The Dogmatic Mode of Thinking

We have seen that the critical mode of thinking puts the burden of deciding what is right or wrong, true or untrue, squarely on the individual. Given the individual's imperfect understanding there are a number of vital questions - notably those that concern the individual's relation to the universe and his place in society - to which he or she cannot provide a final answer. Uncertainty is hard to bear and the human mind is likely to go to great lengths to escape from it.

There is such an escape: the dogmatic mode of thinking. It consists in establishing as paramount a body of doctrine which is believed to originate from a source other than the individual. The source may be tradition, or an ideology which succeeded in gaining supremacy in competition with other ideologies. In either case, it is declared as the supreme arbiter over conflicting views: those that conform are accepted; those that are in conflict, rejected. There is no need to weigh alternatives: every choice is already made. No question is left unanswered; the fearful specter of uncertainty is removed.

The dogmatic mode of thinking has much in common with the traditional mode. By postulating an authority which is the source of all knowledge, it attempts to retain or recreate the wonderful simplicity of a world in which the prevailing view is not subject to doubt or questioning. But it is exactly the lack of simplicity that differentiates it from the traditional mode. In the traditional mode, changelessness is a universally accepted fact; in the dogmatic mode, it is a postulate. Instead of a single universally accepted view, there are many possible interpretations but only one of them is in accord with the postulate. The others must be rejected. What makes matters complicated is that the dogmatic mode cannot admit that it is making a postulate because that would undermine the unquestionable authority that it seeks to establish. To overcome this difficulty, incredible mental contortions may be necessary. Try as it may, the dogmatic mode of thinking cannot recreate the conditions in which the traditional mode prevailed. The essential point of difference is this: a genuinely changeless world can have no history. Once there is an awareness of conflicts past and present, explanations lose their inevitable character. This means that the traditional mode of thinking is restricted to the earliest stages of man's development. Only if people could forget their earlier history would a return to the traditional mode be possible.

A direct transition from the critical to the traditional mode can thus be ruled out altogether. If a dogmatic mode of thinking prevailed for an indefinite period, history might fade out gradually - but at the present juncture this does not deserve to be regarded as a practical possibility. The choice is only between the critical and the dogmatic modes.

In effect, the dogmatic mode of thinking extends the assumption of changelessness (which permits perfect knowledge) to a world which is no longer perfectly changeless. This is no easy task. In view of man's imperfect understanding, no explanation can be fully in accord with reality. As long as observation has any bearing on what is regarded as incontrovertible truth, some discrepancies are bound to arise. The only really effective solution is to remove truth from the realm of observation and reserve it for a higher level of consciousness in which it can rule undisturbed by conflicting evidence.

The dogmatic mode of thinking therefore tends to resort to a superhuman authority such as God or History, which reveals itself to mankind in one way or another. The revelation is the only and ultimate source of truth. While men, with their imperfect intellect, argue endlessly about the applications and implications of the doctrine, the doctrine itself continues to shine in its august purity. While observation records a constant flow of changes, the rule of the superhuman power remains undisturbed. This device maintains the illusion of a well-defined permanent world order in the face of much evidence that would otherwise discredit it. The illusion is reinforced by the fact that the dogmatic mode of thinking, if successful, tends to keep social conditions unchanging. Yet even at its most successful, the dogmatic mode does not possess the simplicity that was the redeeming feature of the traditional mode.

The traditional mode of thinking dealt entirely with concrete situations. The dogmatic mode relies on a doctrine that is applicable to all conceivable conditions. Its tenets are abstractions which exist beyond, and often in spite of, direct observation. The use of abstractions brings with it all the complications from which the traditional mode was exempt. Far from being simple, the dogmatic mode of thinking can become even more complex than the critical mode. This is hardly surprising. To maintain the assumption of changelessness in conditions that are not fully appropriate, without admitting that an assumption has been made, is a distortion of reality. One must go through complicated contortions to achieve a semblance of credibility, and pay heavy penalties in terms of mental effort and strain. Indeed, it would be difficult to believe that the human mind is capable of such self deception if history did not provide actual examples. It appears that the mind is an instrument that can resolve any self-generated contradiction by creating new contradictions somewhere else. This tendency is given free reign in the dogmatic mode of thinking because, as we have seen, its tenets are exposed to minimum contact with observable phenomena.

With all efforts devoted to resolving internal contradictions, the dogmatic mode of thinking offers little scope for improving the available body of knowledge. It cannot admit direct observation as evidence because in case of a conflict the authority of dogma would be undermined. It must confine itself to applying the doctrine. This leads to arguments about the meaning of words, especially those of the original revelation - sophistic, talmudistic, theological, ideological discussions, which tend to create new problems for every one they resolve. Since thinking has little or no contact with reality, speculation is inclined to become more convoluted and unreal the further it proceeds. How many angels can dance on the head of a needle?

What the actual contents of a doctrine are depends on historical circumstances and cannot be made the subject of generalizations. Tradition may provide part of the material but, in order to do so, it must undergo a radical transformation. The dogmatic mode of thinking requires universally applicable statements, while tradition was originally couched in concrete terms. It must now be generalized in order to make it relevant to a wider range of events than it was destined for. How this can be accomplished is clearly demonstrated by the growth of languages. One of the ways in which a language adjusts itself to changing circumstances is by using in a figurative sense words that originally had only a concrete connotation. The figurative meaning retains but one characteristic aspect of the concrete case and may then be applied to other concrete cases which share that characteristic. The same method is used by preachers who take as their text a piece of narrative from the Bible.

A doctrine may also incorporate ideas originating in an open society. Every philosophical and religious theory offering a comprehensive explanation for the problems of existence has the makings of a doctrine; all it needs is unconditional acceptance and universal enforcement. The originator of a comprehensive philosophy may not have intended to put forth a doctrine that is to be unconditionally accepted and universally enforced; but personal inclinations have little influence on the development of ideas. Once a theory becomes the sole source of knowledge, it assumes certain characteristics which prevail irrespective of its original intention.

Since the critical mode of thinking is more powerful than the traditional mode, ideologies developed by critical thinking are more likely to serve as the basis of dogma than tradition itself. Once established, they may take on a traditional appearance. If language is flexible enough to permit the figurative use of concrete statements, it can also lend itself to the reverse process, and abstract ideas can be personified. The Old Testament God is a case in point and Frazer's Golden Bough offers many other examples. We may find in practice that what we call tradition incorporates many products of critical thinking translated into concrete terms.

The primary requirement of dogma is to be all-embracing. It must provide a yardstick by which every thought and action can be measured. If one could not evaluate everything in its light, one would have to cast around for other methods of distinguishing between right and wrong; such a search would destroy the dogmatic mode of thinking. Even if the validity of the dogma were not attacked directly, the mere fact that the application of other criteria can have divergent results would tend to undermine its authority. If a doctrine is to fulfill its function as the fountain of all knowledge, its supremacy must be asserted in every field. It may not be necessary to refer to it all the time: the land can be cultivated, pictures painted, wars fought, rockets launched - each in its own fashion. But whenever an idea or action comes into conflict with a doctrine, the doctrine must be given precedence. In this way, ever larger areas of human activity may come under its control.

The other main characteristic of dogma is its rigidity. The traditional mode of thinking is extremely flexible. As tradition is timeless, any alteration is immediately accepted not only in the present but as something that has existed since time immemorial. Not so the dogmatic mode. Its doctrines provide a yardstick by which thoughts and actions are to be judged. Hence they must be permanently fixed and no amount of transgression can justify a change. If there is a departure from the norm it must be corrected at once; the dogma itself must remain inviolate.

In the light of our inherently imperfect understanding, it is clear that new developments may clash with established doctrines or create internal contradictions in unforeseen ways. Any change represents a potential threat. To minimize the danger, the dogmatic mode of thinking tends to inhibit new departures both in thinking and in action. It doe's so not only by eliminating unregulated change from its own view of the universe but also by actively suppressing unregulated thoughts and actions. How far it will go in this direction depends on the extent to which it is attacked.

In contrast with the traditional mode of thinking, the dogmatic mode is inseparably linked with some form of compulsion. Compulsion is necessary to ensure the supremacy of dogma over actual and potential alternatives. Every doctrine is liable to raise questions which do not resolve themselves by mere contemplation; in the absence of an authority that defines the doctrine and defends its purity, the unity of the dogmatic view is bound to break up into conflicting interpretations. The most effective way to deal with this problem is to charge a human authority with interpreting the will of the superhuman power from which the validity of doctrines is derived. Its interpretations may evolve with the times and, if the authority operates efficiently, prevailing doctrines can keep pace with changes occurring in reality to a considerable extent. But no innovation other than the one sanctioned by the authority can be tolerated, and the authority must have sufficient power to eliminate conflicting views.

There may be circumstances in which the authority need have little recourse to force. As long as the prevailing dogma fulfills its functions of providing an all-embracing explanation, people will tend to accept it without question. After all, the dogma enjoys monopoly: while there may be various views available on particular issues, when it comes to reality as a whole there is only one view in existence. People are brought up under its aegis, they are trained to think in its terms: it is more natural for them to accept than to question it.

Yet when internal contradictions develop into ever more unrealistic debates, or when new events occur which do not fit in with established explanations, people may begin to question the foundations. When this happens, the dogmatic mode of thinking can be sustained only by force. The use of force is bound to have a profound influence on the evolution of ideas. Thinking no longer develops along its own lines, but becomes intricately interwoven with power politics. Particular thoughts are associated with particular interests and the victory of an interpretation depends more on the relative political strength of its proponents than on the validity of the arguments marshalled in its support. The human mind becomes a battlefield of political forces and, conversely, doctrines become weapons in the hands of warring factions.

The supremacy of a doctrine can thus be prolonged by means that have little to do with the validity of arguments. The greater the coercion employed to maintain a dogma in force, the less likely it is to satisfy the needs of the human mind. When finally the hegemony of a dogma is broken, people are likely to feel that they have been liberated from terrible oppression. Wide new vistas are opened and the abundance of opportunities engenders hope, enthusiasm and tremendous intellectual activity.

It can be seen that the dogmatic mode of thinking fails to recreate any of the qualities that made the traditional mode so attractive. It turns out to be convoluted, rigid and oppressive. True, it eliminates the uncertainties that plague the critical mode but only at the cost of creating conditions which the human mind would find intolerable if it were aware of any alternatives. Just as a doctrine based on a superhuman authority may provide an avenue of escape from the shortcomings of the critical mode, the critical mode itself may appear as the salvation to those who suffer from the oppression of a dogma.