129. SISSELA BOK
The last of this triptych of Moyers’ interviews is with Sissela Bok, whose fields include psychology and philosophy. She has written about the psychology of lying, the consequences of deception, and the perils of keeping secrets. These timeless subjects are worthy of our attention. This post will draw from Moyers’ interview with Bok.
“Lying,” says Bok, “is a way of gaining power over other people through manipulating them in various ways. … If we are to mature, we have to unlearn any enjoyment of that power. We need to communicate with other people without trying to manipulate them.”
Moyers: “You suggested in [your book] Lying that there was a crisis of trust based upon a proliferation of lies — personal lies, professional lies, political lies. You said then that the social environment is every bit as precarious and threatened as the natural environment.”
Bok: “The social environment is just as important as the natural environment because that’s the environment in which we make all the decisions we want to make, in which we communicate, and in which our families and societies exist. It requires a certain amount of trust and, I would say, also cautious distrust.”
“I think skepticism is very important. On the other hand, if skepticism veers off into total distrust, so that one decides to have nothing to do with voting or with one’s government, then that’s very destructive.”
Moyers: “Can a republic die of too many lies?”
Bok: “I think a republic definitely could — especially if the lies are also covered up by various methods of secrecy. If you combine lying and secrecy, and if you also bring in violence so that secrecy covers up for schemes of lying and violence, then I think a republic can die. … All one has to do is to look at some very secretive governments — totalitarian governments and others. Nobody knows what’s a lie and what’s the truth. We certainly don’t want to go in that direction.”
Moyers: “The great advantage of opening the debate within the Administration to more and more people is that you get more and more minds that say, ‘Well, just a minute. Here’s the trap in that.’”
“I was struck once again by your point that partisanship causes people to condone abuses for their particular ideal that they would never condone in their adversary. It’s that parochial loyalty that can corrupt one’s one judgment and standards.”
“I cherish the notion in the conclusion of your book about starting personal and piecemeal, about carving out a space in one’s own life where one begins to practice personally what one advocates politically and publicly. … So, in this personal zone, I don’t act violently against my family, I keep my promises, my vows, my oaths. I don’t deceive. I practice in that small circle what I hope my neighbor and my government would practice.”
Q: What is your takeaway from this exchange?
