In my last post, I discussed the principle of intellectual charity as an essential element of constructive political conversations. As a companion to the principle of charity, we also need to cultivate an attitude of intellectual humility.
I am using the word humility both in its common meaning and in a more specific sense. We should begin with personal humility — recognizing the limits of our knowledge, that others know more than we do, and that, in any specific instance, we might be wrong. Humility in this sense (“I don’t know enough about this problem” or “I could be wrong”) is an antidote to pathological certainty, and it’s almost entirely absent from current political arguments, at all levels.
I would like to add an additional meaning of intellectual humility that is especially relevant to political debates. Intellectual humility asks, “What are the limits of my beliefs?”
An attitude of humility requires that we recognize the complexity of most social and political problems. Every policy, domestic or international, is likely to have both good and bad effects. Every policy will help some people and impose costs on others. Every policy will address some priorities but not others. Every policy or course of action is likely to have unanticipated and unintended consequences. Humility requires an awareness that there are other perspectives we may not have considered.
Humility builds guard rails against extremism and contempt. Intellectual humility allows us to defy the gravitational pull of tribalism and to see each problem with its unique pros and cons.
If we are liberal, we need to ask, what are the limits of my liberalism? Where in my liberalism can I find a place for conservative priorities and concerns? How can my empathy and compassion be reconciled with the need for safety and security, for the maintenance of traditions and established norms? When do I need to be more tough minded? When have liberal attitudes and policies failed or gone too far?
If we are conservative, we need to ask, what are the limits of my conservatism? Where in my conservatism can I find a place for liberal priorities and concerns? What am I willing to do, now, to alleviate suffering and injustice, to foster greater tolerance of different identities and lifestyles?
Intellectual humility — an awareness and careful consideration of alternative perspectives — is an important aspect of what it means to be educated or an expert in any field. Experts recognize that the causes of social problems are complex and often cyclical; each cause has multiple effects, which then act as new causes. Experts, of course, can be wrong and subject to bias for many reasons. But the thought processes of an expert and an ideologue are essentially different.
We could all use more intellectual charity and intellectual humility. Our society needs self-questioning liberals and self-questioning conservatives. In our current moment, we have too few of each. Our political culture is dominated instead by self-righteousness and pathological certainty.
The principle of humility may be the most challenging of all the principles of constructive argument. It is easier to argue than to listen, to believe what we want to believe “and disregard the rest” (as Paul Simon wrote in his song, “The Boxer”). It is easier to give our side the benefit of the doubt and regard the other side with contempt.
On many college campuses, it has become common for students to be told, “Check your privilege.” This usually means that we should be aware of how our attitudes have been influenced by social advantages that others do not have. If said in a non-judgmental spirit, to encourage humility and self-examination, this admonition may be warranted and helpful.
I would add, however, when we are expressing political opinions, a more important recommendation is, “Check your certainty.” Be aware of the extent to which you may have failed to consider other perspectives and the limits of your beliefs. Especially, “check your contempt.”