Philosophical Choices Under Ideological Pressure: Totalitarian Mind, Ketman, and the Dissident Scholar

This essay draws on insights from the course The Dissident Mind taught by Lucie Zicha. It explores concepts of intellectual submission under totalitarian rule, particularly the Totalitarian Mind, the Ketman, and the Dissident Mind, and applies them to problems in contemporary academia. The essay looks at how ideological conformity leads to intellectual corruption and hinders the paradigm shifts essential for disruptive advancement in research.

Introduction

This essay argues that all three philosophies of life under a totalitarian system manifest themselves in a variety of ways in the modern age. More specifically we can find these ways of life in today's academia; firstly the Totalitarian Mind doing research to confirm the premises on which stands the current ideological status quo; secondly the Ketman who understands that the the current dominant theories might not be 'the truth' but chooses to confirm them in order to make their life easier; lastly, the Dissident Mind who pursues the truth no matter what the system dictates and aim for academic honesty even despite its possible negative consequence on their life (Yu et al., 2021). 

The Totalitarian Mind

The Totalitarian Mind manifests itself in academia in the form of a scientist whose goal in research is to confirm the ideological premises on which their convictions rest. Czesław Miłosz, in his 1983 The Captive Mind, offers a compelling metaphor for the Totalitarian Mind in the form of a pill that an individual chooses to take as a solution to their existential pain and the suffering inherent in life. This pill causes one to find the ultimate virtue of life in a single cause that is held above all else, and based on which any action can be justified as long as it is pursued for this higher cause (Arendt 1953).

To give a contemporary example, consider a scientist who was schooled in the United States at the beginning of the millennium. The influence of liberalism on their education shaped their values. This scientist's values can therefore be expected to appeal to freedom from restraint, the absence of hierarchy, and the primacy of individual rights above all else (Deneen, 2019). If this person chooses to swallow the ideological pill, they will feel morally superior to those who do not hold these liberal values (if you studied at a Western university in the last decade, you have probably encountered this). Equivalent mechanisms work in the case of conservative ideology if that is the dominant one in a certain social circle. Furthermore, they will feel obligated to serve these values in every aspect of their lives, including their research.

However, this pill has negative side effects. These side effects are well demonstrated when comparing ideology with religion. Ideology, for instance, divorces itself from religion at the point where religion offers abstract ideas, providing a framework for thought rather than action. For the same reason, the Totalitarian Mind chooses an ideology that offers simple answers to complex problems, as it makes life more bearable and less difficult to navigate. The trade-off, however, according to Viktor Frankl, is that life becomes less meaningful due to the absence of a real purpose — one that can only be offered by abstract ideas, such as the idea of God, which does not provide direct answers but instead offers tools to wrestle with one's struggles and find meaning in them (Frankl, 1985).

Similarly, in academia, there is a contradiction rooted in the ancient distinction between the philosopher, who pursues truth, and the sophist, whom Miłosz might characterize as the first material dialecticians, concerned more with argumentation around self-constructed concepts than with the truth behind them. The Totalitarian Mind in academia follows the latter path. It chooses not to question the assumptions of the status quo, which can be any dominant ideology in one’s social group, be it liberal or conservative. Instead, the Totalitarian Mind conducts research in a manner that confirms its assumptions. The difference between being biased and having the Totalitarian Mind is that bias happens unconsciously, while the Totalitarian Mind makes a conscious choice of subscribing to an ideology. A person adopts who Totalitarian Mind in academia will either to promote the goals of an ideology they believe in or to gain influence within a particular intellectual movement, rather than to question their own assumptions. In this way, the Totalitarian Mind instrumentalizes science for the pursuit of a "better future" rooted in its ideological assumptions.

The Ketman

The Ketman, as a scientist, is an individual who does not blindly subscribe to the ideological premises of the status quo but chooses to confirm them, or at least not to intellectually question them, in their research, since it might have negative consequences for their life.

Czeslaw takes the concept of the Ketman from the French diplomat Count Joseph-Arthur Gobineau (1816–82) in Persia during the mid-19th century and defines it as living in a totalitarian system while “outwardly conforming and inwardly dissenting.” The Ketman does not believe in the ideological core on which the totalitarian system is based, but simultaneously does not raise their voice out of fear of suffering various negative consequences.

In academia the Ketman is an academic who sees the possibility that the truth might differ from the status quo - such as the possibility that certain protective economic policies could positively impact developing countries in the early stages of development (Chang, 2003), yet does not pursue this higher truth, as doing so could bring inconvenience. Some of these Ketmen might be afraid of losing something they value, which depends on the mercy of the system (such as securing a grant or getting published). Others simply have no interest in changing the status quo or escaping the lie. 

In Václav Havel's The Power of the Powerless, the "lie" is the absurdity of totalitarian rule, sustained by an ideology that no one truly believes anymore (Havel, 2009); in Havel’s context this was represented by the state of the totalitarian rule in Czechoslovakia in the 70s and 80s in era called Normalization. in contemporary academia, this ‘lie’ can be represented by certain assumptions universally taken for-granted while being empirically flawed such as the assumption that the free markets are a silver bullet for economic development (Herr, 2018) or that western education changes the values of people from non-western countries (Wilson, 2014). 

Milosz distinguishes many types of Ketmen. For instance, an academic who writes articles about the universal ability of free markets to eradicate poverty merely to get publications and citations is a specific type of Ketman, which we might call the Professional Ketman. This person sacrifices living in the truth to protect their career prospects and material well-being. A typical example of such behavior is the life of the school principal in Pupendo, who, even though clearly unconvinced by the system's ideological underpinnings, chooses to cooperate and actively co-create the system in order to enjoy the superficial - or not so superficial - joys of life, such as going to the seaside with his family during the summer. Had he been an academic in this film, he would have published papers on the marvelous architecture of the new national museum building or the wonders of the Máj shopping mall examples of what Havel points to as manifestations of living in a lie: calling art what art is not.

The Dissident Mind

The academic dissident is the person who always pursues 'the truth' no matter the negative consequences it might have for them. Based on Havel's The Power of the Powerless, a dissident chooses to live in the truth. The important caveat here is that Havel's conception of a dissident does not include loud protests against the regime or an active revolt. Instead, Havel urges us to live the truth within oneself, which then manifests outwardly. 

In Havel's story, a dissident is a brewer who 'just' wants to make better beer; in the movie A Hidden Life, the protagonist, Franz might seem like an active resistor to the Nazi regime. However, by reading Havel, one begins to understand that Franz is a dissident exactly as Havel perceives one. Franz never wanted to kill an SS commander or tear down the Nazi regime. He simply wants to live in the truth. If living in the truth means being helpful to his family and community in the Austrian Alps, then he will do that. If it means not owing allegiance to Hitler because he does not identify with the principles Hitler is preaching, then he will do that. The dramatic events of Franz's life are therefore much more a symptom of the rotten and evil system reacting to an individual who wants to live in 'the truth' than a revolt initiated by Franz himself.

Similarly, a dissident academic does not try to disprove research that supports a certain ideology. Instead, they search for 'the truth' in their research, no matter what the current status quo is. Using similar logic, one's research rooted in the rigorous scientific methods search for truth will only cause a disruption and potentially a paradigm shift if the current state of academia is grounded in ideology or bias. 

A dissident researcher does not seek consistency in their findings, as they are aware of the limitations of their own understanding of the world and recognize that if their findings are consistently confirming their hypotheses, it is more likely due to confirmation bias or ideological beliefs than to their precise reasoning and ability to predict phenomena. 

Having a Dissident Mind in academia is especially important because if we want to live up to our expectations that science is here to search for 'the truth', we must not be influenced by the power dynamics caused by the ideological status quo but instead continue searching for 'the truth', as this pursuit forms the very foundation of academia itself.

Conclusion

The Totalitarian Mind, Ketman, and the Dissident Mind are vital for understanding the role each researcher plays in the pursuit of understanding reality. Only when we understand the relevance of these concepts in the modern age can we choose not to participate in a system powered by a lie coming from the right and the left, whether it be a totalitarian regime or any other ideology-infused academia. 

Bibliography

Arendt, H. (2004). The origins of totalitarianism (1st ed). Schocken Books.

Chang, H.-J. (2003). Kicking Away the Ladder: Infant Industry Promotion in Historical Perspective. Oxford Development Studies, 31(1), 21–32. https://doi.org/10.1080/1360081032000047168

Miłosz, Czesław. (1983). The captive mind. New York City :Limited Editions Club,

Deneen, P. J. (2019). Why Liberalism Failed. Yale University Press.

Frankl, V. E. (1985). Man’s Search For Meaning. Simon and Schuster.

Havel, V. (2009). The Power of the Powerless (Routledge Revivals): Citizens Against the State in Central-eastern Europe. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203857229

Herr, H. (2018). Underdevelopment and unregulated markets: Why free markets do not lead to catching-up*. https://doi.org/10.4337/ejeep.2018.02.12

Wilson, J. (2014). Model villages in the neoliberal era: The Millennium Development Goals and the colonization of everyday life. The Journal of Peasant Studies, 41(1), 107–125. https://doi.org/10.1080/03066150.2013.821651

Yu, X., Szymanski, B. K., & Jia, T. (2021). Become a better you: Correlation between the change of research direction and the change of scientific performance. Journal of Informetrics, 15(3), 101193. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joi.2021.101193