of knowledge, can be posed as a threat to the other members of the game and as a result, insecurities will rise among them which converts into jealously as the motivate to take certain measures to degrade and eliminate that player out of game mainly by bullying in overt and mostly covert forms (Lyotard 1984: 63 – 4).

Some writers feel that Jean Francois Lyotard’s book is considered to be a stepping stone in shifting from modernity to postmodernity, or a “self-help” guide for the audience to understand postmodernism. However, he (Lyotard) has been subjected to many controversial debates both negative and positive. Alex Callinicos criticised Lyotard’s definition of postmodern for lacking in clarification which causes conflict among many writers. He (Callinicos) also argues that Lyotard’s book the postmodern condition rejects the objectivity of socialist revolutions (Callinicos 1989: 3). He also illustrated that Lyotard’s discussion of metanarratives which is an individual form of knowledge in pre-modern societies, such as folk tales which Lyotard argues that they consist of experiences which are characterised by self – legitimation, meaning that narrators can make their own rules of the game (Callinicos 1989: 93).

Zygmunt Bauman however, argues that Lyotard describes postmodernism in the notion of hegemony which is argued that science tend to dominate all forms of knowledge and rules in the language game (Bauman 1992: 35). He (Bauman) also discussed that Lyotard also presented that hegemony is starting to erode in its power, is beginning to effect the disintegration of science (Bauman 1992: 35). He (Bauman) also mentions that language games are the outcomes of the separation of the communicative field from the structure of economics and politics and additionally, the breakdown of hierarchical functions within the social system. Language games are also burdened by other means not only legitimation, which of course is the main issue but the act of terror where rules are easily broken because people are rebelling against the traditional rules which conformed by the social norm by setting their own form of rules (Bauman 1992: 38).

Foucault on the other hand, from his book Discipline and Punish (Valier 2003: 152) highlighted that knowledge and power are related and cannot be separated as these two notions are viewed in which Lyotard could explain as the best form of teamwork to resist the two infections of “fear” and “terror”, and aid social progress and self change which can be applied to weight loss by arguing “there is no diet without exercise and there is no exercise without diet”, highlighting the antidote of self-discipline. Valier (2003: 152 – 3) on the other hand, argues that knowledge and power are exploited for other means such as punishment particularly corporal and capital which is supported by the Journal entitled: Power without Knowledge: Foucault and Fordism.c1900 – 50, is an example on the exploitation of knowledge and power for other means and Lyotard’s explanation on the metaphor “terror” is used on the assembly line of the Ford Motor Factory. It was revealed that since the early 1920s the Ford foreman had to adapt to the language learnt in that environment by displaying an aggressive and harsh attitude towards his workers in order to enhance the performance in the production line.

Williams, Haslam and Williams (1993 cited in Coopey and McKinlay 2010: 112) and Cruden (1926 cited in Coopey and McKinlay 2010: 112) argued that the workers were subjected to verbal abuse, incremented by the use of coercion, physical threats and intimidation. Foucault defines this term of auto labour as dressage where the workers were seen as slaves to the foremen, who uses gestures and fear to intimidate the workers with the intention to aid progression in the modes of production (Foucault 1997 cited in Coopey and McKinlay 2010: 112). This example of the brutal treatment of the assembly workers illustrates that power and knowledge are exploited for the company’s own purpose additionally, reveals the issue of hegemony, in terms of the foreman have full authority over the assembly workers.

Paul Terry illustrates that Jurgen Habermas explores the notion of knowledge in three fields, analytical, hermeneutic and critical in opposition to the Kantian spheres of science, aesthetics and morality (Terry 1997: 270). He (Terry) also argue that these models Habermas highlighted relates to human interests in a unique way, for example, observation can be more effective through the applications of science and technology which lies beneath analytical knowledge and historical and cultural interests are concentrated on hermeneutically – derived knowledge. He also argues that those three concepts of knowledge can be applied in natural sciences or mathematics beneath the analytical – empirical sphere and hermeneutics can be related to humanities and critical knowledge can be applied in the interests of emancipation from authority (Habermas 1971 cited in Terry 1997: 271). He argues that Habermas sees the duplication of the social realm as a struggle between economics, administration and bureaucracy and sees that language game can be seen as a tool to achieve the means of attaining a balanced and reasonable agreement, seeing neutrality as the key to aid conflicts (Terry 1997: 273). He also mentions that Habermas views modernity as a democratic society and as an unfinished project. Nevertheless, he (Habermas) sees postmodernity being obsessed with power and legitimacy. Habermas’s work has been later criticised for being over – theoretical in the mention applications and believes practical is needed to vindicate these assumptions. (Terry 1997: 274).

Education was considered in many perspectives as a key to improve social reproduction and to maintain cultural perspectives. Offe (1984 cited in Terry 2010: 275) argues that higher education is inevitable in increasing our degree of knowledge and levels of empathizing power in political and economic views. Terry, on the other hand suggests that educators must adapt to inevitable changes in culture (Terry 2010: 275). Anthony Giddens who is renowned for this major theories systems of ideas – the structural theory which was initiated in 1984, which concentrates on social customs that revolves around space and time, and is essential for social systems and social acts performed by human beings and the late modernity theory which concentrate on the conditions of social world that constantly changes and argues from a postmodern view, that modernity is abolished by social and cultural order (Faulkheimer 2007: 288 – 9). It is suggested that Lyotard’s method, the language game can be used to adapt to the new form of social and cultural orders. Faulkheimer (2007: 289) believes that scientific reason causes the risk society. It can be suggested that risk minimization in criminal justice systems stems from that assumption. He (Giddens) highlighted that risk diverse in two ways: external risk which associates with nature causes such as floods and earthquakes and the second risk associates with manufactured risks in terms of global warming, risks which associate with our everyday lives, such as transportation and communication technology (Giddens 2002 cited in Faulkheimer 2007: 289).

Barbara Ann Strassberg argues from her journal Religion and Science: The Embodiment of the Conversation: A Postmodern Sociological Perspective, that knowledge comes in two ways. Faith, which does not need to be vindicated by scientific investigation through experimentation and belief needs to be backed up by scientific proof (2001:525). This statement can be criticised for ignoring that faith and science are connected and cannot be separated, which can reflect Foucault’s link of Power and Knowledge by arguing that “there is not faith without science and there is no science without faith “. Max Weber and those with Weberian views may explain that religion symbolises the notion of Karma where Lyotard explains this in the first chapter where we donate our levels of knowledge to those who are unfortunate or in exchange for new and revised versions of knowledge. Karma has been applied in moral teachings where for example, if we treat strangers or fellow neighbours good or bad, we will be given the same action in return.

However, the theme on religion can be exploited through the example mentioned in Power without Knowledge: Foucault and Fordism, can be used to explain that religious leaders could exploit religion for their own interests, manifested from carrying out fraud and deception to subjecting people to psychological manipulation and abuse which is practiced in religious cults and subcultures. Marxist thinkers can criticize that religion symbolizes dominance of the bourgeoisie over the proletarians. Imaginatively, religion is argued to be viewed as the symbol of “perfect obedience” by creating a slave master morality by injecting the fear of God into our minds that he will punish us if we intent to engage in sinful acts which violates the biblical rules from the bible.

On reference to the sentence: “A person does not have to know on how to be what knowledge say he is” Lyotard mentions about our personalities and behaviour does not have to be determined by the knowledge comes in the form of what stereotypes say about us is similar to the subject of psychology where, psychodynamic theorists like Sigmund Freud through his study of the unconscious mind could argue that past experiences preferably in childhood and adolescence can influence our behavior and responses to certain stimulus in later life. Whereas in opposition, humanistic psychologists such as Abraham Maslow and Carl Rogers argue that human beings have the freedom of choice to take responsibility for their happiness, their reactions to external stimulus which are beyond their control and be accountable for the consequences created by their free will. One example is that we should not allow ourselves to be dictated by the knowledge based on negative stereotyping on race, gender, class and disabilities and past adverse experiences held by the ruling class and our chances of succeeding academically and financially should be not be determined by our position in the social hierarchy but determined by our own freedom of choice.

Additionally, on the subject of criminology, classical thinkers like Ceasre Beccaria and Jeremy Betham may argue that people engage in criminality by their exploitation of free will rather than external negative influences which in opposition, positivists criminologists like Andre Guerry and Adolphe Quetelet with the use of statistical data may argue along with Chicago Scholar Ernest Burgess from his illustration on the Zones of Transition (1925), that crime is committed by those living in dilapidated slums of inner city regions. Strain Theorist Robert Merton (1957) who revised Durkheim’s anomie can explain criminality stems from the frustration of not accomplishing the American Dream based on materialistic wealth. Labelling Theorists Rosenthal and Jacobson’s study of the Pygmalion effect in the classroom (1992) could vindicate a self – fulfilling prophecy which provide support to chapter 6, the narrative form of pragmatics.

The graph from the home office downloaded from the home office website (http://rds.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs2/s95race02) illustrates the over-representation of black offenders . These were drawn upon the narratives of stereotypes which can be agreed with Lyotard who explains this in chapter 6. Black young men people are stereotyped as deviant, aggressive and ‘trouble makers’ or academic “underachievers” by educational institutions. On reference to the relationship of race and post – modernity, Brett St Louis applies the concept of Foucault’s theme of power/knowledge onto the notions about race where he highlights that Stuart Hall suggests a new emergence of a new ethnicity where black people are oppressed by the knowledge and negative stereotypical perceptions held by the minds of the hegemonic white society (1992 cited in St Louis 2009: 656). He (St Louis) also argues ethnicity is manufactured socially where race was considered to be biological (2009: 659) which can be agreed with Alain Locke who argues that the biological meaning of race has been ended and the sociological meaning of race is starting to expand (1992 cited in St Louis 2009: 665) in areas of culture and socio – economical backgrounds.

In conclusion, postmodernism appears to be the heart of discourse and is criticized for neglecting concerns that focus on technology. However, from the works discussed by renowned writers vindicates with Jean Francois Lyotard’s hypothesis that we do live in a network society where knowledge is decoded into data and delivered in various formats such as, communications, technology and particularly the media . We live in a world that is constantly changing and the language game is highlighted as the vital tool that help us to adapt and assimilate to the changes made in society and it is applied in many areas of the social world from technology, science to race, class and gender.

Bauman, Z (1992) Intimations of Postmodernity, London, Routledge

Becker, H.S (1963) Outsiders: studies in the Sociology of deviance. New York. Free Press

Brillouin, L. (1949). Life, thermodynamics, and cybernetics. American Scientist, 37

Callinicos, A (1989) Against Postmodernism: A Marxist Critique, Cambridge, Polity Press.

Coopey, R and McKinlay, A (2010) Power without Knowledge: Foucault and Fordism, c.1900 – 50, Labor History, Vol 51, No1 107 – 125

Cruden, R (1926) ‘No Loitering – Get Out Production’, The Nation, 12 June 1926, 697

Doland, E and Maschler, C (1969) To Save the Phenomena: An Essay in the Idea of Physical Theory from Plato to Galileo, Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Durkheim, E (1897) Suicide A study in sociology. Free Press

Faulkheimer, J (2007) Anthony Giddens and public relations: A third way perspective, Public Relations Review, 33, 287 – 293

Foucault, M (1977) Discipline and Punish: The Birth of the Prison, Harmondsworth: Penguin.

Giddens, A (2002) Runaway world: How globalisation is reshaping our lives. London: Profile

Habermas, J (1971) Knowledge and Human Interests, trans. Jeremy J. Shapiro London: Heinemann

Hall, S (1992) ‘New Ethnicities’, in James Donald & Ali Rattansi (eds) ‘Race’, Culture and Difference, London, Sage pp252 – 9.

Luhmann, N (1969) Legitimation durch Verfahren, Neuwid/Berlin Lutcherhand trans

Lyotard, J.F (1984) The Postmodern Condition: A Report on Knowledge, Manchester, Manchester University Press.

Merton, R.K (1957) Social Theory and Social Structure, rev. ed. New York: Free Press.

Offe, C (1984) Contradictions of the Welfare State, London: Hutchinson.

Park, R.E and Burgess, E.W (1925) “The Growth of the City: An Introduction to a Research Project”. University of Chicago Press. pp. 47–62

Parson, T (1967) The Social System, Glencoe, Illinois: Free Press.

Rosenthal, R and Jacobson, L (1992) Pygmalion in the classroom : Teacher expectation and pupils’ intellectual development (Newly expanded ed.). Bancyfelin, Carmarthen, Wales: Crown House Pub

St Louis, B (2009) Post – race/post – politics? Activists – intellectualism and the reification of race’, Ethnic and Racial Studies, 25: 4, 652 – 675

Strassber, B.A (2001) Religion and Science: The Embodiment of the Conversation: A Postmodern Sociological Perspective, Zygon, vol 36, no. 3 September 2001

Terry, P.R (1997) Habermas and Education: Knowledge, communication, discourse, Curriculum Studies, Vol. 5, No, 1997

Valier, C (2003) Theories of Crime and Punishment, Harlow, Pearson Longman, Ch8

http://rds.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs2/s95race02.pdf (accessed 17th January 2011).