Displacing the problem, ad infinitum

Observation on the positing of a problem

There is something strange to power. Those in possession are able to displace the problem, indefinitely. A capability not offered to those suffering power. When we are engaged in discussion, there is always someone who chooses the “problem” we’ll be discussing. There is power in this, the power to direct the thoughts of those involved, the power to determine what the other will invest his time in. All involved in the discussion think about solutions, but there is someone who posits the problem to which these solutions respond. Is there a greater power, than the one to rule over time?

An easy example is media talk-shows in which someone in a position of authority (politician, expert, etc.) is talking to someone not granted such a position. This second person can also enjoy a certain position of authority, but in the dialogue, there is always someone who enjoys a greater degree of authority, a greater degree of power. We often feel intuitively who this authority is. It is this person who, from the trust granted to him on the basis of his authority, is able to pose the problem. The lesser authoritative person does not enjoy this freedom, but is forced to discuss on the basis of this problem. 

Aside from this freedom or power to posit the problem, there is a different type of freedom granted to him in power. This is the power to displace the problem without consequence. When the less powerful individual offers a valuable and adequate solution to the problem set by the authority, the authority has the freedom to displace the problem. He or she can say “ah this is true, but, this isn’t really the problem.” This displacement is accepted by the viewer, because we trust the individual because of his authority. He or she does not have to prove that this displacement is warranted, his inconsistency is not pointed out, he is trusted on it. “This change of position seems strange, but who am I to know, after all he is the expert.” We could imagine if the sides were turned, and the less powerful individual displaces his problem in the same way. He would not be allowed to do so without consequence. He would be questioned as to why, and to give reasons for his inconsistency. We would perhaps never see him again, a possibility not strange to our times.

What is an inconsistency in the lesser individual, is a proof of consistency in the individual of power (granted by his authority and our trust in it).

I offer a small example from a recent debate between a politician and a citizen offering critique on his policy. The politician had been arguing for weeks to strengthen lockdown-measures so as to slow down spread. Why?  To make sure hospitals won’t go over capacity. The problem in this case: hospitals going over capacity. The solution: lockdown. In the debate, the critical citizen offers a solution to this problem, hospitals going over capacity, that doesn’t involve lockdowns and all their damaging consequences. We could, the citizen argues, for the first time in the past three years, invest more money in hospitals, ICU-beds, etc. There are masses of staff standing by to work, so lack of staff wouldn’t be a problem either, etc. In short: it is entirely possible to solve the hospital-capacity problem internally. Damaging lockdowns wouldn’t be needed, and hospitals wouldn’t go over capacity. A win-win situation. The answer of the politician is shocking: “Putting resources into more hospital capacity instead of into lockdowns would mean letting the virus run rampant and thus willfully let more people get infected and die.” He argues thus that in fact, contrary to what he has been saying for weeks and months, the problem isn’t really hospitals going over capacity. No, the problem is people getting infected. There is here a shameless displacement of the problem. What was shocking as to this situation is the unquestioning stance with which this answer was accepted. No one pointed out the politician’s inconsistency, and as the debate ended, the atmosphere was fully there that the politician had won. 

Displacement of the problem, ad infinitum. One can wonder, how often we have fallen into this trap before.

There is a strange thing to authority, in how it allows us to set the problem, but more disturbingly, how it allows us to displace the problem without consequence. For in fact, everyone has the power to set his own problems, which is in essence what it means to think for oneself. However, not everyone is held accountable to the problems he sets. Not everyone is held accountable to his own thoughts, not everyone is judged on the consistency of his thoughts. Some are judged on the consistency of their power, however inconsistent their thoughts might be. We all share in the freedom to posit problems, but when it comes to being held accountable, some are more free than others.  The freedom to posit problems is undisturbed by historical formations of power. But the freedom to displace the problem is entirely determined by the history of power. How to make the strength residing in the first freedom affect the second? This is the question. But as long as it remains unanswered, it might be enough to simply point out the problem.

Those in power of the problem might determine how time is invested, seemingly the greatest power of all. But there is a greater power, to know that in fact, we too are always in possession of the power to posit problems, even if these do not find influence. A power, which knows not of time, but resides before time’s unfolding.