Power is Knowledge

As the French philosopher Michel Foucault famously articulated, power and knowledge are deeply interconnected.

> “There is no power relation without the correlative constitution of a field of knowledge, nor any knowledge that does not presuppose and constitute at the same time power relations.” — Michel Foucault

From this perspective, it can be inferred that those in power dictate what is perceived as “truth.” They craft the narrative and even manipulate language to fit their overarching story.

In George Orwell’s novel 1984, the government alters history to align with its current situation. Initially, the nation is at war with Eurasia, and this remains the narrative until the enemy is suddenly switched to Eastasia. History becomes a tool for those in power to reshape at will.

The Ministry of Truth in Oceania, the fictional setting of the book, is dedicated to rewriting history. They revise historical documents to conform to the prevailing propaganda.

This stark example highlights how power influences knowledge. More often than not, this influence is subtle and fragmented. In today’s world, political figures like Trump and Russian disinformation campaigns employ a more sophisticated strategy: presenting a barrage of competing narratives to create confusion.

This approach fosters doubt and suspicion. While most people may not be swayed, even a slight degree of confusion can yield significant political benefits, often serving as a means to acquire more power.

Can We Trust Historical Accounts?

In Dan Brown's The Da Vinci Code, a character offers a revealing observation:

> “History is always written by the winners. When two cultures clash, the loser is obliterated, and the winner writes the history books — books which glorify their own cause and disparage the conquered foe. As Napoleon once said, ‘What is history, but a fable agreed upon?’”

This statement encapsulates the book's central theme: history is merely the narrative crafted by victors. Brown's characters uncover a significant cover-up of authentic history orchestrated by antagonists, specifically the Catholic Church.

In his narrative, the Church distorts the story of Jesus and Mary Magdalene to meet its political objectives, suppressing Gnostic texts that reveal the true accounts.

While The Da Vinci Code is fictional, it prompts reflection on our comprehension of the past. The phrase “Carthage must be destroyed” was allegedly repeated by Cato the Elder after every speech in the Roman Senate. The conflicts between Rome and Carthage were crucial in shaping history, yet much of what we know stems from a single source: Polybius, a Greek historian who was taken captive by the Romans and later befriended by Scipio Africanus.

Carthaginian records were obliterated, leaving no trace. Although various Roman histories exist, they primarily reference Polybius's accounts of the Punic Wars.

This pattern recurs throughout many historical events, with our knowledge often hinging on a limited number of sources, frequently composed long after the events occurred. Can we genuinely trust that these accounts are accurate?

The Dominant Narrative Influences Memory

Due to various factors, the full story is not always accessible. Sometimes, this is simply due to the fallibility of human memory.

A fascinating study investigated how individuals recalled the 9/11 terrorist attacks. Researchers found that despite the profound impact of the events, memories tend to fade over time, with many distortions emerging.

The study placed these personal recollections within the context of collective narratives that “correct” them.

> “Event memories tended to be corrected over time. Such correction is what one would expect if a community is constantly retelling the story of the attack. Unlike the retellings by an individual, which may be subject to cumulative source monitoring failures, a community retelling, especially in the media, tends to be fact-checked, and, ceteris paribus, is presumed to be ‘correct.’ That is, the media can serve a social/cultural reality monitoring function.”

While this kind of correction can yield positive outcomes, it also has its downsides. The prevailing narrative around us significantly influences how we interpret our memories.

Consider the same event, but imagine spending a year absorbing news exclusively from Fox News. Your perception of that event would likely differ from someone who devoted that time to CNN.

These cognitive biases not only shape how we remember history but also influence how it is recorded. Historians, like all individuals, possess inherent biases, and despite their efforts to maintain objectivity, inaccuracies can seep into their writing.

Errors can arise from their own misunderstandings or from flawed sources. Even interviews with eyewitnesses may yield skewed accounts. Thus, the narratives found in history books may not entirely reflect the actual events.

Don’t Fall for Conspiracy Theories

You might be thinking, “So, nothing is true?” Hold on! That’s not the message here. I don't want to instill distrust in established historical accounts, which are the result of extensive research.

In fact, I would advocate for trusting “official” history over the revisionist narratives circulating today. Vigilance is essential. The reality that history is often shaped by the victors can lead to conspiratorial thinking, promoting misleading alternative narratives.

People enjoy feeling superior, believing they know something others do not. They also seek scapegoats and simplistic explanations when complex understandings are required. These tendencies contribute to the allure of conspiracy theories.

Power and “knowledge” flow in both directions. For instance, Donald Trump's assertions can be amplified by sympathetic media, which then trickle down to his followers. This is how top-down conspiracies form.

Conversely, conspiratorial thinking can also emerge from the grassroots. The contemporary "woke" narrative began in small, elite university circles before spreading rapidly into mainstream media and influencing leaders.

Although these conspiratorial narratives can be easily debunked with factual evidence, they often retain their potency. Humans are more influenced by emotions than rationality, and alternative explanations frequently rely on stirring feelings, making them compelling.

As storytelling beings, people are often drawn to captivating narratives over factual accuracy. Therefore, it is crucial to maintain the ability to step back and apply logical reasoning. Renowned psychologist Daniel Kahneman refers to this as engaging your System 2.

System 1 represents quick, emotional responses, while System 2 involves slower, more deliberate reasoning. To cultivate a healthy skepticism without succumbing to conspiracy thinking, adopting a Bayesian perspective is beneficial. This means considering probabilities and adjusting beliefs based on new evidence.

Future Historians: What Will They Conclude?

What insights will future historians glean from our current era? How will they discern what is true amid the cacophony of fake news, alternative narratives, and flat-out lies?

An information paradox exists today. Much of what we preserve is ephemeral. I lack photographs from significant portions of my life because they were stored on malfunctioning computers. Conversely, the internet is cluttered with vast amounts of data, much of it worthless, yet stored indefinitely.

Future historians will face the challenge of making sense of the chaos within cyberspace. They will need to distinguish what is essential from what is trivial and discern reality from fiction.

Above all, their interpretations will depend heavily on the prevailing paradigms of their society. Philosopher Thomas Kuhn noted that our worldview is shaped by our theoretical frameworks.

> “We see the world in terms of our theories.” — Thomas Kuhn

This notion also applies to how contemporary individuals perceive the past. As different ideologies gain traction, interpretations of historical figures or events can diverge significantly.

Our understanding of history reflects not only the events themselves but also our current societal context. New findings continually reshape our knowledge, while emerging ideologies redefine our interpretations. Much of what we accept as true is often a matter of chance.

Thus, it is vital to maintain perspective. What you know may not necessarily be accurate. However, one should also avoid becoming overly skeptical and dismissing everything as a conspiracy. Genuine wisdom begins with humility.