In “Taking Responsibility For Our Emotions” (1999), Nancy Sherman argues that we have more emotional agency than we often take credit for. Emotions are not a wholly passive phenomenon, not something that wash over us. Although we may not be able to choose what we feel at a given moment, our previous actions and habits contribute to our emotional dispositions (p. 296). In this way, we have a limited form of agency and responsibility for our emotional reactions. Building on Sherman’s view, I would like to argue that we have a limited form of epistemic responsibility. Adults who are capable of questioning their beliefs and exposing themselves to opposing views have a responsibility to do so. Otherwise-rational, functioning adults who could accurately be described as “indoctrinated” (Qanon members, white nationalists, etc.) are responsible in part for their own indoctrination.

Indoctrination and Habits

     Rational, adult individuals who become indoctrinated do not do so on purpose; however, they do so through an active process of decisions. Although an individual cannot choose whether or not they find something convincing in a particular moment, they may choose whether or not they expose themselves to content they find challenging or content that makes them comfortable. They may choose whether they engage with and listen to people they disagree with, or write off ideological opponents as evil, compromised, or stupid. These smaller choices inform our habits and abilities. If we continuously make poor decisions, it may become nearly impossible to question our views, or change our minds when there is sufficient reason to do so. In this way, we cultivate habits, and when we do so poorly and consistently, we may indoctrinate ourselves to such an extent that we become able to view certain others as subhuman, or believe baseless claims that we would have previously thought were absurd.

     To illustrate this, let’s explore the following character/scenario: Greg is a right-wing libertarian who claims to hold a principled belief in free speech. Greg frequently criticizes platforms for censorship of figures that he personally does not believe should be censored. He also has a strong opposition to activist movements like Black Lives Matter, who he views as engaging in divisive identity politics. One day, Greg comes across an article from a reputable source with the headline “Black Activist Jailed for Facebook Post.” He can stick with his supposed principles of free speech and condemn this act, but, this would come with a cost: he could feel ostracized from his ideological peers, who may not want to acknowledge this particular example of censorship. Acknowledging this new piece of information could force him to question his narrative that right-wing ideas in particular are being censored, and perhaps question whether or not he truly believes in free speech for those he is less sympathetic towards. Because this belief is an important part of his political identity, he feels a need to protect it. So, perhaps Greg chooses to find some way around this dilemma. Sensing that it could cause him to question his assumptions, he may simply choose not to read the article in the first place. If he does click on the article and finds that it pushes back against some of his assumptions, he may try to process the information in a way that nullifies its effect: he might tell himself “the media is biased towards Black Lives Matter, so this information is probably skewed” to help foster a sense of doubt towards the uncomfortable new information. Alternatively, he may take the information seriously, even if it does put him in an uncomfortable position, and accept that the jailing of the activist was unjust.

     If Greg decides to make one of the easier decisions (e.g. avoiding the information because it may challenge his views, dismissing the challenging information off hand), this choice by itself would be small, and not particularly problematic – if he continuously made such choices, however, he would be cultivating a tendency towards dishonest, partisan thinking within himself. Lacking any counterweight (or at least, any that he is willing to listen to), he may slowly drift towards an increasingly extremist worldview. If someone believes that their ideological opponents are without merit and undeserving of consideration, they could fairly easily drift towards a belief that their opponents are trying to destroy civilization, evil, or undeserving of basic rights. Eventually, this way of thinking would likely be out of Greg’s control. If he has nourished a worldview that dehumanizes or demonizes certain others, he could not simply decide to now view them as equals who are worthy of consideration. 

     If Greg faces the uncomfortable information earnestly, this act by itself may not be particularly significant either. But, if he continuously made such choices, he would be cultivating a habit of intellectual honesty and openness, which would allow him to listen to others, consider alternative views, and challenge his own assumptions.

Potential Objections

     Objection 1: Many people may not have any awareness of concepts like confirmation bias, and therefore, would have no way of knowing that there is any reason not to simply consume content that feels right to them. To someone who does not know any better, a feeling of comfort and rightness may seem like a perfectly valid reason to trust a piece of information is true.

     Response: I’m not committed to the idea that everyone has the same responsibility to question their claims and expose themselves to opposing ideas. There may be degrees of responsibility corresponding to your abilities. All I am claiming is that this responsibility does exist. It does not apply to some at all (children, those with mental illnesses or intellectual disabilities), and for those it does apply to, the responsibility may differ greatly based on ability.

     Objection 2: Certain individuals may not have the time to look into something, and so they may be more vulnerable to indoctrination. It would not be realistic or fair, for instance, to claim that someone who works two jobs is responsible for also exposing themselves to opposing ideas.

     Response: Someone who is so busy that they cannot go down any ideological rabbit hole would not have any need or responsibility to combat their own indoctrination – they would not have time to consume enough content to indoctrinate themselves in the first place. It takes time and effort to counter our views. It also takes time and effort to confirm our views. If someone has time to consume a great deal of content to confirm their views, then they can be seen as actively participating in their own indoctrination, and therefore possess some level of responsibility for this.

     Further, this objection would not seem to be enough to excuse other kinds of behavior. Imagine someone who, because he is busy, fails to treat the grievances of his romantic partner with any kind of respect. He fails to consider that his partner could have a valid perspective, and consistently ignores her concerns and complaints. The fact that this person is busy does not absolve him of responsibility or blame. In the same way, we have a responsibility to treat the grievances of those we have ideological differences with as seriously as possible. If we fail to do so, and, for instance, only consume content that dehumanizes immigrants rather than content that takes their grievances seriously, then we are responsible for the views and biases that we have fostered within ourselves as a result of these habits.

     Objection 3: The responsibility should not be on the individual. Rather, it should be the responsibility of society to inoculate individuals against misinformation and manipulation. Instead of blaming individuals, we should work towards creating a society that does not leave people so vulnerable to manipulation by grifters, conspiracy theorists, and extremists.

     Response: Claiming that we are participants in our indoctrination does not entail that we alone are responsible. My view does not take responsibility away from the society to inoculate individuals against misinformation through teaching critical thinking and media literacy (neither of which we do a good job of in the U.S.). Nor does my view take the responsibility away from show hosts, authors, and politicians who seduce the public towards conspiracy theories, Manichean partisanship, or extremism.

Conclusion

     We face choices when we encounter something that conflicts with our views. Do we rationalize, try to maintain homeostasis? Do we use thought-terminating cliches to ignore the contradiction altogether? Or, do we accept that the contradiction poses a problem, and our view may need to be modified? These choices are of ethical significance. Just as we have a responsibility to take the grievances of a friend or romantic partner seriously, so too do we have a responsibility to take the views and grievances of those we disagree with seriously.

     We do not just passively become indoctrinated through consuming content. We actively make decisions that, over time, can contribute to or against our own indoctrination. We do not choose whether we find something persuasive in a given moment, but we can decide whether to expose ourselves to things and people that we already agree with, or things that challenge us; we can choose whether or not we dismiss those we disagree with offhand, or listen to them openly. Although we (rational adults) do not purposefully indoctrinate ourselves, we cultivate our own indoctrination through repeated action and inaction (e.g. consuming content that confirms our views, ignoring content that conflicts with our views, writing off ideological opponents, rationalization, etc.), and are therefore responsible for it.

Sherman, N. (1999). Taking Responsibility For Our Emotions. Responsibility