IN SEARCH OF REALITY VI
The Elitist Personality
A Study in Thought
by
Marius Heuff
@M.Heuff
Chapter 1
Content
A sermon on the effects of elitist behaviour and the widespread aspects of elitism.
Elitism is the grouping-together of the "select"; at least,
those who are "select" in the judgement of the outsider, yet, this judgement
is shared, as a rule, by those, who belong to such an elitist grouping. While
the term "elitism" carries a certain feeling of envy, as well as a judgement
of condemnation, the grouping-together of people along lines of affinity,
property, belief or profession, is such a common phenomenon, that the term
elitism is usually applied, only, to highly visible and privileged groups
of people.
The grouping-together of people in clubs and committees, in government
bureaucracies, religious and scientific institutions, or, the many social,
political and professional organisations with their multiple branches and
varied social activities, is a widespread phenomenon in the larger societies,
and, we do not consider such groupings to be a disadvantage, a danger, or
a divisive influence, unless the activities of a group have become subversive
or socially destructive. Indeed, most of us will glibly endorse the activities
and objectives of most of our social sub-groupings, especially, when these
groups have an aura of prestige or conform to our concepts of social
well-being.
Who will criticise the numerous charitable organisations with their volunteers,
canvassing for ever larger donations, cajoling and pressuring people with
the platitudes of a civil conscience or the fuzzy obligations of a misunderstood
Christianity? Who will condemn the religious organisations and their many
splinter groups, when they are busily engaged in salvaging humanity for the
Lord, unless we have been exposed, now and then, to a financial fraud or
a scandal of misconduct?
Where is the individual, who will question the intentions and activities
of our civil-rights groups, the environmentalists, the protectors of consumer
interests, and, all those, who are actively saving each and everyone of us
for their particular haven of well-being? Where does he fit, the lonely
eccentric, who scorns the collectors of charity and the members of committees,
the do-gooders and the socially conscious, the organisations and institutions
that are pulling and pushing us from all sides; to give for this, conform
to that, or, to praise the mediocre and unimaginative?
Yet, look at those salvagers of society, and those, who are hopefully awaiting
the coming of a Heavenly Kingdom. Look at the social activists, and all those,
who are proclaiming and advertising their cause so loudly. They are all very
quick to condemn the heretic who dares to disagree with them or deny the
doctrines of social activism. He, who will throw a few questions in relation
to a larger framework of thinking, or, who proposes a less dogmatic view
of our comfortable certainties; he, who will question the values, motives
or reasons for all these social activities, becomes immediately an outcast
or renegade.
It is not my purpose to advocate an attitude of negative egocentricity without
any consideration for the concerns of others, nor am I advocating an attitude
of empty self-gratification and social indifference. Interestingly, most
people, or, rather, the few lonely apostates, who do and dare question the
social dogmas of thoughtless benevolence, do not turn out to be the hedonists
or social atheists they appear to be. Most often, the renegade, the lonely
individual who is rebelling against the platitudes of a commonly accepted
social conscience, is concerned, more than anyone else, with the larger framework
of the human organisation. He is concerned with the ultimate questions of
equality on a global scale, as well as the narrow egocentricity of regional
patriotism and the superficial sentimentality of mediocre leadership.
Rather than expressing an attitude of irresponsible, self-centered concern,
we are raising, in the attitude of the social heretic, the question of
motivation, and, in particular, we are questioning the effects upon the larger
society of the social sub-groupings that act in an atmosphere of likeminded
devotion to the unquestioned and unquestionable ideals of their particular
organisation. What concerns us, is the emotional and intellectual synchronisation
that takes place within such elitist groupings, as well as the loss of
differentiation in attitudes and avenues of communication with outsiders.
What concerns us, is the mutual re-enforcement of self-righteousness and
the comfortable, soothing and ego-stimulating effects of belonging to an
exclusive group. These are aspects that make us wonder about the requirements
of social viability, and, these are the aspects that require a thorough analysis,
in order to see the drawbacks and pitfalls of elitist attitudes.
What, then, is an elitist attitude? What do we gain, and, what do we lose,
by belonging to one or other respected group or club? What does it mean to
the larger social environment, when we are fragmented into a variety of
sub-groupings, but, above all, what psychological attitudes are likely to
come to the fore, and, have to come to the fore, when belonging to an
elite?
The last question is the easiest to answer, since the benefits and psychological
comforts are obvious and immense. The security associated with the knowledge
that one is a member of a respected and powerful group, is so important,
that the desire to belong, somewhere, in one or other social, religious or
special-interest grouping, is universal, and nearly all of us belong
somewhere.
Apart from the social or revolutionary fringe groupings, membership in a
prestigious social environment is so above question, so obviously a valuable
asset, so engraved in the positive value judgements of society, that, to
question the whole structure of sub-groupings, to analyse the phenomenon
of elitism, and, to raise objections to the validity of our tacit assumptions,
may well be a more controversial attitude than to question religious validities.
After all, there is a long and prestigious tradition of questioning religious
beliefs and values, but, there is little or no tradition of questioning the
validity of social sub-groupings.
Our medical, psychological and scientific experts have re-enforced, constantly,
the positive aspects of social integration and the benefits of having
satisfactory relationships with other people. The concepts of mental and
social health, as well as the dogmas of the common good, they all have enshrined
the essential characteristics of socially integrated behaviour as a totally
desirable, even enviable way of life.
Who has, however, pointed out, clearly, the price we pay for elitist behaviour?
What group of scientists, philosophers, or other intelligent people, has
ever clearly perceived the reasons, why an oligarchy of the select, (so obviously
and logically the most desirable utopia for social well-being), is always
doomed to failure? What is the reason, that the credibility of our scientists
is, often, as much in dispute as the credibility of old-fashioned religious
dogmas? Why are so few academically oriented people successful as political
leaders? How come that the quackery of the clever deceiver is still finding
a gullible audience? Why do reason and logic, so often, lose-out to
undifferentiated emotionalism and sensationalism? Why have the secret and
select societies, the sequestered segments of society, so often, become a
target for hatred and attack?
.......
Chapter 2
Content
The rebellion against elitist attitudes.
The answer to all these questions comes down to an analysis
of the emotions of suspicion and mistrust. These emotional reactions are
a natural defense against elitist exclusivity and attitudes of superiority.
The almost unavoidable and often subtle attitudes of superiority and exclusivity
show themselves as mildly condescending attitudes from a position of comfortable
security. These attitudes are an inevitable result of elitist togetherness.
It matters little, whether these groupings are religious sects or social
activists, investing, continuously, in their conviction, that they are the
real contributors to society, and, that they are the real pillars on which
social well-being rests.
While thinking in the humility of their activist attitudes that they devote
themselves, selflessly, to the common good of the people, there is a price
to be paid, by society, for the devotion of the elite to its well-being.
However, this price is usually perceived, only, on a vague and dull level
of understanding. It is the price of power and prestige, cashed-in as self-esteem
and self-righteousness, and, frequently, the price that is being sought is
an outright gain that must flow from the attitudes and activities of social
exclusivity.
Why would the well-doer sacrifice his time and effort for the often ungrateful
people of society, if he did not reap some emotional or intellectual reward?
If he would be carrying-out his activities because of religious convictions
and duties, the benefactor is earning an openly professed and consciously
sought-after reward, be it in the eyes of God, or, in the judgement of the
people. This is a reasonable, honest and straightforward interaction. It
is a barter between God and man; a no-nonsense exchange of salvation for
hard Christian work.
Let us now look at these liberal, socially concerned individuals, who are
so politically conscious that they have a word for everybody, as well as
a smile and a handshake for anyone who comes within reach. These people are
active in almost every conceivable civic committee or political association.
They dine and play together, they know each other by name, first name, of
course, and, they exchange their drinks and favours freely. These socialites
and concerned guardians of society do not expect a reward in Heaven. The
are too sophisticated for that. They want their rewards right here and
now.
The social activist gets his reward, indeed, instantaneously. At least, he
takes it instantaneously; by appropriating the status of tacit or explicit
leadership; by considering himself an ideal and valuable member of society.
However, the greatest reward of the social activists comes, when they bestow
upon each other the elitist blessing; the blood-brotherhood of the select,
as well as the inevitable stratification of the rest of society into a variety
of lesser echelons.
This is the inevitable result of social activism. It is the essence of an elitist attitude, and, invariably, with the attitude of exclusivity comes the tension of cynicism, mistrust and suspicion from the rest of society. As we have seen, the natural defense against elitism is the development of an emotion of suspicion and mistrust, but the elite senses this logical reaction as an undeserved and unwarranted ingratitude of the people, and, in an attitude of hurt pride the social activists retreat, ever further, into their comfortable clubs.
The socially prominent, the clergy, the community leaders, the scientists
and intellectuals, they all get their rewards, right now, while they are
able to satisfy, almost immediately, their hunger for influence and power,
their need for being loved and respected, as well as their anxious concerns
for belonging and their need for emotional comfort.
These are the lucky ones, who made it to the top in the struggle for dominance,
obeying their biological instincts in the search for power and success, but,
they pay a price, too, for belonging to the elite. The price is a diminished
sensitivity to the needs and aspirations of the ordinary people in society.
The ability to grasp a deeper understanding and a wider range of concerns
is traded against the rewards of psychological comfort, social success, and
a feeling of belonging to a powerful and respected group. However, the position
of authority is, frequently, off-set by the experience of a sense of mistrust
and an attitude of ambivalence that is being shown by the people. This experience
is incomprehensible and baffling to most elitists.
Before those of us, bonded by the elitism of revolutionary fervor, and, grouped
together in the exclusivity of a disgruntled anarchism, rise to overthrow
the established elite, let us acknowledge and recognise the similar elitism
of the revolutionary activists; the unhappy and restless emotions of the
digruntled. Is the social dogmatism of the rebellious activist not a glaring
example of elitism? What makes you, rebels and destroyers, what makes your
undifferentiated emotionalism and simplistic anarchy any less of an elitist
attitude? What concerns do you really have for the societies of mankind;
you, who are so willing to spread the gospel of violent change?
Elitism is the sense of belonging to a fairly small and exclusive group,
sequestered in attitudes of superiority of one kind or another, be it as
members of the establishment or as revolutionaries. This elitism is a general
phenomenon of collective human behaviour, where the gain of emotional comfort
and intellectual security is obtained at the expense of a lessened understanding
of, and tolerance for, those who are different. The fulfilment of psychological
needs within the confines of an elitist grouping is paid for by a decrease
in flexibility of opinion and individualised decision-making. In an attitude
of elitism, the functions of the sovereign free will are subjugated, sometimes
catastrophically, to the emotionalism of a group-momentum.
Let us be aware of these phenomena, and, let us acknowledge, that the elitist
attitudes of nationalistic sentiments and local interest groupings are, indeed,
pillars for our emotional comforts, but, they are also the seeds of future
conflicts and strife, because, inevitably, our elitist identification leaves
out a segment, often, a very large segment, of people. Let us recognise,
that the price for comforting elitist attitudes is a decreased ability to
understand and communicate with those, who are outside our social horizon
or sphere of concern. Let us be aware of the fact, that our elitist
self-confidence, leads, invariably, to hierarchical judgements and subtle
condescending attitudes, bound to evoke suspicion, mistrust, or, even,
hatred.
.......
Chapter 3
Content
Is elitism avoidable?
The role of understanding
Can we avoid a process that is so fundamental to human psychological needs as the mechanism of grouping-together into a somewhat elitist entity? Is anyone of us really able to distantiate him- or herself completely from such an attitude or practice, or, are we, who are rebelling against the elite, grouping ourselves, subconsciously and necessarily, into another sphere of elitist posturing? Probably, this is indeed the case, and, it is interesting to note, for example, how often the anti-clerical and anti-religious grouping occurs on the basis of a rather blind and emotional intellectual elitism, rather than on the basis of a reasoned analysis of the mechanisms of religious beliefs.
How often is the confirmed atheist, an atheist of emotional convictions,
as poorly founded in his beliefs as the religious believer? After all, the
religious believer has the advantage that his structures of belief may induce,
to some extent, an attitude of humility and benevolent tolerance. The emotional
atheist, and, even more clearly, the highly emotional and totally committed
revolutionary, is, by the very nature of his beliefs in the superiority of
his Cause, completely unable to escape the pitfalls of elitism.
We have discussed the attitudes of elitism in the more readily identifiable
groups within society, and, we have seen, in general terms, what the consequences
are, when people adopt attitudes that result from grouping into an elitist
security. We have seen the trade-off between comfort and conformity, between
security and a reduced level of concern, between self-esteem and suspicion.
We have noted the inevitabe tensions between the egocentric attitudes of
the elitist group, and those, who are on the outside.
However, it would be wrong to assume, that the average citizen, who is obviously
not involved in any leadership role, would be exempt from the pitfalls of
elitism in his search for emotional comfort. The clustering of people into
like-minded groups of friends, leads, just as often, to an attitude of smug
hedonism, a platitude of opinions, and a lessened concern for events taking
place outside the circle of family and friends.
The national or regional characteristics of a social environment, as well
as the smugness and mediocrity of opinions and accomplishments, (so well
reflected in regional news-papers or electronic media), give a good indication
of the attitudes of average people. The trivial and the ridiculous are, so
often, given more attention than the broader concerns of man`s existence,
or, the struggle of the disadvantaged outsider. There is a disquieting
superficiality and traditionality about many manifestations of social concern,
because these concerns are, so often, buried behind the worn-out expressions
of a sugar-sweet religiosity.
The comfortable pew; the comfortable opinion or attitude is not easily
relinquished, because the resulting anxiety and confusion would, indeed,
be enormous. The mind-numbing efforts of the never-ending struggle for affluence,
as well as the artificial stimulation of wants and desires, leaves little
time for thoughts or concerns that go out beyond the immediate surroundings.
Our memory-banks, void of serious, life-threatening experiences on a large
social scale, lack the information needed to spur our highest behavioural
organiser, the free will, into acts of understanding and tolerance, or, into
attitudes of gratitude and tranquility. We are elitist on a national scale.
We are elitist on a racial scale. The elitism of the white race is, finally,
being challenged and questioned, but, even our challengers have a long way
to go, before they can escape the pitfalls of elitism themselves.
In evolutionary concepts, the function of the attitude of elitism is, clearly,
similar to the biological struggle for survival, or, the rough and tumble
of competitive strife for a position of dominance. However, we have to
acknowledge, that the elitist grouping-together of people within a larger
social framework leads, inevitably, to conflict situations between the various
groupings, and, we have to acknowledge, that this process of fragmentation
has a disruptive effect on the cohesion of the larger society.
Suffering, conflict, pain and death, mostly man-made, are the age-old companions
of human awareness and will persist for a long time to come, unless we learn
about the limitations of the biological solution of a situation of conflict,
which is, in essence, reflected by the elitist attitude. There is no reason
to believe, that it is impossible to avoid elitist posturing and situations
of conflict, if we understand, clearly, the existential drives that lie behind
such behaviour, and, if we understand the price we pay for our elitist
comforts.
Probably, we will never be able to abolish the attitudes of elitism all-together,
since the hierarchical differentiation that lies behind the mechanisms of
elitist posturing, is so basic to human nature. The effectiveness of a communal
organisation depends, to a large extent, on hierarchical stratification and
the elitist jockeying for a position of dominance by its members. Yet, we
determine, collectively, with our attitudes and actions, the course of future
events in society, and, by consciously striving to enlarge the boundaries
of our concerns to a much wider social sphere, we may facilitate the development
of a reasonably equalised and culturally homogeneous global society, and,
we may recognise, more clearly, the limitations associated with the attitudes
of elitist security.
However, let us guard against the elitism associated with anti-elitist attitudes,
because, so easily, the common concerns of a few likeminded people may develop
into a protectionistic elitism, guarding themselves against the cynicism
and disbelief of a non-understanding world.
Can we formulate ideas and attitudes that foster concern on a global scale,
without the disrupting effects of an elitist congregation? Can we avoid the
human tendency to seek comfort in togetherness, which comes so clearly to
the fore, whenever we try to defend our ideas and hopes against the hostility
and inertia of an indifferent social environment?
It is impossible, for the time being, to give a blue-print for the development
of beneficial social attitudes, but, in general terms, we can say, that this
global concern will be a product of world-wide communications and a balanced
educational system. Slowly, ideas and concerns will find a measure of resonance
in people`s minds, not, because they are grouped together in mass-rallies
or committees of social activism, but, because in the schools of society
and the living rooms of ordinary families, throughout the nations of the
world, we are learning about each other. We are seeing each other on televison,
and, slowly, we are becoming aware of each other`s very similar problems.
Let us not be overwhelmed by cheap sentimentality, and, let us not be exploited
by superficial religious appeals, nor, should we let ourselves be bullied
into a revolutionary fervor, but, let us, voluntarily, learn about each other,
and, during this process, we will give each other the dignity and respect
of individualised existence, as well as the enlightenment of mutual
understanding.
In spite of the fact, that the forces of the social dogma of essential equality,
expressed in the ideals of communal sharing, lead, nearly always, to an elitist
grouping of those who are most faithful to the Socialist Ideals, the great
wisdom of this social dogma is the clear recognition, that any other form
of social ideology is essentially elitist in nature.
Unfortunately, our shallow concepts about mental health re-enforce, tacitly,
an elitist attitude of maximum integration into a small-scale social environment.
The clustering of our scientific workers, the highly visible elitism of our
academic and business worlds, our churches and civic organisations, the less
visible but even more exclusive elitism of religious sects or semi-religious
fraternities, the national elitism of the fascists, or, the impatient and
rebellious elitism of the social reformers; we all are elitist, in one way
or another, and, we are certainly elitist by being affluent and white.
Let us broaden our concerns by contemplation and study; in solitude, rather
than in an elitist grouping. Let us reflect on our nature and the way we
behave. Let us accept some psychological discomfort as the price we have
to pay for an increased and more balanced understanding, and, let us not
be afraid to expose elitism, whenever we see it.
It may be difficult, however, to convince ourselves or our elitist friends,
that we have elitist tendencies and opinions, but, let us discuss, without
sentimentality, without fear or hope, without an eye upon the reward of eternal
life in Heaven, or, the prospect of power and prestige on earth. "We can
not change our nature", you say, but then, do we understand our nature? We
certainly can make an effort to understand ourselves better, and, at the
same time, we will understand our fellow human beings much more clearly.
.......
Chapter 4
Content
Growth pressure; the elan vital and its social manifestations.
The parallels between individual and social existence.
Psychological mechanisms of social cohesion and fragmentation.
Sub-groupings in the larger society.
The energy requirements for social cohesion.
Species differentiation; biological energy requirements.
The break-through of intelligent life.
The growth-pressure, or elan vital, of a living organism is
mirrored in our social organisations, but it is probably more accurate to
consider the elan vital of a single organism and the vital energies of a
multi-individual, social conglomerate, as identical in nature, where the
only difference is the level of expression.
We have seen, that we can trace the processes of life from their molecular
and metabolic origins within the primordial protoplasm, where the driving
pressure for these evolutionary developments was represented by the diurnal
influx of sunlight. We are able to follow this stimulus to grow and to seek
ever new, energetically higher levels of existence, throughout all living
organisms, because this is a common legacy for every lifeform. The constant
flow of energy through various biochemical chain-reactions provides the basis
for adaptability and growth, because the living organism functions as a channel
for the dissipation of a gradient of captured solar energy. We see, that
this energy-flow is also a prerequisite for the continued existence of every
life-form, because there is an inherent instability of all biochemical
reaction-patterns, and, there is a constant need to replenish fragile substances
and repair vulnerable biochemical structures.
Why, then, should we not see parallels of these biological manifestations
within every human individual, as well as in the socially integrated communities
of mankind? Every society is a conglomerate of numerous sub-groupings, organised
with varying levels of intensity and internal discipline. These sub-groupings
center around various objectives and they often overlap, in the sense, that
people may belong to several sub-groupings at the same time.
A socially integrated grouping comes to the fore, whenever a number of people,
consciously or subconsciously, experience the fact, that their existence
and security is enhanced by bonding together; by synchronising their interests
and objectives as much as possible; by sub-dividing chores or the work-load
that has to be performed for the shared objective of survival. Security and
ease of existence may result from such a bonding into a socially integrated
entity, and, the benefits may be distributed, equally, to each member. However,
the synchronisation of goals and interests requires, from every member, a
measure of restraint in the expression of desires and hostilities.
A human grouping, regardless, how small, tends to develop a hierarchy, with
a differentiation of the members into leaders and followers. Each position
within a hierarchy has its own specific blend of dominance and adaptation;
the "give and take" of pressures and influences. A sub-grouping within society
should, by definition, acknowledge, in one way or another, that it is part
of a larger entity, nl., the society as a whole, and, therefore, there must
be a common bond of interests between the sub-groupings of a society, before
such a large social entity can exist as a viable unit.
The common bonds of interest between the sub-groupings may have been imposed
by the mechanisms conquest, and, then, this social entity may have been made
viable by shared rules and laws that are being applied to the enlarged society
with scrupulous impartiality, leading to increased contacts and trade
relationships between the sub-groupings. Such a development may, then, lead
to some degree of mutual identification and tolerance, as well as a sense
of benefit arising from an increased level of commercial and cultural exchanges,
made possible by the commonly shared rules and regulations of the larger
society.
As soon as the central leadership and its government institutions weaken
and become corrupt, the conflicting interests of the sub-groupings will re-assert
themselves. The interactions between the sub-groupings begin to falter, because
there are no impartial and efficient judicial mechanisms available to settle
disputes. The attitude of cooperation is then replaced by a sense of suspicion
and hostility. The larger social entity begins to fragment into antagonistic
factions, primarily, as a result of the failure to settle disputes with a
competent judicial investigation and the imposition of an impartial settlement.
Civil strife is likely to break-out and the larger unit of the society as
a whole, has, then, in essence, been destroyed.
Within a social organisation, individual members tend to become attracted
to each other by such common interests as their craft or profession, local
geographical and economic interests, and, interests that are based on a similar
cultural, ethnic or religious background. The larger society can only remain
in existence, if the security of each individual and sub-grouping can be
safeguarded by the larger social entity. Contacts between the various
sub-groupings have to take place in an atmosphere of trust and reliance on
the fairness of the laws of the overall society, as well as the competence
of its central government and bureaucratic institutions.
Often, the ever-present tendency to fragmentation and dissolution into warring
factions can only be prevented by a forceful union of the diverse elements
within society. This can be accomplished by a strong, central leadership,
but force has to blend with persuasion, justice and far-sighted
guidance-patterns, in order to overcome a natural increase in local resistance,
nationalistic sentiments, or regional loyalties. Without an element of
persuasion, a feeling of oppression or alienation towards the larger society
and its central authorities becomes inevitable, and, such feelings and attitudes
will stifle even the most powerful society.
Let us look at these phenomena in terms of the force-fields of the "elan
vital"; the growth-pressure of an organism or a group of organisms. From
a point of view that considers the search for an ecological niche as the
exploration of a "possibility of existence", we see, how the biological machinery
of each cell is fueled by the constant utilisation of a flow of suitable
energy, flowing through the cellular system. A part, sometimes a large proportion
of this energy is used to maintain its physical and functional integrity,
or, its possibility to exist as a life-form. The living organisation has
to carry-out, therefore, a constant "fight" against the hostile pressures
of the environment. As part of this "maintenance energy", a search is carried-out
for a suitable source of biological energy; food. A balance develops, therefore,
between the available energy-supplies and its own regenerative powers on
the one hand, and the stressful environmental pressures on the other. These
stresses may be climatological, physical or predatory in nature, or, they
may be shaped by population pressures of competing lifeforms, food scarcities,
or the pressures from noxious and toxic waste-products.
The key to our understanding, here, is the concept of an ecological balance
between the regenerative forces and the growth-pressures of the organism
on the one hand, and, a complex of adverse forces restricting the growth
and reproduction of a lifeform, on the other. If the regenerative forces
are able to overcome the opposing forces, growth will take place, either
by an increase in the size or power of an individual organism, or, by a process
of reproduction, and sometimes, by a combination of both.
Evolutionary adaptation is a process, where existing life-forms change, slowly,
into a form that is able to cope, somewhat better, with the existing conditions,
and, such a change is made possible by a carefully controled variability
of the organic constitution of a population of individual life-forms, often,
defined as a species, or, rather, as a segment or a population of a
species.
The "radiation" of a successful species into a wide range of existence
possibilities, is ensured by the sexual mode of reproduction. This allows
a certain variability of genetic combinations within the limits of sexual
compatibility. This concept defines the limits of a species. If the
constitutional or genetic variability of different populations, exposed to
different naturally selective pressures, starts to exceed sexual compatibility,
we have witnessed the sub-division of a population into two different species`.
Factors of geographical isolation, or, locally varying circumstances, form
the background for an enormously complex differentiation into numerous diverse
species` of life, where sexual or reproductive compatibility between the
species` has long since been lost.
These principles of operation allow us to visualise the reasons for the immense
variety of the species` or gene-pools of living organisms, testing, continuously,
a variety of modes of existence. We, human beings, represent one such mode
of living existence, which has been developed during a long process of
evolutionary experimentation with the possibilities of the living
organisation.
On previous occasions, we have illuminated, more in detail, the specific
chracteristics of life`s experiments with the possibilities of existence
for the human species. We like to concentrate, here, on the concept of the
"growth-pressure" or "elan vital". The common characteristics of the pressure
to grow are shared by all living organisms, including the members of mankind,
and, they represent the biological force-fields that made man into what he
is. We like to acknowledge, here, the presence of these same mechanisms of
a pressure to grow, as the reason and background for the historical development
of human societies and the emergence of social sub-groupings.
Existence possibilities for cellular life-forms were remarkably increased
with the development of the multi-cellular community. This occurred, when
a group of cells that was already living and working in close harmony, began
to fuse into the unit of a multi-cellular organism. Obviously, the variety
of conditions to which the multi-cellular community, (on its way to becoming
a single living entity), could adapt was much greater than the existence
possibilities for a single cell. These differences in the range of adaptability
were so large, that we may speak of a "break-through".
By testing the possibilities of existence in a communal form, (with its numerous
task-divisions, specialisations in function and bonds of mutual interdependence),
a completely new field of existence was entered. This led to a rapid
proliferation of lifeforms, as well as a rapid penetration into a large number
of ecological "niches", or possibilities of existence. This torrent of
evolutionary explorations explains the quick "radiation" of multi-cellular
life-forms into a widely divergent spectrum of existence, after each
"break-through".
The development of "intelligent life", (which is, in essence, the possibility
to adapt individual behaviour according to specific individual experiences),
is another break-through in the adaptability and plasticity of behavioural
responses. In the human species, additional break-throughs occurred, such
as the remarkable ability to manipulate tools and weapons, as well as the
ability to communicate feelings and concepts with the help of representative
symbols. These break-throughs, and many others, have led to a dominance of
the human life-form on earth. We see a remarkable degree of dominance over
many multi-cellular and intelligent lifeforms, but, so far, we are less certain
about our ability to dominate, or control, viral and bacterial
lifeforms.
.......
Chapter 5
Content
Human societies; adaptation and compromise.
Another look at collective and individual energy relationships.
The concept of a "social constraining energy".
Mechanisms of fragmentation.
Mechanisms of oppression.
Natural leadership.
The fluidity of a natural leadership position.
The organisation of human beings into social entities has,
undoubtedly, a genetic basis. It seems certain, that the mechanisms of natural
selection have favoured those human lifeforms that were capable of cooperating
in small groups. Probably, this development of social integration took place,
even, before we can speak of a specific human differentiation, but, we are
also aware of a serious limitation in the size of the social group that remains
stable and viable. This limitation appears to be related to the size of the
social entity naturally selective mechanisms have experimented with, and,
it can also be traced to limitations of physiological recognition
mechanisms.
The much larger human societies became only possible, when the cultural code
of transmitting behavioural guidelines provided the means for a generalised
mode of mutual recognition by the members of a large social entity, and,
a measure of viability depended, also, on the conceptual tools for a consciously
willed choice to cooperate with large groups of human beings, who were,
essentially, strangers to each other.
Nevertheless, we still see the same principles of the elan vital at work,
irrespective of the fact, that the adaptations of these large-scale social
life-forms, (such as a large, conglomerate human society), are now culturally
encoded, rather than genetically determined. The human society binds its
members together as a group of individuals with common interests and enhances
their security through a process of specialisation in function and mutual
interdependence.
By sacrificing a measure of individual freedom of behaviour, the human individual
in a society or a small group gains in security and viability, provided,
he adheres to the written laws or unwritten mores of the group. Such conforming
attitudes glue the behaviour patterns of the members of the group together,
and, this grouping begins, then, to resemble, to some extent, the physical
and organic-chemical bonding of the cells within a multi-cellular individual.
However, we acknowledge, that the social bonding processes, as well as the
variability of the human individual within society, represent a different
form of complexity than the physico-chemical relationships between the cells
of a multi-cellular organism.
By bonding in groups, the human individual adapts to environmental pressures
in such a way, that his existence becomes "easier", even, if it is accompanied
by a certain loss of behavioural options. The essence of social integration
lies in the fact, that it requires less energy to exist. Given a certain
amount of vital energy, a lessened maintenance requirement will lead to a
proportionally greater freedom to spend the remaining energies as we see
fit.
Life`s search for possibilities of existence will always favour a form of
existence with the least possible requirements for a maintenance energy,
and, therefore, the grouping of human beings into a socially integrated entity
is a natural biological phenomenon. However, we have to keep in mind a rigorous
application of the principle, that a life-form seeks, always, its easiest,
least demanding form of existence, and, it seeks, therefore, to express its
energy-flow, as much as possible, in the form of a pressure to grow or as
an exploration of possibilities of existence.
The combination of growth pressure and maintenance energy constitutes the
total available vital energy for a particular life-form. Therefore, groupings
of socially integrated individuals will only come to the fore, if such a
grouping-together leads to a clear-cut reduction in the maintenance requirements
for the life-forms concerned, and, we should not forget, that the compromises
in tolerance and mechanisms of adaptation each member has to carry-out in
order to live harmoniously within a socially integrated unit, require, also,
a certain amount of "constraining" energy.
Only, if the energy required to constrain the dispersive tensions between
the individual members and glue the group together into a viable and functional
unit, is less, than the benefits gained by lowering the overall requirements
for a maintenance energy, only then, will a grouping be viable. Under these
conditions, the total amount of "disposable energy" available for the individuals
in the group, will be larger than without the socially integrated unit. In
short, the benefits for the individual, derived from belonging to a social
grouping, have to outweigh the disadvantages of belonging, and, we see, always,
that an individual has to spend a certain suppression or "constraining energy"
in order to belong to a group, or, for a sub-grouping to belong to a larger
social entity.
The advantages for a sub-group to belong to a large entity are not always
clear, nor, are the advantages of belonging always apparent to each member
of a social grouping. We have indicated, before, that the larger unit is,
often, forged by force; by a process of conquest, or, as a result of the
dominating influence of a powerful leadership structure, and the viability
of such a large, forged empire, will depend on the continuation of an imposed
bonding force, as well as on the continued existence of the persuasive
force-fields of increased trade and mutually beneficial cultural
exchanges.
As soon as the constraining forces become usurped in a stifling bureaucracy
or the inequities of corruption and injustice, the benefits of belonging
to a large social entity, disappear, and, it is only the force of dominance
that prevents, then, for the time being, a break-up or fragmentation of the
larger social conglomerate. A fragmentation or break-up is bound to take
place, sooner or later.
Oppression, means, therefore, that the sub-grouping would be better of, if
it would exist independently from the social conglomerate it is forced to
belong to, and, inevitably, such a sub-grouping will seek to free itself
from this dominance. Logical energy relationships are, indeed, rigorously
maintained in the balance of living existence. A sub-group, dominated by
force, will focus upon this force as a common enemy, and this focus of attention
becomes the cohesive factor necessary to overcome the adverse force-field
successfully.
This common focus of interest will intensify the bonding of the sub-groupings
looking for independence, and, as a result, the flow of vital energies through
the sub-groupings increases through the synchronisation of the objectives
and activities of its members. The oppressing force becomes the main source
of strength and the main reason for the existence of the bonding of a variety
of sub-groupings. This condition of existence channels the flow of the elan
vital of the sub-groupings towards the elimination of the oppressing force.
Here, we have the mechanisms and energy-relationships behind rebellion and
revolution.
Natural leadership over a small group of socially integrated individuals
depends on the power of expression, or, the elan vital, of the dominating
personality, who maintains his position with a combination of force and
persuasion. Intuitively, the followers of a successful leader acknowledge
the benefits of synchronising, at least partially, with the "will" of the
leader. The benefits are an increased level of protection and security flowing
from existing within the sphere of influence of the leader, as well as the
benefit of his intelligence, far-sightedness and general concern for his
followers. The disadvantage of belonging to his sphere of influence is the
need to suppress feelings of hostility towards the dominating personality
or disliked members of the group. The suppression of these natural trends
requires a certain "constraining energy".
The balance between benefit and disadvantage shifts easily and logically
in natural leadership mechanisms. As soon as a leader becomes weak or
ineffective, his position is challenged and his followers melt away, since
he is not able, any longer, to protect them adequately. He will be replaced
by a younger leader, whose elan vital and growth-pressure is up to the task
of challenging the leader and leading the group. If the challenge is successful,
this individual will, then, take-over the position of natural
leadership.
We see, therefore, a strict parallel between the organisation or bonding
of a number of individuals into a small grouping, and, the bonding and
organisation of a number of sub-groupings into a larger social entity. As
soon as the disadvantages of belonging to a group outweigh the advantages,
(be they consciously or subconsciously perceived), the group, or bond, will
start to fragment, depending on the balance between the dispersive forces,
coming from dissatisfied individuals or sub-groupings, and, the bonding-energy
provided by the leadership.
In the attitude of "dominance", we have to acknowledge the biological force,
or the surplus elan vital, of a healthy and vigorous individual. This vital
energy tends to be expressed in many ways, such as, e.g., a desire to excercise
power and leadership over other individuals. However, if such a desire to
dominate, to exert influence or leadership, is not re-enforced by a willingness
of the dominated individuals to be led and be guided for their own benefit,
the energy required to excercise dominance is quickly spent in frustrating
attempts to overcome the internal resistance of the group over which leadership
is being sought.
A further parallel with the basic energy-mechanisms of bonding can be seen
in the organisation and bonding necessary for the effective and harmonious
expression of individual behaviour. Unless a human being is able to orden
the often chaotic and contradictory impulses of his mind into a coherent
and appropriate behavioural response, his viability and security will suffer.
The ability to execute decisive, well-adapted and refined behavioural responses,
requires a careful, if sub-conscious evaluation of the numerous factors that
influence a behavioural decision, and, this ability constitutes, also, a
form of leadership. The behavioural requirements for a succesful personality
include, therefore, the ability to pull-together numerous divergent feelings
and impulses, as well as the ability to excercise a coherent, yet flexible
leadership over these diverging impulses and tendencies.
Because of the wide applicability of the principles of leadership and the bonding of potentially divergent forces into a coherent unit, (a flexible and often temporary unit of integrated behaviour), we will analyse the various expressions of these principles of operation, as we can see them develop and function within the complex, somewhat chaotic modern societies.
If we keep in mind the fundamental mechanisms of energy relationships that
play a role in bonding, or, the disappearance of a bond, (decay), we see,
that the total bonding force excercised by the power of leadership, (and
augmented by persuasive synchronisation), has to be greater than the internal
resistance to such a process of bonding. As a result, we have to acknowledge,
that a large majority of the individuals within such a bonded or socially
integrated grouping, must be convinced, consciously or sub-consciously, that
such a bond is to their advantage. The moment this feeling of genuine benefit
disappears, the internal resistance to the mechanisms of bonding, mounts
rapidly, and begins to frustrate the effectiveness of the leadership and
its objectives.
.......
Chapter 6
Content
Another look at the mechanisms of social cohesion and fragmentation.
Practical considerations.
Bureaucratic structures and attitudes.
The religion of the bureaucrats.
The common interests of job security.
The bureaucracy as the central nervous system of society.
When we analyse the forces at work in a large, conglomerate
social environment, we tend to concentrate on the diversity and divergence
of these forces. The dispersive force-fields reflect the divisiveness of
our personal desires, impulses and goal-patterns, over-shadowing the fairly
weak and shifting patterns of common bonds and interests. It is, however,
in the various sub-structures of society, that we observe the far stronger
common bonds that fuse such a sub-structure, often, into a powerful and coherent
entity.
The reasons for the existence of a sub-structure are, usually, much clearer
than the reasons for the existence of the larger social entity, and,
consequently, the common bonds of sub-structures are often much more clearly
delineated. Look, for example, at the bonding mechanisms of labour unions,
religious sects, fraternities, churches, political parties and other, communal
interest groups, which are frequently much stronger and more coherent than
the bonding mechanisms of the larger segments or the nation as a whole.
One of the most pervasive and powerful, but ideologically silent sub-groupings
is the government bureaucracy, together with the many institutions and
corporations where bureaucratic structures tend to form. The most obvious
and, certainly, the most powerful bureaucracies develop as a result of the
functions of the State, because these bureaucracies have to serve the people
of society on a national scale. Within a large bureaucracy, there are many
sub-structures that are more or less independent. Look at the universities,
the health and welfare systems, departments of economic planning, defense,
or the fiscal institutions. Yet, smaller sub-groups exist in the management
of individual public institutions, such as the hospitals, post offices,
etc.
Even the large business corporations develop a tendency to bureaucratic
structuring, but the ever present need for efficiency and profitability tends
to keep the corporate bureaucracy flexible and lean. Labour unions, churches,
in short, every organisation requires a form of "government", and, inevitably,
a bureaucracy develops, since a bureaucracy is nothing more than a complex
of channels through which a system of government operates.
It is interesting to trace the attitudes and guidelines that have a tendency to develop within a bureaucratic structure, and, it is interesting to note, to what extent individual human behaviour is influenced by the guidelines that are necessary to form a successful bureaucratic organisation. If we look ahead, for a moment, we come to the conclusion, that the behavioural guide-lines operating within a bureaucratic structure reveal all the characteristics of a strict and orthodox religion.
These religious aspects are not easily recognised by the people involved
in a bureaucratic structure, but, we hope to show in our discussion, how
remarkably dogmatic the belief structures and attitudes have to be for those
involved in a bureaucratic hierarchy. Even more remarkable is the observation,
that religious institutions, in most modern societies, tolerate, by and large,
a far greater degree of freedom of expression and flexibility in thought
and behaviour, compared to the entrenched, bureaucratic institutions. Let
me explain. We all recognise the fact, that, within a bureaucratic hierarchy,
a fairly strict adherence to guidelines is necessary, if one wants to avoid
the wrath of superiors, or, the risk of becoming a scapegoat on whom inevitable
failures and deficiencies are going to be blamed. If a bureaucrat wants to
feel secure in his position, he must develop a keen eye for what he is expected
to do, and, he must know, what is expected of him; what is considered "good",
and, what is "taboo".
A cautious attitude is required in order to make sure, that any moves made
by a bureaucrat are fully backed by superiors and colleagues. Personal
initiatives become, therefore, easily a liability, in particular, if they
deviate from commonly accepted objectives. Such an initiative is vulnerable
to criticism and envy. Alienation and hostility quickly set-in, especially,
if suspicions are aroused that superior capabilities and insights may become
a threat to colleagues, or the system as a whole. Here, we see the common
mechanisms of "existential anxiety" come to the fore, as they have been aroused
by new and unpredictable factors that may turn-out to be a challenge to
job-security.
All bureaucrats have a vested, existential interest in the security of their
job, and, this is the one over-riding bond that cements their cohesion and
colours their attitudes. This bond forms a protective and collective shield
and emphasises an attitude of concern for job-security, discouraging, at
the same time, any personal initiatives. This existential anxiety is a highly
synchronised, emotional attitude, and, it is the primary reason for the inertia
and slipperiness of a well-trained bureaucrat.
What is a bureaucracy? It is time to spend a few thoughts on an attempt to
define a bureaucratic structure more precisely. We see, that the tasks of
governing a fairly large society become quickly too numerous to be handled
by the leader alone, and, often, the implementation of decisions reached
at the level of the leadership, require an organisation in the form of a
well-functioning, multi-individual institution. At the same time, the leadership
also needs channels to receive information from the people in society, not
only, about their feelings and impressions of the leadership, but also, in
order to know, whether or not the decisions of the leadership are being
carried-out according to the intentions of the leadership and the instructions
given to the bureaucracy. After all, it is the task of the government bureaucracy
to implement leadership decisions.
In short, the bureaucracy is the "nervous system" of society. The bureaucracy
carries-out the instructions of the "brain", (the social leadership), and,
at the same time, the bureaucracy conveys feed-back information from the
social environment to "the brain", in order to facilitate the process of
decision-making. Unfortunately, no man-made bureaucratic organisation can
begin to rival the efficient organisation of the central nervous system of
a highly developed, multi-cellular animal, and the analogy falls so short,
that many of us will have difficulties recognising this analogy as
valid.
However, if we reflect, for a moment, upon the idealised imagery of a bureaucracy
that is functioning with maximum effectiveness, we will begin to see the
similarities between the central nervous system of a multi-celluar organism,
and the bureaucracy of a large, conglomerate, multi-individual society. This
conceptual analogy may be helpful in shaping our ideas about society, and,
it may help us to influence, constructively, its contemporary functions and
future developments.
We will only be able to guide the formation and function of a bureaucracy,
if we see, clearly, the ultimate role it has to play as the central nervous
system of a complex social conglomerate, because, unlike the genetic code
of the multi-cellular individual, the development of a complex society depends
for its viability, largely, on the deliberate input of the human will and
its conscious awarenesses.
Our collective understanding, decisions and actions have to provide the framework
for a viable social organisation and its adaptative potentials, while the
single individual may rely for much of these same viability criteria on the
chromosomal messengers within the cellular protoplasm. These chromosomal
messengers are locked into fortunate secrecy and have been shaped by millions
of years of natural selection.
It is not surprising, that we can not, as yet, begin to rival the experience
and expertise of natural evolution, but, at the same time, we may learn from
experiences much faster than the genetic code, which has to engrave, slowly
and laboriously, its collective experiences of viability into a complex of
chemical sequences and intricate spatial relationships.
.......
Chapter 7
Content
Nature`s experiment with behavioural plasticity.
The parallels between the multi-cellular existence of the individual and the multi-individual society.
The complication of behavioural plasticity.
Requirements for bureaucratic efficiency and enthousiasm.
The road to chaos, corruption and decay.
Further parallels.
No wonder, nature got tired and felt hopelessly inadequate
with such a cumbersome method for "learning" as the slow, genetic molding
of precise behavioural instructions. Nature started to experiment, therefore,
with a delegation of the responsibility to stay alive to the living organism
itself. "Let him learn from his experiences, rather than rely entirely upon
specific instructions from the genetic blue-print".
We have developed some insights into the essence of social integration, and,
we see, that all forms of multi-individual existence, be it a group of cells,
or a group of human beings, require a structure that can coordinate the
activities of its members. Each organism or organisation requires a "head",
and, this head must have the ability to coordinate actions and receive
information, in order to secure viability for the community as a whole. This
is a complex task, requiring the cooperation of a fairly large number of
people in a complex, modern social conglomerate. Such an attempt at leadership,
or government, has to develop an "organic structure", making the coordination
of individual efforts possible and the total work-effort productive. A
bureaucracy is, therefore, the neural network of every multi-individual
organisation that needs to coordinate the efforts of its members with man-made
guidance patterns.
In a multi-cellular organism, the security of the individual members, or
cells, does not depend on individual performance, but, almost exclusively,
on the security of the entire multi-cellular entity as a whole. As long as
the cell is not clearly anti-social and behaves outside the laws of organic
cohesion, no attempt will be made to dislodge or destroy the cell. However,
a multi-cellular organism is not often subjected to unpredictable changes
in its structure, like most human societies. Therefore, we do not see this
disturbing influence of the "free human will" and its acute sense of anxiety,
disrupting the processes of cooperation and communication in the multi-individual
organism.
When we try to shape an effective bureaucratic or governing structure, we
have to keep in mind, that the totality of the task of government has to
be divided over a large number of individuals. Therefore, it becomes difficult
for each individual member within a bureaucracy to see the totality of the
task at hand, and, to see the meaning of the small and specific fragment
of the task, which happens to be his or her particular responsibility.
We see, now, the logic of formulating clear-cut guidelines, when outlining
the numerous functions and tasks for the various departments of a bureaucracy.
At the same time, we also recognise the need for persuasion, enthousiasm
and enlightened information, in order to make it possible for the members
of a bureaucracy to recognise the relevance and significance of their particular
assignment. If enlightened information and a persuasive, stimulating atmosphere
are missing, the totality of the task is not comprehended, and, the individual
becomes frustrated and anxious in his search for meaning and security. If
an individual can not find a satisfactory reason for his existence in the
bureaucratic hierarchy, he will, inevitably, feel insecure and directs most,
if not all his attention and energy to the security of his position within
the bureaucratic structure.
A predominance of existential anxieties, mutual suspicions and a sagging
morale, (which is lowered even further by increasingly blatant abuses of
bureaucratic positions), opens the door to outright corruption and moral
chaos, inevitably, fragmenting the social entity. Every organism whose central
nervous system has been severely damaged, is extremely vulnerable to external
attack or decay from within, since the ability to effectively organise the
defenses of the social entity has been lost. In the multi-cellular individual,
the interdependence of the cells is so strong, that all cells die, whenever
the organism as a whole dies, but, in the more loosely organised cellular
communities, such as a sponge, we see that cells may well survive, even,
after the unit of the animal as a whole has been destroyed.
We resemble in our complex social organisations far more the sponge or the
slime-mold, rather than any of the higher, multi-cellular organisms. If a
human social unit fragments, most of its members will survive in a more localised
social entity, and the degree of cohesion shown by a large human society
is, often, remarkably tentative. We may well ask ourselves, at times, whether
the social entity of the large human society is more a concept of wishful
thinking, rather than an actual reality.
Efficient and honest bureaucratic functions are vital to the continued existence
of a large and complex social organisation, and, in the future, we will be
able to see, more clearly than we can now, the correlation between the quality
of a government bureaucracy and the viability of a social entity.
.......
Chapter 8
Content
The successful, efficient, non-corrupt official.
Responsibility and choice.
The human brain and the bureaucracy of our brain cells.
The fusion of information-gathering and out-going executive path-ways.
Bureaucracy and leadership.
The fallacy of adversary attitudes between the people and their governments.
The pitfall of the attitude of absolute righteousness.
Understanding the frightened, insecure and inefficient bureaucrat.
A successful bureaucrat is able to see the relevance of his
task in the overall context of the social functions that have to be performed,
and, he will have a clear idea about the meaning and justification of his
job, as well as the specific tasks he has to perform for the people he serves.
He is, then, able to follow guidelines with a measure of conviction and
enthousiasm, and, he is able to subjugate his personal judgements and tendencies
to the requirements of the overall task. He is also able to comprehend the
reasons, why the leadership has formulated a specific objective. If he reaches
a higher position in the bureaucratic hierarchy, the portion of the task
that will be his responsibility, becomes, proportionally, larger, and he
will, in turn, be responsible for guiding and instructing those working under
him.
The rewards, flowing from a greater individual responsibility in the higher
bureaucratic positions, are significantly increased, but the bureaucrat becomes,
also, more vulnerable to criticism, if something goes wrong. In the higher
positions of the bureaucracy, the responsibility of the bureaucrat is much
more obvious, not only, in shaping and molding the tasks of leadership into
an effective and well-executed policy, but also, in the degree of information,
or feed-back, provided to the highest leadership.
This feed-back information has a profound influence on the ideas and decisions
of the leadership, and, once again, the parallels with the central nervous
system are remarkable, because we see there, also, closely linked, parallel
avenues for incoming and outgoing impulses or stimuli.
In the human or animal brain, we do not see any distinction between nerve-cells
that make decisions and nerve-cells that conduct impulses. It seems to our
physiological observations of the biological realities of the central nervous
system, that we can follow, to some textent, the travel of an impulse into
an extremely complicated network of largely interconnecting neural pathways.
Then, we lose sight of the train of impulses, until we see the gradual emergence
of out-going pathways. These outgoing pathways are, occasionally, in the
form of very well delineated "super-highways", where, under the stimulus
of natural selection, the need for rapid and precise muscular instructions
has led to the development of such super-highways.
In the bureaucray of a society, we see, also, a fusion of the
information-gathering functions with those of the executive, out-going pathways
of instruction and task-delineation. Just as we see in the nervous system,
that numerous routine tasks are by-passed and are decided-upon without becoming
a clearly, consciously formulated decision by the highest decision-making
functions of the individual, so do we see, in the government bureaucracies,
that many routine tasks are carried-out on a lower level, without ever reaching
the higher bureaucratic personnel or the decision-making body of the highest
leadership.
The simplest functions of a bureaucracy, like e.g., the renewal of a drivers
licence, can be performed at the peripheral level of the bureaucracy. The
incoming impulse, (the client, who submits his licence for renewal at the
counter), is immediately followed by the issuing of such a renewal, if there
are no reasons why the client should be denied a renewal of his licence.
This is the equivalent of a simple "reflex-arc". As soon as the task or problem
becomes more complex, the matter is referred to the "higher echelons" in
the bureaucracy, and, even, if such a consultation is not required, a record
of the simple, local transaction is submitted to the higher levels of the
bureaucracy. Again, we see a parallel with the nervous system, where the
reflex action occurs at the local level, but a certain awareness of this
reflex action is, often, registered by the higher centers in the central
nervous system.
At the highest levels of a bureaucracy, the information-gathering, advisory
and decision-making functions of the higher bureaucrats blend, imperceptibly,
with the decision-making functions of politicians and elected representatives.
Certainly, there are clear-cut delineations in spheres of responsibility,
but the practical cooperation and the inextricable intertwining of
information-gathering and decision-making, (based on information and advise),
means, that, in actual practice, the bureaucratic functions of a government
have a large influence on the decisions made by the leadership.
In short, the functions of the central and peripheral nervous systems of
a multi-cellular organism on the one hand, and the leadership structures
of a society on the other, show a remarkable similarity in function and
structuring, and, a careful analysis of such a comparison will give us valuable
insights for our efforts to shape the structure and functions of a
bureaucracy.
We have pointed out, before, the fundamental difference between the
multi-cellular society of an individual organism, and the multi-individual
society of human beings. We have seen, that the structure of a multi-cellular
society unfolds according to the strict instructions of its genetic blueprint,
while the shape and form of government in the human society is, largely,
determined by the collective ideas, opinions and conscious decisions of the
members of society.
We have pointed out, how the cultural code supplements, and, most of the
time, supersedes the genetic code in the structuring of society, and, we
see, all too clearly, the awesome responsibility of the individual and collective
human will as a decisive factor for determining social and individual
viability.
We are deceiving ourselves, if we, as members of the public, see the concerns
and activities of the larger society, its leadership and its bureaucracy,
only as a force we should combat as cleverly as we can, without risking being
caught and jailed. On the other hand, if we, as members of the bureaucracy
or leadership, fail to see the true meaning and responsiblity of our positions
and functions, we sow the seeds of public mistrust, and, we will be instrumental
in bringing-about the death and decay of our society. Only an intelligent
and diligent awareness of the consequences of our attitudes and concerns
will give us the possibility to shape a truly equitable and just society.
It will mean hard work. Each one of us will have to work persistently and
intelligently in order to understand ourselves and to understand the
contradictory forces at work within us, as individuals, and between us, as
members of a social entity.
It will mean hard work to consolidate a cultural heritage with sufficient
durability and staying-power to make such insights available and meaningful
to all members of the human race. Only, if we start to think in terms of
a global society, with a bureaucratic nervous system that coordinates the
activities of the whole of humanity, to the reasonable and compromised benefit
of all, only then, will human viability seem secured, at least, for a
while.
If we continue our biological merry ways and weaken each other with continued
strife and conflict, to the point of utter exhaustion and death, the
micro-organisms and insects will, ultimately, have won the struggle for supreme
dominance and viability on our planet.
Pious exhortations for a peaceful co-existence will not provide useful answers,
because there is no substitute for understanding, and, understanding will
only come, if we are willing to work for it and give ourselves a genuine
and honest chance to comprehend the nature of our existence, without bigotry
or hypocrisy.
Attitudes of concern and charity, love and compasssion, do not have to be
cloaked in the rigid doctrines of a religious belief, and, these attitudes
are certainly not captured by the fanatic fervor of the social revolutionary.
If the dedicated revolutionary could only see, how closely related he is
in his fanatic dogmatism to his brother, the fervent religious believer,
or the ruthless conservative! They all share the belief in an absolute truth
and an absolute righteousness, and, there are few factors or attitudes that
have caused more bloodshed and misery, than the false comforts of absolute
certainty and immortal security.
Absolute certainty and immortal security are the real idols of our human
existence, and, they constitute some of the most formidable enemies in our
struggle to understand, to be mellow, and to be compassionate. Even towards
the frightened, insecure, inefficient and slightly corrupt bureaucrat, we
should feel a twinge of compassion, as we reflect upon the vague guidelines
and poorly formulated goal-structures he has to work with, and, we may, then,
avoid the tempting, but mistaken attitude of scorn and discontent, which
has a tendency to lure us into a beguiling sense of self-righteous elitism.
Fervent opinions are not a form of understanding, but, a compassionate reflection
upon the common features of our human nature may lead the way to insight
and comprehension.
.......
Summary
.......