Bulverism Is Alive and Well

By: Michaeljon Murphy
Director of Communications
Constitution Party of Wisconsin

In an essay read to the Socratic Club at Oxford University in 1944, C.S. Lewis described a phenomenon that is all too common more than 80 years later.  He begins by making an observation of the Freudians and Marxists in his day, attributing someone’s philosophy as nothing but a function of their psychological complexes or social class.  They are quick to label someone, and then dismiss their ideas without actually addressing the ideas themselves.  This jumps to the conclusion and saves them the bother of being rational about it.  Lewis even coins a name for the practice.  See if this sounds familiar:

C.S. Lewis
John S. Murray, Public domain, via Wikimedia Commons

[Y]ou must show that a man is wrong before you start explaining why he is wrong.  The modern method is to assume without discussion that he is wrong and then distract his attention from this (the only real issue) by busily explaining how he became so silly.  In the course of the last fifteen years I have found this vice so common that I have had to invent a name for it.  I call it Bulverism.  Some day I am going to write the biography of its imaginary inventor, Ezekiel Bulver, whose destiny was determined at the age of five when he heard his mother say to his father—who had been maintaining that two sides of a triangle were together greater than the third—‘Oh you say that because you are a man.’  ‘At that moment’, E. Bulver assures us, ‘there flashed across my opening mind the great truth that refutation is no necessary part of argument.  Assume that your opponent is wrong, and then explain his error, and the world will be at your feet.  Attempt to prove that he is wrong or (worse still) try to find out whether he is wrong or right, and the natural dynamism of our age will thrust you to the wall.’  That is how Bulver became one of the makers of the Twentieth Century.

Critical Theory

We still see the Marxists of our day making much use of this strategy.  The racial division and “white guilt” that is pedaled today has its roots in Marxist Critical Theory; only today, they call it critical race theory.  Labeling someone as inherently racist just because he/she is white is Bulverism.  By not attempting to actually prove their opponents wrong saves them the bother of explaining away the actual statistics on the number of shootings of black individuals by police, etc.  The strategy is hollow but effective.  Such teaching is common in academia.  The number of times I have found a tome by Ibram X. Kendi on the bookshelves while thrifting is more than I would care to count.  I ran across a book on “white fragility” at a library book sale just today.  This shows that such drivel sells, but hopefully the fact that they end up frequently in donated second-hand stacks shows that they may be something worth quickly discarding and forgetting about.

Other Examples

Image by 8photo on Freepik

There are many other examples of this tendency from the left:

• Saying “you can’t have an opinion on abortion if you’re a man” is Bulverism.
• Labeling people “climate change deniers” without addressing their claims is Bulverism.
• Calling someone “homophobic” just because he/she happens to be white, straight or “cisgendered” is Bulverism.

Lewis’ point that someone actually trying to find out whether an opponent is actually right or wrong will be “thrust to the wall” is also painfully true in our day.  The left can be vicious to those in their own ranks who go out on a limb in this regard.  It risks exposing their house of cards and is met with swift ostracization.

However, Lewis also explains that this is not just a temptation for those on the left.

“…Bulverism is a truly democratic game in the sense that all can play it all day long, and that it gives no unfair privilege to the small and offensive minority who reason.  But of course it gets us not one inch nearer to deciding whether, as a matter of fact, [something] is true or false.

We should address the rightness or wrongness of ideas rather than attacking or labeling the people propounding those ideas.  This sadly is becoming standard practice in political discussions of today.  It again, is nothing new, as C.S. Lewis found this to be the case 80 years ago.

I see Bulverism at work in every political argument.  The capitalists must be bad economists because we know why they want capitalism, and equally the Communists must be bad economists because we know why they want Communism.  Thus, the Bulverists are on both sides.  In reality, of course, either the doctrines of the capitalists are false, or the doctrines of the Communists, or both; but you can only find out the rights and wrongs by reasoning—never by being rude about your opponent’s psychology.

Image by freepik

Being rude about your opponent may earn you accolades these days, but the key to lasting societal change is seeking to establish the rights and wrongs of matters.  Let’s encourage candidates and culture warriors alike to seek to build such foundations.  Dare to be part of the “small and offensive minority who reason.”

Listen to this blog post as an audio file below.