Every person has in their mind, an idea of the person they are. Whether this self-image matches the perceptions other people have of us or is objectively false doesn’t matter. Self-image can be linked to anything, including skills and competencies. For example, the average driver thinks that they are an above average driver. This, of course, is a logical and statistical impossibility, as the average driver is just that – average.
In most cases, part of our self-image is defined by our perception of our intelligence. According to some studies, 65% of people believe themselves to be of above average intelligence. As was the case with driving ability, this is also impossible. However, because of how deeply rooted these beliefs are, and how well-established self-image usually is, challenging these beliefs in any way is normally met with hostility. The best evidence for this is what happens after someone is scammed. When persons fall victim to scams, they normally display one response, followed by another. The first of these responses is usually a deep sense of betrayal. Understandably so, as expecting one thing then being given either something much worse than was expected – or in most cases, nothing at all – is a betrayal. The second response is normally anger. Anger at the scammers for ripping them off, and anger at themselves for being so gullible and falling for the scam. This is the usual response when we come to the realisation that we have been scammed independently. What is interesting, is that this response often changes when we have the scam revealed to us by other people.
Someone who has a scam revealed to them will experience a similar, but different and longer series of responses. The first response, betrayal, is the same. The second response, anger, is mostly the same. However, where anger in the first scenario is internalised, the second scenario sees that anger directed towards the person who revealed the scam. Accepting from an external source that we have been scammed means accepting that we are not as intelligent as we thought we were, but also feels as if the person revealing the scam is insulting our intelligence. Because this challenge is in direct conflict with our self-image, the natural response is defensiveness. Anger, therefore, must be redirected to the person who has pointed out the scam to avoid this conflict. The next step is the phantasm.
Deploying a phantasm is like changing the lens through which we view the world. The philosopher Michael Naas says that a phantasm is a way of turning the subjectivity of an “as if” into the objectivity of an “as so”. This turns the “I feel as if you are insulting my intelligence” into “you are insulting my intelligence”. Author Judith Butler in a 2024 book said phantasms are deployed when individuals are faced with the anxiety, they might believe something that forces them to re-evaluate self-image. Our vulnerability in the face of scams reveals that we are not as intelligent as we previously thought, even though our self-image asserts that we are intelligent. Darin Tenev, a literature professor, says that the phantasm allows individuals to stand on both sides of a contradiction, while protecting themselves from cognitive dissonance. The phantasm allows the individual to assert that they are indeed intelligent, and that the person who revealed the scam is insulting their intelligence. Phantasms allow us to think the unthinkable and allows us the liberty of not having to develop a rational position. The phantasm is absolutely necessary for the completion of the fourth and final aspect of the scam response – doubling down. Because the phantasm allows us to accept two opposite facts, it also allows us to confidently reassert our original positions.
Georgetown has a traffic congestion problem. The Ministry of Public Works, as well as the rest of government, has asserted that building new roads and widening existing ones is the solution to this gridlock. Despite previous road widening projects failing to solve the traffic problem, we continue to embark on them. Despite new roads built previously experiencing gridlock, we continue to plan and build new roads. Every year, we allocate billions to solve the problem of traffic congestion. This is the scam. Investing in widening roads and expanding road networks encourages more driving and is itself a traffic generator. The phenomenon of induced demand is studied, measurable, provable, and objectively true. This is the revelation of the scam. It seems to be the belief that although expanding roads has not worked on any of the other occasions it was employed, repeating the same approach will work now, because this time is different. This is the phantasm. We can now accept that building wider roads induces demand and worsens traffic, and also justify that our approach to solving traffic will be to build new roads while expanding existing ones. This is the contradiction contained within the phantasm. Both the East Bank Road and the Rupert Craig Highway were widened in part from two lanes to four. Those wider sections are now all congested daily. Further sections of both roads are currently undergoing widening works. Between 2020 and present, in excess of $160,000,000,000 have been invested into widening and expanding road infrastructure. This is the doubling down.
To accept Guyana’s current posture towards infrastructure is to inhabit two contradicting realities simultaneously. To accept Guyana’s current investments in road infrastructure as a means of solving traffic is to accept cognitive dissonance. Of course, these cognitive dissonances and phantasms are not limited only to traffic. Doubling down on GuySuCo and a floundering sugar industry requires similar – or perhaps greater – mental gymnastics, but that is a different question entirely. Until we can break free of these phantasms and reject the cognitive dissonances that they necessitate, Guyana can never live up to its potential.
