Click here for PDF format of this essay
THE PROBLEM OF DISSENT
A Study in Thought
sa096
by
Marius Heuff
Chapter 1
Content
A sad commentary on
the outlook on life
How can it be punishment to be alive and well, and a thinking human being?
When we prefer a state of "near-nothingness".
An adaptation to chronic stress.
Exorcising normal human drives in order to resign ourselves to an immutable
status-quo.
An alien philosophy, especially, when we are able to indulge our whims and
satisfy desires at the drop of a hat.
The road between a rigid straight-jacket of unhealthy emotional controls, and a
life-stye of senseless indulgence.
The controls that are needed for a life of health and vitality.
The need to agree about our reality experiences, and, the need to agree about a
code of generally acceptable conduct.
Cultural cross-fertilisation.
Generalising reality perceptions and principles of conduct.
Reality perceptions with a potential to spread far beyond existing political
boundaries.
The spread of Christianity throughout Barbaric Europe.
The relative judgement that a certain situation represents a "sad
commentary".
We are not going to get high marks from future generations for the profoundness
of our wisdoms, nor for the quality of our insights.
Perhaps, a "Blissful Nothingness" will become the destination, as
well as a justified objective of human existence, after the nuclear holocaust.
Let us have a close look at clashing reality perceptions.
How to prevent dissent from sliding into an acrimonious confrontation.
1 It is a sad commentary upon
the social conditions people have to live under, if they have to believe, as
they do in many parts of the world, that it is "punishment" for
wrong-doings in the past to have been born a member of mankind. Yet, in many
heavily populated areas of
2 What a sad adaptation to
chronic stress is the belief, that life is punishment and non-existence is the
reward for good behaviour! This attitude of passive resignation to the ills of
society and the miseries of existence are continued in the belief structures of
the Buddhist Reformation of Hinduism. Can we describe the efforts to control
all normal human longings and desires, aspirations and dreams, as anything else
than a desperate effort to cope with an apparently immutable form of
oppression? What a way to solve the problems of frustration and conflict; by
controling and exorcising normal human drives to such an extent, that people
become passive, will-less and emotion-less automata.
3 At least, it seems to me, as a
cursory student of the Hindu and Buddhist beliefs and life-style, that these
beliefs, as well as the efforts to control normal psychological mechanisms, are
a truly extra-ordinary way to cope with the immutable conditions of a rigid
social structure. Perhaps, it may have, indeed, contributed to a measure of
social stability, whenever people could accept their fate in life on the basis
of a feeling of guilt for wrong-doings in a past existence, or, if people could
avoid all strife and confrontation by cutting-out, ruthlessly, from their
personalities and their bodily existence, those behaviour-patterns, attitudes,
drives and manifestations, which are, in our modern interpretation of human
existence, a commonly shared biological heritage, as well as an expression of
shared existential needs.
4 These religious ideas are
nothing less than an attempt to castrate or mutilate the human personality, and
we find this abhorrent, in particular, at a time, when so many of us, living in
an affluent social environment, are able to indulge and satisfy our whims and
desires at the drop of a hat. While the rigid straight-jacket of excessive
emotional and behavioural control must lead to an impoverishment of human
existence, so is the undisciplined behaviour of senseless indulgence also a
severe handicap to obtain a measure of insight and wisdom, which has become
such an important commodity to ensure a measure of long-term, collective
viability.
5 Where, then, does
self-discipline slide, on the one hand, into a form of control that is too
rigid and too restrictive, and, when is self-discipline so relaxed and
haphazard, that it is in danger of disappearing all-together? Indeed, what sort
of controls are necessary to live a life of health and vitality, without the
danger of being too rigid and lose the ability to adapt, and, without the
danger of becoming so spine-less and self-indulgent, that, we, individually or
collectively, are in danger of falling-apart from lack of cohesion?
6 Obviously, such a question is
difficult to answer, because it requires, first of all, that we agree, to some
extent, about the nature of human existence. We know, that we still disagree,
to a remarkable extent, on the nature of individual and collective existence.
There are a large variety of primarily religious interpretations of our
existence. These view-points include moral or ethical codes of behaviour, and,
these behavioural codes, as well as their intellectual foundation and the perception
of commonly shared realities, rarely agree with each other. It seems very
difficult for people, or groups of people, to live together in close contact
with each other, whenever there are fundamental differences of opinion about
the perception of reality or the code of conduct.
7 People's views about political
and social realities are closely related to their religious beliefs, because
the moral guidelines, the judgements of right and wrong, as well as the
accepted lines of authority, depend upon the way people interpret the nature of
their existence.
8 When people became
grouped-together under the regime of a large and powerful political unit, they
were forced into a much closer contact with each other, without the ability, or
the freedom, to settle conflicts or differences by the sword, or, by moving
away from each other, and, as we have described before, these forced religious
and cultural contacts often led to a remarkable spurt of cultural and
intellectual developments. People began to reconcile their different ways of
believing and living, and, these close contacts were a spur to formulate more
generalised principles of conduct. An attempt was made to give a measure of
equality and dignity to all groupings and beliefs, and, specific religious
reality perceptions with their specific codes of moral behaviour, became
subjugated to a more generalised code of conduct, together with a more
encompassing perception of reality.
9 We can summarise the trend
towards more generalised rules of conduct and reality perceptions as an effort
to create principles of conduct and interpretation that were more widely
applicable. Then, the precise definition of a specific religious reality was
left to individual discretion. The various ethnic and religious features of a
number of social environments were synthesised into a more encompassing belief,
while specifics that did not fit-in, were suppressed. The road of slowly
synthesising a more generalised point of view, or code of conduct, was not
always followed, however. Frequently, the overall political leadership, or the
dominating ethnic segment of society, would stamp its particular reality
perception upon the society as a whole, but, as a rule, the force-ful
imposition of ideas and beliefs had unsatisfactory and short-lasting results.
10 Occasionally, a religious
reality perception became so attractive and over-powering, that it spread far
beyond the boundaries of a particular political entity. The spread of
Christianity throughout Barbaric Europe is a good example, but, it is probably
fair to say, that, all the major religious beliefs that are still being
practiced today, found a measure of emotional and intellectual appeal that
transcended a particular political unit. Certainly, the spread of a particular
religious belief, or, the lack of its spread, was often dictated by political
events. For example, the spread of Islam into Europe was halted completely,
when the Moslim invaders were defeated, but, in Asia and parts of
11 The point we want to make, here,
is the fact, that collective and individual conditions of existence, as well as
the traditional forms of insight and knowledge, can change so dramatically,
that an apparently viable solution to the problems of perceiving reality for
many hundreds of millions of people, can be interpreted as a sad and deplorable
adaptation by an outside observer. Yet, the realities of this outside observer,
or, the perceptions, attitudes, beliefs and solutions to existential problems
represented by the outside observer, may again be interpreted as a "sad
commentary" by observers of future generations; perhaps, after the
emergence of a different type of civilisation. Or, do you believe that future
generations will applaud our life-style and reality perceptions, if there will
be future generations to mourn our follies? Do you think, that our
behaviour-patterns, beliefs and attempts to cope with contemporary problems
will not evoke a biting comment from future observers? It may well be that our
behaviour, today, will be judged as a sad commentary upon our life-style and
reality perceptions.
12 Do you really believe that future generations will not consider it a "sad commentary", that we thought it necessary to surround ourselves with suicidal nuclear and chemical weapons? Or, that we thought it necessary to live a life of luxurious affluence and waste-ful consumerism, while a large segment of mankind still lived in impoverished conditions? Do you think, that it is a sign of wisdom and insight, that a mad arms-race is going-on, while millions of people are literally starving and are callously neglected by their own governments? Do you think, that future generations will consider our era one of wisdom and insight, if they look at the reckless consumption, resource extraction, pollution and other unnecessary problems we created for ourselves and future generations? Do you think, that they will give us high marks for furthering the causes of social justice, the essential equality of man, or the dignity of individual existence?
13 Just as we understand, and know,
now, better, the psychological mechanisms that led to the various belief
structures that became popular and accepted amongst the peoples of the world,
so will future generations, probably, understand our behaviour and our actions,
better, than we do today, but, let us not delude ourselves in believing, that
they are going to give us high marks for wisdom and insight. In many ways, the
trends and happenings of today are just as sad a commentary on our lack of insight
and our enslavement to primitive passions and emotional mechanisms, as the
belief, that it is a punishment to have been born a human being.
14 If we continue our present
trends, and, if we indeed pollute the earth and the air disastrously with our
nuclear and chemical follies, the miserable remnants of human life that will be
desperately struggling to survive on a lethally contaminated planet, may,
indeed, have good reasons to believe, that it is punishment to have been born a
human being. Then, they may be quite right to believe, that a "Blissful
Nothingness" is the ultimate goal and destination of all human life, and,
the last few survivors may well utter a sigh of well-deserved relief, when they
die and take the human genetic code with them into their grave. A futile
struggle to survive will, then, have ended, and, the prospect for intelligent
life to evolve, again, on our planet, will be very remote, indeed.
15 Perhaps, within a few hundred
years after such a holocaust, even, the hardiest forms of life will have
succumbed to the lethal levels of man-made toxic and radio-active pollutants,
and, the earth will, then, be one giant, lifeless scene of devastation, where
the wind and the tides, the floods and the volcanic eruptions do not stir any
form of life anymore.
16 Perhaps, a few microbial or other uni-cellular forms of life will cling, tenaciously, to a precarious existence, here and there, and, perhaps, they may spread, again, over most of the earth, if they have been able to wait-out the long period of decline in toxic and high levels of radio-active contamination. Yet, mankind will have disappeared, and, probably, most of the larger multi-cellular life-forms will have been destroyed as well. The high levels of radio-active and chemical hazards will make it impossible for complex genetic codes to remain undisturbed and to be transmitted intact from one generation to the next, and, we know, now, this has to be possible, before natural selection can do its work and explore possibilities of existence.
17 Let us, therefore, not assume,
lightly, that natural evolution will, eventually, create, again, a varied
spectrum of highly evolved life-forms after man has unleashed the ultimate
nuclear catastrophe. It is far more likely, that the experiment with the living
organisation will come to a premature and abrupt halt, and, the only
possibility for the earth to contain intelligent life again, is through
colonisation from another planet.
18 Our main objective, here, is not
to sketch the ultimate catastrophe, but, to analyse and study the wide variety
of reality perceptions that keep us so far apart. The clash of different
reality perceptions seems to be the main reason, why we are so powerless to
change a dangerous course of contemporary, collective behaviour, and, in this
essay, we like to review, briefly, the mechanisms of perceiving reality, as
well as the various disagreements we are likely develop.
19 Yet, because of our species-wide
faculty of language communication, we should be able to discuss our
disagreements with each other in a calm and rational manner. It seems important
to come to grips with the fact, that, sometimes, we are able to discuss points
of disagreement in a reasonably harmonious manner, to the advantage of us all,
while, on other occasions, we are unable to prevent dissent or disagreement
from sliding into an acrimonious confrontation.
.......
Chapter 2
Content
Dissent and
disagreement are everywhere.
There is so much to clean-up and organise.
A deep chill in super-power relations.
The struggle for dominance.
The ideological conflict.
What we consider to be true or false, determines, what we find right or wrong,
and, whom we believe or mistrust.
The lines of authority and communication are shaped by our beliefs.
A stark contrast between the worlds of the righteous and the sinners.
We all construct a sphere of reality perceptions around our own existence.
The reality perception arises through a "dialogue" between the
members of a small, tightly-knit social unit, prior to a sense of
"individual differentiation".
When the political unit began to include a number of different communities and
reality perceptions.
Communicating, constructively and meaningfully, between culturally different
groupings is not an easy task.
Mechanisms of "emotional synchrony", or the harmonisation of moods.
An aggressive mood of revenge and violence spreads easily throughout a mob.
Cultural and genetic factors in sexual behaviour.
The "orientation" of an outlook or attitude.
Establishing or re-enforcing a hierarchical position.
Verbal and sub-verbal communications.
Verbal tools are rarely sufficient to change the direction of an attitude or
outlook.
Gullible people are easily taken-in by showmanship and "smooth talk".
An attitude of trust is quickly eroded by false rumors.
The risk of giving one's trust in a deliberate act of good-will.
1 If I look around, I see dissent
and disagreement everywhere. There is a sea of disagreement between nearly
everyone, topped by this vicious propaganda-war between the super-powers. It is
discouraging and infuriating to watch the bickering and arguing, the mutual
attacks, the falsehoods and half-truths that are being thrown at each other,
while there is so much to do. There is so much to clean-up and to organise,
before the world is a better and a more just place to live in. However, if we
can not agree amongst each other about, even, the most basic goals and
priorities, how can we ever hope to accomplish anything?
2 I believe, that we are in a
period of global decline, in the sense, that the level of international contact
and cooperation is actually declining. We are not contributing anything, these
days, and the contacts that are still taking place, are a left-over from the
past, when the world was less polarised between East and West.
3 Perhaps, it is true, that the
economic and cultural activities between countries of the same block are rising
again, at least, to some extent, because economic activities seem to be
increasing, once again, after we have gone through a world-wide depression.
However, the deep chill in the relationships between the
4 Probably, the struggle for
dominance is, indeed, the major underlying motivation, especially, for those in
a position of leadership, but, the battle of words is designed, primarily, to
align their followers and persuade those, who do not belong firmly in one camp
or the other. The mechanisms of the tug-of-war for the hearts and minds of
people, are essentially the same, regardless, whether we see these processes on
a global scale in the battle between the super-powers, or, in a contest between
local politicians, fighting for support from the voters.
5 What, then, are the factors
that play a role in the struggle between competing view-points, ideologies and
leadership candidates? When is a battle, indeed, an all-out battle, and, when
is it a more subdued and good-natured contest with the purpose to persuade an
audience and clarify ideas? When is a struggle between opposing interpretations
a vehicle to get a better and widely acceptable imagery of a particular event
or happening? When can a dialogue, indeed, be a manifestation of cooperation,
geared towards the socially beneficial goals of clarification and education,
and, when has it nothing to do with the gathering of knowledge, or the
clarification of a mental image? When is it purely a battle of words, where the
object is to smear and discredit the opponent, and, to persuade the listener
that honour, decency and truth are represented only by one's own ideological
stance?
6 Perhaps, the most fundamental
reason, why dissent, or a difference of opinion, deteriorates, almost always,
into a struggle for dominance, is the fact, that a reality perception
determines, not only, what we consider to be true or false, but, it also
determines, what we see as right and wrong, and, it determines, whom we believe
and distrust. The lines of authority and communication are shaped by our
beliefs, and, if our beliefs differ, we nearly always differ, also, in our
judgement about the authorities.
7 If we happen to believe,
strongly, in a particular religious imagery, we interpret, not only, our own
existence, as well as everything around us, in the light of this particular
religious belief structure, but, we divide the world into "we";
those, who belong to the congregation of believers and who have been
"saved" from eternal damnation, and, "they"; the sinners,
who are rejected by God, for one reason or another, and, who will be cast in
Hell, doomed forever.
8 While such a stark distinction
between the world of the righteous and the sinners is, perhaps, limited to the
fundamentalist religions and their believers, we all have a tendency to divide
the world into "we and they". "We" always represent those
who are on the side of good and right, and, "they" are a very large
mass of people whom we stand apart from, and upon whom we look without much
interest or concern, unless "they" become a rival, a competitor, or a
threat.
9 The inevitable result of the
fact, that we all construct our sphere of reality around our own existence,
means, that the group we belong to, can still be torn-apart by dissent, because
our existential concerns may still compete and clash, even, if we belong to the
same grouping. However, alone, our combative instincts are muted, because we
are quite vulnerable, and, we have a strong, instinctive tendency to belong to
a particular group and share the reality perceptions of this group without
questioning.
10 You may recall, that we have
discussed, on previous occasions, how the conscious reality perception arises
as the result of a "dialogue" of symbolic communications between the
members of a small, nomadic grouping, where people live together and share
their daily experiences. We have also seen, that, the conscious reality
perception emerges as a common structure of beliefs, shared by everyone, and,
this communal reality perception is older than any individualised perception of
reality, including the reality of one's own specific and, perhaps, unique
existence.
11 It is, therefore,
understandable, why we tend to share our most intimate beliefs with the small community
we live in, and, why we absorbed the language, customs, ideas and concepts of
this community as we grew-up. As part of our cultural heritage, we develop
strong but poorly verbalised feelings about foreigners and strangers, who may
constitute a threat and are certainly an "unknown" factor. No wonder,
we clash with each other, if we realise, how many different beliefs, ethnic
origins and customs, prejudices or locally coloured reality perceptions we
represent, even, if it seems, that the overall society constitutes a fairly
harmonious political unit.
12 Yet, a reasonable degree of
political tranquility does not preclude the existence of dissent, and, as we
have seen, political coherence has always a strong element of coercion, as well
as persuasion. Even, if most members in a healthy and vigorous society
recognise the fact, that this political unit is to their advantage, they can
hardly resist the temptation to tear-down this unit, if weak central leadership
gives them an opportunity to do so. It is amazing to see, how quickly, a
variety of intellectual arguments are found to justify such a process of social
destructiveness. Because man has such a strong combative instinct, it is not
surprising, that the tools of communication are used, primarily, to test or
challenge an opponent or a competitor, and, only on rather specific occasions,
is the art of communication used to foster a spirit of harmony and cooperation.
13 In a sense, these mechanisms
are, again, a reflection of the fact, that man grew-up and evolved in the small
local grouping he identifies with, and, that the groupings or individuals who
come from a different area, are viewed as outsiders and intruders, who can not
be trusted; at least, not initially. The tools of a common language may be
helpful to bridge the feelings of suspicion, as long as neither party tries to
present a deceitful image.
14 Communications have various
methods and levels of expression. The oldest and most primitive forms of
communication take place on a pre-verbal level between the members of
non-conceptualising species', such as, e.g., the "herd effect" of the
grazing mammals, where a danger-signal spreads quickly throughout a herd. Here,
one member perceives a danger, and, its instinctive but highly noticeable and specific
behaviour-pattern causes an "alert" amongst the others. The herd
becomes, thereby, much less vulnerable to a predatorial attack.
15 This sort of communication is
based, in essence, upon a form of "emotional synchrony", where a
highly characteristic and stereotyped emotional state is seen by the other
members of the herd, who are, then, "swept up" into a similar
emotional state. The spreading of an alert or danger-signal is based upon the
emotional synchronisation of the defensive pole, but, all three existential
poles can be aroused by the process of emotional synchrony.
16 We see, how the aggressive mood
of revenge or violence can spread though a mob, and, how the aggressive
confidence of an anonymous mob tends to reverberate and re-enforce itself by a
process of "resonance", or emotional synchrony. Because of the
protection of the mob, people are swept into behaviour-patterns they would
rarely adopt, when alone or in a small group. The presence of many people
provides a measure of protection, and, together with the emotional resonance or
amplification of being in large numbers, the effect of emotional synchrony
brings people, easily, to emotional and behavioural extremes.
17 Similarly, we see, that an
emotional communication of synchrony is also possible around the sexual pole.
The elaborate courting rituals of many animal species' are designed to inhibit,
and overcome, the strong, antagonistic pressures or competitive
behaviour-patterns that are usually present between adult members of the same
species. Through a combination of factors, such as the emotional synchrony of
stereotyped behaviour-patterns, as well as the physiological synchrony of
hormone cycles, the members of the adult population are brought into a
"mood", or a state of sexual excitation, which induces them to take
upon themselves the burdens of pro-creation.
18 Even, in the human species, we
see evidence for the possibilities of emotional synchronisations of a sexual
nature, in spite of the fact, that, most people have lost a "species-specific"
behavioural stereotype. This has been replaced, by and large, with cultural
stereotypes. Then, the behaviour of sexual arousal and mating becomes much more
variable; at least, so far as its social manifestations are concerned. The actual
act of copulation is, of course, almost entirely under the control of genetic
instructions, and, it is so stereotyped, that it is nearly identical across a
very wide range of cultures. Perhaps, it is even justified to say, that all
mammals copulate essentially in the same manner.
19 The point we want to make, here,
is the fact, that the basic layer of communications between human beings is
based upon the ability to sense each other's moods, and, often, each other's
intentions, from the way we behave. As we all know, a long experience in
dealing with the people of our immediate surroundings, makes it possible to
sense, quite accurately, not only, in what sort of mood an individual is in,
but, also, what he or she is thinking about.
20 The most important, but
ever-fluctuating, parameter of an inter-action between individuals is the
"orientation" of an outlook or attitude. By this, I mean, that the
atmosphere of a dialogue or encounter is determined by this outlook or
attitude, and, we should realise, that we always fluctuate, somewhat, in our
attitudes towards each other. This varies from the extremes of loyalty,
affection, love or togetherness, through various degrees of "distance
taking" or reservation, and, through mild feelings of disappointment and
resentment, to outright feelings of hostility, mistrust, jealousy or
competitiveness, which may culminate in a fight. The fight may not have to be
an outright combat, and, it may represent, merely, a "showing of
teeth"; a sign of assertiveness and dominance; an effort to establish or
re-enforce a position of hierarchical differentation. Within a small community,
the instinct to settle an all-out conflict with force is subdued, and, it has
been replaced by the "test-fight", which establishes the hierarchical
stratification.
21 In addition to this basic or
sub-verbal layer of communication, there is the specifically human mode of
verbal or conceptual communication, but the words that flow between people who
are communicating verbally, are nothing more than the "icing on a
cake", and, often, just like an icing of opaque material, it tends to hide
some of the real feelings, moods, hostilities and antagonisms, which are such
an undeniable part of all our inter-actions.
22 However, in spite of the fact, that
our conceptual or verbal communications form only the tip, or the top, of a
whole ice-berg or mountain of communications, we see, that these verbal
communications can, either, enhance a trend towards antagonistic or hostile
relations, or, they can enhance a trend towards cooperation and understanding.
In the first instance, our verbal tools become a weapon of combat, and, in the
latter, it is a carefully used tool to cement cohesion, togetherness, but,
also, to enhance flexibility and viablity.
23 It is rare, however, that verbal
tools are sufficient to change the direction of an emotional thrust; at least,
it seems nearly impossible to prevent a slide towards mutual hostilities as a
result of verbal skirmishing, as we see, so clearly, in the futile and
interminable arms-negotation talks that are going-on between the super-powers.
Once there is a firm trend towards increased belligerence, the tool of verbal
negotiations becomes nothing more than an excercise in propaganda, where each
side tries to score points with its followers, or tries to impress its
adversaries. Only gullible people are fooled by such showmanship, and, most of
us know, that these efforts are not going to lead to a real solution or a real
reduction in tensions between the belligerents.
24 On the other hand, verbal
communications can fairly easily undermine an atmosphere of trust and
togetherness, indicating, quite clearly, that the "socialised mode"
of our moods and emotions, is far more fragile compared to the hostile or
competitive mode. On previous occasions, we have outlined, in more detail, how
the capability of verbal communication has led to the possibilities of deceit
and treachery, because verbal communications are a powerful way of influencing
each other's beliefs and opinions, and, it did not take man very long to
discover, that he could slant his communications in such a way, that the
"audience", or the listener, was brought into a favourable mood.
Then, the audience or followers would adopt an attitude, or opinion, that suited
the existential or manipulative purposes of the author or communicator.
25 This means, however, that verbal
communications introduce a new dimension in the relationships between people
and the ability to manipulate and deceive, to influence and cajole, to persuade
or threaten. Verbal communications lead, often, to situations where people feel
threatened and abused, giving rise to anger and resentment, frustration or
disappointment. Certainly, verbal tools can be used to appease flared tempers;
to apologise for wrong-doings or treacherous acts. It can be used to atone and
show humility; it can be used to be honest and truthful, and, it may be
possible to turn a soured relationship around and re-establish an atmosphere of
trust and cooperation. However, such attitudes are risky, because they may be
abused. It leaves the "apologizer" wide open to an opportunistic
attack, and, it does not take much before an opportunity of vulnerability is
used or abused in an unscrupulous manner.
26 Again and again, we come to the
conclusion, that the atmosphere of trust, good-will and cooperation is so much
more fragile than the attitudes of suspicion, hostility and deceit, and yet, as
we have argued before, our viability on a large, global scale, may well depend
on our collective efforts to create such a world-wide atmosphere of trust and
cooperation. Let us hope, that the awareness for the need to behave in such a
"symbiotic" way, arises fast enough to keep abreast of the need to do
so. If the need for such a sophisticated behaviour-pattern outstrips our
ability to recognise and design a collective pattern of trustful behaviour, we
will have lost the ability to adapt quickly enough to survive.
….....
Chapter 3
Content
A difficult dilemma.
Has man already outstripped his ability to adapt to long-term existential
needs?
The essence of a "cultural transmission".
The rising importance of the "collective will".
The collective will can be seen to work effectively in small and coherent
social groupings.
The qualities of competence and openness.
Disagreement and dissent are muted by the insight that social cohesion takes
priority.
An endless stream of practical problems and challenges to the chores of
survival.
The focus of a debate or an inquiry.
Spontaneous, natural leadership.
The direction we have to move into.
We still try to solve large-scale problems in an essentially primitive and
competitive manner.
Laying the foundation for a shared perception of the realities of human
existence.
Agreement about the channels of authority and legitimacy.
When we can only agree about the need to go to war.
A search for common grounds that are already in existence.
Our biological heritage.
Shared existential needs, and the mechanisms of territoriality and competitive
strife.
The poor and the powerless are locked-up in the most barren areas of the globe.
Cultivating an agreement about democratic ideals.
Human rights, and the social ideal of essential equality.
Many people pay only lip-service to these commonly shared ideals.
A pre-occupation with super-power rivalry.
An obsession with national self-interests.
1 "Are we not in a terrible
dilemma?", you may ask; "We see, that our instinctive
behaviour-patterns of suspicion and hostility are far stronger than our ability
to cooperate and trust each other, at least, on a large scale. We have also
seen, that the tools of verbal communication lead, far more easily, to an
atmosphere of suspicion and hostility than to a mood of trust and good-will.
Yet, our technological developments, in particular, those of industry and
weaponry, have made cooperation on a truly gigantic scale, essential for
long-term survival. It seems, then, that man has already outstripped his
ability to adapt to contemporary existential needs, and, this means, then,
inevitably, a road towards extinction, is it not?".
2 Indeed it does. If man does not
adapt, appropriately and quickly, to the possibilities of destruction and
pollution on a global scale, which have become an undeniable, and, perhaps,
unalterable factor of human existence, man will, eventually, create such a high
level of destruction and pollution in his efforts to settle a conflict, that,
unwittingly, man will have destroyed the ecological niche upon which his
continued existence depends. We have argued, before, that an essential part of
this ecological niche is the "cultural know-how" to survive under
difficult and adverse conditions, and, the loss of viability that will come
with an all-out conflict with nuclear or chemical weapons, is partly due to the
destruction and contamination of our ecological niche, and, partly, to the loss
of the technical ability to compensate for the environmental dangers we will
then be faced with.
3 Therefore, it does not take
much to push mankind, irrevocably, upon the road towards extinction, but, then,
man has faced important crises before, and, the species of mankind has been
able to adapt in surprising and highly innovative ways in the past. We should
certainly not come to the conclusion, that there is nothing we can do, and,
that it is impossible to stop the drift towards an all-out nuclear
confrontation. Let us see what can be done; what possibilities there are, even,
if it appears highly unlikely, at the present time, that such a beneficial
momentum towards a greater degree of collective viability can be set into
motion.
4 If we look at a small
community, we see a number of factors or mechanisms at work that enhance the
cohesion of such a group. Perhaps, the most important factor is the extent to
which the existential needs of the members are tied-together. In extreme cases,
the indvidual members could not survive without the group as a whole, or an
effective social organisation of some sort, because the fulfilment of the basic
existential requirements goes far beyond the capabilities of each individual
member, existing in isolation from the social group he belongs to.
5 Perhaps, the most obvious
example, here, is the small crew during a space-flight, where, even, the most
basic existential needs require careful and sophisticated management that is
dependent upon the unit as a whole, in addition to the much larger, socially
integrated effort and accomplishment of launching a space-voyage in the first
place. But, even, on earth, many small groupings live under tough environmental
conditions, like the crew of an observation station in the
6 In addition to the degree to
which the existential requirements have become linked-together, we see other
factors that contribute, or detract, from the level of social harmony. Very
important are the quality, competence and openness of leadership, where each
member can experience a sensation of belonging and of fair treatment. Then,
there are such factors as the sharing of a language, a culture, a religious
belief, etc. Within such a community, we see, that, debate, disagreement, or,
even, dissent, are still possible and tolerated, and, sometimes, even, encouraged,
because debate and discussions may, then, function as a collective search to
solve problems or cope better with them.
7 Every society or community that
lives under relatively harsh climatic and environmental conditions, will be
facing an endless stream of practical problems and challenges, threatening to
jeopardise the security and survival of the group and its members, and, there
is, therefore, a shared need to cope with these problems efficiently. Since
circumstances always change, there is a continuous process of adaptation at
work, which requires conscious thought and debate, logical analysis, as well as
clear, synthetic thinking. Sometimes, a series of tests, probes, experiments or
trials are needed, before the most successful and satisfying response can be
formulated.
8 In such circumstances, we see
debate and discussion, investigation and common-sense at their best. The
commonly shared existential concerns and requirements will keep the debate,
experimentation and focus of attention concentrated upon what is important.
Priorities are not likely to be confused under these circumstances. There is a
large core of general agreement, and, the discussion deals, primarily, with the
evaluation or judgement of a particular phenomenon, or the response to a
particular problem. We assume, here, that the quality of leadership is
excellent, and, that a great majority of the members experience a situation of
justice.
9 We have argued, before, why it
is possible for such a beneficial leadership to emerge in a small community,
without any significant awareness of the psychological mechanisms at work, and,
without a large and complex bureaucracy. The principles of fairness, openness,
and equality are such basic and inborn attitudes, (a heritage of our long evolutionary
development in the small, nomadic grouping), that a talented and gifted leader
can emerge and guide the small community "by the seat of his pants",
so to speak. A natural leader is able to lead with a measure of intuitive
wisdom that is based on a far-sighted and common-sense interpretation of a
largely unwritten and unarticulated code of behaviour, reflecting the
prevailing moral attitudes and religious beliefs of the small community.
10 If we compare this situation
with an intellectual excercise to design a way of life that will transform the
whole of mankind into a viable social entity, we see, clearly, into what
direction we have to move. We see, equally clearly, how far removed we still
are from the ideals of a small, efficient and beneficial social unit, and, it
is somewhat depressing to engage in such a theoretical excercise. Yet, whether
we want it or not, the momentum of technological and social developments makes
us, the living members of the species of mankind, increasingly inter-dependent,
and, at the same time, we are beginning to resemble the small-scale social unit
that is trying to survive under relatively harsh environmental conditions.
11 Certainly, the absence of any
awareness or recognition of the fact, that we are becoming rapidly more
dependent upon each other, makes a solution of the associated problems not any
easier, and, we should, therefore, concentrate, here, on the aspects of
recognition. There is no sense in talking about what we should do to avoid a
certain danger, if we can not agree amongst ourselves, that such a danger is
present.
12 When we look at the mechanisms
of social integration on the scale of a large national unit, or the projected
unity of the federation of mankind, it is clear, that we do not agree, as yet,
about, even, the most elementary outlines of the existing realities. We do not
speak the same conceptual language, (aside from technical linguistic
differences), and, we interpret realities from widely divergent cultural and
ethnic view-points. In spite of the fact, that we are increasingly facing the
same environmental dangers, we still tend to solve problems from our particular
local point of view. We still try to solve our large-scale problems in a
primitive, essentially competitive manner. We try to occupy the best
territories and defend them with military might and an attitude of unquestioned
righteousness.
13 Therefore, inter-national and
inter-cultural contacts are still coloured, primarily, by the emotions of
competitive strife, and, the lack of a shared, if basic, reality perception, is
one of the reasons, why the processes of a judicial settlement are still so
ineffective in solving tensions on a large, international scale. Before we can
hope to promote, more effectively, a united and well-articulated body of world
opinion, we have to lay the foundation for a shared perception of the realities
of existence, and, we can only do this, if we are able to find a true common
denominator in our existence, transcending local cultural attitudes or religious
beliefs. We still do not agree amongst ourselves about the channels of
authority and legitimacy, and, therefore, what one group considers evidence for
a divinely ordained social order, is considered to be unjust, archaic or
abominable by those, who do not share in the basic perceptions of a religious
reality.
14 If we can not agree about our
beliefs and reality perceptions, nor, about our moral outlook, or the lines of
authority and legitimacy; if we can not agree about anything, except, perhaps,
the need to go to war, where, then, do we begin to create this basic framework
for a scaffold of common-sense agreement and understanding? Let us examine this
question, in detail, and, let us see, whether or not the outlook is, indeed, as
bleak as it seems. Is there, indeed, no common ground at all, or, is there the
beginning of an agreement upon which we can build and expand? I believe, that
we have a larger common ground than most of us realise, but it is obscured by
the intense ideological struggle between East and West.
15 If we look, closely, at the
needs of our existence, we see, that we can agree about a fairly large range of
principles that enhance social harmony, regardless of religious or ideological
beliefs. After all, we share this essential "biological heritage",
because, looking at the gene-pool of mankind as a whole, we know, that all
human beings can still inter-breed, and, we form therefore, one spectrum of the
human gene-pool, in spite of racial differences and widely different, or, even,
incompatible belief-structures. But, the concept of a shared biological
heritage may be somewhat nebulous, and, let us, therefore, translate this
concept into a number of observations about shared aspirations and existential
needs.
16 We know, now, that we all share
the need to sustain ourselves, and, that we have to fulfill a number of primary
existential needs. We need food and shelter, and, we have to have the ability
to live in a small, harmonious community, and, we have to have the opportunity
to develop, at least, some of the talents nature has endowed us with. The need
for a certain territory and resources lies at the heart of the fierce
competitive strife between human groupings, and, we see, clearly, that the
weakest and poorest groupings are inhabiting the most barren territories. The
strongly defensive attitudes of communities are also responsible for the fact,
that it is not possible, anymore, for a grouping to pick-up and leave their
territories, if climatological changes has made their territory much less
fertile.
17 Let us recognise, that we all
need a place to live, and, that we need a sufficient territory and availability
of natural resources, in order to secure a minimum level of healthy existence.
Indeed, the impediment to reaching a level of healthy and satisying existence,
is not only the result of a lack of territory and suitable resources, because,
it is the attitude of competitive strife that keeps the poor and the powerless
locked-up into the most barren areas of the globe.
18 However, even, the emphasis on a
number of shared existential needs, may still be too abstract for many people,
and, they may want to hear more pragmatic and tangible ideas, how to lay a
bridge between rich and poor, East and West, or North and South. Allright, let
us look at specific areas of agreement that already exist. We see, that, one of
the most widely agreed-upon ideas, is the "democratic concept", where
everyone in society should have an equal influence upon the leadership by the
principle of "one person, one vote".
19 Similarly, there is fairly
widespread agreement about the principle that everyone should share the
available resources more or less equally, the Socialist Ideal, and, that
everyone has the right to a minimum standard of living and justice, which are
embodied in a somewhat variable concept of "human rights". No
responsible people, in East or West, will disagree with the principle that
everyone in society should be treated with a measure of dignity and justice,
or, should have the right of access to the basic necessities of life; or should
have a say upon the way society functions.
20 No-one argues with these basic
principles, and, yet, in spite of the agreement about the principles of social
justice and human dignity, the rivalry and suspicions between the two political
and military power-blocks is so great, that a continuous propaganda-war gives
the impression that all evil is embodied by the opposite side. In spite of the
wide areas of agreement that already exist, or should exist, the super-powers
are so totally engrossed in their propaganda-war and muted acts of
belligerence, that they neglect, completely, to do something about the many
hundreds of millions of people, who suffer under ruthless dictatorships of one
sort or another.
21 These people have far fewer
rights, and far less social justice, than the peoples in either of the
super-powers, and, yet, the hostilities are heating-up to such an extent, that
the arms-race is escalating all the time, and more and more monies, resources
and energies are spent in the preparation for war, while the problems of
injustice and disparity, the trampling of human rights and the appalling
conditions of existence in many countries, are completely neglected.
22 This neglect of the social
conditions of many peoples all over the world, as well as the obsession with
the interests of the super-powers, are the greatest obstacles to the
implementation of more widely spread conditions of social justice. If there
will be future generations of mankind, they are probably going to consider this
insane arms-race between the major nations, together with an indulgence in
hostile acts of propaganda and belligerence, as the greatest waste and most
blatant act of criminal negligence in our times.
.......
Chapter 4
Content
The fragile and transient persuasiveness of a reasoned argument.
We are faced with an "essential choice".
The faculty of rational evaluation, and the mechanisms of natural selection.
Continuing the search for a scaffold of rational agreements.
A constructive federation of socially integrated entities.
A universal social contract of essential equality.
What constitutes a rational and honest discussion?
The willingness to listen, seriously, to an opposing point of view.
Avoiding the arousal of aggressive or defensive instincts.
Conditions of good-will and trust.
The need for mediation, whenever the conditions for a fruitful discussion are
lacking.
A genuine willingness to compromise.
Practical psychological mechanisms lie at the foundation of the possibility to
communicate fruitfully.
Do we have the right to question each other's points of view closely?
A careful and honest debater will always avoid exploiting someone's
vulnerability.
A good discussion respects the limits of tolerance.
Avoiding the unnecessary break-down of psychological defenses.
When reality is exclusively interpreted in terms of good and evil.
The need for an agreement about human nature, including commonly shared
psychological mechanisms.
The sobering effects of a period of warfare and devastation.
The swing between "builders" and "destroyers".
Conscious faculties are a behavioural tool.
Stress, and the slow movement of "tectonic plates".
A series of less destructive, but still painful and humiliating
"adjustments".
1 We know, now, that emotional
behaviour-patterns, together with the promptings of instinctive drives, are far
more powerful than the fragile and transient persuasiveness of a reasoned
argument, regardless, how clearly the insanity of certain emotional or
instinctive behaviour-patterns has been demonstrated. Yet, we have to keep
trying to bring our collective emotions and instinctive drives under control,
because the essential behavioural choice is coming ever more clearly to the
fore; we either persist in defending a favourable local status-quo or a
privileged position with force against envy and attack, or, we create a bond of
security by mutual reliance and inter-dependence, based on a social contract of
essential equality. There seems to be no other choice.
2 The only alternative to the
ever-recurring need to reach for weapons, is a global contract of essential
equality, but this solution to the ever-escalating pressures of competitve
strife is so difficult to obtain, and, even more difficult to maintain, that I
have serious doubts about the possibility of ever bringing-about a satisfactory
contract of essential equality and social justice on a world-wide scale. Our
only hope is, that, a sufficient number of people will recognise, in time, that
the difficult but necessary solution of a globally implemented social contract
of essential equality, is the only route for continued viability, because the
age-old instinctive drive to obtain security by force and the use of armaments,
seems to lead, inevitably, to a contract of mutual suicide.
3 Let us take heart from the
fact, that natural selection was able to favour, and bring to the fore, the
potentials and capabilities of the rational evaluation. As we have discussed
before, this trend is quite old, anteceding the emergence of the human species
by many hundreds of millions of years, because this "rational
solution" is, after all, the foundation of the emergence of behavioural
flexibility. Already a very long time ago in the evolution of life, the
mechanisms of natural selection "recognised" the limitations
associated with a purely instinctive or genetically encoded set of behavioural
instructions. Now, it is our turn, to recognise, in a conscious and
verbalisable manner, that, we, collectively, as members of the species of
mankind, have to be able to behave, react and respond rationally. We have to
behave adequately, as a society, as a community of societies, as well as global
species of mankind. If we fail to recognise this need in time, we will be
firmly set upon the road towards self-extinction.
4 Let us continue, therefore, to search for a scaffold of rational agreements, acceptable to peoples all over the world. Such a scaffold may, then, hopefully, function as a point of departure for this international dialogue, which will, eventually, have to culminate into a globally acceptable structure of social rules and regulations, including leaderships and government institutions, which will be able to transform the world from a bickering and suicidal cauldron of hostile and insane belligerence, into a constructive federation of socially integrated environments, where every human being lives under the auspices of a sober, realistic and essentially just "social contract".
5 We have outlined, before, our
ideas about this social contract of essential equality, and here, we will,
concentrate on the role of our rational faculties and the fruits of a rational
and honest debate, because they are going to be ever more important tools in
our efforts to bring-about this swing-away from a suicidal momentum.
6 What really, is a rational and
honest debate or discussion? If we try to define this concept, we see, that we
run into a number of qualifications and restrictions, which show us, that it is
not easy to create the right conditions for an honest and fruitful debate.
Before an honest and open debate can take place, there must be, on both sides
of the argument, a willingness to listen and learn from the other's point of
view, and, such a willingness or orientation of good-will is only possible, if
the defensive or aggressive instincts have not been aroused.
7 This means, that the prevailing
mood of the participants must be one of compromise and reconciliation, and
there must be an assurance, that, neither party will take an unfair advantage
of this mood of openness and cooperation. Only under such conditons of
good-will and trust, is it possible to avoid a resurgence of the sentiments of
suspicion and fear, and, only, then, is it possible to talk to each other
honestly, with an atmosphere of calm rationality; in an emotionally more or
less neutral zone; without the fear for, or the temptation of, a recurrence of
exploitation or opportunism.
8 You may point-out, that, under
such ideal conditions, it is hardly necessary to come to an open and honest
debate to discuss problems or points of disagreement. Besides, it seems, that,
any serious point of disagreement will prevent a mood of openness and trust to
establish itself, and, it seems, then, that a debate is only fruitful, if the
conditions of good-will have already been established. This is true, and, it is
realistic to keep clearly in mind, that an atmosphere of good-will and trust is
essential for the flowering of a fruitful discussion.
9 If it is so difficult to create
conditions for a fruitful discussion, we may come to the conlusion, that a
debate is only possible amongst friends who agree, in essence, beforehand,
about the major issues or the ground-rules that determine the relationships between
the discussants. Can a discussion or debate play a constructive role amongst
people, or participants, who are suspicious of each other and lack, therefore,
an atmosphere of good-will between them? How can we prevent a useless battle of
words? How can we create conditions that may favour a more beneficial and open
exchange of views?
10 Here, we see the role of a
mediator emerge. Because a mediator may help to create, at least, the
beginnings of an atmosphere of trust and good-will, provided, that both parties
are, in essence, seriously motivated towards an improvement in their
relationships. Only, if both parties have genuinely come to the conclusion,
that it is better to talk than to fight, only, then, can a mediator start
laying the foundation for an atmosphere of good-will and understanding. If one
of the parties in a conflict-situation is still convinced, that it can dictate
the terms of surrender to the other, or, if it is still convinced, that it can
win or gain in a violent confrontation, then, the road of an honest discussion
remains resolutely closed, and, the weaker party can only work frantically to
reach a position of parity, where it can "force" the other party to
negotiate or talk seriously.
11 Unwittingly, we have shifted the
focus of attention in the question what an honest and rational debate is, to
the practical psychological mechanisms that underly the possibility of a
fruitful verbal communication, and, in particular, the practical psychological
mechanisms that underlie a conflict-situation between powerful rivals or
nations.
12 However, even, if the debate or
discussion is taking place between friends, within an atmosphere of essential
trust and good-will, we still see the need for a careful management of the
debate in order to avoid the emergence of feelings of hostility and suspicion.
Especially, if the debate is about feelings, beliefs or politics, we see, that,
close questioning about the rationale of a certain attitude, opinion or belief,
may cause a certain defensiveness to come to the fore. Most of us are not able
to substantiate, clearly and logically, what we believe to be true, and, what
the reasons are for our beliefs, attitudes, practices or political and
philosophical views. We see, then, clearly, how a close, incisive scrutiny is
perceived as a threat, and, it is logical that an intense scrutiny of beliefs
and attitudes will cause a defensive reaction.
13 Does this mean, that we do not
have the right to question or examine each other's points of view closely? No,
this would be an erroneous conclusion, but, we have to realise, and carefully
respect, the intellectual weaknesses that may be associated with a particular
opinion or position. Any attempt to expose an intellectual weakness, an
uninformed opinion or belief, has to be done carefully, with a full awareness
of the painful consequences such an exposure will bring.
14 A careful and honest debate will, always, scrupulously avoid making use of the weakness of someone's position, and, a careful and honest debater will recognise, when the exposure of a weakness starts to lead to a feeling of embarrassment, and, the debater will then stop exposing this weakness any further, giving the exposed party time to recognise what has happened, as well as time to digest the events. As a result, one's position, attitudes and beliefs become better founded and more mature.
15 We may include, therefore, in
the preconditions for an open and honest discussion, a clear recognition of the
existential needs and concerns of the parties involved. While a discussion is
often impossible without touching, at least, to some extent, upon each other's
weak spots and prejudices, a good discussion respects the limits of tolerance,
and, it avoids a further break-down of defenses, whenever a discussion has
exposed a weak spot. This willingness to respect each individual's limitations
of the ability to acknowledge or discuss certain topics, is an essential
element in this continuous effort needed to keep an open and honest debate on
an even keel.
16 These considerations also play a
role in efforts to create an atmosphere of trust and good-will by a mediator.
It is the essential task of mediation to keep clearly in mind the existential
needs and concerns of the parties involved, and, to seek, diligently, for a
basis of agreement or understanding upon which the beginnings of a dialogue
between belligerents can be founded.
17 However, you may object to this
line of reasoning, because it assumes a way of seeing reality, which may not be
present. All too often, even, a rudimentary acknowledgement of shared or common
existential interests is absent, and, if belligerents can not recognise the
common roots of existential requirements and competitve strife in each other's
behaviour-patterns, then, the basis for a possible agreement, or the foundation
for a fruitful dialogue, becomes very narrow, indeed.
18 If reality is interpreted,
exclusively, in terms of good and evil, it is unavoidable, for either side, to
identify with the side of Good, or God, and to see the other side as the
personification of Evil. Then, no dialogue or compromise is possible; only
all-out strife, which is seen as the ultimate struggle between God and Satan.
Then, violence and conflagration will have to follow their inexorable course,
and, if mankind as a whole would ever be fragmented into such utterly
irreconcilable camps, we have to fear for the viability of mankind.
19 However, it is possible, but,
perhaps, not likely, that such an all-out violent confrontation between the
factions of mankind can be avoided. This can be done, if dialogue and
discussion are able to spread the concepts of a shared biological heritage and
behaviour-patterns, before such an ultimate polarisation has taken place. It
is, therefore, of the utmost practical importance to spread, as quickly and as
widely as possible, an imagery of man that lets us see ourselves and our
adversaries, as people; as human beings with very similar behaviour-patterns
and ambitions; as people, who are locked into a position of competitive strife
and are, therefore, adversaries and enemies of each other. We have to see
ourselves as people, who are able to develop the insight, that it is preferable
to cooperate rather than fight with each other. We know, that it is possible to
become close friends, regardless how much we mistrust and despise each other at
the present time.
20 A shared reality perception, together with a shared imagery about the nature of man and the psychological mechanisms that are experienced by us all, are, therefore, a pre-requisite for laying a foundation of good-will and mutual respect, which can, in turn, become a foundation for a fruitful dialogue. A dialogue about the fundamental questions of the nature of man is, therefore, necessary, in order to build this foundation of good-will and understanding, which may, later, support a much more practical discussion about the type of society we need and want, as well as the implications of the "social contract", which each and every modern, sophisticated, social solution has to concern itself with.
21 This is one of the reasons, why
a philosophical discussion about the nature of man is not merely a pass-time
for those who have nothing better or more urgent to do. Such a fundamental
discussion is a necessary prelude to the emergence of a shared reality
perception and a judicial settlement of disputes. However, a shared reality
perception is no guarantee, that an atmosphere of good-will is going to
prevail, as we all know from the bickering and fighting we can see amongst
those, who are of the same Faith, or belong to the same ethnic or cultural
grouping.
22 On the other hand, we see, also,
that an intuitive recognition of the need for cooperation and a shared way of
life can rise to the fore, in particular, following a period of warfare and
devastation, where people know, that the price of warfare is too high, and,
that no "Cause" can be so holy and so righteous, that it justifies
the miseries and injustices of violent conflict. Then, a pragmatic good-will
can arise, which may lead to an atmosphere of mutual trust, in spite of the
fact, that it lacks the intellectual foundation and precision, which could make
this feeling and intuitive sense of recognition into a more clearly grasped and
durable basis for cooperation.
23 We see such an intuitive
recognition of the need for good-will and peace emerge after a period of
devastating war-fare, but, within a few generations, these trends towards
good-will have disappeared, and, even, those, who share an intellectual basis
for cooperation and agreement, fall into an atmosphere of strife and slide
recklessly towards a violent confrontation. Man seems to alternate, inexorably,
between a group of "building generations", and a few, or, even, a
single generation of destroyers. Soon, man will be able to wage war on such a
devastating scale, that, too few survivors are left to pick-up the pieces and
create or pro-create again.
24 The orientation of people's
attitudes is, therefore, the over-riding factor in determining, whether a
verbal communication is used "to build or to destroy"; to cooperate
and solve problems, or, as a prelude to war. This conclusion is completely in
line with the observation, that our conscious faculties are merely a
behavioural tool. Therefore, it is irrealistic to expect too much from verbal
contact. It is not realistic to expect, that a trend towards belligerent
confrontation can be changed into an attitude of mutual respect and cooperation
by the mechanisms of a verbal exchange alone.
25 Yet, verbal contacts and
negotiations can, at times, provide for a peaceful adjustment of the forces at
work, and, they may postpone a violent conflict. Indeed, sometimes a violent
conflict can be avoided all-together, but the forces of competitive strife are
rarely changed as the result of verbal contacts alone. The situation is
comparable to a situation of stress building-up in the earth's crust at the
junction between tectonic plates. The slow movement of the tectonic plates in
relation to each other, builds-up enormous tensions at the fault-line, because
the process of friction prevents a smooth and gradual slide. These tensions can
be released in one violent, gigantic shudder, a major, devastating earth-quake,
or, they can be released in a series of minor shocks and tremors, which are far
less devastating.
26 Similarly, verbal contacts, and
the gradual yielding of the weaker party can accomplish a process of
re-alignment that is less painful and devastating than an all-out war with a
strong opponent, and, such a series of gradual, but nevertheless painful and
humiliating "adjustments", can provide the lessons, insight and
resolve needed to strengthen a nation or society to the point, that it does not
have to yield again.
.......
Chapter 5
Content
The lure of "talking tough".
The price of "feeling good".
Why the memories of warfare and devastation fade quickly.
Prosperity, and the inevitable resurgence of strife and dissent.
When the need for social cohesion diminishes.
The decay of the attitude of cooperation, as soon as a measure of security has
been reached.
Dispersion and dissent represent the mechanisms of "social entropy".
The advantages of possessing a clear conceptual grasp.
Experiencing a "flash of recognition".
A remarkable resemblance with the hated enemy.
Security, dignity and essential equality.
Why it is so difficult to create the conditions that are necessary for a social
contract of essential equality in a much larger society.
A "social contract" does not imply a specific conceptual model.
Many diverging reality perceptions should still be able to agree about the
basic outlines of a social contract of essential equality.
Beneficial and harmful forms of disagreement.
Retrospective judgements.
When the response of a socially integrated entity becomes more flexible and
appropriate.
Finding an alternative to a state of "paralysis".
Viability is the ultimate criterium for the forces of natural selection.
1 We see, then, that verbal
contact may still be useful, even, if the contact is not a tool to promote
understanding, but a weapon in a skirmish. If the pressures are so strong, that
the weaker party fails to see any advantage in yielding, compared to the
devastation caused by a possible defeat, only then, will there be a reckless
hardening of attitudes, and a flight into the euphoria of a belligerent stance.
2 The main reason, why it is so
attractive to adopt a belligerent stance, is the fact, that "talking
tough" against a domineering adversary, restores a sense of pride. The
acknowledgement that one exists in a position of weakness, is painful, and, one
has to weigh, constantly, the price of humiliating adjustments and the loss of
prestige against an even greater loss through all-out warfare. However, we are
inclined to be impatient, and, especially, the younger members of a nation may
not appreciate, clearly, how much they have to lose by an all-out defeat. Then,
they can easily be swept-up into a belligerent euphoria. Such an attitude makes
everyone "feel good", and, it restores, not only, the pride of the
nation, but, also, the prestige of the leadership. Soon, the ordinary members
of society will be called to arms, and, they are going to sacrifice, once
again, their lives on the battle-fields.
3 After a period of peace and
prosperity, the generations born into such a benevolent social status tend to
forget, how easy it is to lose everything during an act of war-fare, and, they
have no personal recollection of the hard work their forefathers have put-in to
reach such a state of prosperity and well-being. These psychological mechanisms
lie behind the observation, that there seems to be an almost inexorable trend
towards a cycle of building and destruction, but, at the same time, we should
not forget, that the phase of rebuilding may become impossible because of the
destructiveness of modern war-fare.
4 The phenomenon of an
alternating cycle between build-up and break-down, applies, not only, to the
relationships between large groupings or nations, but, we see essentially the
same mechanisms at work on many levels of collective and individual existence.
For example, as soon as a nation or community is relatively free from external
threats or internal stresses, we see, almost immediately, a resurgence of
strife and dissent between different sub-groupings within a social environment.
These sub-groupings may be diverging along ethnic or cultural differences, or,
they may be diverging because of differences in social standing, different
occupations, different religious or political view-points, etc., etc.
5 In short; as soon as the need
for cohesion and cooperation diminishes during a period of easy affluence and
the absence of an external threat, the internal dispersive forces are coming to
the fore, once again. We see this at all levels of existence, including the
smallest groupings. Even, within a family-unit, we see the trend towards
dispersion or fragmentation, as soon as affluence, opportunity and the freedom
that comes with assets or a large income, create an opportunity for the
marriage-partners to go their own separate ways.
6 We may even see these same
dynamics at work in the psychological mechanisms of a single individual. As
soon as the need to "perform" in society falls-away, and, as soon as
a certain level of "security" has been reached, the coherence of the
personality may suffer, in particuar, if the individual has not recognised,
intuitively or consciously, the need to "keep active", and to channel
one's energies into one goal or another. It is rare, that such an unstable
personality would gain total financial security, unless by fortunate
inheritance, but, we see, that a measure of security within a job or
bureaucratic position may lead to a slackened performance, as well as the
temptation to squander energies on many futile and non-productive activities,
which are only a financial burden or a factor of stress upon one's health.
7 Fortunately, the dangers of
such dissipating activities for individual health and small-scale social well-being
are more easily recognised, compared to the need for a large social grouping to
remain coherent and unified, after a state of affluence or prosperity has been
reached. If we, as individuals, would as easily fall-apart as the social
groupings we belong to, we would never have reached this remarkable status of
dominance over the terrestial environment, which we, as members of the human
species, still enjoy.
8 The trend towards
disintegration for a social entity, be it the social unit of human individuals,
(or any other social unit, which may be defined in its broadest concept as
pre-cellular units of biochemical complexes that have found a possibility to
exist during the early evolution of life), any unit, is, therefore, subjected
to the most fundamental characteristics of the living organisation; nl.
divergence, and the trend towards "dissent", disagreement and
dispersion, or "entropy". The sphere of verbal communications,
reflects, therefore, this most characteristic aspect of the living
organisation; the tendency towards entropic dispersion.
9 Can we talk, then, about a
"problem of dissent", or, should we shrug our shoulders, and try, in
a pragmatic manner, to live with the inevitable trends of dispersion and
disagreement? Do we have to consider dissent an unavoidable by-product of the
living organisation, like the phenomenon of entropy, or, can we also see a more
positive role for the phenomenon of dissent?
10 I believe, that the main
advantage of a clear conceptual grasp over these mechanisms lies in the
improved or increased manipulative mastery that arises, whenever we grasp or
understand a particular phenomenon better. If we understand, better, the
mechanisms at play, we will have a better idea, what can be accomplished with
the verbal tools of communication, and, we will be less surprised and
discouraged with failures and miscalculations. As we begin to understand, how
we function and behave, we will understand and appreciate, more easily, when,
and where, there is a chance to communicate fruitfully, and, when we are up
against mechanisms that exclude the possibility of holding a fruitful
discussion.
11 For example, if both parties are
locked into an implacably hostile attitude, we know, that verbal communications
will only be used as a weapon in a war of words and nerves. It will be used as
a weapon of propaganda to damage each other's credibility, as well as in an
effort to win-over bystanders, or fortify the resolve of loyal followers. Even,
if only one of the parties is beginning to realise the mechanisms that are
involved, it is possible to mitigate the atmosphere of outright confrontation.
If one of the parties is beginning to realise, how much his own belligerent
posturing resembles that of his adversary, we see, that a "flash of
recognition" can take place, and, the insight may emerge, that we
resemble, to a surprising degree, the hated enemy.
12 Certainly, such a realisation or
insight is likely to occur, first, in the strongest party, because the feeling
of relative security in a conflict-situation prevents an individual, or a
leadership, to be pushed into the most extreme range of anxiety. It is
reasonable to assume, therefore, that the most rational attitudes are likely to
be adopted by the stronger and more secure party. The contract of social
justice or essential equality, which gives each individual and social grouping
a measure of security and dignity, is one of the most effective foundations
upon which rational contact becomes possible. Once we have a measure of
equality, security and dignity, it will become progressively easier to build-up
this foundation of rational contacts, but, as soon as this foundation of the
social contract of social justice and essential equality has been destroyed,
the possibilities to avoid a disastrous confrontation with the help of verbal
contact, become almost nil.
13 Here, again, we see the
importance of sharing amongst each other, at least, the most basic insights
about our common psychological mechanisms, but, as long as these insights do
not exist, we will have to go through a slow and painful discussion, with many
possibilities of misunderstanding, before we obtain this basic framework of
knowledge and insight upon which we can build a "social contract".
14 We know, now, that it is
relatively easy to implement such a social contract on a small scale. For
example, in a family-unit, we see, that the principles of essential equality
and mutual respect are applied, intuitively, irrespective of the particular
religious, philosophical or social structure lying at the foundation of a
particular set of family relationships. As the group becomes larger, it becomes
more difficult to create the conditions for a viable social contract. Then, we
see the same difficulties arise, regardless of the social, political or
religious foundation of the group. We have discussed the nature of these
difficulties before, such as the increasing number of events taking place, as
well as the inability of the leader or leadership to remain in touch with all
these events, as the social grouping grows larger.
15 We have also seen, that, modern
computer technology will find its most useful application in helping us to make
the larger societies, even, the global society, as transparent as a small-scale
social grouping. Still, the application of the principles of the social
contract on a world-wide scale, between nations and within nations, seems to be
such a gigantic and far-away objective, that, most of us have the impression
that these goals are irrealistic and utopian dreams.
16 However, we have to learn to
see, that there are no compelling technical reasons that prevent us from
creating a viable and stable, transparent and just society, but, we have to
develop the vision, as well as the collective will, to reflect about the
necessity, and the requirements, of a social unit on such a large scale. We
have to learn to cooperate with each other, and, we have to learn to give-up,
at least, to some extent, our positions of privilege, wealth and security. At
the same time, it will also become clear to us, that, ultimately, our security
depends upon such a global implementation of the "social contract".
17 Perhaps, we should emphasise, here, the fact, that the concept of a social contract does not necessarily imply a particular conceptual model. Under the term "social contract" we should understand, not only, the intellectually stated or explicitly formulated principles of essential equality and social justice, but, we should also include every form of social organisation that has come, for one reason or another, to the practice of equal treatment under the laws of society and essentially just living standards.
18 Many, mostly small-scale social
models have come to the intuitive conclusion, that the relationships between
people are most advantageous and harmonious, if there is some sort of system of
"law and order", which gives a measure of equality to a large
majority of the members. The recognition, that harmony is best served by some
sort of commonly agreed-upon principle of justice, is one of the foundations
that made the larger civilisations possible in the first place, but, man has
also recognised, that such a system of justice is fragile, and, therefore, we
see, that, most social systems that provide a measure of justice for their
members, require a firm hand and a ruthless suppression of dissent or diversity
of opinion.
19 It has always been very
difficult to make a clear distinction between a diversity in opinion that is
beneficial and gives society a heightened degree of flexibility,
innovativeness, vigour and enthousiasm, and, those acitivities of diversity or
dissent, which lead, slowly, but surely, to a break-down of socially beneficial
attitudes and relationships.
20 Indeed, is it possible to make
such a distinction? Can not every act of individualised behaviour be
transformed into an act of egocentric advantage-seeking? Is diversity and
divergence of opinion, as well as the resurgence of individualistic tendencies,
not always a fore-runner of the processes of decay? How can we separate or
indicate, with any degree of precision, which activities are socially
beneficial, and, which are detrimental? Is it not true, always, that the same
activities and developments that may temporarily benefit society, will, sooner
or later, turn into destructive elements? Are the free-enterprise acitivities
of our Capitalist societies not, at the same time, a foundation for the
affluence and well-being for some, as well as the root-causes for the
mechanisms of social decay, the emergence of organised crime, and the mounting
tensions of social injustice which always rear their head in affluent social
environments?
21 Let us concentrate, here, upon
the question, whether or not it is indeed possible to make a clear-cut
distinction between the socially beneficial and the socially harmful aspects of
diversity of opinion, or "dissent". It certainly is possible to make
this distinction from a theoretical point of view, because we can, in
hindsight, judge, quite well, whether or not a certain activity or trend has
been a benefit to the social environment. Yet, to make this distinction as a
member of a large, contemporary society, where innumerable contradictory trends
and events are taking place simultaneously, is a near hopeless task, unless we
refer, again, to a number of criteria to help us make this judgement.
22 From a theoretical point of
view, we can define as a beneficial form of dissent, any discussion, debate,
activity or intellectual search, which makes the response of the social unit as
a whole, more flexible and more appropriate. This, of course, is entirely
analogous to the behavioural flexibility of a living organism, such as a
mammal, shaped by the forces of natural selection. Here, too, we see, that a set
of "conflicting sense impressions" requires an "inner
debate", before the discrepancies can be resolved and harmonised. If this
process of harmonisation is defective, the individual may become
"paralysed", not knowing, what to do, as the conflicting impulses and
sense impressions continue to strive for dominance.
23 Similarly, within a social unit,
conflicting trends and efforts to deal with certain problems, or necessary
adaptations, may lead to a paralysis or a fragmentation of the social entity,
and, if this is the case, the level of dissent is obviously harmful. However,
if the response by a socially integrated entity can be improved and more
precisely adapted to the requirements of the moment, as a result of such an
internal debate or "process of dissent", we see, that the social unit
has become more viable.
24 Indeed, viability is the
ultimate criterium for a judgement of benefit or harm, but, it remains a
retrospective judgement and, the criterium of viability is not all that helpful
in deciding what a beneficial form of dissent really is for a large and
complex, contemporary society, unless we can define, clearly, what sort of
trends, attitudes and activities of a large, contemporary society are going to
enhance, or endanger, its viability.
25 This, in a nut-shell, is the
outline of the problem of dissent, but, our particular individual experiences
may be remarkably different and varied, because we occupy widely divergent
positions in our social environment, and, our view of the overall society is
strongly coloured by the position we occupy. We have to learn to see, first of
all, the bias in our judgements created by our position in society, as well as
by the place of our society within the family of nations. Then, we can begin
the draw-up a set of criteria of health; of social, as well as individual
health, and, we will come to the somewhat surprising conclusion, that a study
of the requirements for individual health will also be helpful to formulate the
guiding principles for a condition of social health, viability and stability.
.......
Chapter 6
Content
Specific examples of the criteria of viability "at work".
The disastrous effects of loss of employment for the bread-winner.
Everyone makes intuitive decisions about the size, nature, location and type of
social unit one feels dependent upon.
Identifying, simultaneously, with partly overlapping social units.
Different classes, different responses.
Leaders always try to make us identify with a social entity they have assumed
jurisdiction over.
Enslavement and loyalty.
When we are tired of social upheaval.
There are many different forms of dependence.
Different spheres of identification.
When a political entity has "died".
When a viable and properous political entity has led to a large number of
inter-dependencies between its members.
The struggle for liberation from oppression by an exploitative elite.
Nobody likes to lose a position of power and privilege.
When people fight desperately for their "Cause".
The clamor for social reform still takes, so often, the route of ruthless
violence.
The element of "reckless restlessness", or "reckless
dissent".
A "break-down" of relationships, caused by ignorance.
1 Let us clarify these
generalised statements with a number of specific examples. As a child, we are
completely dependent on the family-unit, and, therefore, tension or serious
dissent within this family-unit is going to affect our security immensely.
Naturally, we are highly sensitive to any dissent in our social environment,
but, we soon become aware of the fact, that the family, and, especially, the
parents of a family-unit are subjected to a variety of pressures from the
larger social environment in which the family exists as a small sub-unit.
Anything that affects the security of the parents, or their ability to put food
on the table, will adversely affect everyone in the family.
2 As soon as the head of the
family, or the parents, are "in trouble", there will be a natural
tendency for the dependents to look for other sources of security, guidance or
affection. A high level of strife and dissent weakens, not only, family ties,
but, also, the ability of the family to bring-up the younger members properly.
Its ability to guide and console, to give shelter and security, to give a valuable
example and provide a stimulating place to grow-up in, are undermined.
3 On the other hand, a family or
a bread-winner may run into "external" difficulties, such as the loss
of employment, while the family ties remain strong. A sense of togetherness, as
well as efforts to preserve the family-unit will promote an attitude of
cooperation. A variety of activities are initiated by the members in the search
for an income or a job, and, their discussions are conducted in an atmosphere
of solidarity. As a result, the benefits experienced from the efforts to keep
the family together, make the family-unit stronger, and, discussions about what
each member should do, or should not do, have at their root the drive to keep
the family-unit intact and strengthen it.
4 The point we want to make,
here, is the fact, that, each and every individual, throughout life, makes
primarily intuitive decisions about such essential elements as the size, the
nature, the location and the type of social unit one feels dependent upon.
Throughout childhood and adolescence, we feel, naturally, that the family is
the most important social unit upon which our security rests, but, then, as we
grow into adulthood, we have to provide for our own security by working and
earning an income. We become a bread-winner ourselves, and, together with the
initiation of another family-unit, the adult members experience a variety of
needs to associate themselves or identify with a number of partially
over-lapping social entities.
5 In the middle-classes of
Capitalist societies, there is a strong tendency to impress upon the offspring
the need to learn a skill, because a skill that can be marketed, represents a
source of security. Without such a skill, our ability to generate an income is
severely endangered. Even, the "rich" classes, which form the
establishment in the Capitalistic, as well as most under-developed countries,
acknowledge the fact, that their offspring should learn a trade; obtain a
university degree, or, acquire, at least, some sort of skill or merit. In spite
of the fact, that the "family capital" can sustain these heirs, the
chances for blundering and squandering are somewhat lessened, if these heirs
have been exposed, to some extent, to the "outside world".
6 Amongst the poorest classes of
society, the pressures upon the offspring are so great, that they are forced,
from an early age, to contribute as child labourers to the family income,
perpetuating a vicious circle of sub-human living conditions, with an appalling
level of poverty and ignorance, as well as a significant lack of health and
sanitation. Nevertheless, sensible parents, all over the world, will impress
upon their offspring to look ahead, and think about the need to earn a living
in the larger social environment. The size of the social unit enlarges,
therefore, from the family-unit to the social stratum into which an individual
has been born, and, in which he or she can find the means of employment and
sustenance.
7 For most of us, the social unit
we identify with, and, which we experience to be necessary for our livelyhood,
is not large, because it does not really encompass much more than the local
social environment and the social class in which we find ourselves. How our
region or our particular social stratum fits into a larger unit, is rarely
clearly visualised, in spite of the fact, that our political and religious
leaders try to make us aware of the fact, that our allegiance should extend to
the national entity.
8 Our political leaders are quick
to teach us the virtues of the national unit, as well as the need for
"patriotic attitudes", while our spiritual leaders make an effort to
make us identify with all people who belong to the same parish or religious
denomination. Nevertheless, the social environment we really identify with,
remains localised to people we depend on for our livelyhood and well-being.
9 Sometimes we exist in a
position of bondage, and, we realise, then, all too clearly, that we are
dependent upon "over-lords" for our income and sustenance, even, if
we do not have any social contact with the privileged and wealthy classes in
whose service we find a meagre existence. The process of identification is,
then, incomplete. We may feel, on the one hand, some sort of a blind loyalty to
the people who povide us with income and employment, and, at the same time, we
tend to suppress questions related to the existence of such discrepancies or
disparities between classes of people. We realise, that, too insistent an
inquiry into the nature of social justice and social relationships, may lead to
disruptive, or, even, destructive tensions, even, if the ultimate goal of such
questioning and clamoring for social change would be a significant benefit for
those, who have been caught in a position of bondage.
10 This is only one particular
example of a situation of dependence that recurs, again and again, in many
different forms. A certain condition of dependence may not be a situation, that
is, ultimately, in our best interests, or, the interests of other members of
the social class we belong to, because it may contain an element of bondage and
injustice, as we saw in the dependence of the serf on his over-lord. Or, we may
have become dependent upon a social organisation that keeps others in bondage,
and, such an unjust dependence upon a situation of privilege and exploitation
comes under increasing pressures for a radical change.
11 In short, we have to realise,
that our particular lines of dependence may contain a measure of injustice or
undesirability for others, and, we have to learn to judge the overall criteria
of social viability and justice from a broader point of view, and, not only,
from the vantage-point upon which we have become dependent.
12 There are two curious problems
with the perception of our vantage-point. On the one hand, we are naturally
inclined to take our specific circumstances as "the norm", as well as
as the criterium for the decision, whether or not we support or oppose a
particular trend towards change, and, it is justified to say, therefore, that
we tend to see our vantage-point as "too narrow", too specific, too
much in isolation, because we tend to neglect those factors of injustice upon
which our social class or stratum depends for its security or affluence.
13 On the other hand, there is a
tendency to see our unity as "too broad". In particular our political
leaders have a tendency to identify, strongly, with the political unit they
have managed to build-up, by conquest or domination, or, which they may have
inherited from their predecessors. Yet, this political entity is, often, much
larger than the unit upon which the various groupings are dependent.
Especially, if the political unit is made-up by a number of fairly large
ethnic, cultural or religious groupings which have little contact with each
other, it is clear, that this political unit is not really necessary for the
existence of any of the cultural or ethnic sub-groupings.
14 This fact comes clearly to the
fore in the uneasy relationships between the various sub-groupings, and, if one
of them is not strong enough to outright dominate the others and impose its
will, we see a continuous tendency for this rather artificial and fragile
political unit to fall-apart. If the fragmentation has proceeded to the point,
that there is no overall authority anymore, in the form of a national
government with effective jurisdiction and authority over all the territories
of the political unit, we can say with some justification, that this political
unit has disappeared, or "died", and, the political entity is then
nothing more than a concept or idea in the minds of those, who have, for one
reason or another, an interest in the resurrection of this illusory political
unit.
15 The point we want to emphasise,
here, is the fact, that the political coherence of a national entity may have
lost all meaning. None of the much stronger and more cohesive sub-groupings
will, then, depend for their existence or well-being on the existence of the
overall social entity. On the other hand, if a political unit has managed, in
one way or another, and often, over a prolonged period of time, to bind the
entire population in a web of social, financial, cultural, linguistic and
industrial or commercial inter-dependencies, then, the trend towards dissent
and dissolution will be much more subdued. Most sub-groupings, and, even, a
majority of citizens will, then, become quickly aware of the fact, that such
"secessionist" attitudes and practices will hurt everyone, and, a
loud and clear protest against such short-sighted actions and attitudes, will
not be long in coming.
16 We have to learn to evaluate the
significance of the various social units in terms of their real meaning for the
people and the sub-groupings that already exist. Then, we can predict, fairly
accurately, the strength of these units. If a small ruling elite depends on the
ignorance and the slave-labour of the masses to perpetuate its position of
privilege, we see, that, indeed, this elite will do everything it can,
including ruthless suppression, to keep the status-quo intact. A majority of
the people lives, then, in misery and poverty, and, it does not benefit at all
from an existing political entity. Often, the average people are unaware of the
extent to which they are being exploited, but, as soon as the level of
awareness and insight rises, the pressures for a radical change, become
relentless, and, essentially, unstoppable.
17 Similarly, a political unity
imposed by a dominating minority will, eventually, lead to strife and rebellion,
because the other groups can only benefit from the break-up of such a
forcefully imposed political cohesion. There are, then, no existential brakes
upon the trend towards dissent, because people will judge, that a break-up of
the existing political unit will only lead to their liberation, in spite of the
fact, that such a country may still exist as a recognised entity by a majority
of the members of the United Nations.
18 We have to learn to be more
realistic, and, we have to learn to accept, and recognise, social units of
inter-dependence, as they really exist, or, as they are in the process of
unfolding themselves, and, we should not let the anxious protests of
politicians confuse us. Certainly, we can see clearly the reasons, why many
political leaders will be anxious and insecure, if we challenge or debate the
sovereignty of their national or political unit.
19 Nobody likes to lose his
position of power and privilege, but, the time has come to ask the peoples of
each and every social entity, be it a cultural, ethnic or political entity, to
what extent they agree with the existence of the political unit they belong to,
and, we should carefully study their suggestions for a different political
alignment. By a process of clear thinking and patient discussion, it should be
possible to point-out to most national entities and their political
leaderships, that, it is in their own interest to study the claims and
aspirations of the various sub-groupings under their jurisdiction, and, to
examine the inter-dependencies between their particular unit and other social
entities.
20 Very few people, or groups of
people, will blatantly endorse a policy of opportunism and exploitation, and,
most of them are quite willing to accept the principles of a contract of social
justice and essential equality, but, they are willing to fight hard and
persistently to free themselves from a dominating grouping and claim a position
of true equality. In this light, it is not difficult to analyse the actions and
motivations of individuals or groups of people. As long as we see dedicated
groups fighting for what they consider their legitimate freedom and goals of
equal opportunity, we would be well advised to re-examine our own ideas and
concepts about the legitimacy of a specific political entity. We may keep
condemning these rebels as agitators, terrorists or barbaric infidels, but, we
only fortify our own ignorance and lack of insight.
21 Criminals are, by and large
opportunists, and, they do not fight with ruthless dedication and acts of
self-sacrifice. Whenever we see such fanatic acts of behaviour at work, we will
have to acknowledge, that we are dealing with people, who are fighting
desperately for their "Cause", even, if we find it difficult to
identify with, or understand, this Cause.
22 It seems tragic, that, so many
times, the clamor for social reform still has to take the route of ruthless
violence. In spite of all our professed idealism for the principles of freedom
and justice, we, the affluent West, seem, too often, to be siding with the
established elite of lesser developed nations. Just like us, these elites are
fighting to preserve a position of privilege and power against an
under-privileged majority, which has often been exploited and oppressed for a
long time.
23 It is a sad commentary in our
times of technical progress and world-wide communications, that we still seem
to be incapable of recognising the legitimate aspirations of a people, who have
come to the conclusion that the status-quo of a particular social or political
unit is unacceptable because of exploitation and dominance by a privileged
elite. Too often, the considerations of narrow, egocentric or nationalistic
concern dictate a policy of "containment", or "conservative
preservation", which goes against the forces of social justice and the
ideals of the social contract. Too often, in our ignorant efforts to keep the
peace, are we fanning the flames of hatred and encouraging desperate acts of
dedicated violence.
24 However, let us not assume, that
peoples always clamor for a wise and justified Cause. Certainly, the most
enduring and fundamental motivation for the clamor of change and the
restlessness of dissent are based on a deep-rooted experience of discrimination
and injustice, but, we see also, especially in affluent societies, as well as
in social environments where the masses have obtained an unprecedented degree
of justice, equality and freedom, the emergence of a "reckless
restlessness"; the restlessness of ignorance and complacency; the restlessness
that comes with a lack of objectives and a poorly channeled vitality. This
"reckless dissent" is an activity of decay, and, it may quickly lead
to a break-down of social units, in spite of the fact, that the existential
needs and viability of a majority of these dissenters, are based upon these
same social structures, which they are so busy tearing-down.
25 What are the psychological
mechanisms of "reckless dissent", or, break-down by ignorance? Can we
understand and control these tendencies and impulses? It will be very important
to understand and control them, because reckless dissent may well be the most
serious threat to a harmonious global society, if, and when, we will have been
able to build such a globally organised society.
.......
Chapter 7
Content
The problems of an extra-ordinarily successful life-form.
An inevitable rise in competitive strife.
A large amount of "locked-up" energies.
The break-through of intelligence and manipulability.
A gradual enlargement of habitable and inhabited territories.
An expansion into harsher climates and more difficult environments.
Existing under "easy conditions".
The problem of "growing soft".
The rise of a more sophisticated and larger social unit.
When it is "hard work", just to survive.
An increase in "surplus energies".
When an "easement" of living conditions is expressed in a profound
sense of relief and gratitude.
Elements for a constructive build-up.
An adequate reservoir of collective memories and insights.
The inter-twining of memories and anticipations.
The difficulties of transferring insights to the younger generations through
the mechanisms of secondary learning.
During "easy circumstances", the awareness of the need for social
cohesion diminishes rapidly.
An upsurge in strife, bickering and reckless dissent.
The "ease of existence" is quickly eroded, and a "balance of
forces" is quickly restored.
1 The problem with man is
essentially the same as the problem of every life-form that has become
extra-ordinarily successful. As we know from our biological observations, every
life-form that has found a successful mode of existence, alters the balance of
nature, because it changes the balance between the forces that are hostile to
it, and those that are favourable and make the existence of this life-form
possible.
2 If a life-form is successful,
it means, that it has found a condition of existence, or a mechanism of
functioning, which requires less maintenance-energy than before. The amount of
extra or surplus energy has increased, and, this surplus energy is translated
into growth or reproduction, or, a combination of both. This universal tendency
of living organisations to grow larger and more numerous, increases the energy
requirements of a particular population of life-forms. Quickly, a balance
between the hostile and favourable forces will have been restored, and the
growth in size and population comes to an end.
3 This is a fundamental principle
of the existence of life, which has been discussed, in detail, on many occasions.
Any "easement" in the conditions of existence leads to an increase in
population, as well as an increase in the level of competitive strife, and,
this means, that it becomes more difficult, and more energy-consuming, to
obtain the necessary food elements.
4 The increased level of basic
energy-expenditure, resulting from an increased level of competitive strife,
has two main elements. An increase in the population density leads, first of
all, to a depletion of the level of energy-resources, and, it takes, then, more
energy to "scrounge" the basic energy requirements together. The
other factor is also due to the increased population density, and, it is
directly related to the energy that becomes "locked-up" in the
requirements to become, and remain, successful in the competitive and, often,
armed struggle between living organisms with identical requirements. This
means, that, in every case, where we see an increase in the density of a
population, the basic level of maintenance-energy increases, too. As a result,
any easement in existence, due to one break-through or another, is, inevitably
eroded by the consequences of a condition of "easement", and, a new
equilibrium between antagonistic force-fields will establish itself.
5 If we look at the species of
mankind, we see, that the "break-through" of intelligence and
manipulability led to a completely dominant position of the species in relation
to most other species'. This is the reason, why the energy availability
increased enormously, as more and more species' became vulnerable to a
predatorial attack by man. However, man's rapid increase in numbers led to
severe pressures of competitive strife, and, these mechanisms lie behind this
remarkable extention of man's ecological niche, until it covered most of the
globe. It also led to an intensification of strife between the members of the
human species, because, as we have emphasised so many times before, another
individual or group of human beings became man's most formidable enemy.
6 For a long time, increasing
population pressures could be compensated for by a widening of the territories
occupied by the members of mankind, but, the occupation of previously
unoccupied territories meant, nearly always, a harsher way of life. The territories
were colder, hotter, drier, sparser populated by wild-life and fruit-bearing
plants or trees. In short; it is logical to assume, that the territories,
already occupied by man, were somewhat more attractive compared to those, which
were still unoccupied. This increase in "harshness", meant, an
increase in the level of energy-expenditure necessary to sustain life and
obtain the necessary energy or building-blocks. However, a higher level of
basic maintenance-energy by going into unoccupied territories had to be weighed
against the need for an increased effort to defend against attack, or the need
to attack those, who were defending themselves with increasing vigour and
ferocity.
7 Therefore, as long as
territorial expansion was possible, we see, that man tended to disperse.
However, at the same time, the "ease of existence" between the most
fertile regions and the harsher regions, was quite spectacular. While it was
relatively easy to sustain life in a fertile river valley, it was far more difficult,
and, sometimes impossible, to sustain life on the slopes of a mountain, on a
desert, or in a very cold region.
8 Yet, those, who existed under
"easy" conditions, would multiply quickly, causing an increase in the
level of competitive strife. Those, who were living under harsh conditions
would multiply much more slowly, but, they would give rise to a hardy breed of
individuals. Naturally, the temptation would arise, time and again, to attack
and displace those, who were living in "affluent" circumstances, and
had "grown soft".
9 Indeed, we see in the records of history, how, again and again, the settled valley-dwellers were attacked, harassed, and, often, conquered by those, who had become a hardy breed of warriors, living under harsher environmental circumstances. We have discussed, how these mechanisms of competitive strife favoured the development of a much larger social unit.
10 The emergence of the larger
social unit, or "civilisation", was a necessary adaptative response.
A superior social organisation, including effective mechanisms of defense,
justice, distribution of food, irrigation and storage facilities, the
domestication of plants and animals, etc., all these innovative adaptative
responses led to the emergence of a more sophisticated and larger social
environment that was better equipped to keep the more primitive, savage and
hardier tribes, at bay.
11 In spite of the profusion of
events that have taken place in the history of mankind, before and after the
evolution of the art of reading and writing, we can still see, in essence, the
same principles at work. The same principles play a role in shaping the conduct
of contemporary mankind, be it as an individual or as a small social unit. As
long as an individual or small social grouping is exposed to fairly harsh
circumstances, it has to "work hard" just to stay alive. This large,
basic energy requirement to stay alive, means, primarily, hard work in the
fields to obtain a precarious existence from the soil, the vegetation, as well
as existing wild-life or a variety of domesticated animals. Or, the energy
expenditure may be largely one of defense against envious attackers,
especially, if an individual or a grouping happens to occupy a rather
favourable territory. In either case, or, as the result of a combination of the
food-producing and military needs of existence, the basic maintenance-energy is
increased, due to an increased level of competitive strife.
12 As soon as the energy required
to obtain our basic requirements, decreases, or, as soon as the threat from
potential enemies has become less obvious, we see an increase in the level of
"surplus energy". The question is this; how is this surplus energy
going to be spent, after the conditions of existence have eased significantly?
The answer to this question determines, to a large extent, the health and
viability of a human being or a social grouping. Before we can answer this
question appropriately, we should remind ourselves, that the human being is a
flexible animal, par excellence, and, a large part of surplus energy is
normally channeled into a direction that will increase the grasp or mastery of
the individual, or a small grouping, over the realities in which it finds
itself.
13 The human being is a life-form
with the capability to come to a remarkable degree of behavioural fine-tuning
on the basis of past experiences, and, man experiences, therefore, the need to
acquire an accurate insight about what is likely to happen in the near future,
based on the clues that are visible in the present. This means, that, human
behaviour is strongly influenced by the memories and experiences of the past,
as well as the expectations of the future. If, e.g., a human being, or a small
grouping, has just been exposed to a difficult time, a war, a drought, or, some
other natural disaster, or, the horrifying consequences of a serious mistake,
then, the "easement" of the circumstances will be expressed in a
profound sense of relief and gratitude. The gods, or a monotheistic God, will
be thanked for the easement of the circumstances, and, the increase in the
level of "surplus" vital energies will be used in a constructive
build-up.
14 A constructive build-up can take
many forms, such as a rebuilding of assets, stocks, or other items which have
been lost during the period of war or adversity. Also, a signifcant effort will
be directed to ensure against a similar adversity or mistake. If, e.g., the
period of adversity was due to a neglect of agricultural techniques, or a lack
of fore-sight, there will be an effort, by the whole community, to build-up
stocks and provisions, to work hard at obtaining a good crop; to build
irrigation canals, instruments and tools, etc., etc. If the period of adversity
was due to a neglect of social or leadership institutions, such as competent,
fair and far-sighted leadership, proper relations with other communities, etc.,
then, we see a sustained effort to correct the mistakes, short-comings and
neglects of the past.
15 In short; as long as an adequate
reservoir of collective memory and insight is available to guide and direct the
flow of surplus energy, this energy will be channeled into useful, positive and
strengthening avenues, and, we see, then, the emergence of a "growth
phase". We see these mechanisms take place everywhere, even, in fairly
large communities, or entire nations, which have collectively suffered from a
devastating war, or, these mechanisms can be seen in the growth and maturation
of a single individual, who has gone through a difficult period and has learned
and benefitted from the experience.
16 Whether or not the surplus
elan-vital during a period of "existential easement" will be directed
into channels of growth and strength, depends, not only, on the memories and
insights of past experiences, but, also, on the insights that let an
individual, or a group of people, idenfity trends, developments or attitudes,
which are going to spell trouble in the future. In essence, it is impossible to
separate, sharply, the insights of what is going to happen in the future as an
extrapolation of existing trends, from the insight and memories that are based,
largely, on past experiences. We are dealing, here, with an integrated
perception of reality, which lets us see the past, the present, and the fuure,
as a smoothly flowing web of causes and consequences.
17 If we have a good and firm grasp
over the reasons, why, we, individually or as a group, have experienced
difficulties in the past, we will, automatically, have a better grip over the
realities of the present, and, we will have a good idea, what to expect in the
near future. However, there is a profound problem in transposing, or, even,
just explaining, these insights to people who have failed to build-up a similar
perception of reality. If we are rather alone in the way we see reality,
regardless, how well we can substantiate a particular point of view, we will
soon come to the conclusion, that we are unable to warn people of the
consequences of a particular trend. Different reality perceptions lead to
differences of opinion about the significance of a particular event or trend in
the present. If people differ markedly in their interpretation of the past,
they will also differ markedly about their expectations or anticipations for
the future.
18 A wide-ranging, all-encompassing
and well-reasoned perception of reality, based upon a wide knowledge of the
past and the present, as well as an excellent ability to discuss and anticipate
trends from contemporary clues, is, unfortunately, still an exception. Most
people have a limited concept of the past and the present, and, their reality
perceptions are strongly influenced by the fashionable opinions of their time.
Their anticipations and expectations follow the trends of the day, and,
consequently, a majority of the people follows a number of leaders, who are
popular and have managed, in one way or another, to capture their imagination.
It depends, to a large extent, on the quality of their ideas, whether or not
these popular leaders can bring a measure of health to collective and
individual existence. If these popular and influential leaders spread ideas and
sentiments that are going to lead to disastrous results, we see a dramatic and
unstoppable slide into some sort of a social catastrophe.
19 As a rule, if seems fair to state,
that, the collective, or, even, the individual pool of memories and
anticipatory insights, is rather limited. Certainly, after a period of
adversity, a group or an individual does not have any problems directing the
surplus elan-vital in a way that is beneficial and adds to its growth or
strength. However, soon, after a few decades or a few generations of collective
affluence, we see, that the beneficial status-quo is accepted as the norm and
is taken for granted. Then, it becomes more difficult to know, what to do with
the surplus energies, and, we see, that these energies are easily led into
wasteful or destructive pathways, leading to a rapid decay of the social
environment.
20 During a period of "easy
existence", the awareness for the need of social cohesion diminishes
rapidly, and, this "loss of memory", has serious consequences for the
social environment, as well as the individual members. There is an upsurge in
strife, bickering and "reckless dissent", while people become more
egocentric and strident in their attitudes, as they become obsessed with the
gratification of their instinctive drives. The attitudes of frugality,
long-term planning, saving, working towards a goal. etc., all disappear. We see
an increase in frivolous and egocentric pleasure-seeking, as well as reckless
spending; the level of alcohol and other drug-abuse increases; the level of
accomplishment and performance suffers, etc., etc. Marital relations, as well
as those at work, become strained.
21 However, all these trends bring-about,
quickly, a condition, where the condition of "easy existence" is
being eroded. We see a disappearance of savings, reckless spending with an
increased debt-load, declining performance at work or at home, resulting from a
combination of bad living habits, increasing tensions of frustration, alcohol
abuse, etc. All these factors quickly raise the level of anxiety. An individual
in society is quickly reminded of his vulnerability, especially, if he or she
occupies a somewhat responsible position.
22 Therefore, in individual existence, we see, quickly, a restoration of this essential balance between the forces that make a certain style of living possible, and those, that restrict further expansion of the level of affluence, or the number of erratic behavioural decisions. It does not take long, even, in an affluent society, for an individual to adopt a way of life that absorbs all the energies such an individual can muster. We see this trend, most clearly, in the tendency to increase the level of "consumption" and spend all income, to such a level, that an individual has to work most of the day trying to cover with a cash-income, whatever are thought to be necessary expenses to live and work.
.......
Chapter 8
Content
The trend of consumerism.
Social success becomes a powerful lure, in spite of the religious imagery that
life is a transient affair.
The possession of a skill lessens the necessary "maintenance-energy",
later in life.
Learning to shelter ourselves from serious stress.
The decay of wealthy families.
Poor and ignorant members are hanging-on to life in a forgotten corner of their
social environment.
A paralysing confluence of poverty, ignorance, despair and undisciplined
behaviour.
The life-cycle of a social entity.
When we do not know, how to deal with a threat.
When the flow of energy becomes undisciplined and haphazard.
Reckless dissent; a stream of energy that has escaped from its customary
constraints.
Adequate contemporary judgements are still very difficult to make.
We have to be satisfied with a fragmentary moment of insight, here and there.
We all need to fulfill a number of physical and psychological requirements.
A curiously ambivalent attitude may be the essence of a healthy social
relationship.
Learning to look at social and individual realities from many different
perspectives.
We have to define, first, our overall objectives.
Learning to distinguish between constructive and destructive rivalries.
The fundamental dilemma.
1 The successful middle-classes
of affluent societies have a strong tendency to "consume" their
earnings as fast as the money is coming in. This frantic consumption fuels an
affluent life-style, which is an important part of the criterium of
"social success", together with the status associated with a position
of social importance, such as leadership, a University degree, an artistic or
sports achievement, etc. Social success becomes the main objective of most
members in society, even, if they acknowledge in their religious beliefs, that
life is a transient affair.
2 In most social objectives there
is a measure of common-sense at work, in spite of the fact, that most of us
learn to consider social success a rather relative judgement, as we get older.
The affluent middle-class knows, how important it is for their offspring to
learn a skill and obtain a diploma, because it makes it possible to earn money
"more easily". If one does not have to rely only on rugged physical
strength, and, if one can escape from the limitations of unskilled labour, it
is much easier to "make a living", even, during the period of
advancing age, with its inevitable decline in physical strength and endurance.
3 If we, ordinary people, have
the fore-sight to use the period of youth and adolescence well, and learn as
much as we can, we reap the benefits of these efforts for the rest of our
lives, because we will discover, that our "maintenance-energy" is far
less compared to those, who try to make a living as an unskilled labourer.
Certainly, it is tempting to enter the market of unskilled labour when we are
young, and, it can be done at a much earlier age compared to those, who have to
spend time going to school, but, soon, one finds-out that the position is
precarious; the level of income stays low, and, with advancing age, it is very
likely, that an unskilled individual loses the ability to find work and
generate an income. Then, the depressing situation develops, where one is
dependent on social assistance of one sort or another.
4 The road of learning a trade,
acquiring a skill, and entering a professional career, has to be based,
therefore, on a realistic reality perception. It requires an accurate sense of
anticipation for the inevitable period of decline with advancing age, and, it
requires the insight, that the possession of a special skill may shelter an
individual from the stress of being unemployed. If one has the fore-sight to
save, whenever possible, it may even become possible to retire early, or, at
least, to choose a life-style that is as congenial as possible. Without the
ability to foresee, realistically, the rapid succession of the "seasons of
life", we find ourselves caught in a trap of our own making, as soon as we
get older.
5 If people are not taught, from an
early age, to anticipate the normal life-cycle of human existence, as well as
the need to make a living, we see, that people remain dependent upon their
parents or family relations. We see this happen, especially, in the very
wealthy, as well as in the poor and the uneducated. The wealthy classes can
afford to live-off their assets, or, rather, they live-off the income generated
by their assets, and, logically, the wealthy classes will emphasise the
preservation of a business or financial empire.
6 Intelligent members of the
wealthy classes realise, how important it is for their offspring to have a good
education, to earn a University degree, or, to learn the business by working
themselves through the hierachy of a business empire. Less intelligent, but
still sensible heirs will do everything they can to make sure, that their
offspring will hold-on to the inherited positions of privilege, but, sooner or
later, a defectively raised generation will come into the monies and squander
everything recklessly; either, by ill-advised business-ventures, by a lack of
contact with reality, or, by being out-smarted. It ends with family scandals,
gross misconduct and a degenerate way of life, and, finally, their financial
base will have collapsed.
7 The very poor and ignorant are
hanging-on to life in a forgotten corner of society, and, we see, how difficult
it is for their unfortunate offspring, growing-up with the paralysing influence
of poverty, ignorance, despair and undisciplined behaviour, to free themselves
from a "ghetto-mentality". They do not have the stimulating example
of successful and ambitious parents, and, it is difficult to develop the
insight, that they should break-away from their environment in order to
"make it" in the big "straight" world. Prejudice and
discrimination holds them back, and, an ambivalent loyalty makes it difficult
to stick it out in the competitive world of schools and colleges. Failure is
paid for dearly. Then, a youngster becomes quickly dependent upon a way of life
that cuts him off, rather completely, from the world of the larger social
environment. Then we see a life-long social cripple emerge, who will always be
a burden to society, in one way or another.
8 In the behaviour of a small
social grouping, or, even, a larger social or political entity, we can see the
same mechanisms at work. For a while, after recovery from a period of
collective adversity, we see, that the easement of the living conditions,
together with an increase in the surplus energy of the elan-vital, leads to
socially harmonious and constructive behaviour-patterns. Soon, however, the
memories and insights upon which these constructive energies rest, become
blurred, and, we see a rapid rise in the level of confrontation and internal
strife.
9 This leads, first, to a
slow-down of the "positive momentum" of the phase of growth. Then, we
see a prolonged period of stagnation, where the society "gets-by",
but, slowly, the strength of the social unit is weakening, as institutions and
vital chores and interests are being neglected. Slowly, the stage is set, and
the circumstances are developing, for the occurrence of a catastrophe.
10 As the likelyhood of chaos and a
complete collapse comes nearer, the level of anxiety rises, but, on a
collective level, it seems rarely possible to effectively reverse the trend of
social decay. Collectively, a heightened level of anxiety seems to lead to an
even greater paralysis, and, such a reaction is more primitive and less
effective than a similar adaptative response in a single individual. This
difference in behaviour can be explained by the fact, that a social
organisation is less well organised, with a much more primitive range of
behaviour-patterns, compared to a single human being.
11 The impending catastrophe is anticipated and perceived by the social entity, but, only, in a dull and imprecise manner, and, because the society as a whole does not know, how to deal effectively with the threat, no effective measures are taken. The level of internal dissent and bickering increases steadily, but, it seems nearly impossible for any social organisation at the level of a country or a national entity, to avoid the catastrophe of a war, an armed rebellion, or the decay of a dying bureaucracy. All these symptoms of collective confusion are enhancing the slide towards chaos and collapse, and, these activities of confusion, or the mechanisms of decay, share, as their essential common denominator, the fact, that the flow of energy becomes erratic and haphazard.
12 A confused flow of surplus
elan-vital has to be detrimental to any living organisation, because it can
only destroy by interfering with the normal mechanisms that are operating
within such an organisation, and, we know, that these normal metabolic
mechanisms are, in essence, under the guidance and protection of the genetic
code. Any force acting upon a system has to be disruptive, unless its flow of
energy can be controled and led into clear-cut path-ways that are operating for
the good of the unit as a whole.
13 Perhaps, it is justified to
summarise the concept of "reckless dissent" as a stream of vital
energies, which has escaped from its usual guidance-channels and follows a
variety of haphazard and uncontroled path-ways. However, you may argue, that it
is fairly easy to define "reckless dissent" in such an abstract and
somewhat esoteric manner, but, how are we going to judge what reckless dissent
means in practice?
14 Can we look around us and
evaluate the many forms of dissent that are going-on? Can we judge, which forms
of dissent are reckless and destructive, and, which are a sign of health and
vigour? Can we decide, which forms of dissent lead to a social development that
is strengthening rather than weakening? Or, do we have to resign ourselves to
the notion, that such a judgment is only possible in retrospect; after the
events have taken place and revealed their historical significance?
15 If the judgement of
"recklessness", or destructive dissent, can only be made
retrospectively, it loses a great deal of its usefulness as a "working
hypothesis", but, does it have to be merely a retrospective judgement? In
other words; what do we need to make a satisfactory, contemporary judgement of
trends and developments possible, as they are taking place?
16 Indeed, at the present, we have few ideas, how to judge the myriad of phenomena we see around us, or can notice within us. The numerous social and individual entities we can see are overwhelmingly complex, because we have still such a fragmentary and sketchy insight about the natural mechanisms taking place within a social entity. We know so little about the forces and mchanisms that play a role in the behaviour of these units, or, the goal-patterns and objectives that are shared by these units. As soon as we have a better and generally accepted concept about the essence of a life-form, and, as soon as we understand, why it is important to have a good grasp over these phenomena, we will, indeed, be in a position, where we can anticipate and interpret the phenomena of "living behaviour" with a far greater degree of accuracy. Now, we have to be satisfied with a fragmentary moment of insight, here and there, without the ability to come to a comprehensive over-view.
17 However, we can begin to orden
our concepts and reality perceptions, by becoming clearly aware of some of the
fundamental aspects we can all see, if we look around us, and, which we should
be able to agree-upon. One of the most fundamental observations we can make, is
the fact, that, we all, as individuals, or collectively, as a social unit, are
subjected to the need to fulfill a number of basic, existential requirements.
We all need food to live, and, we need a measure of shelter and protection to
survive. We also need a measure of freedom in order to feel content and happy,
and pursue a number of goals which we experience as essential. Everyone wants
to "mean" something. We all need a measure of love and respect, and,
we need a place to live and relax. We need the opportunity to take upon
ourselves a measure of responsibility, and, we need a mechanism to gracefully
relinquish this responsibility, if, and when, we feel, that the burdens are
getting too severe.
18 In other words; we need to
fulfill a number of physical and psychological requirements in order to become
a happy and well-integrated member of society, but, at the same time, we learn,
that there always remains an element of tension between ourselves and the
social environment. There are always people we consider to be rivals and
competitors, or, to represent a threat of one sort or another. There are always
situations in society, and in our dealings with other people, where we feel
hurt, wronged, or ashamed. Sometimes we, even, feel a sense of hatred towards
the society we belong to, or, towards ourselves.
19 This curiously ambivalent
attitude is the essence of a healthy social relationship. It would not be
healthy, if we can see the people and the society around us, only, as an
obstacle to our individual ambitions and freedoms. If such attitudes are prevalent,
we become a destructive force in society, and, we lack the insight, that we
also need, at least, to some extent, this social environment in order to
survive. Neither would society be healthy, if we would interpret all tensions
and feelings of alienation and hostility, as an "evil", or, as an
anti-social element that is wrong and has to be rooted-out at all costs. Such
an attitude shows a lack of insight into the basic facts of life. It shows,
that we do not really understand the nature of individual and social existence,
and, such an attitude makes us into rigid and stark people, who become a menace
rather than an inspiration to others.
20 Where, then, lies this elusive
balance between feelings of loyalty and togetherness on the one hand, and,
feelings of individuality and competitiveness on the other? Where is this
balance that makes us into healthy, realistic and constructive members of our
social environment? Before we can answer this question, we have to realise,
that we can belong to, or talk about, many different social organisations and
functions, which may overlap each other, at least, to some extent. Let us
clearly visualise the various levels of social organisation that exist in our
environment, regardless, where we find ourselves on earth. We have discussed
this variety of social levels before, and, we will not repeat this discussion,
here. Let us remind ourselves, that there are many different levels of social
organisation and integration, and, we owe it to ourselves, as well as our
social environment, to form a clear mental picture about these complexities.
21 Sometimes, we are justified to
look, only, at the small family-grouping, and try to solve problems that are
specific for this particular unit. At other times, even, an identification with
our country may not be wide enough, because many existential requirements cross
national boundaries. We realise, now, that pollution problems do not respect
national boundaries, and, we know, that we have to adopt increasingly, an
attitude of internationalism or globalism, if we want to create the
requirements for a healthy, just and peaceful human existence.
22 These various levels of
inter-dependence we are subjected to, are the reason for the fact, that, we
all, throughout the social and political units of the world, tend to identify
ourselves with different levels of social togetherness. If we are impressed by
the possible dangers of global contamination and pollution, we tend to see our
problems and solutions in a global context. If we are still narrowly patriotic,
we tend to see, and solve, our problems and threats at the level of national
sovereignty. If we are strongly ethnically oriented, we are looking for ways to
strengthen this particular unit, and make it politically independent. If we identify,
strongly, along religious, political, philosophical or professional lines, we
may be inclined to look for the solution of the world's problems by the
domination of a particular religious or philosophical outlook, etc.
23 The point we want to emphasise,
here, is the fact, that we can only begin to judge, whether a particular effort
is constructive or destructive, if we define, first of all, our overall
objectives. If our overall goal is the political domination on a global scale
of a particular way of life, or a specific philosophical view, then, we will
see as "destructive" any effort or tendency to weaken our objective.
However, if we are convinced, that such a rivalry for global dominance is
suicidal, because it can so easily lead to all-out nuclear warfare, we will see
any build-up of nuclear and military strength on either side of a political or
ideological divide, as a dangerous and suicidal trend.
24 Throughout the realm of the
living organisation, we see the emergence, time and again, of this most
fundamental question of all; is survival sought in the road towards mutual
inter-dependence, such as the social organisation of the multi-cellular
organism, or, is security sought in the defense of the individual organism.
Once we have an agreement about this basic dilemma, we will find it much easier
to judge the prevailing attitudes and trends we see around us in our social
environments, because we will have to be able to agree about the existence of a
problem, or the reality of a threat, before it is possible to overcome this
threat by an effective action of our collective "will".
.......
Summary
1. A sad commentary on the outlook on life.
How can it be punishment to be alive and well, and a thinking human being?
When we prefer a state of "near-nothingness".
An adaptation to chronic stress.
Exorcising normal human drives in order to resign ourselves to an immutable
status-quo.
An alien philosophy, especially, when we are able to indulge our whims and
satisfy desires at the drop of a hat.
The road between a rigid straight-jacket of unhealthy emotional controls, and a
life-stye of senseless indulgence.
The controls that are needed for a life of health and vitality.
The need to agree about our reality experiences, and, the need to agree about a
code of generally acceptable conduct.
Cultural cross-fertilisation.
Generalising reality perceptions and principles of conduct.
Reality perceptions with a potential to spread far beyond existing political
boundaries.
The spread of Christianity throughout Barbaric Europe.
The relative judgement that a certain situation represents a "sad
commentary".
We are not going to get high marks from future generations for the profoundness
of our wisdoms, nor for the quality of our insights.
Perhaps, a "Blissful Nothingness" will become the destination, as
well as a justified objective of human existence, after the nuclear holocaust.
Let us have a close look at clashing reality perceptions.
How to prevent dissent from sliding into an acrimonious confrontation.
2. Dissent and disagreement are everywhere.
There is so much to clean-up and organise.
A deep chill in super-power relations.
The struggle for dominance.
The ideological conflict.
What we consider to be true or false, determines, what we find right or wrong,
and, whom we believe or mistrust.
The lines of authority and communication are shaped by our beliefs.
A stark contrast between the worlds of the righteous and the sinners.
We all construct a sphere of reality perceptions around our own existence.
The reality perception arises through a "dialogue" between the
members of a small, tightly-knit social unit, prior to a sense of
"individual differentiation".
When the political unit began to include a number of different communities and
reality perceptions.
Communicating, constructively and meaningfully, between culturally different
groupings is not an easy task.
Mechanisms of "emotional synchrony", or the harmonisation of moods.
An aggressive mood of revenge and violence spreads easily throughout a mob.
Cultural and genetic factors in sexual behaviour.
The "orientation" of an outlook or attitude.
Establishing or re-enforcing a hierarchical position.
Verbal and sub-verbal communications.
Verbal tools are rarely sufficient to change the direction of an attitude or
outlook.
Gullible people are easily taken-in by showmanship and "smooth talk".
An attitude of trust is quickly eroded by false rumors.
The risk of giving one's trust in a deliberate act of good-will.
3. A difficult dilemma.
Has man already outstripped his ability to adapt to long-term existential
needs?
The essence of a "cultural transmission".
The rising importance of the "collective will".
The collective will can be seen to work effectively in small and coherent
social groupings.
The qualities of competence and openness.
Disagreement and dissent are muted by the insight that social cohesion takes
priority.
An endless stream of practical problems and challenges to the chores of
survival.
The focus of a debate or an inquiry.
Spontaneous, natural leadership.
The direction we have to move into.
We still try to solve large-scale problems in an essentially primitive and
competitive manner.
Laying the foundation for a shared perception of the realities of human
existence.
Agreement about the channels of authority and legitimacy.
When we can only agree about the need to go to war.
A search for common grounds that are already in existence.
Our biological heritage.
Shared existential needs, and the mechanisms of territoriality and competitive
strife.
The poor and the powerless are locked-up in the most barren areas of the globe.
Cultivating an agreement about democratic ideals.
Human rights, and the social ideal of essential equality.
Many people pay only lip-service to these commonly shared ideals.
A pre-occupation with super-power rivalry.
An obsession with national self-interests.
4. The fragile and transient persuasiveness of a reasoned argument.
We are faced with an "essential choice".
The faculty of rational evaluation, and the mechanisms of natural selection.
Continuing the search for a scaffold of rational agreements.
A constructive federation of socially integrated entities.
A universal social contract of essential equality.
What constitutes a rational and honest discussion?
The willingness to listen, seriously, to an opposing point of view.
Avoiding the arousal of aggressive or defensive instincts.
Conditions of good-will and trust.
The need for mediation, whenever the conditions for a fruitful discussion are
lacking.
A genuine willingness to compromise.
Practical psychological mechanisms lie at the foundation of the possibility to
communicate fruitfully.
Do we have the right to question each other's points of view closely?
A careful and honest debater will always avoid exploiting someone's
vulnerability.
A good discussion respects the limits of tolerance.
Avoiding the unnecessary break-down of psychological defenses.
When reality is exclusively interpreted in terms of good and evil.
The need for an agreement about human nature, including commonly shared
psychological mechanisms.
The sobering effects of a period of warfare and devastation.
The swing between "builders" and "destroyers".
Conscious faculties are a behavioural tool.
Stress, and the slow movement of "tectonic plates".
A series of less destructive, but still painful and humiliating
"adjustments".
5. The lure of "talking tough".
The price of "feeling good".
Why the memories of warfare and devastation fade quickly.
Prosperity, and the inevitable resurgence of strife and dissent.
When the need for social cohesion diminishes.
The decay of the attitude of cooperation, as soon as a measure of security has
been reached.
Dispersion and dissent represent the mechanisms of "social entropy".
The advantages of possessing a clear conceptual grasp.
Experiencing a "flash of recognition".
A remarkable resemblance with the hated enemy.
Security, dignity and essential equality.
Why it is so difficult to create the conditions that are necessary for a social
contract of essential equality in a much larger society.
A "social contract" does not imply a specific conceptual model.
Many diverging reality perceptions should still be able to agree about the
basic outlines of a social contract of essential equality.
Beneficial and harmful forms of disagreement.
Retrospective judgements.
When the response of a socially integrated entity becomes more flexible and
appropriate.
Finding an alternative to a state of "paralysis".
Viability is the ultimate criterium for the forces of natural selection.
6. Specific examples of the criteria of viability "at
work".
The disastrous effects of loss of employment for the bread-winner.
Everyone makes intuitive decisions about the size, nature, location and type of
social unit one feels dependent upon.
Identifying, simultaneously, with partly overlapping social units.
Different classes, different responses.
Leaders always try to make us identify with a social entity they have assumed
jurisdiction over.
Enslavement and loyalty.
When we are tired of social upheaval.
There are many different forms of dependence.
Different spheres of identification.
When a political entity has "died".
When a viable and properous political entity has led to a large number of
inter-dependencies between its members.
The struggle for liberation from oppression by an exploitative elite.
Nobody likes to lose a position of power and privilege.
When people fight desperately for their "Cause".
The clamor for social reform still takes, so often, the route of ruthless
violence.
The element of "reckless restlessness", or "reckless
dissent".
A "break-down" of relationships, caused by ignorance.
7. The problems of an extra-ordinarily successful life-form.
An inevitable rise in competitive strife.
A large amount of "locked-up" energies.
The break-through of intelligence and manipulability.
A gradual enlargement of habitable and inhabited territories.
An expansion into harsher climates and more difficult environments.
Existing under "easy conditions".
The problem of "growing soft".
The rise of a more sophisticated and larger social unit.
When it is "hard work", just to survive.
An increase in "surplus energies".
When an "easement" of living conditions is expressed in a profound
sense of relief and gratitude.
Elements for a constructive build-up.
An adequate reservoir of collective memories and insights.
The inter-twining of memories and anticipations.
The difficulties of transferring insights to the younger generations through
the mechanisms of secondary learning.
During "easy circumstances", the awareness of the need for social
cohesion diminishes rapidly.
An upsurge in strife, bickering and reckless dissent.
The "ease of existence" is quickly eroded, and a "balance of
forces" is quickly restored.
8. The trend of consumerism.
Social success becomes a powerful lure, in spite of the religious imagery that
life is a transient affair.
The possession of a skill lessens the necessary "maintenance-energy",
later in life.
Learning to shelter ourselves from serious stress.
The decay of wealthy families.
Poor and ignorant members are hanging-on to life in a forgotten corner of their
social environment.
A paralysing confluence of poverty, ignorance, despair and undisciplined
behaviour.
The life-cycle of a social entity.
When we do not know, how to deal with a threat.
When the flow of energy becomes undisciplined and haphazard.
Reckless dissent; a stream of energy that has escaped from its customary
constraints.
Adequate contemporary judgements are still very difficult to make.
We have to be satisfied with a fragmentary moment of insight, here and there.
We all need to fulfill a number of physical and psychological requirements.
A curiously ambivalent attitude may be the essence of a healthy social
relationship.
Learning to look at social and individual realities from many different
perspectives.
We have to define, first, our overall objectives.
Learning to distinguish between constructive and destructive rivalries.
The fundamental dilemma.
......