Why certainties persist?
Why certainties persist?
In a world increasingly defined by complexity, uncertainty, and flux, why do some ideas, identities, and beliefs persist as self-evident truths? Why do we cling to certainties, despite their flaws and contradictions? These questions are not new—they’ve preoccupied some of the most influential thinkers of the modern era. Among them, Antonio Gramsci, Jacques Derrida, and Jacques Lacan provide profound insights into how certainties are constructed, sustained, and experienced. By bringing their ideas together, we can unpack the illusory nature of certainty and its role in shaping our cultural, psychological, and political realities.
The Promise of Certainty in a Fragmented World
Certainties—whether about identity, politics, or social norms—offer us the comforting illusion of coherence. They simplify the messy and complex reality we inhabit, presenting stable meanings and clear boundaries where none truly exist. For instance, ideas like "nationhood," "gender roles," or "meritocracy" appear as fixed truths. Yet, as Gramsci, Derrida, and Lacan show us, these certainties are far from natural. Instead, they are constructed appearances, carefully maintained through culture, language, and psychology.
Gramsci: Certainty as a Tool of Hegemony
Antonio Gramsci helps us understand why certainties persist in the realm of politics and culture. For Gramsci, hegemony is the process through which dominant groups maintain their power not through coercion but through consent. Certainties are key tools in this process, as they shape what we perceive as "common sense."
Gramsci argued that dominant ideologies work by presenting themselves as natural and inevitable, erasing the history and politics behind their construction. For example:
-
The idea of the "free market" is presented as a universal truth, despite being a historically specific and ideologically loaded concept.
-
Patriarchal norms about gender are framed as "just how things are," obscuring their cultural and political origins.
Hegemony stabilizes meaning, creating the illusion of certainty in areas that are, in fact, deeply contested. This stability is what allows dominant groups to reproduce their power without resorting to overt force. Certainties persist, then, because they are politically useful—they provide the ideological glue that holds the social order together.
Derrida: Certainty as a Linguistic Illusion
Jacques Derrida, through his concept of deconstruction, reveals that the certainties we experience are largely the result of how language functions. Language, far from being a transparent medium that directly connects us to reality, is inherently unstable. Words and concepts derive their meaning not from any fixed essence but from their relationships to other words—a process Derrida calls différance.
This endless deferral of meaning makes it impossible for any word, concept, or idea to fully encapsulate its subject. Yet, we experience meaning as if it were stable, coherent, and self-contained. Why? Derrida suggests that systems of power and ideology work to temporarily "fix" meaning, creating the appearance of certainty in a linguistic landscape that is, by nature, fluid and ambiguous.
Certainty as Closure
Certainties are linguistic closures—provisional arrests in the endless play of meaning. These closures are not natural but are imposed by cultural, social, and political forces that seek to stabilize meaning for their own ends. For example:
-
The term "democracy" is often presented as a universal good, but its meaning is deeply contested and context-dependent. Still, dominant political ideologies frame it as a stable concept, erasing its contradictions and complexities.
-
In science, terms like "objectivity" or "laws of nature" are treated as absolute, even though they are interpretations shaped by historical paradigms and language.
Derrida shows us that certainties persist because they are linguistically engineered illusions, stabilized by systems of thought that resist questioning. However, these stabilizations are always fragile, as the inherent instability of language threatens to destabilize meaning at any moment. Deconstruction, then, is not just a critique of language but a method of exposing the contradictions and exclusions that underlie the appearance of certainty.
Lacan: Certainty as a Defense Against the Real
Jacques Lacan approaches the persistence of certainty from a psychological perspective, focusing on how humans relate to the Real—a dimension of existence that lies outside language, reason, and symbolization. The Real is what resists being captured by words or concepts; it is the raw, unmediated reality that language and the mind attempt, but ultimately fail, to fully contain.
The Symbolic Order and the Illusion of Coherence
According to Lacan, we live primarily in the Symbolic order, the realm of language, culture, and shared meanings. The Symbolic provides us with a sense of coherence and stability, allowing us to navigate the world. However, this coherence is always incomplete because the Real disrupts and exceeds the Symbolic. For example:
-
Traumatic experiences that defy articulation expose the limits of language and the Symbolic order.
-
The complexity of human emotions or bodily experiences often resists being fully captured in words.
Certainties, in Lacan’s view, function as psychological defenses against the unsettling nature of the Real. They give us the illusion of stability in a world that is, at its core, uncertain and fragmented. By clinging to certainties, we avoid confronting the anxiety provoked by the gaps, contradictions, and incompleteness of our existence.
Fantasy as the Fabric of Certainty
Lacan introduces the concept of fantasy to explain how certainties are psychologically maintained. Fantasies are not merely personal imaginings but structures that sustain our sense of reality, often masking the instability of the Symbolic order. For instance:
-
The fantasy of a unified national identity smooths over the internal contradictions, exclusions, and historical traumas that define most nations.
-
The fantasy of scientific "objectivity" obscures the subjective choices, biases, and assumptions embedded in the scientific process.
Certainties persist because they protect us from confronting the Real—the raw, chaotic truths that lie beyond what language and ideology can articulate.
The Interplay of Power, Language, and Psychology
By bringing Gramsci, Derrida, and Lacan together, we can see how certainties are not only socially and culturally constructed but also linguistically and psychologically maintained. Their persistence is a result of the interplay between:
-
Hegemony (Gramsci): Certainties are tools of power, constructed to stabilize the social order and maintain dominance.
-
Language (Derrida): Certainties are linguistic illusions, created by temporarily fixing meaning in a system that is inherently unstable.
-
Psychology (Lacan): Certainties are defenses against the Real, providing us with a sense of coherence and protecting us from existential anxiety.
Implications: Certainty as a Double-Edged Sword
Certainties, while comforting, are ultimately illusory. They serve important functions—providing stability in a chaotic world, enabling collective action, and simplifying complexity—but they also obscure the truth. By erasing their own constructed nature, certainties reinforce power structures, limit critical thought, and suppress alternative perspectives.
The Danger of Certainty
-
In Politics: Certainties like "national security" or "market efficiency" can justify oppressive policies and marginalize dissenting voices.
-
In Science: Certainties about "objectivity" or "truth" can lead to dogmatism, ignoring the role of bias, interpretation, and uncertainty in the production of knowledge.
-
In Personal Identity: Certainties about gender, race, or cultural identity can reinforce stereotypes and exclude those who do not fit neatly into predefined categories.
Embracing Uncertainty
Gramsci, Derrida, and Lacan collectively invite us to embrace uncertainty, not as a weakness but as a space of possibility. By acknowledging the constructed nature of certainties, we open the door to:
-
Critical Thought: Questioning "common sense" and exposing the ideologies behind it.
-
Deconstruction: Revealing the contradictions and exclusions that sustain dominant narratives.
-
New Horizons: Exploring alternative ways of being, thinking, and organizing society.
Conclusion
Certainties persist because they provide comfort, coherence, and stability in an uncertain world. Yet, as Gramsci, Derrida, and Lacan show us, these certainties are not truths but illusions—fragile constructions maintained by power, language, and psychology. Understanding their illusory nature is not an invitation to despair but a call to action. By interrogating certainties, we can expose the mechanisms that sustain them and imagine new ways of engaging with the complexity and richness of reality.
In a fragmented world, perhaps our greatest strength lies not in clinging to certainties but in learning to live with—and even embrace—uncertainty.