Boston University Associate Professor of Philosophy Victor Kumar defines “political irrationality” as a tendency for extremism, misinformation and intolerance for disagreement — present on both the right and the left sides of the political spectrum.
“I think to understand the rise of Trump and Trumpism, we have to look at the broader rise of political irrationality in our culture,” Kumar said.
On Oct. 7, Kumar hosted “The Fragmentation of America,” a talk drawing on social epistemology — the study of the social dimensions of knowledge — to explain the appeal behind Trump and the social conditions that led to his election.
Held by the Department of Philosophy, Kumar’s talk emphasized how outrageist culture, paired with a declining commitment to fact, has led to an “intellectual race to the bottom.”
“One dimension of [irrationality] is the way in which you get a lot of attention by pointing out outrageous things that the other side says,” Kumar said. “The other dimension that I gave is how we notice the other side is being irrational, lowering their standards of evidence, and that leads us to lower our standards.”
In a 2023 study conducted by the Pew Research Center, 84% of Americans say political debate has become less respectful and fact-based in the last several years. The same study also found that a majority of Americans find political dialogue with people they disagree with to be stressful.
“I think more people sitting down, having civil conversations is important,” said Tino Themelis, a BU junior and talk attendee. “We need to live together. We’re the United States. We’re not just states.”
Civil dialogue is necessary for rigid polarization to end — and only then can progress be made, Kumar said.
“If you’re interested in understanding your own views and defending them, the only way to do that is to have discussion with people who disagree with you,” Kumar said. “Even if you don’t change your mind in the end, you want to be open-minded and charitable while having discussions with people who disagree.”
A common source of division is an intolerance towards views perceived as morally wrong on opposing ends of the political spectrum, Kumar said.
Senior and talk attendee Max Berman said that understanding, rather than blind agreement, is essential for respectful exchanges.
“You can’t have just a discussion with the other side on the premise that they’re extremely morally repugnant,” Berman said. “You have to be able to understand why someone thinks a thing, even if you don’t necessarily understand it for yourself.”
Berman also pointed out how morality — though inherently subjective — is often treated as an objective set of standards. When this happens, it is almost impossible to see beyond one’s point of view, he said.
“I think there’s also a lot of sort of moral division in the country, where people hold very steadfast moral beliefs but don’t necessarily think about whether they’re right to themselves or right to everyone,” Berman said. “So, you see a lot of people saying that morality is whatever they think it is.”
The role of philosophy in dissecting why beliefs exist and why people hold them helped form the basis of Kumar’s talk. Philosophy not only trains students to be charitable towards differing viewpoints but is also a vast, intersectional field of study, Kumar said.
“[Philosophy] is where you synthesize people, synthesize views from different scientific fields,” Kumar said.
Kumar closed the talk by addressing the future: While there isn’t one clear solution to the problem of political polarization, individuals can take steps to analyze their own beliefs and behavior, he said
“I don’t have some optimistic, hopeful message,” Kumar said. “I do think that one way to think about these issues in a productive way is to think about how you can be useful and productive in our cultural [and] political discourse.”
