Voltaire’s Bastards; Knowledge and Power

The dynamics of knowledge and power have always been and remain a pivotal theme in America, and among Western elites, particularly as illustrated through the lens of John Ralston Saul's "Voltaire’s Bastards." Saul critiques the notion that expertise and knowledge alone confer authority and respectability. He argues that the elite’s control over knowledge is not merely a matter of information but a matter of power dynamics that govern society. 

At the heart of Saul's argument is the idea that the possession and control of knowledge have become sacrosanct among elites. In the 2020s, this observation rings true with the increasing polarization surrounding issues such as climate change, public health, and social justice. The elite, often comprising politicians, academics, and industry leaders, wield their knowledge as a means of asserting authority and influence. Saul notes that the “institutionalization of knowledge” can lead to a detachment from the lived experiences of ordinary citizens, who may feel alienated by a false sense of ignorance and/or perceived insult, and a strong sense of distrust.

For instance, during the COVID-19 pandemic, public health officials became the face of expertise, guiding policy decisions that impacted millions. However, as the pandemic unfolded, significant segments of the population began to question the motives and the reliability of these experts. The clash between the scientific community and those skeptical of governmental authority highlighted the risks associated with an elite-driven narrative. In a world where knowledge is weaponized, dissenting voices often struggle to find a foothold with the public.  This is reminiscent of Voltaire’s emphasis on freedom of thought, which underscores the importance of questioning authority rather than accepting it uncritically. Voltaire famously stated, “Dare to think for yourself,” a principle that emphasizes the need for independent thought in the face of dogmatic authority.  Whereas in America, independent thought appears to be more toward making a choice of any elite narrative, and supporting it as a personal ideal, or an argument to represent their ‘choice’ (of elite narrative) not necessarily an independent thought of their own.

Saul critiques the idea that knowledge leads to better governance. He argues that the effectiveness of knowledge is often overshadowed by the elite’s control over its application. This is particularly evident in modern America, where media narratives are shaped by powerful interests that may prioritize profit over public good. The rise of misinformation and the manipulation of knowledge through social media platforms have created an environment where truth is often contested. And should be.  This dynamic can be observed in political campaigns where facts are selectively presented to bolster a particular agenda, and later to be ostracized as ‘fake news’ or presented as inarguable truth.  It’s all more likely a salad bowl of compromised and corrupted intentions.

In Saul's view, a society that elevates knowledge above all else risks neglecting the ethical considerations that should inform its use. This is evident in the tech industry, where advancements in artificial intelligence and data analytics raise critical ethical questions. The elite, who often drive these innovations, may prioritize efficiency and profitability while overlooking the societal implications of their technologies. For example, the deployment of facial recognition technology has been met with widespread criticism due to concerns about privacy and racial bias. Here, the possession of knowledge does not necessarily translate into ethical governance; instead, it can perpetuate systems of oppression if left unchecked.  That’s not to say anyone may set out to use the technology to create a system of oppression…although history only leads us to believe someone would…it’s more to the technologies ‘use of knowledge’ developing mathematically biased formulations that aren’t necessarily about race or gender or wealth or religion.  We can’t possibly think the technology to be ethically flawless, can we?  But we can think the elite will sell us that we should.

Another significant aspect of Saul’s critique is the notion of commodifying knowledge. In the current educational landscape, there is a growing trend to view knowledge as a commodity to be traded rather than a shared societal resource. This is particularly evident in the rising costs of higher education, where access to knowledge becomes contingent upon financial means. The consequence is a widening gap between those who can afford quality education and those who cannot, further entrenching social inequalities. This echoes Saul's assertion that when knowledge becomes a tool of the elite, it alienates those outside their circles.   And it demonstrates the exclusionary aspect of cornering the market.  Knowledge in higher education, all though even more so now in elementary private education, is not even the primary product.  Their brand is.  The smartest, most capable, brightest most personable student in the world may not…is likely not…at Harvard.  Or Stanford, or any other ‘elite’ institution for that matter.  And all the knowledge that person may attain, may be attained outside those institutions.  But that person will not have the value of the brands we’ve been sold by elites to trust as something more and better.  Academics among the elite is no longer about knowledge.  It’s about brand, and is a driver of our elitist economy.  

The concept of citizenship, as defined by elites, often emphasizes compliance with established norms and knowledge frameworks. However, true citizenship, as Voltaire argued, involves a commitment to critical inquiry and active participation in the public sphere. In modern America, this is reflected in various grassroots initiatives that seek to challenge the status quo and promote social justice. These movements embody a form of citizenship that resists elite narratives and seeks to redefine the parameters of knowledge and power.  Somewhat conversely, one of the challenges in modern America has some grassroots initiatives taking on elitist tones, even elitist participation.  They themselves becoming then distrusted by the public.  There should be no-to-little doubt that organizations and movements like Black Lives Matter and Me Too set out with the best intentions.  But both, and others, have struggled thru some level of negative public sentiment.  Much of which as the public may shift from understanding the movements’ ethical stance to listening to a more accusatory tone toward any dissenting opinion.

Furthermore, the reliance on experts can lead to a form of elitism that undermines democratic values. Saul warns against the dangers of technocracy, where decision-making is entrusted solely to those deemed knowledgeable. In practice, this can alienate the populace and foster resentment towards the very institutions intended to serve them. The polarization evident in contemporary American politics, where expertise is often dismissed in favor of populist rhetoric, reflects this tension. As Saul noted, the “expert” can become an object of distrust when perceived as disconnected from the realities faced by ordinary citizens.

Current control and the definition of knowledge by American elites resonates deeply with John Ralston Saul's critiques in "Voltaire’s Bastards." The dynamics of knowledge and power are intricately linked, and the elite's grip on knowledge often obscures ethical considerations and undermines genuine democratic engagement.  Contemporary America illustrates the ongoing struggles between expertise and public skepticism, highlighting the need for a more inclusive conversation that values diverse perspectives. Voltaire's call for individual thought remains relevant as society grapples with the complexities of knowledge in an increasingly polarized world. Ultimately, the challenge lies in fostering an environment where knowledge serves as a bridge rather than a barrier, enabling all citizens to engage in the critical conversation essential for a healthy democracy.

In the meantime, should we not foster such an environment, we can certainly expect to be left with making decisions as to whose side we choose to sit on.  Whose argument we choose to support.  Which elite idea feels best to us.  Unless…we question the elitist, the oligarch, the politico, the CEO, the TV personality, and possibly ‘dare to think for our selves.’