Sometimes, out of irony, I also call activities such as argument, persuasion, and admonition “brainwashing.” But if we really press the matter, I must insist that “argument” and “brainwashing” are by no means equivalent. In fact, we can all feel the difference between the two; otherwise we would not laugh at the “brainwashing” displayed in Zhao Benshan’s comic sketches.
First of all, the purposes of “argument” and “brainwashing” are simply not the same. On the one hand, the former requires the other person to “actively” come to accept it, whereas the latter only requires the other person to “passively” receive it; on the other hand, the former is oriented toward the level of thought, whereas the latter is oriented toward the level of action.
The active character of “argument” is shown in the fact that once the other person is persuaded by a chain of reasoning, that chain of reasoning itself will also become part of his own thinking. Thus he is not merely following the provider of the argument; in fact, he himself also becomes a provider of that argument. He can persuade himself, and follow himself.
On the other hand, “argument” does not necessarily require the other person to accept it. A successful argument is self-consistent, but if the other person is a pluralist, then he may on the one hand fully accept this argument, while on the other hand still adhere himself to another line of thought. If the internal coherence of this argument has been fully recognized by the opponent, and if one’s own position has also won the other person’s full sympathy through argument, then the argument can be said to have succeeded, without the other person having to take that argument and accept it as his own.
That is to say, after a successful argument, the other person can still always maintain the independence of his own thinking, and indeed he should maintain that independence, because only those who diligently think for themselves can better understand serious argument; those who are lazy about thinking may not even have the patience to hear an argument through carefully, much less agree with it.
“Brainwashing,” by contrast, is always passive and utilitarian. A successful “brainwashing” does not require the other person to take the “brainwashing” itself as part of his own thinking, and “brainwashing” itself is not really any kind of “thinking” at all. “Brainwashing” merely requires the other person to follow some goal that I have indicated, even if only blindly — perhaps blindly is better.
Modern “advertising” is the most typical “brainwashing.” Commercial advertising ultimately has only one goal: to attract you to consume. To achieve this goal, it spares no means of stimulating the nerves of its audience. We call the object of advertising the “audience”; this word itself suggests that advertising only requires passive reception, and does not require you to think actively.
The person who puts forward “argument” hopes that the other person’s capacity for thought will be as strong as possible; the person who engages in “brainwashing,” on the contrary, prefers just the opposite —最好 you don’t think.
This is not to say that “argument” cannot be directed at the most ordinary masses. Argument aimed at the general public is what we call “going in depth while remaining accessible” or “popular and easy to understand.” But this is still worlds apart from “brainwashing.” For a “popular” explanation that enables ordinary people to understand it can of course also be understood even more readily by someone with a similar background but greater accumulated knowledge and a more diligent habit of thought. “Brainwashing,” however, is just the opposite: it cannot be understood by those who think diligently; instead, it is more readily accepted by the ignorant and the lazy.
“Brainwashing” belongs to the “logic of advertising,” and the gradual reduction of serious “argument” into “brainwashing” is precisely an important aspect of the predicament of modernity. I recommend reading Postman’s *Amusing Ourselves to Death* and *The Disappearance of Childhood*; he describes how “democracy” is conquered by the logic of “advertising” and reduced to entertainment, how citizens are increasingly “dumbed down,” how they are increasingly treated as children. Now I want to say that “science communication” also faces the same danger.
What we emphasize is this: science communication should pay attention to the most ordinary masses, and should respect everyone. However, treating the audience as “dumb” is by no means a form of respect for them. The idea of “science communication” should be that both sides of communication ought to stand on an equal footing, mutually respecting one another, respecting the other as an independent thinking subject rather than as a “recipient” passively waiting to be indoctrinated (stuffed).
January 22, 2008
Translated from the Chinese original with AI assistance. The original text is authoritative.
Leave a Reply