Why
people don't rise up massively today? Why there are no real
revolutions? How we tolerate all things that have been imposed to us?
These questions come up in people's minds more and more often today
in Greece and abroad, due to the economic crisis. Some theories are
circulated as an answer, among these, explanations which include, for
example, the psychosynthesis of modern Greeks, but the truth is that
there is something more fundamental behind this passive behaviour and
concerns not only Greece, but the entire Western world.
by system
failure
Prior to the
beginning of the 20th century, Friedrich Nietzsche declares God's
death and Western world will put all its hopes in science. Laplace's
Determinism leads to the almighty man, who through science, can find
all the answers for the world. Technology, which naturally comes from
scientific discoveries, promises prosperity and a better life for the
majority.
Science
becomes the central "pylon" taking all the weight of the
Western cultural structure, but not for long. In the beginning of
20th century, through the new theories in Physics and Mathematics,
science will realize that it is unable to describe precisely the
world and give accurate answers about how the Nature, the Universe
itself, works. Relativity and uncertainty is what characterizes
everything and man discovers that human senses and various
experiments, are simply quite inadequate to describe precisely the
reality. The human mind understands only a depiction of the real
world adjusted to the human senses. Unavoidably, human speech itself
discovers its own limits.
It's a
shocking discovery which leads to the conclusion that man will never
find the answers that seeks for the world, either through Religion,
or Science and marks the beginning of a cultural crisis of the
Western world, which is taking place for over a century until today.
The rise
of “homo consumericus”
The
beginning of this crisis marks the "mutation" of Western
societies, leading them to a kind of introversion as, the
transcendental and the explanation of the world are increasingly
moving away from the centre of human search. Science verifies the
primitive nature of man and technology opens the road for mass
production. Thus, the father of Public Relations, Edward Bernays,
using the theories of his uncle, Sigmund Freud, will transform
America of the Twenties into a huge experimental laboratory of mass
consumption. It is the birth of the man-consumer or homo
consumericus.
During
the next decades, an extreme one-dimensional and mechanistic
perception for human nature will totally prevail. The new discoveries
in Biology together with Freud's theories, are presenting man as an
entity, which is driven by its own genes and instincts.
People
like the economists F.A. Hayek and Milton Friedman, novelist Ayn
Rand, mathematician John Forbes Nash and psychiatrist Ronald David
Laing, will promote the idea that man is an egoistic being which
works only for its own personal interest. Extreme individualism
becomes increasingly one of the basic characteristics of the Western
man and concepts such as altruism, collectivity and solidarity are
dismissed from the central core of his thought. The Western man
accepts rationally that these concepts are clearly utopian and that
they will never be applied massively in societies.
But
the basic principles of these theories which led to this dominant
perception, were often arbitrary, if not wrong. For example, John
Nash believed that, every man is occupied by a distrust feeling
against the others and continuously plans strategic moves against
them in order to benefit himself. He designed some games based on
this philosophy, one of which was called "fuck your buddy",
(later published as "so long sucker"), according to which,
the only way someone to beat his opponent was to betray him. The
game would be proved consistent under a logical basis if every player
was behaving the same way. But when some analysts from the strategic
analysis company RAND, tried to test it using their secretaries, the
later chosen to cooperate instead of betraying each other. However,
this was not enough for analysts to conclude that the philosophy of
this game was wrong and thought that the secretaries were simply
unsuitable people for this experiment.
But,
at that time, Nash himself was suffering from paranoid schizophrenia
and he was very suspicious with all men of his environment, even his
colleagues because he was convinced that many of them were conspiring
against him. Many years later, Nash admitted that these paranoid
beliefs were imaginary.
Another
example is that of the famous psychiatrist Ronald David Laing who
used the game theory to build a certain model for human behaviour. He
concluded that people are inherently selfish and spontaneously
planning various strategies during their everyday transactions.
All
these theories enhanced the beliefs of some economists like F. A.
Hayek, whose economic models were totally excluding altruism and were
totally dependent on personal interest. Another economist, James M.
Buchanan, disputes the concept of "public interest" and
supports that organizations should be managed by people whose motive
is money. Concepts like "feeling of personal fulfilment" or
"sense of duty", are not included in their theories.
During
60s and 70s, Laing's theories and Nash's models become more and more
famous, targeting state and present it as a mechanism which tries to
control people through an increasingly concentrated power.
The
new generation of psychoanalysts after Freud, with Wilhelm Reich at
the top, will contribute to the amplification of individualism and
"demonization" of the state. Reich was opposed to Freud's
ideas - who believed that human instincts should be controlled
because they could bring chaos in societies - and believed that
people should be left totally free to express their feelings, as each
one likes, and not to repress their instincts. The big corporations
followed this kind of personal free expression and started to promote
their products targeting the person and its personal needs.
The
downgraded concept of Liberty in Western neo-rationalism
The
liberation movements of the third world during 50s and 60s inspired
domestic terrorism, mainly during 70s in European nations. As these
movements and organizations had brought bloodbath and violence, the
Western world adopted a restricted and downgraded version of the
concept of Liberty.
The
great political philosopher Isaiah Berlin, during a speech at the
Oxford University in 1958, will define two concepts of Liberty:
Positive Liberty and Negative Liberty. The concept of Positive
Liberty, coming from the revolutionary movements of the past,
concerns mainly the dynamic resistance against the tyrannic and
colonial regimes of the past and imposing through violence, as also
Sartre believed, a more equitable and humanitarian society. The
concept of Negative Liberty refers to the restricted act of
individuals inside some specific limits of a political and economic
activity under specific rules, in order not to disturb the balance of
the corresponding sociopolitical system.
Berlin
believed that only the concept of Negative Liberty is suitable for a
balanced society without violence, but he had also warned that this
type of Liberty could lead to authoritarian practices. However, the
so-called neo-conservatives, appeared during 70s in the United
States, adopted Negative Liberty and placed it at the central core of
their political view, planning to expand peace and democracy all over
the world and amplify the internal security of the US.
Some
politicians like Bill Clinton and George W. Bush adopted this
perception later and tried to establish Western-type democracies
based on this concept of Negative Liberty, maintaining also the
"fundamentalism" of the big, mostly American, corporations
and banks. They applied a massive violence in other countries (Iraq,
Yugoslavia, Somalia, etc.), bringing another bloodbath through a
different way. At the same time, they imposed progressively, new
measures of repression and restrictions of civil liberties in Western
democracies in the name of protection against terrorism, thus
verifying Berlin's warning.
Governments
used propaganda and tactics based on human psychology and therefore,
the belief that interceptions and repression measures are inevitable
was inserted inside the Western neo-rationalism, as an excuse to
secure Western societies from terrorist attacks. This culture,
however, during all these decades, has deprived from man something
much more substantial: the Vision itself.
Abandoning
Vision
Generations
of pragmatists grow with cliches like "this is the best society
we can have", or, "humans are what they are and will never
change". Thus, ethic, in many cases, ends to be a kind of luxury
and replaced by a crude economic pragmatism and an extreme cynicism.
But
the stereotype "humans are what they are and will never change",
for example, does not come eventually from an empirical process
during our life. In other words, it is not a conclusion which comes
through life as we grow, as many of us believe. In reality, it is a
dogmatic belief which was "planted" inside the Western
neo-rationalism and became one of its basic building blocks as a
result of all these theories which affected Western thought deeply,
mostly during the last 100 years. Therefore, as a basic building
block of the Western neo-rationalism is reproduced from generation to
generation.
Through
this course all these decades, Vision becomes a concept without
meaning, it becomes useless. The Western man learns to compromise
with the current situation since the retirement from a search of a
better society is established permanently at the core of the Western
neo-rationalism. Therefore, the lack of Vision leads to a more
terrifying result concerning the concept of Liberty: Liberty has
been downgraded to a more fundamental level since the "lobotomized"
brain has lost its capability to imagine ideal situations beyond the
limits imposed by its nature.
A
whole generation of politicians with similar perception and culture
will appear. Margaret Thatcher declares that there is no such thing
as society, but only individuals, Clinton will deliver economy to the
free market after the advice of the bankers and Francis Fukuyama will
announce in triumph the end of history. All present politicians in
Europe and United States, or other countries, are children of this
culture and this is clear from the technocratic way through which
they take decisions. When they are not able to decide, they act
through the logic of giving the problems to other
advisors-technocrats which due to this specific culture can be found
everywhere around them.
And
now, the cruel reality spreads in front of people's eyes. The end of
history and the free market were proven fairy tales. A brutal system
takes back its promises for peace, prosperity and stability, through
destructive capitalism. Labor rights, civil liberties and social
benefits dismantled violently by nation-states which are
self-destructed to give their sovereignty to the dictatorship of the
markets.
The
more the welfare state, human and labor rights retreat, the more
difficult the "recovery" of Vision becomes. Situation
becomes worse in front of the attack of neoliberalism. Vision becomes
not only a utopia, but also a luxury because the top priority of people is to survive. The concept of Liberty itself tends to
disappear permanently inside increasingly militarized societies of
private armies.
One
may wonder: Why people don't rise up massively? Why don't they react?
Because they don't believe in anything anymore, of course. Because
the only truth for them is that there are limits which they must not
exceed. Not only God has died, but Vision itself.
Additionally, altruistic people begin to question their own motives for good works; associating them also with self interest which further serves to diminish/end vision and faith and hope.
ReplyDeletesystem, good post.... left this comment to you over at MNE also....
ReplyDelete"Through this course all these decades, Vision becomes a concept without meaníng, it becomes useless. The Western man learns to compromise with the current situation since the retirement from a search of a better society is established permanently at the core of the Western neo-rationalism. Therefore, the lack of Vision leads to a more terrifying result concerning the concept of Liberty: Liberty has downgraded to a more fundamental level since the "lobotomized" brain has lost its capability to imagine ideal situations beyond the limits imposed by its nature."
I think you get close here, your 'lack of vision" is aka BLINDNESS... ie in Greek they are 'tuphloi'...
ok, then we also have your 'lobotomy' coming in which also makes them 'stupid/insipid' or the Greek moroi (in English the familiar 'morons')
So as the scripture terms it, they are "stupid and blind!" Mat 23:17
ok, so we have both established that they are blind morons.
ie they are blind AND stupid.
Now does the blindness cause the stupidity? Are they related? Hard to tell.... I lean towards not. These are independent afflictions. Let this sit for now....
now here may be where you go off from my perspective: instead of this 'blindness and stupidity' leading to some sort of insufficient 'liberty', this is not what is going on, JUST THE OPPOSITE HAPPENS..
they instead of screwing up 'liberty', (btw I cannot even find any word in the Greek scriptures that can translate into 'liberty' which is interesting....) ie making this a matter of degree of 'liberty' here, no, they are missing just the opposite of 'liberty' they are missing 'authority' or in the Greek scriptures 'exousia' or 'out-being'...
THIS is the problem.
This is not just a 20th century event imo, this has been going on for almost 2,000 years here in the west...
So their being stupid and blind leaves them without 'knowledge' (ie they are 'moroi' or 'insipid') and no view (ie they are blind) of just and righteous 'authority' or 'exousia'.... then we see all of the chaos, corruption and carnage come in.
So I guess I agree with your 'stupid and blind' assessment, but this doesnt result in some sort of 'perversion of liberty' or something... it leaves them unable to see and have knowledge of 'authority'... and here we are...
rsp
Thank you Matt
DeleteFirst of all I agree, it is not a matter of blindness and stupidity. Don't forget you and I, as humans, we are part of this culture.
Very interesting that you know the Greek words. Well in Greek there is only one word for Liberty and Freedom: Eleftheria (Ελευθερία).
I think that the problem is that in reality, societies were never free in reality and at this point you are right. But now there is a big difference. State authority is replaced by a "free market" authority which presented as the ideal environment for man to get free from authoritarian governments. This is far from truth. The system not only becomes more and more authoritarian but local governments are replaced by a global brutal authority driven by banks and corporations.
And that's the big difference. For the first time in history a system has so much power. It builds armies of economists, people in public relations, controls mainstream media, all the knowledge about the human behavior and psychology. It's very hard to fight against it. It builds more and more people who serve it, who are totally dependent on it. We actually live in a form of "Matrix".
People are not stupid and blind. They are just so much dependent on this system that they tolerate all the chaos, corruption and carnage. They tolerate this because they are unable to vision something different to bet on it. So they choose corrupted authority and repression instead of absolute destruction.
Thus what must be:
DeletePhilosophy as Revolution Against (the Machine/the Matrix/Oligarchy/etc.)
In a time of universal deceit,
telling the truth is a revolutionary act.
-George Orwell
The answer is us. It is you, and I. It is all of us.
Be the change you wish to see in the world.
DeleteEvil requires but that good men do nothing.
As people's lives become more complex and complicated, most lost their basic self-defense of mind, body and soul. Just like most students of karate, everyone (who's interested) basically only wants to know how to punch and kick. As my old master (no longer with us) kept repeating, few want to learn defense. But if one truly learns physical defense, they will also start applying those techniques to mind and soul (spirit). In time, one learns that although not usually attacked physically, the attacks on the mind and spirit are almost daily and relentless. Common sense usually worked in the past, but these days attacks are highly sophisticated, having evolved from the 1920's thru today starting with Edward Bernays' employment by corporations and government. Vision might just be the right word for folks to "get the mud off their glasses." Maybe then they can get their natural self-defense back.
ReplyDeleteThe amount of vague pseudoscience and generalizing is hilarious. I don't think there was any proof of argument, disappointingly full of waffle.
ReplyDeleteThis is not a scientific article, therefore your comment is at least irrelevant. It not a matter of proof but from which point of view you see things when you discuss such matters.
DeleteNice peace. What do you think the solution might look like? I can't imagine it.
ReplyDeleteThank you. Well, we are talking about a culture which shaped Western thought for decades, therefore it's certainly not that simple to change it. However, I have the sense that more and more people understand it now and that's why we are facing an increasingly brutal system which struggles to stay in power by any means.
DeleteCurrently it is difficult for people to resist because there are still many who support this system which has all the means and power on its site. But eventually, it's up to the people to decide how it's gonna be from now on. Once a critical mass in societies start changing its way of thinking and living then this system will start to collapse.
Technology today, despite all disadvantages, offers a great opportunity here. Just think how difficult would be for unknown people to share information and ideas so fast and easy just 2 decades ago. Internet offers an independent information and a great opportunity (at least for the moment) to escape the mainstream media propaganda and see things from a different point of view.
We need to change. To change our culture. It's not easy, but people must start to believe again in Vision, that a better society is possible. There is not an end, not a perfect society, but there is progress, evolution, a real evolution in a cultural level which must believe that it is possible. Each step at the time. Once people will start to believe, things will start to change.
I think that one of the things that is worth mentioning in this context is the corruption of "vision" by politics. Vision in the Western World is today associated with socialism (good in small amounts and limited contexts IMHO), fascism (never good) and fascism's racial supremacist pagan mutant stepchild Nazism (quite possibly the most evil ideology to have ever stalked the Earth; certainly the most evil to have ever risen to power, of which I am aware) and nobody wants to see anything like that emerge ever again. As a result, politics has now become almost entirely an argument between technocrats and economists, whose "excess of rationality" (to use a very imprecise phrase) the general public do not understand or care about. Oddly enough, there are still a substantial minority in the West who find succor in Marxism and the thought of overthrowing the entire Capitalist World Order. While others go the other way and Hayek, Friedman and Rand - I've not read any of these people by the way, I just see their influence - form the basis of a "free market" ideology that markets and the most "efficient" economic exchange of goods and services will create freedom for all.
ReplyDeleteHave you considered that this lack of "vision" may be merely the symptom for a lack of "faith", or possibly "faith" in the wrong things? I am not very religious myself, it is just something that occurred to me when reading your article.
Thanks, very interesting view. Personally, I couldn't find more suitable phrase than "excess of rationality" to describe briefly the central point of this article. This "excess of rationality" you described is exactly the source of dangerously unbalanced society eliminating Vision. A balanced society should have equal amounts of healthy rationalism and Vision to survive and evolve.
DeleteNow, he have on the one hand an "excess of rationality" and on the other, almost total lack of Vision and this leads to a very dangerous path of cultural decadency.
Hayek, Friedman, Rand and others are people who actually gave birth to neoliberalism. The consequences today are quite clear.
Yes, actually this is the point. But faith to what? The title says that we, as societies, lost our faith in Vision. Why we lost our faith in Vision? Probably because we lost our faith in God and science. I don't think that this is faith in wrong things, it is just that we, as societies, never learned to progress though a third way. The way between the ideal and the rational.
It seems to me that the struggle for survival on a daily basis, combined with individual ego are a constant obstacle to man obtaining "vision." The "matrix" in which the west currently exists is not fully understood by many, and becomes somewhat over bearing for those that do. If the answer is faith as you suggest, then one would have to put faith in his fellow man. This seems difficult as the matrix limits the type of life experiences necessary to make one become conscience. Is it not a loss of faith in our neighbor, quite possibly by design, that is the biggest obstacle for society to overcome? Judging, comparing, envying, imitating, or isolating, it seems to fall on one side or the other.
ReplyDelete...through irrational fear of death.
ReplyDelete"The libertarian movements of the third world during 50s and 60s inspired domestic terrorism"
ReplyDeletePerhaps your English is bad but the LIBERATION movements of the "Third World" most certainly did NOT inspire European terrorism at any level. These were struggle movements of the People for the People's dignity and ethnic/religious and economic solidarity.
The European terror movements of the 70s is the white mans own creation manipulated by his own intelligence agencies through the left-behind networks named Gladio.
"... the LIBERATION movements of the "Third World" most certainly did NOT inspire European terrorism at any level."
DeleteWrong. They did inspire European organizations. The word "inspire" indicates exactly the fact that some organizations take "elements" from libertarian movements to adjust them in their ideology.
"The European terror movements of the 70s is the white mans own creation manipulated by his own intelligence agencies through the left-behind networks named Gladio."
Not exactly. The Leftist movements begin usually with real Leftist ideology believers but subsequently they lose their orientation and purpose because some secret agents of the para-state intrude inside their core and start to dissolve them.
In any case, they are not based in an elitism ideology of the type "Perhaps your English is bad ...", or something similar, because this is totally opposite to the Leftist ideology.
Your article masterly describes the age of High Modernity and how it traced the path to our present societal reality which on the scale of history has to be viewed as Late-Modernity.
ReplyDeleteHigh Modernity was preceded by 6-7 centuries of Early Modernity which corresponds to the economic age of "commercial capitalism". It all starts with the discovery by primitive Franks, during the crusades, of the luxury goods traded on Middle-Eastern Musilim markets which rapidly gives way to long distance trade of such luxury goods to satisfy the demands of those primitive franks after their return home.
Long distance trade imposed in the mind of merchants the recognition of the reason at play within capital and the necessity to surrender to that reason in order to avoid losing one's investment. The surrender of the merchants to the reason of capital made them immensely rich which attracted the envy of ever larger sections of Western European societies... In the end this is what drove the march to philosophical rationalism and science and technology as a means to generate financial surplusses... and that opened the path to industrial capitalism, the mass-market and thus the necessity of ever higher ddoses of individualism for consumers to possibly choosing among the goods on offer... which in turn opened the mind to the idea of the principle of one person/one vote as the mechanism to designate the political decision makers which we called democracy.
High Modernity was baked in Early-Modernity and the worldview that solidified along those 6-7 centuries which was centered on the ideas of "the reason of capital" and individualism.
Now Early-Modernity emerged as a new historical era that displaced over a thousand years of Christianity. I suggest that Late-Modernity (our present) is the decaying of Modernity which opens the path to the historical era of "what comes after-Modernity". This transition is unfortunately going to be extremely painful and survival is going to impose itself as the only available political strategy...
What you say about the absence of vision is right on the mark but I'm afraid that vision will have no place during the transition toward the era of "what comes after Modernity". The path of that transition will be paved by the struggle to survive and those communities that will survive will eventually need to construct a new worldview adapted to the new context (environment, population, etc...) in which they will have to live. But remember this transition is going to take decades if not centuries before things stabilize and in the meantime we have to survive.
People are altruistic on a small scale: family, neighbourhood, sport club, direct office colleagues and so on. The links of your social 'contribution' and your later benefits were in a small loop, where everybody knows each other contribuant more or less.
ReplyDeleteIn modern societies our contributions (tax) are far in distance and time from the effect of those taxes. My Dutch tax is used, via the EU, to build high ways in Spain. In such a system, there is no other position than to become a 'calculating' citizen, constantly comparing contribution and own benefits. The yellow vests of France and Brexit sentiments are symptom of this.
I think if we were to embrace the "small is beautiful" mantra, bring in more direct democracy (Switzerland), counter the centralisation forces (Washington, Brussels), we would see less 'selfish' behaviour.