MEDIA ALERT: FEAR OF
BEING AN INDIVIDUAL
By David Cromwell
October 30, 2003
G.Romathier,tempera sur
papier
Why do activists so often focus on hard facts, reams of
figures and dry arguments, while neglecting to deal with
the intensely human issues of motivation, loneliness,
burnout, selfishness and suffering? Why do we so often
respond to elite power with anger, disgust and, possibly,
violence? How do we overcome illegitimate authority while
retaining our humanity?
Karl Marx once noted that: "To be radical means to
go to the root, and the root - is man himself."
While Pierre Joseph Proudhon, who wrote that
"property is theft", exhorted: "The Old
World is in a process of dissolution. one can change it
only by the integral revolution in the ideas and in the
hearts."
It's worth mulling over those wise words from Marx and
Proudhon. An integral revolution requires both political
ideas and an honest examination of our own hearts. To be
radical is to go to the root of what it is to be human.
And yet such views are all too readily dismissed in
left-green circles as 'irrelevant', 'emotional' or simply
left unaddressed.
In Pedagogy of the Oppressed, the Brazilian
activist-educator Paolo Freire wrote with insight that:
"the situation of oppression is a dehumanized and
dehumanizing totality affecting both the oppressors and
those whom they oppress." Note that crucial word
"both" - oppressed +and+ oppressors are
dehumanized. Freire added:
"One of the gravest obstacles to the achievement of
liberation is that oppressive reality absorbs those
within it and thereby acts to submerge human beings'
consciousness."
The struggle for freedom is always at risk, because those
who are oppressed may lose their own  humanity in the struggle. On the
other hand, whenever oppressive forces are overthrown,
the humanist and libertarian vision of the formerly
oppressed then belongs to everyone. Every individual,
ideally, experiences a process of "permanent
liberation."
Such liberation requires constant self-awareness and
examination of our assumptions, decisions and actions in
specific situations. This is tough; very tough. There is
an all too-human tendency to rationalise our own
behaviour, especially when we act irresponsibly or
cruelly. As the psychologist Erich Fromm wrote in Fear of
Freedom:
"However unreasonable or immoral an action may be,
man has an insuperable urge to rationalize it, that is,
to prove to himself and to others that his action is
determined by reason,
G.Uecker, Nagel auf
Leinwand
common sense, or at least conventional morality. He has
little difficulty in acting irrationally, but it is
almost impossible for him not to give his action the
appearance of reasonable motivation."
Such rationalisation may occur when we are 'under orders'
from 'superiors', whether our boss at work, a military
commander, or our political leaders. In such cases, there
can be a strong, even overwhelming, demand to subjugate
one's individuality to some higher 'good'. There can also
be a strong element of willing submission, however, as
Fromm explains:
"In our effort to escape from aloneness and
powerlessness, we are ready to get rid of our individual
self either by submission to new forms of authority or by
a compulsive conforming to accepted patterns."
These "accepted patterns" tend to follow
destructive contours shaped by state-corporate power.
Positive - and not so positive - human qualities are
deployed to serve destructive ends, as we see today in
Iraq and Afghanistan. Love, freedom, duty, conscience
have all been called upon by leaders to support
destructive impulses. These impulses are rationalised, or
even unthinkingly assimilated, by powerful social groups
including leading politicians, corporate chiefs, and
influential media commentators. As Edward Herman noted
recently, "It is the function of the experts, and
the mainstream media, to normalise the unthinkable for
the general public." Thus, it becomes 'acceptable'
and 'realistic' to invade poor and weakened nations in
order to introduce what elite power calls 'democracy'.
Louis Beourgois
Meanwhile, according to established wisdom, it is
'unthinkable' to replace capitalist institutions with
eco/social-friendly networks and practices to help save
the rapidly deteriorating global commons. Instead, 'we'
must adopt a 'pragmatic' approach and make trade and
investment 'more efficient'. These notions are what
constitute 'common sense' and 'informed public
opinion'.Welfare cutbacks, belt-tightening and 'rigour'
may be required in the short term. However, these painful
but necessary measures will ensure a better future for
all, so we are told.
Challenging received truths can be a painful experience,
perhaps leading to ridicule, imprisonment, torture or
worse. For those inside influential circles, there is the
risk of losing membership of 'the group', thus losing a
crucial sense of 'belonging', even if that sense has been
obtained at the cost of losing the ability to develop
one's own potential and one's individuality. Thus the
social demands of state-corporate power are elevated to
the level of individual ethical norms.
I remember when I applied for a job as a geophysicist
with Shell, sixteen years ago. I flew out to the
Netherlands to attend a gruelling day of interviews at
Shell's head office in The Hague. There were eight
different senior managers from various departments who
grilled me in separate sessions. One, in particular, was
deliberately provocative. He asked me: "So, why do
you want to come and work for a company that is
destroying the environment and screwing the Third
World?"
Why indeed! The 'correct' answer, of course, was that
Shell was 'investing' in the 'Third World', thus
promoting development there, and also developing new
technologies - cleaner fuels, reduced-impact chemicals,
renewable energy projects - that would protect the
environment. That was the answer he got, which I really
did believe - well, half-believe - at the time. And, yes,
I got the job. But by the time I had left Shell, nearly
five years later, I had lost my belief in that doctrine.
I am sure that many individuals within corporations and
state institutions do believe the capitalist myth of
benign intent and fruitful outcomes. How could they do
their job conscientiously and diligently if they thought
otherwise?
The maintenance of state-corporate power - and its
continuing concentration - actually +requires+ that we absorb elite demands
and raise them to the level of individual ethics. Or, as
employees, we simply try to ignore the fact that the
bottom line is profit, profit and profit, even when it
means - as it invariably does - that people and planet
are despoilt. State-corporate power +requires+ that the
social bonds between people be weakened; that we feel
isolated, abandoned and ultimately demoralized. Society
then becomes, as Emil Durkeheim warned: "a
disorganised dust of individuals".
But the incredibly strong urge to make connections, to
avoid being alone, is difficult to extinguish. Clearly,
this can lead to much that is good. But there is also the
risk that, if pursued without wisdom, such an urge can
actually lead to a downward spiral of self-deception.
Sharon Salzberg, author of Lovingkindness explains:
"We may sacrifice the truth in order to secure our
identity, or preserve a sense of belonging. Anything that
threatens this gives rise to fear and anxiety, so we
deny, cut off our feelings. The end result of this
pattern is dehumanization. We become split from our own
lives and feel great distance from other alfred kremer living
beings as well. As we lose touch with our inner life, we
become dependent on the shifting winds of external change
for a sense of who we are, what we care about, and what
we value. The fear of pain that we tried to escape
becomes, in fact, our constant companion."
Where then to turn? Carl Jung offers solace, while making
an astute observation about the relationship between love
and power: "Where love rules, there is no will to
power; and where power predominates, there love is
lacking. The one is the shadow of the other."
Genuine love is based on equality, mutual respect and
sharing; there is no room here for towering, crushing
power. This is as true of love and power in society, as
it is between individuals. Serving the interests of those
who lust for power, or those who wish to retain their
power, is inherently destructive of loving forces in
society, and of humanity, solidarity, peace and
compassion.
But Salzberg, too, offers plenty of reason to hope.
First, she notes that:
"One of the most powerful aspects of delusion, or
ignorance, is the belief that what we do does not really
matter."
And, indeed, it is a sign of the success of massive and
continuous campaigns of business and government
propaganda that current systems of state-corporate
control are generally thought to be essentially benign
and, in any case, irreversible. In order for the status
quo to be maintained, it is necessary for elite power to
promote constantly the myth that what we do does not
really matter, as long as we continue to consume
capitalist goods and services, and toe the official line.
Salzberg counters as follows:
"We have the power to align ourselves with certain
values and to create the life we want by making wholesome
choices. When we are generous, life is tangibly and
qualitatively different."
Albert Einstein would have agreed: "Man [and,
presumably, woman!] can find meaning in life, short and
perilous as it is, only through devoting himself [or
herself] to society."
Such devotion, when applied wisely, helps others as well
as ourselves. The practice of generosity has a remarkable
renewable quality; it replenishes and reinforces our
inherent human ability to alleviate suffering, wherever
we encounter it. The motivation to reduce suffering marks
the fault line between the expression of love and the
expression of unwholesome power.
Salzberg puts it like this: "Compassion is not at
all weak. It is the strength that arises out of seeing
the true nature of suffering in the world. Compassion
allows us to bear witness to that suffering, whether it
is in ourselves or others, without fear; it allows us to
name injustice without hesitation, and to act strongly,
with all the skill at our disposal."
Therein lies the root of what it is to be radical.
Write to Media Lens: editor@medialens.org
Visit the Media Lens website: http://www.medialens.org
This media alert will shortly be archived at:
http://www.MediaLens.org/alerts/index.html
|
