INTRODUCTION
1. The Industrial Revolution and its consequences
have been a disaster for the human race. They have greatly increased
the life-expectancy of those of us who live in "advanced" countries,
but they have destabilized society, have made life unfulfilling , have
subjected human beings to indignities, have led to widespread
psychological suffering (in the Third World to physical suffering as
well) and have inflicted severe damage on the natural world. The
continued development of technology will worsen the situation. It will
certainly subject human beings to greater indignities and inflict
greater damage on the natural world, it will probably lead to greater
social disruption and psychological suffering, and it may lead to
increased physical suffering eve n in "advanced" countries.
2. The industrial-technological system may survive
or it may break down. If it survives, it MAY eventually achieve a low
level of physical and psychological suffering, but only after passing
through a long and very painful period of adjustment and only at the
cost of permanently reducing human beings and many other living
organisms to engineered products and mere cogs in the social machine.
Furthermore, if the system survives, the consequences will be
inevitable: There is no way of reforming or modify ing the system so as
to prevent it from depriving people of dignity and autonomy.
3. If the system breaks down the consequences will
still be very painful. But the bigger the system grows the more
disastrous the results of its breakdown will be, so if it is to break
down it had best break down sooner rather than later.
4. We the refore advocate a revolution against the
industrial system. This revolution may or may not make use of violence:
it may be sudden or it may be a relatively gradual process spanning a
few decades. We can't predict any of that. But we do outline in a ver y
general way the measures that those who hate the industrial system
should take in order to prepare the way for a revolution against that
form of society. This is not to be a POLITICAL revolution. Its object
will be to overthrow not governments but the e conomic and
technological basis of the present society.
5. In this article we give attention to only some of
the negative developments that have grown out of the
industrial-technological system. Other such developments we mention
only briefly or ignore altogether. This does not mean that we regard
these o ther developments as unimportant. For practical reasons we have
to confine our discussion to areas that have received insufficient
public attention or in which we have something new to say. For example,
since there are well-developed environmental and w ilderness movements,
we have written very little about environmental degradation or the
destruction of wild nature, even though we consider these to be highly
important.
THE PSYCHOLOGY OF
MODERN LEFTISM
6. Almost everyone will agree that we live in a
deeply troubled society. One of the most widespread manifestations of
the craziness of our world is leftism, so a discussion of the
psychology of leftism can serve as an introduction to the discussion of
the problems of modern society in general.
7. But what is leftism? During the first half of the
20th century leftism could have been practically identified with
socialism. Today the movement is fragmented and it is not clear who can
properly be called a leftist. When we speak of leftists in this article
we have in mind mainly socialists, collectivists, "politically correct"
types, feminists, gay and disability activists, animal rights activists
and the like. But not everyone who is associated with one of these
movements is a leftist. What we are trying to get at in discussing
leftism is not so much a movement or an ideology as a psychological
type, or rather a collection of related types. Thus, what we mean by
"leftism" will emerge more clearly in the course of our discussion of
leftist p sychology (Also, see paragraphs 227-230.)
8. Even so, our conception of leftism will remain a
good deal less clear than we would wish, but there doesn't seem to be
any remedy for this. All we are trying to do is indicate in a rough and
approximate way the two psychological tendencies that we believe are
the main driving force of modern leftism. We by no means claim to be
telling the WHOLE truth about leftist psychology. Also, our discussion
is meant to apply to modern leftism only. We leave open the question of
the extent to which our discu ssion could be applied to the leftists of
the 19th and early 20th century.
9. The two psychological tendencies that underlie
modern leftism we call "feelings of inferiority" and
"oversocialization." Feelings of inferiority are characteristic of
modern leftism as a whole, while oversocialization is characteristic
only of a ce rtain segment of modern leftism; but this segment is
highly influential.
FEELINGS OF
INFERIORITY
10. By "feelings of inferiority" we mean not only
inferiority feelings in the strictest sense but a whole spectrum of
related traits: low self-esteem, feelings of powerlessness, depressive
tendencies, defeatism, guilt, self-hatred, etc. We argue that m odern
leftists tend to have such feelings (possibly more or less repressed)
and that these feelings are decisive in determining the direction of
modern leftism.
11. When someone interprets as derogatory almost
anything that is said about him (or about groups with whom he
identifies) we conclude that he has inferiority feelings or low
self-esteem. This tendency is pronounced among minority rights
advocates, wh ether or not they belong to the minority groups whose
rights they defend. They are hypersensitive about the words used to
designate minorities. The terms "negro," "oriental," "handicapped" or
"chick" for an African, an Asian, a disabled person or a woma n
originally had no derogatory connotation. "Broad" and "chick" were
merely the feminine equivalents of "guy," "dude" or "fellow." The
negative connotations have been attached to these terms by the
activists themselves. Some animal rights advocates hav e gone so far as
to reject the word "pet" and insist on its replacement by "animal
companion." Leftist anthropologists go to great lengths to avoid saying
anything about primitive peoples that could conceivably be interpreted
as negative. They want to re place the word "primitive" by
"nonliterate." They seem almost paranoid about anything that might
suggest that any primitive culture is inferior to our own. (We do not
mean to imply that primitive cultures ARE inferior to ours. We merely
point out the hy persensitivity of leftish anthropologists.)
12. Those who are most sensitive about "politically
incorrect" terminology are not the average black ghetto-dweller, Asian
immigrant, abused woman or disabled person, but a minority of
activists, many of whom do not even belong to any "oppressed" group but
come from privileged strata of society. Political correctness has its
stronghold among university professors, who have secure employment with
comfortable salaries, and the majority of whom are heterosexual, white
males from middle-class families.
13. Many leftists have an intense identification
with the problems of groups that have an image of being weak (women),
defeated (American Indians), repellent (homosexuals), or otherwise
inferior. The leftists themselves feel that these groups are infe rior.
They would never admit it to themselves that they have such feelings,
but it is precisely because they do see these groups as inferior that
they identify with their problems. (We do not suggest that women,
Indians, etc., ARE inferior; we are only making a point about leftist
psychology).
14. Feminists are desperately anxious to prove that
women are as strong as capable as men. Clearly they are nagged by a
fear that women may NOT be as strong and as capable as men.
15. Leftists tend to hate anything that has an image
of being strong, good and successful. They hate America, they hate
Western civilization, they hate white males, they hate rationality. The
reasons that leftists give for hating the West, etc. clear ly do not
correspond with their real motives. They SAY they hate the West because
it is warlike, imperialistic, sexist, ethnocentric and so forth, but
where these same faults appear in socialist countries or in primitive
cultures, the leftist finds excus es for them, or at best he GRUDGINGLY
admits that they exist; whereas he ENTHUSIASTICALLY points out (and
often greatly exaggerates) these faults where they appear in Western
civilization. Thus it is clear that these faults are not the leftist's
real mot ive for hating America and the West. He hates America and the
West because they are strong and successful.
16. Words like "self-confidence," "self-reliance,"
"initiative", "enterprise," "optimism," etc. play little role in the
liberal and leftist vocabulary. The leftist is anti-individualistic,
pro-collectivist. He wants society to solve everyone's needs for them,
take care of them. He is not the sort of person who has an inner sense
of confidence in his own ability to solve his own problems and satisfy
his own needs. The leftist is antagonistic to the concept of
competition because, deep inside, he fee ls like a loser.
17. Art forms that appeal to modern leftist
intellectuals tend to focus on sordidness, defeat and despair, or else
they take an orgiastic tone, throwing off rational control as if there
were no hope of accomplishing anything through rational calculatio n
and all that was left was to immerse oneself in the sensations of the
moment.
18. Modern leftist philosophers tend to dismiss
reason, science, objective reality and to insist that everything is
culturally relative. It is true that one can ask serious questions
about the foundations of scientific knowledge and about how, if at a
ll, the concept of objective reality can be defined. But it is obvious
that modern leftist philosophers are not simply cool-headed logicians
systematically analyzing the foundations of knowledge. They are deeply
involved emotionally in their attack on tr uth and reality. They attack
these concepts because of their own psychological needs. For one thing,
their attack is an outlet for hostility, and, to the extent that it is
successful, it satisfies the drive for power. More importantly, the
leftist hate s science and rationality because they classify certain
beliefs as true (i.e., successful, superior) and other beliefs as false
(i.e. failed, inferior). The leftist's feelings of inferiority run so
deep that he cannot tolerate any classification of some things as
successful or superior and other things as failed or inferior. This
also underlies the rejection by many leftists of the concept of mental
illness and of the utility of IQ tests. Leftists are antagonistic to
genetic explanations of human abili ties or behavior because such
explanations tend to make some persons appear superior or inferior to
others. Leftists prefer to give society the credit or blame for an
individual's ability or lack of it. Thus if a person is "inferior" it
is not his fault , but society's, because he has not been brought up
properly.
19. The leftist is not typically the kind of person
whose feelings of inferiority make him a braggart, an egotist, a bully,
a self-promoter, a ruthless competitor. This kind of person has not
wholly lost faith in himself. He has a deficit in his sen se of power
and self-worth, but he can still conceive of himself as having the
capacity to be strong, and his efforts to make himself strong produce
his unpleasant behavior. [1] But the leftist is too far gone for that.
His feelings of inferiority are s o ingrained that he cannot conceive
of himself as individually strong and valuable. Hence the collectivism
of the leftist. He can feel strong only as a member of a large
organization or a mass movement with which he identifies himself.
20. Notice the masochistic tendency of leftist
tactics. Leftists protest by lying down in front of vehicles, they
intentionally provoke police or racists to abuse them, etc. These
tactics may often be effective, but many leftists use them not as a me
ans to an end but because they PREFER masochistic tactics. Self-hatred
is a leftist trait.
21. Leftists may claim that their activism is
motivated by compassion or by moral principle, and moral principle does
play a role for the leftist of the oversocialized type. But compassion
and moral principle cannot be the main motives for leftist ac tivism.
Hostility is too prominent a component of leftist behavior; so is the
drive for power. Moreover, much leftist behavior is not rationally
calculated to be of benefit to the people whom the leftists claim to be
trying to help. For example, if one believes that affirmative action is
good for black people, does it make sense to demand affirmative action
in hostile or dogmatic terms? Obviously it would be more productive to
take a diplomatic and conciliatory approach that would make at least
verbal and symbolic concessions to white people who think that
affirmative action discriminates against them. But leftist activists do
not take such an approach because it would not satisfy their emotional
needs. Helping black people is not their real goal. Instead, race
problems serve as an excuse for them to express their own hostility and
frustrated need for power. In doing so they actually harm black people,
because the activists' hostile attitude toward the white majority tends
to intensify race hatred .
22. If our society had no social problems at all,
the leftists would have to INVENT problems in order to provide
themselves with an excuse for making a fuss.
23. We emphasize that the foregoing does not pretend
to be an accurate description of everyone who might be considered a
leftist. It is only a rough indication of a general tendency of leftism.
OVERSOCIALIZATION
24. Psychologists use the term "socialization" to
designate the process by which children are trained to think and act as
society demands. A person is said to be well socialized if he believes
in and obeys the moral code of his society and fits in we ll as a
functioning part of that society. It may seem senseless to say that
many leftists are over-socialized, since the leftist is perceived as a
rebel. Nevertheless, the position can be defended. Many leftists are
not such rebels as they seem.
25. The moral code of our society is so demanding
that no one can think, feel and act in a completely moral way. For
example, we are not supposed to hate anyone, yet almost everyone hates
somebody at some time or other, whether he admits it to himself or n
ot. Some people are so highly socialized that the attempt to think,
feel and act morally imposes a severe burden on them. In order to avoid
feelings of guilt, they continually have to deceive themselves about
their own motives and find moral explanation s for feelings and actions
that in reality have a non-moral origin. We use the term
"oversocialized" to describe such people. [2]
26. Oversocialization can lead to low self-esteem, a
sense of powerlessness, defeatism, guilt, etc. One of the most im
portant means by which our society socializes children is by making
them feel ashamed of behavior or speech that is contrary to society's
expectations. If this is overdone, or if a particular child is
especially susceptible to such feelings, he ends by f eeling ashamed of
HIMSELF. Moreover the thought and the behavior of the oversocialized
person are more restricted by society's expectations than are those of
the lightly socialized person. The majority of people engage in a
significant amount of naughty behavior. They lie, they commit petty
thefts, they break traffic laws, they goof off at work, they hate
someone, they say spiteful things or they use some underhanded trick to
get ahead of the other guy. The oversocialized person cannot do these
things , or if he does do them he generates in himself a sense of shame
and self-hatred. The oversocialized person cannot even experience,
without guilt, thoughts or feelings that are contrary to the accepted
morality; he cannot think "unclean" thoughts. And s ocialization is not
just a matter of morality; we are socialized to confirm to many norms
of behavior that do not fall under the heading of morality. Thus the
oversocialized person is kept on a psychological leash and spends his
life running on rails tha t society has laid down for him. In many
oversocialized people this results in a sense of constraint and
powerlessness that can be a severe hardship. We suggest that
oversocialization is among the more serious cruelties that human beings
inflict on one another.
27. We argue that a very important and influential
segment of the modern left is oversocialized and that their
oversocialization is of great importance in determining the direction
of modern leftism. Leftists of the oversocialized type tend to be
intellectuals or members of the upper-middle class. Notice that
university intellectuals (3) constitute the most highly socialized
segment of our society and also the most left-wing segment.
28. The leftist of the oversocialized type tries to
g et off his psychological leash and assert his autonomy by rebelling.
But usually he is not strong enough to rebel against the most basic
values of society. Generally speaking, the goals of today's leftists
are NOT in conflict with the accepted morality. On the contrary, the
left takes an accepted moral principle, adopts it as its own, and then
accuses mainstream society of violating that principle. Examples:
racial equality, equality of the sexes, helping poor people, peace as
opposed to war, nonviole nce generally, freedom of expression, kindness
to animals. More fundamentally, the duty of the individual to serve
society and the duty of society to take care of the individual. All
these have been deeply rooted values of our society (or at least of it
s middle and upper classes (4) for a long time. These values are
explicitly or implicitly expressed or presupposed in most of the
material presented to us by the mainstream communications media and the
educational system. Leftists, especially those of t he oversocialized
type, usually do not rebel against these principles but justify their
hostility to society by claiming (with some degree of truth) that
society is not living up to these principles.
29. Here is an illustration of the way in which the
oversocialized leftist shows his real attachment to the conventional
attitudes of our society while pretending to be in rebellion against
it. Many leftists push for affirmative action, for moving black people
into high-prestige jobs, for improved educat ion in black schools and
more money for such schools; the way of life of the black "underclass"
they regard as a social disgrace. They want to integrate the black man
into the system, make him a business executive, a lawyer, a scientist
just like upper-m iddle-class white people. The leftists will reply
that the last thing they want is to make the black man into a copy of
the white man; instead, they want to preserve African American culture.
But in what does this preservation of African American cultur e
consist? It can hardly consist in anything more than eating black-style
food, listening to black-style music, wearing black-style clothing and
going to a black-style church or mosque. In other words, it can express
itself only in superficial matters. In all ESSENTIAL respects more
leftists of the oversocialized type want to make the black man conform
to white, middle-class ideals. They want to make him study technical
subjects, become an executive or a scientist, spend his life climbing
the status l adder to prove that black people are as good as white.
They want to make black fathers "responsible." they want black gangs to
become nonviolent, etc. But these are exactly the values of the
industrial-technological system. The system couldn't care les s what
kind of music a man listens to, what kind of clothes he wears or what
religion he believes in as long as he studies in school, holds a
respectable job, climbs the status ladder, is a "responsible" parent,
is nonviolent and so forth. In effect, how ever much he may deny it,
the oversocialized leftist wants to integrate the black man into the
system and make him adopt its values.
30. We certainly do not claim that leftists, even of
the oversocialized type, NEVER rebel against the fundamental valu es of
our society. Clearly they sometimes do. Some oversocialized leftists
have gone so far as to rebel against one of modern society's most
important principles by engaging in physical violence. By their own
account, violence is for them a form of "li beration." In other words,
by committing violence they break through the psychological restraints
that have been trained into them. Because they are oversocialized these
restraints have been more confining for them than for others; hence
their need to b reak free of them. But they usually justify their
rebellion in terms of mainstream values. If they engage in violence
they claim to be fighting against racism or the like.
31. We realize that many objections could be raised
to the foregoing thumb-na il sketch of leftist psychology. The real
situation is complex, and anything like a complete description of it
would take several volumes even if the necessary data were available.
We claim only to have indicated very roughly the two most important
tend encies in the psychology of modern leftism.
32. The problems of the leftist are indicative of
the problems of our society as a whole. Low self-esteem, depressive
tendencies and defeatism are not restricted to the left. Though they
are especially noti ceable in the left, they are widespread in our
society. And today's society tries to socialize us to a greater extent
than any previous society. We are even told by experts how to eat, how
to exercise, how to make love, how to raise our kids and so forth.
THE POWER PROCESS
33. Human beings have a need (probably based in
biology) for something that we will call the "power process." This is
closely related to the need for power (which is widely recognized) but
is not quite the same thing. The power process has four eleme nts. The
three most clear-cut of these we call goal, effort and attainment of
goal. (Everyone needs to have goals whose attainment requires effort,
and needs to succeed in attaining at least some of his goals.) The
fourth element is more difficult to de fine and may not be necessary
for everyone. We call it autonomy and will discuss it later (paragraphs
42-44).
34. Consider the hypothetical case of a man who can
have anything he wants just by wishing for it. Such a man has power,
but he will develo p serious psychological problems. At first he will
have a lot of fun, but by and by he will become acutely bored and
demoralized. Eventually he may become clinically depressed. History
shows that leisured aristocracies tend to become decadent. This is not
true of fighting aristocracies that have to struggle to maintain their
power. But leisured, secure aristocracies that have no need to exert
themselves usually become bored, hedonistic and demoralized, even
though they have power. This shows that po wer is not enough. One must
have goals toward which to exercise one's power.
35. Everyone has goals; if nothing else, to obtain
the physical necessities of life: food, water and whatever clothing and
shelter are made necessary by the climate. But th e leisured aristocrat
obtains these things without effort. Hence his boredom and
demoralization.
36. Nonattainment of important goals results in
death if the goals are physical necessities, and in frustration if
nonattainment of the goals is compatib le with survival. Consistent
failure to attain goals throughout life results in defeatism, low
self-esteem or depression.
37. Thus, in order to avoid serious psychological
problems, a human being needs goals whose attainment requires effort,
and he m ust have a reasonable rate of success in attaining his goals.
SURROGATE ACTIVITIES
38. But not every leisured aristocrat becomes bored
and demoralized. For example, the emperor Hirohito, instead of sinking
into decadent hedonism, devoted himself to marine biology, a field in
which he became distinguished. When people do not have t o exert
themselves to satisfy their physical needs they often set up artificial
goals for themselves. In many cases they then pursue these goals with
the same energy and emotional involvement that they otherwise would
have put into the search for physica l necessities. Thus the
aristocrats of the Roman Empire had their literary pretentions; many
European aristocrats a few centuries ago invested tremendous time and
energy in hunting, though they certainly didn't need the meat; other
aristocracies have com peted for status through elaborate displays of
wealth; and a few aristocrats, like Hirohito, have turned to science.
39. We use the term "surrogate activity" to
designate an activity that is directed toward an artificial goal that
people set up for th emselves merely in order to have some goal to work
toward, or let us say, merely for the sake of the "fulfillment" that
they get from pursuing the goal. Here is a rule of thumb for the
identification of surrogate activities. Given a person who devotes m
uch time and energy to the pursuit of goal X, ask yourself this: If he
had to devote most of his time and energy to satisfying his biological
needs, and if that effort required him to use his physical and mental
facilities in a varied and interesting way, would he feel seriously
deprived because he did not attain goal X? If the answer is no, then
the person's pursuit of a goal X is a surrogate activity. Hirohito's
studies in marine biology clearly constituted a surrogate activity,
since it is pretty cer tain that if Hirohito had had to spend his time
working at interesting non-scientific tasks in order to obtain the
necessities of life, he would not have felt deprived because he didn't
know all about the anatomy and life-cycles of marine animals. On the
other hand the pursuit of sex and love (for example) is not a surrogate
activity, because most people, even if their existence were otherwise
satisfactory, would feel deprived if they passed their lives without
ever having a relationship with a member of the opposite sex. (But
pursuit of an excessive amount of sex, more than one really needs, can
be a surrogate activity.)
40. In modern industrial society only minimal effort
is necessary to satisfy one's physical needs. It is enough to go
through a training program to acquire some petty technical skill, then
come to work on time and exert very modest effort needed to ho ld a
job. The only requirements are a moderate amount of intelligence, and
most of all, simple OBEDIENCE. If one has those, society takes care of
one from cradle to grave. (Yes, there is an underclass that cannot take
physical necessities for granted, b ut we are speaking here of
mainstream society.) Thus it is not surprising that modern society is
full of surrogate activities. These include scientific work, athletic
achievement, humanitarian work, artistic and literary creation,
climbing the corporate ladder, acquisition of money and material goods
far beyond the point at which they cease to give any additional
physical satisfaction, and social activism when it addresses issues
that are not important for the activist personally, as in the case of
whit e activists who work for the rights of nonwhite minorities. These
are not always pure surrogate activities, since for many people they
may be motivated in part by needs other than the need to have some goal
to pursue. Scientific work may be motivated in part by a drive for
prestige, artistic creation by a need to express feelings, militant
social activism by hostility. But for most people who pursue them,
these activities are in large part surrogate activities. For example,
the majority of scientists wi ll probably agree that the "fulfillment"
they get from their work is more important than the money and prestige
they earn.
41. For many if not most people, surrogate
activities are less satisfying than the pursuit of real goals ( that
is, goals that people would want to attain even if their need for the
power process were already fulfilled). One indication of this is the
fact that, in many or most cases, people who are deeply involved in
surrogate activities are never satisfied, never at rest. Thus the
money-maker constantly strives for more and more wealth. The scientist
no sooner solves one problem than he moves on to the next. The
long-distance runner drives himself to run always farther and faster.
Many people who pursue surrogate activities will say that they get far
more fulfillment from these activities than they do from the "mundane"
business of satisfying the ir biological needs, but that it is because
in our society the effort needed to satisfy the biological needs has
been reduced to triviality. More importantly, in our society people do
not satisfy their biological needs AUTONOMOUSLY but by functioning as p
arts of an immense social machine. In contrast, people generally have a
great deal of autonomy in pursuing their surrogate activities. have a
great deal of autonomy in pursuing their surrogate activities.
AUTONOMY
42. Autonomy as a part of the power process may not
be necessary for every individual. But most people need a greater or
lesser degree of autonomy in working toward their goals. Their efforts
must be undertaken on their own initiative and must be un der their own
direction and control. Yet most people do not have to exert this
initiative, direction and control as single individuals. It is usually
enough to act as a member of a SMALL group. Thus if half a dozen people
discuss a goal among themselve s and make a successful joint effort to
attain that goal, their need for the power process will be served. But
if they work under rigid orders handed down from above that leave them
no room for autonomous decision and initiative, then their need for the
power process will not be served. The same is true when decisions are
made on a collective bases if the group making the collective decision
is so large that the role of each individual is insignificant [5]
43. It is true that some individuals seem to have
little need for autonomy. Either their drive for power is weak or they
satisfy it by identifying themselves with some powerful organization to
which they belong. And then there are unthinking, animal types who seem
to be satisfied with a purely physical sense of power(the good combat
soldier, who gets his sense of power by developing fighting skills that
he is quite content to use in blind obedience to his superiors).
44. But for most people it is through the power
process-having a goal, making an AUTONOMOUS effort and attaining t the
goal-that self-esteem, self-confidence and a sense of power are
acquired. When one does not have adequate opportunity to go througho ut
the power process the consequences are (depending on the individual and
on the way the power process is disrupted) boredom, demoralization, low
self-esteem, inferiority feelings, defeatism, depression, anxiety,
guilt, frustration, hostility, spouse or child abuse, insatiable
hedonism, abnormal sexual behavior, sleep disorders, eating disorders,
etc. [6]
SOURCES OF SOCIAL
PROBLEMS
45. Any of the foregoing symptoms can occur in any
society, but in modern industrial society they are present on a massive
scale. We aren't the first to mention that the world today seems to be
going crazy. This sort of thing is not normal for human societies.
There is good reason to believe that primitive man suffered from less
stress and frustration and was better satisfied with his way of life
than modern man is. It is true that not all was sweetness and light in
primitive societies. Abuse of w omen and common among the Australian
aborigines, transexuality was fairly common among some of the American
Indian tribes. But is does appear that GENERALLY SPEAKING the kinds of
problems that we have listed in the preceding paragraph were far less
commo n among primitive peoples than they are in modern society.
46. We attribute the social and psychological
problems of modern society to the fact that that society requires
people to live under conditions radically different from those under
which the human race evolved and to behave in ways that conflict with t
he patterns of behavior that the human race developed while living
under the earlier conditions. It is clear from what we have already
written that we consider lack of opportunity to properly experience the
power process as the most important of the abnor mal conditions to
which modern society subjects people. But it is not the only one.
Before dealing with disruption of the power process as a source of
social problems we will discuss some of the other sources.
47. Among the abnormal conditions present in modern
industrial society are excessive density of population, isolation of
man from nature, excessive rapidity of social change and the break-down
of natural small-scale communities such as the extended fam ily, the
village or the tribe.
48. It is well known that crowding increases stress
and aggression. The degree of crowding that exists today and the
isolation of man from nature are consequences of technological
progress. All pre-industrial societies were predominantly rural. The
industrial Revolution vastly increased the size of cities and the
proportion of the population that lives in them, and modern
agricultural technology has made it possible for the Earth to support a
far denser population than it ever did before. (Also, te chnology
exacerbates the effects of crowding because it puts increased
disruptive powers in people's hands. For example, a variety of
noise-making devices: power mowers, radios, motorcycles, etc. If the
use of these devices is unrestricted, people who w ant peace and quiet
are frustrated by the noise. If their use is restricted, people who use
the devices are frustrated by the regulations... But if these machines
had never been invented there would have been no conflict and no
frustration generated by them.)
49. For primitive societies the natural world (which
usually changes only slowly) provided a stable framework and therefore
a sense of security. In the modern world it is human society that
dominates nature rather than the other way around, and moder n society
changes very rapidly owing to technological change. Thus there is no
stable framework.
50. The conservatives are fools: They whine about
the decay of traditional values, yet they enthusiastically support
technological progress and economic growth. Apparently it never occurs
to them that you can't make rapid, drastic changes in the tech nology
and the economy of a society with out causing rapid changes in all
other aspects of the society as well, and that such rapid changes
inevitably break down traditional values.
51.The breakdown of traditional values to some
extent implies the breakdown of the bonds that hold together
traditional small-scale social groups. The disintegration of
small-scale social groups is also promoted by the fact that modern
conditions often require or tempt individuals to move to new locations,
separating themselves from their communities. Beyond that, a
technological society HAS TO weaken family ties and local communities
if it is to function efficiently. In modern society an individual' s
loyalty must be first to the system and only secondarily to a
small-scale community, because if the internal loyalties of small-scale
small-scale communities were stronger than loyalty to the system, such
communities would pursue their own advantage at the expense of the
system.
52. Suppose that a public official or a corporation
executive appoints his cousin, his friend or his co-religionist to a
position rather than appointing the person best qualified for the job.
He has permitted personal loyalty to supersede his loyalty to the
system, and that is "nepotism" or "discrimination," both of which are
terrible sins in modern society. Would-be industrial societies that
have done a poor job of subordinating personal or local loyalties to
loyalty to the system are usually very i nefficient. (Look at Latin
America.) Thus an advanced industrial society can tolerate only those
small-scale communities that are emasculated, tamed and made into tools
of the system. [7]
53. Crowding, rapid change and the breakdown of
communities have been widely recognized as sources of social problems.
but we do not believe they are enough to account for the extent of the
problems that are seen today.
54. A few pre-industrial cities were very large and
crowded, yet their inhabitants do not seem to have suffered from
psychological problems to the same extent as modern man. In America
today there still are uncrowded rural areas, and we find there the same
problems as in urban areas, though the problems tend to be less acute
in the rural areas. Thus crowding does not seem to be the decisive
factor.
55. On the growing edge of the American frontier
during the 19th century, the mobility of the population probably broke
down extended families and small-scale social groups to at least the
same extent as these are broken down today. In fact, many nucl ear
families lived by choice in such isolation, having no neighbors within
several miles, that they belonged to no community at all, yet they do
not seem to have developed problems as a result.
56.Furthermore, change in American frontier society
was very rapid and deep. A man might be born and raised in a log cabin,
outside the reach of law and order and fed largely on wild meat; and by
the time he arrived at old age he might be working at a regular job and
living in an ordered community with effective law enforcement. This was
a deeper change that that which typically occurs in the life of a
modern individual, yet it does not seem to have led to psychological
problems. In fact, 19th centu ry American society had an optimistic and
self-confident tone, quite unlike that of today's society. [8]
57. The difference, we argue, is that modern man has
the sense (largely justified) that change is IMPOSED on him, whereas
the 19th century frontiersman had the sense (also largely justified)
that he created change himself, by his own choice. Thus a pi oneer
settled on a piece of land of his own choosing and made it into a farm
through his own effort. In those days an entire county might have only
a couple of hundred inhabitants and was a far more isolated and
autonomous entity than a modern county is . Hence the pioneer farmer
participated as a member of a relatively small group in the creation of
a new, ordered community. One may well question whether the creation of
this community was an improvement, but at any rate it satisfied the
pioneer's need for the power process.
58. It would be possible to give other examples of
societies in which there has been rapid change and/or lack of close
community ties without he kind of massive behavioral aberration that is
seen in today's industrial society. We contend that the most important
cause of social and psychological problems in modern society is the
fact that people have insufficient opportunity to go through the power
process in a normal way. We don't mean to say that modern society is
the only one in which the power pro cess has been disrupted. Probably
most if not all civilized societies have interfered with the power '
process to a greater or lesser extent. But in modern industrial society
the problem has become particularly acute. Leftism, at least in its
recent (mid- to-late -20th century) form, is in part a symptom of
deprivation with respect to the power process.
DISRUPTION OF THE
POWER PROCESS IN MODERN SOCIETY
59. We divide human drives into three groups: (1)
those drives that can be satisfied with minimal effort; (2) those that
can be satisfied but only at the cost of serious effort; (3) those that
cannot be adequately satisfied no matter how much effort on e makes.
The power process is the process of satisfying the drives of the second
group. The more drives there are in the third group, the more there is
frustration, anger, eventually defeatism, depression, etc.
60. In modern industrial society natural human
drives tend to be pushed into the first and third groups, and the
second group tends to consist increasingly of artificially created
drives.
61. In primitive societies, physical necessities
generally fall into group 2: They can be obtained, but only at the cost
of serious effort. But modern society tends to guaranty the physical
necessities to everyone [9] in exchange for only minimal effor t, hence
physical needs are pushed into group 1. (There may be disagreement
about whether the effort needed to hold a job is "minimal"; but
usually, in lower- to middle-level jobs, whatever effort is required is
merely that of obedience. You sit or stand where you are told to sit or
stand and do what you are told to do in the way you are told to do it.
Seldom do you have to exert yourself seriously, and in any case you
have hardly any autonomy in work, so that the need for the power
process is not well served.)
62. Social needs, such as sex, love and status,
often remain in group 2 in modern society, depending on the situation
of the individual. [10] But, except for people who have a particularly
strong drive for status, the effort required to fulfill the soc ial
drives is insufficient to satisfy adequately the need for the power
process.
63. So certain artificial needs have been created
that fall into group 2, hence serve the need for the power process.
Advertising and marketing techniques have been developed that make many
people feel they need things that their grandparents never de sired or
even dreamed of. It requires serious effort to earn enough money to
satisfy these artificial needs, hence they fall into group 2. (But see
paragraphs 80-82.) Modern man must satisfy his need for the power
process largely through pursuit of the a rtificial needs created by the
advertising and marketing industry [11], and through surrogate
activities.
64. It seems that for many people, maybe the
majority, these artificial forms of the power process are insufficient.
A theme that appears repeatedly in the writings of the social critics
of the second half of the 20th century is the sense of purposeles sness
that afflicts many people in modern society. (This purposelessness is
often called by other names such as "anomic" or "middle-class
vacuity.") We suggest that the so-called "identity crisis" is actually
a search for a sense of purpose, often for co mmitment to a suitable
surrogate activity. It may be that existentialism is in large part a
response to the purposelessness of modern life. [12] Very widespread in
modern society is the search for "fulfillment." But we think that for
the majority of peo ple an activity whose main goal is fulfillment
(that is, a surrogate activity) does not bring completely satisfactory
fulfillment. In other words, it does not fully satisfy the need for the
power process. (See paragraph 41.) That need can be fully satis fied
only through activities that have some external goal, such as physical
necessities, sex, love, status, revenge, etc.
65. Moreover, where goals are pursued through
earning money, climbing the status ladder or functioning as part of the
system in some other way, most people are not in a position to pursue
their goals AUTONOMOUSLY. Most workers are someone else's emplo yee as,
as we pointed out in paragraph 61, must spend their days doing what
they are told to do in the way they are told to do it. Even most people
who are in business for themselves have only limited autonomy. It is a
chronic complaint of small-busines s persons and entrepreneurs that
their hands are tied by excessive government regulation. Some of these
regulations are doubtless unnecessary, but for the most part government
regulations are essential and inevitable parts of our extremely complex
societ y. A large portion of small business today operates on the
franchise system. It was reported in the Wall Street Journal a few
years ago that many of the franchise-granting companies require
applicants for franchises to take a personality test that is de signed
to EXCLUDE those who have creativity and initiative, because such
persons are not sufficiently docile to go along obediently with the
franchise system. This excludes from small business many of the people
who most need autonomy.
66. Today people live more by virtue of what the
system does FOR them or TO them than by virtue of what they do for
themselves. And what they do for themselves is done more and more along
channels laid down by the system. Opportunities tend to be thos e that
the system provides, the opportunities must be exploited in accord with
the rules and regulations [13], and techniques prescribed by experts
must be followed if there is to be a chance of success.
67. Thus the power process is disrupted in our
society through a deficiency of real goals and a deficiency of autonomy
in pursuit of goals. But it is also disrupted because of those human
drives that fall into group 3: the drives that one cannot adequ ately
satisfy no matter how much effort one makes. One of these drives is the
need for security. Our lives depend on decisions made by other people;
we have no control over these decisions and usually we do not even know
the people who make them. ("We liv e in a world in which relatively few
people - maybe 500 or 1,00 - make the important decisions" - Philip B.
Heymann of Harvard Law School, quoted by Anthony Lewis, New York Times,
April 21, 1995.) Our lives depend on whether safety standards at a
nuclear power plant are properly maintained; on how much pesticide is
allowed to get into our food or how much pollution into our air; on how
skillful (or incompetent) our doctor is; whether we lose or get a job
may depend on decisions made by government economi sts or corporation
executives; and so forth. Most individuals are not in a position to
secure themselves against these threats to more [than] a very limited
extent. The individual's search for security is therefore frustrated,
which leads to a sense of powerlessness.
68. It may be objected that primitive man is
physically less secure than modern man, as is shown by his shorter life
expectancy; hence modern man suffers from less, not more than the
amount of insecurity that is normal for human beings. but psychologi
cal security does not closely correspond with physical security. What
makes us FEEL secure is not so much objective security as a sense of
confidence in our ability to take care of ourselves. Primitive man,
threatened by a fierce animal or by hunger, ca n fight in self-defense
or travel in search of food. He has no certainty of success in these
efforts, but he is by no means helpless against the things that
threaten him. The modern individual on the other hand is threatened by
many things against which he is helpless; nuclear accidents,
carcinogens in food, environmental pollution, war, increasing taxes,
invasion of his privacy by large organizations, nation-wide social or
economic phenomena that may disrupt his way of life.
69. It is true that primitive man is powerless
against some of the things that threaten him; disease for example. But
he can accept the risk of disease stoically. It is part of the nature
of things, it is no one's fault, unless is the fault of some im
aginary, impersonal demon. But threats to the modern individual tend to
be MAN-MADE. They are not the results of chance but are IMPOSED on him
by other persons whose decisions he, as an individual, is unable to
influence. Consequently he feels frustrat ed, humiliated and angry.
70. Thus primitive man for the most part has his
security in his own hands (either as an individual or as a member of a
SMALL group) whereas the security of modern man is in the hands of
persons or organizations that are too remote or too large for him to be
able personally to influence them. So modern man's drive for security
tends to fall into groups 1 and 3; in some areas (food, shelter, etc.)
his security is assured at the cost of only trivial effort, whereas in
other areas he CANNOT attain securi ty. (The foregoing greatly
simplifies the real situation, but it does indicate in a rough, general
way how the condition of modern man differs from that of primitive man.)
71. People have many transitory drives or impulses
that are necessary frustrated in modern life, hence fall into group 3.
One may become angry, but modern society cannot permit fighting. In
many situations it does not even permit verbal aggression. Wh en going
somewhere one may be in a hurry, or one may be in a mood to travel
slowly, but one generally has no choice but to move with the flow of
traffic and obey the traffic signals. One may want to do one's work in
a different way, but usually one can wo rk only according to the rules
laid down by one's employer. In many other ways as well, modern man is
strapped down by a network of rules and regulations (explicit or
implicit) that frustrate many of his impulses and thus interfere with
the power process . Most of these regulations cannot be disposed with,
because the are necessary for the functioning of industrial society.
72. Modern society is in certain respects extremely
permissive. In matters that are irrelevant to the functioning of the
system we can generally do what we please. We can believe in any
religion we like (as long as it does not encourage behavior that is
dangerous to the system). We can go to bed with anyone we like (as long
as we practice "safe sex"). We can do anything we like as long as it is
UNIMPORTANT. But in all IMPORTANT matters the system tends increasingly
to regulate our behavior.
73. Behavior is regulated not only through explicit
rules and not only by the government. Control is often exercised
through indirect coercion or through psychological pressure or
manipulation, and by organizations other than the government, or by the
system as a whole. Most large organizations use some form of propaganda
[14] to manipulate public attitudes or behavior. Propaganda is not
limited to "commercials" and advertisements, and sometimes it is not
even consciously intended as propaganda by t he people who make it. For
instance, the content of entertainment programming is a powerful form
of propaganda. An example of indirect coercion: There is no law that
says we have to go to work every day and follow our employer's orders.
Legally there is nothing to prevent us from going to live in the wild
like primitive people or from going into business for ourselves. But in
practice there is very little wild country left, and there is room in
the economy for only a limited number of small business owne rs. Hence
most of us can survive only as someone else's employee.
74. We suggest that modern man's obsession with
longevity, and with maintaining physical vigor and sexual
attractiveness to an advanced age, is a symptom of unfulfillment
resulting from deprivation with respect to the power process. The
"mid-life cris is" also is such a symptom. So is the lack of interest
in having children that is fairly common in modern society but almost
unheard-of in primitive societies.
75. In primitive societies life is a succession of
stages. The needs and purposes of one stage having been fulfilled,
there is no particular reluctance about passing on to the next stage. A
young man goes through the power process by becoming a hunte r, hunting
not for sport or for fulfillment but to get meat that is necessary for
food. (In young women the process is more complex, with greater
emphasis on social power; we won't discuss that here.) This phase
having been successfully passed through, th e young man has no
reluctance about settling down to the responsibilities of raising a
family. (In contrast, some modern people indefinitely postpone having
children because they are too busy seeking some kind of "fulfillment."
We suggest that the fulfil lment they need is adequate experience of
the power process -- with real goals instead of the artificial goals of
surrogate activities.) Again, having successfully raised his children,
going through the power process by providing them with the physical ne
cessities, the primitive man feels that his work is done and he is
prepared to accept old age (if he survives that long) and death. Many
modern people, on the other hand, are disturbed by the prospect of
death, as is shown by the amount of effort they exp end trying to
maintain their physical condition, appearance and health. We argue that
this is due to unfulfillment resulting from the fact that they have
never put their physical powers to any use, have never gone through the
power process using their bod ies in a serious way. It is not the
primitive man, who has used his body daily for practical purposes, who
fears the deterioration of age, but the modern man, who has never had a
practical use for his body beyond walking from his car to his house. It
is t he man whose need for the power process has been satisfied during
his life who is best prepared to accept the end of that life.
76. In response to the arguments of this section
someone will say, "Society must find a way to give people the
opportunity to go through the power process." For such people the value
of the opportunity is destroyed by the very fact that society gives i t
to them. What they need is to find or make their own opportunities. As
long as the system GIVES them their opportunities it still has them on
a leash. To attain autonomy they must get off that leash.
HOW SOME PEOPLE
ADJUST
77. Not everyone in industrial-technological society
suffers from psychological problems. Some people even profess to be
quite satisfied with society as it is. We now discuss some of the
reasons why people differ so greatly in their response to modern
society.
78. First, there doubtless are differences in the
strength of the drive for power. Individuals with a weak drive for
power may have relatively little need to go through the power process,
or at least relatively little need for autonomy in the power process.
These are docile types who would have been happy as plantation darkies
in the Old South. (We don't mean to sneer at "plantation darkies" of
the Old South. To their credit, most of the slaves were NOT content
with their servitude. We do snee r at people who ARE content with
servitude.)
79. Some people may have some exceptional drive, in
pursuing which they satisfy their need for the power process. For
example, those who have an unusually strong drive for social status may
spend their whole lives climbing the status ladder without ev er
getting bored with that game.
80. People vary in their susceptibility to
advertising and marketing techniques. Some people are so susceptible
that, even if they make a great deal of money, they cannot satisfy
their constant craving for the shiny new toys that the marketing
industry dangles before their eyes. So they always feel hard-pressed
financially even if their income is large, and their cravings are
frustrated.
81. Some people have low susceptibility to
advertising and marketing techniques. These are the people who aren't
interested in money. Material acquisition does not serve their need for
the power process.
82. People who have medium susceptibility to
advertising and marketing techniques are able to earn enough money to
satisfy their craving for goods and services, but only at the cost of
serious effort (putting in overtime, taking a second job, earning p
romotions, etc.) Thus material acquisition serves their need for the
power process. But it does not necessarily follow that their need is
fully satisfied. They may have insufficient autonomy in the power
process (their work may consist of following orders ) and some of their
drives may be frustrated (e.g., security, aggression). (We are guilty
of oversimplification in paragraphs 80-82 because we have assumed that
the desire for material acquisition is entirely a creation of the
advertising and marketing in dustry. Of course it's not that simple.
83. Some people partly satisfy their need for power
by identifying themselves with a powerful organization or mass
movement. An individual lacking goals or power joins a movement or an
organization, adopts its goals as his own, then works toward these
goals. When some of the goals are attained, the individual, even though
his personal efforts have played only an insignificant part in the
attainment of the goals, feels (through his identification with the
movement or organization) as if he had gone thro ugh the power process.
This phenomenon was exploited by the fascists, nazis and communists.
Our society uses it, too, though less crudely. Example: Manuel Noriega
was an irritant to the U.S. (goal: punish Noriega). The U.S. invaded
Panama (effort) and pun ished Noriega (attainment of goal). The U.S.
went through the power process and many Americans, because of their
identification with the U.S., experienced the power process
vicariously. Hence the widespread public approval of the Panama
invasion; it gave people a sense of power. [15] We see the same
phenomenon in armies, corporations, political parties, humanitarian
organizations, religious or ideological movements. In particular,
leftist movements tend to attract people who are seeking to satisfy
their n eed for power. But for most people identification with a large
organization or a mass movement does not fully satisfy the need for
power.
84. Another way in which people satisfy their need
for the power process is through surrogate activities. As we explained
in paragraphs 38-40, a surrogate activity that is directed toward an
artificial goal that the individual pursues for the sake of t he
"fulfillment" that he gets from pursuing the goal, not because he needs
to attain the goal itself. For instance, there is no practical motive
for building enormous muscles, hitting a little ball into a hole or
acquiring a complete series of postage sta mps. Yet many people in our
society devote themselves with passion to bodybuilding, golf or stamp
collecting. Some people are more "other-directed" than others, and
therefore will more readily attack importance to a surrogate activity
simply because the p eople around them treat it as important or because
society tells them it is important. That is why some people get very
serious about essentially trivial activities such as sports, or bridge,
or chess, or arcane scholarly pursuits, whereas others who are more
clear-sighted never see these things as anything but the surrogate
activities that they are, and consequently never attach enough
importance to them to satisfy their need for the power process in that
way. It only remains to point out that in many ca ses a person's way of
earning a living is also a surrogate activity. Not a PURE surrogate
activity, since part of the motive for the activity is to gain the
physical necessities and (for some people) social status and the
luxuries that advertising makes t hem want. But many people put into
their work far more effort than is necessary to earn whatever money and
status they require, and this extra effort constitutes a surrogate
activity. This extra effort, together with the emotional investment
that accompan ies it, is one of the most potent forces acting toward
the continual development and perfecting of the system, with negative
consequences for individual freedom (see paragraph 131). Especially,
for the most creative scientists and engineers, work tends to be
largely a surrogate activity. This point is so important that is
deserves a separate discussion, which we shall give in a moment
(paragraphs 87-92).
85. In this section we have explained how many
people in modern society do satisfy their need for the power process to
a greater or lesser extent. But we think that for the majority of
people the need for the power process is not fully satisfied. In th e
first place, those who have an insatiable drive for status, or who get
firmly "hooked" or a surrogate activity, or who identify strongly
enough with a movement or organization to satisfy their need for power
in that way, are exceptional personalities. O thers are not fully
satisfied with surrogate activities or by identification with an
organization (see paragraphs 41, 64). In the second place, too much
control is imposed by the system through explicit regulation or through
socialization, which results i n a deficiency of autonomy, and in
frustration due to the impossibility of attaining certain goals and the
necessity of restraining too many impulses.
86. But even if most people in
industrial-technological society were well satisfied, we (FC) would
still be opposed to that form of society, because (among other reasons)
we consider it demeaning to fulfill one's need for the power process
through surr ogate activities or through identification with an
organization, rather then through pursuit of real goals.
THE MOTIVES OF
SCIENTISTS
87. Science and technology provide the most
important examples of surrogate activities. Some scientists claim that
they are motivated by "curiosity," that notion is simply absurd. Most
scientists work on highly specialized problem that are not the obje ct
of any normal curiosity. For example, is an astronomer, a mathematician
or an entomologist curious about the properties of
isopropyltrimethylmethane? Of course not. Only a chemist is curious
about such a thing, and he is curious about it only because c hemistry
is his surrogate activity. Is the chemist curious about the appropriate
classification of a new species of beetle? No. That question is of
interest only to the entomologist, and he is interested in it only
because entomology is his surrogate acti vity. If the chemist and the
entomologist had to exert themselves seriously to obtain the physical
necessities, and if that effort exercised their abilities in an
interesting way but in some nonscientific pursuit, then they couldn't
giver a damn about iso propyltrimethylmethane or the classification of
beetles. Suppose that lack of funds for postgraduate education had led
the chemist to become an insurance broker instead of a chemist. In that
case he would have been very interested in insurance matters but would
have cared nothing about isopropyltrimethylmethane. In any case it is
not normal to put into the satisfaction of mere curiosity the amount of
time and effort that scientists put into their work. The "curiosity"
explanation for the scientists' motiv e just doesn't stand up.
88. The "benefit of humanity" explanation doesn't
work any better. Some scientific work has no conceivable relation to
the welfare of the human race - most of archaeology or comparative
linguistics for example. Some other areas of science present obvio usly
dangerous possibilities. Yet scientists in these areas are just as
enthusiastic about their work as those who develop vaccines or study
air pollution. Consider the case of Dr. Edward Teller, who had an
obvious emotional involvement in promoting nucle ar power plants. Did
this involvement stem from a desire to benefit humanity? If so, then
why didn't Dr. Teller get emotional about other "humanitarian" causes?
If he was such a humanitarian then why did he help to develop the
H-bomb? As with many other s cientific achievements, it is very much
open to question whether nuclear power plants actually do benefit
humanity. Does the cheap electricity outweigh the accumulating waste
and risk of accidents? Dr. Teller saw only one side of the question.
Clearly his emotional involvement with nuclear power arose not from a
desire to "benefit humanity" but from a personal fulfillment he got
from his work and from seeing it put to practical use.
89. The same is true of scientists generally. With
possible rare exceptions, their motive is neither curiosity nor a
desire to benefit humanity but the need to go through the power
process: to have a goal (a scientific problem to solve), to make an eff
ort (research) and to attain the goal (solution of the problem.)
Science is a surrogate activity because scientists work mainly for the
fulfillment they get out of the work itself.
90. Of course, it's not that simple. Other motives
do play a role for many scientists. Money and status for example. Some
scientists may be persons of the type who have an insatiable drive for
status (see paragraph 79) and this may provide much of the motivation
for their work. No doubt the majority of scientists, like the majority
of the general population, are more or less susceptible to advertising
and marketing techniques and need money to satisfy their craving for
goods and services. Thus science is not a PURE surrogate activity. But
it is in large part a surrogate activity.
91. Also, science and technology constitute a mass
power movement, and many scientists gratify their need for power
through identification with this mass movement (see paragraph 83).
92. Thus science marches on blindly, without regard
to the real welfare of the human race or to any other standard,
obedient only to the psychological needs of the scientists and of the
government officials and corporation executives who provide the fu nds
for research.
THE NATURE OF
FREEDOM
93. We are going to argue that
industrial-technological society cannot be reformed in such a way as to
prevent it from progressively narrowing the sphere of human freedom.
But because "freedom" is a word that can be interpreted in many ways,
we must fi rst make clear what kind of freedom we are concerned with.
94. By "freedom" we mean the opportunity to go
through the power process, with real goals not the artificial goals of
surrogate activities, and without interference, manipulation or
supervision from anyone, especially from any large organization. Freed
om means being in control (either as an individual or as a member of a
SMALL group) of the life-and-death issues of one's existence; food,
clothing, shelter and defense against whatever threats there may be in
one's environment. Freedom means having power ; not the power to
control other people but the power to control the circumstances of
one's own life. One does not have freedom if anyone else (especially a
large organization) has power over one, no matter how benevolently,
tolerantly and permissively th at power may be exercised. It is
important not to confuse freedom with mere permissiveness (see
paragraph 72).
95. It is said that we live in a free society
because we have a certain number of constitutionally guaranteed rights.
But these are not as important as they seem. The degree of personal
freedom that exists in a society is determined more by the economi c
and technological structure of the society than by its laws or its form
of government. [16] Most of the Indian nations of New England were
monarchies, and many of the cities of the Italian Renaissance were
controlled by dictators. But in reading about t hese societies one gets
the impression that they allowed far more personal freedom than out
society does. In part this was because they lacked efficient mechanisms
for enforcing the ruler's will: There were no modern, well-organized
police forces, no rapi d long-distance communications, no surveillance
cameras, no dossiers of information about the lives of average
citizens. Hence it was relatively easy to evade control.
96. As for our constitutional rights, consider for
example that of freedom of the press. We certainly don't mean to knock
that right: it is very important tool for limiting concentration of
political power and for keeping those who do have political po wer in
line by publicly exposing any misbehavior on their part. But freedom of
the press is of very little use to the average citizen as an
individual. The mass media are mostly under the control of large
organizations that are integrated into the system. Anyone who has a
little money can have something printed, or can distribute it on the
Internet or in some such way, but what he has to say will be swamped by
the vast volume of material put out by the media, hence it will have no
practical effect. To mak e an impression on society with words is
therefore almost impossible for most individuals and small groups. Take
us (FC) for example. If we had never done anything violent and had
submitted the present writings to a publisher, they probably would not
have been accepted. If they had been accepted and published, they
probably would not have attracted many readers, because it's more fun
to watch the entertainment put out by the media than to read a sober
essay. Even if these writings had had many readers, mo st of these
readers would soon have forgotten what they had read as their minds
were flooded by the mass of material to which the media expose them. In
order to get our message before the public with some chance of making a
lasting impression, we've had t o kill people.
97. Constitutional rights are useful up to a point,
but they do not serve to guarantee much more than what could be called
the bourgeois conception of freedom. According to the bourgeois
conception, a "free" man is essentially an element of a social ma chine
and has only a certain set of prescribed and delimited freedoms;
freedoms that are designed to serve the needs of the social machine
more than those of the individual. Thus the bourgeois's "free" man has
economic freedom because that promotes growth and progress; he has
freedom of the press because public criticism restrains misbehavior by
political leaders; he has a rights to a fair trial because imprisonment
at the whim of the powerful would be bad for the system. This was
clearly the attitude of Simon Bolivar. To him, people deserved liberty
only if they used it to promote progress (progress as conceived by the
bourgeois). Other bourgeois thinkers have taken a similar view of
freedom as a mere means to collective ends. Chester C. Tan, "Chinese Po
litical Thought in the Twentieth Century," page 202, explains the
philosophy of the Kuomintang leader Hu Han-min: "An individual is
granted rights because he is a member of society and his community life
requires such rights. By community Hu meant the who le society of the
nation." And on page 259 Tan states that according to Carsum Chang
(Chang Chun-mai, head of the State Socialist Party in China) freedom
had to be used in the interest of the state and of the people as a
whole. But what kind of freedom do es one have if one can use it only
as someone else prescribes? FC's conception of freedom is not that of
Bolivar, Hu, Chang or other bourgeois theorists. The trouble with such
theorists is that they have made the development and application of
social theo ries their surrogate activity. Consequently the theories
are designed to serve the needs of the theorists more than the needs of
any people who may be unlucky enough to live in a society on which the
theories are imposed.
98. One more point to be made in this section: It
should not be assumed that a person has enough freedom just because he
SAYS he has enough. Freedom is restricted in part by psychological
control of which people are unconscious, and moreover many peopl e's
ideas of what constitutes freedom are governed more by social
convention than by their real needs. For example, it's likely that many
leftists of the oversocialized type would say that most people,
including themselves are socialized too little rather than too much,
yet the oversocialized leftist pays a heavy psychological price for his
high level of socialization.
SOME PRINCIPLES OF
HISTORY
99. Think of history as being the sum of two
components: an erratic component that consists of unpredictable events
that follow no discernible pattern, and a regular component that
consists of long-term historical trends. Here we are concerned with the
long-term trends.
100. FIRST PRINCIPLE. If a SMALL change is made that
affects a long-term historical trend, then the effect of that change
will almost always be transitory - the trend will soon revert to its
original state. (Example: A reform movement designed to clean up
political corruption in a society rarely has more than a short-term
effect; sooner or later the reformers relax and corruption creeps back
in. The level of political corruption in a given society tends to
remain constant, or to change only slowly with the evolution of the
society. Normally, a political cleanup will be permanent only if
accompanied by widespread social changes; a SMALL change in the society
won't be enough.) If a small change in a long-term historical trend
appears to be permanent, it is only because the change acts in the
direction in which the trend is already moving, so that the trend is
not altered but only pushed a step ahead.
101. The first principle is almost a tautology. If a
trend were not stable with respect to small changes, it would wander at
random rather than following a definite direction; in other words it
would not be a long-term trend at all.
102. SECOND PRINCIPLE. If a change is made that is
sufficiently large to alter permanently a long-term historical trend,
than it will alter the society as a whole. In other words, a society is
a system in which all parts are interrelated, and you can't permanently
change any important part without change all the other parts as well.
103. THIRD PRINCIPLE. If a change is made that is
large enough to alter permanently a long-term trend, then the
consequences for the society as a whole cannot be predicted in advance.
(Unless various other societies have passed through the same change and
have all experienced the same consequences, in which case one can
predict on empirical grounds that another society that passes through
the same change will be like to experience similar consequences.)
104. FOURTH PRINCIPLE. A new kind of society cannot
be designed on paper. That is, you cannot plan out a new form of
society in advance, then set it up and expect it to function as it was
designed to.
105. The third and fourth principles result from the
complexity of human societies. A change in human behavior will affect
the economy of a society and its physical environment; the economy will
affect the environment and vice versa, and the changes in the economy
and the environment will affect human behavior in complex,
unpredictable ways; and so forth. The network of causes and effects is
far too complex to be untangled and understood.
106. FIFTH PRINCIPLE. People do not consciously and
rationally choose the form of their society. Societies develop through
processes of social evolution that are not under rational human control.
107. The fifth principle is a consequence of the
other four.
108. To illustrate: By the first principle,
generally speaking an attempt at social reform either acts in the
direction in which the society is developing anyway (so that it merely
accelerates a change that would have occurred in any case) or else it o
nly has a transitory effect, so that the society soon slips back into
its old groove. To make a lasting change in the direction of
development of any important aspect of a society, reform is
insufficient and revolution is required. (A revolution does not
necessarily involve an armed uprising or the overthrow of a
government.) By the second principle, a revolution never changes only
one aspect of a society; and by the third principle changes occur that
were never expected or desired by the revolutionaries. By the fourth
principle, when revolutionaries or utopians set up a new kind of
society, it never works out as planned.
109. The American Revolution does not provide a
counterexample. The American "Revolution" was not a revolution in our
sense of the word, but a war of independence followed by a rather
far-reaching political reform. The Founding Fathers did not change t he
direction of development of American society, nor did they aspire to do
so. They only freed the development of American society from the
retarding effect of British rule. Their political reform did not change
any basic trend, but only pushed American p olitical culture along its
natural direction of development. British society, of which American
society was an off-shoot, had been moving for a long time in the
direction of representative democracy. And prior to the War of
Independence the Americans were already practicing a significant degree
of representative democracy in the colonial assemblies. The political
system established by the Constitution was modeled on the British
system and on the colonial assemblies. With major alteration, to be
sure - the re is no doubt that the Founding Fathers took a very
important step. But it was a step along the road the English-speaking
world was already traveling. The proof is that Britain and all of its
colonies that were populated predominantly by people of Britis h
descent ended up with systems of representative democracy essentially
similar to that of the United States. If the Founding Fathers had lost
their nerve and declined to sign the Declaration of Independence, our
way of life today would not have been sign ificantly different. Maybe
we would have had somewhat closer ties to Britain, and would have had a
Parliament and Prime Minister instead of a Congress and President. No
big deal. Thus the American Revolution provides not a counterexample to
our principles but a good illustration of them.
110. Still, one has to use common sense in applying
the principles. They are expressed in imprecise language that allows
latitude for interpretation, and exceptions to them can be found. So we
present these principles not as inviolable laws but as rule s of thumb,
or guides to thinking, that may provide a partial antidote to naive
ideas about the future of society. The principles should be borne
constantly in mind, and whenever one reaches a conclusion that
conflicts with them one should carefully reexa mine one's thinking and
retain the conclusion only if one has good, solid reasons for doing so.
INDUSTRIAL-TECHNOLOGICAL SOCIETY CANNOT BE REFORMED
111. The foregoing principles help to show how
hopelessly difficult it would be to reform the industrial system in
such a way as to prevent it from progressively narrowing our sphere of
freedom. There has been a consistent tendency, going back at least to
the Industrial Revolution for technology to strengthen the system at a
high cost in individual freedom and local autonomy. Hence any change
designed to protect freedom from technology would be contrary to a
fundamental trend in the development of our society.
Consequently, such a change either would be a
transitory one -- soon swamped by the tide of history -- or, if large
enough to be permanent would alter the nature of our whole society.
This by the first and second principles. Moreover, since society wo uld
be altered in a way that could not be predicted in advance (third
principle) there would be great risk. Changes large enough to make a
lasting difference in favor of freedom would not be initiated because
it would realized that they would gravely dis rupt the system. So any
attempts at reform would be too timid to be effective. Even if changes
large enough to make a lasting difference were initiated, they would be
retracted when their disruptive effects became apparent. Thus,
permanent changes in fav or of freedom could be brought about only by
persons prepared to accept radical, dangerous and unpredictable
alteration of the entire system. In other words, by revolutionaries,
not reformers.
112. People anxious to rescue freedom without
sacrificing the supposed benefits of technology will suggest naive
schemes for some new form of society that would reconcile freedom with
technology. Apart from the fact that people who make suggestions sel
dom propose any practical means by which the new form of society could
be set up in the first place, it follows from the fourth principle that
even if the new form of society could be once established, it either
would collapse or would give results very d ifferent from those
expected.
113. So even on very general grounds it seems highly
improbably that any way of changing society could be found that would
reconcile freedom with modern technology. In the next few sections we
will give more specific reasons for concluding that freedo m and
technological progress are incompatible.
RESTRICTION OF FREEDOM IS UNAVOIDABLE IN INDUSTRIAL
SOCIETY
114. As explained in paragraph 65-67, 70-73, modern
man is strapped down by a network of rules and regulations, and his
fate depends on the actions of persons remote from him whose decisions
he cannot influence. This is not accidental or a result of t he
arbitrariness of arrogant bureaucrats. It is necessary and inevitable
in any technologically advanced society. The system HAS TO regulate
human behavior closely in order to function. At work, people have to do
what they are told to do, otherwise prod uction would be thrown into
chaos. Bureaucracies HAVE TO be run according to rigid rules. To allow
any substantial personal discretion to lower-level bureaucrats would
disrupt the system and lead to charges of unfairness due to differences
in the way indi vidual bureaucrats exercised their discretion. It is
true that some restrictions on our freedom could be eliminated, but
GENERALLY SPEAKING the regulation of our lives by large organizations
is necessary for the functioning of industrial-technological soc iety.
The result is a sense of powerlessness on the part of the average
person. It may be, however, that formal regulations will tend
increasingly to be replaced by psychological tools that make us want to
do what the system requires of us. (Propaganda [1 4], educational
techniques, "mental health" programs, etc.)
115. The system HAS TO force people to behave in
ways that are increasingly remote from the natural pattern of human
behavior. For example, the system needs scientists, mathematicians and
engineers. It can't function without them. So heavy pressure is put on
children to excel in these fields. It isn't natural for an adolescent
human being to spend the bulk of his time sitting at a desk absorbed in
study. A normal adolescent wants to spend his time in active contact
with the real world. Among primitive peoples the things that children
are trained to do are in natural harmony with natural human impulses.
Among the American Indians, for example, boys were trained in active
outdoor pursuits -- just the sort of things that boys like. But in our
society chil dren are pushed into studying technical subjects, which
most do grudgingly.
116. Because of the constant pressure that the
system exerts to modify human behavior, there is a gradual increase in
the number of people who cannot or will not adjust to soc iety's
requirements: welfare leeches, youth-gang members, cultists,
anti-government rebels, radical environmentalist saboteurs, dropouts
and resisters of various kinds.
117. In any technologically advanced society the
individual's fate MUST depend on decisions that he personally cannot
influence to any great extent. A technological society cannot be broken
down into small, autonomous communities, because production depends on
the cooperation of very large numbers of people and machines. Such a
society MUST be highly organized and decisions HAVE TO be made that
affect very large numbers of people. When a decision affects, say, a
million people, then each of the affected individuals has, on the
average, only a one-millionth share in making the decision. What
usually happens in practice is that decisions are made by public
officials or corporation executives, or by technical specialists, but
even when the public votes on a decision the number of voters
ordinarily is too large for the vote of any one indi vidual to be
significant. [17] Thus most individuals are unable to influence
measurably the major decisions that affect their lives. Their is no
conceivable way to remedy this in a technologically advanced society.
The system tries to "solve" this proble m by using propaganda to make
people WANT the decisions that have been made for them, but even if
this "solution" were completely successful in making people feel
better, it would be demeaning.
118 Conservatives and some others advocate more
"local autonomy." Local communities once did have autonomy, but such
autonomy becomes less and less possible as local communities become
more enmeshed with and dependent on large-scale systems like public
utilities, computer networks, highway systems, the mass communications
media, the modern health care system. Also operating against autonomy
is the fact that technology applied in one location often affects
people at other locations far away. Thus pesti cide or chemical use
near a creek may contaminate the water supply hundreds of miles
downstream, and the greenhouse effect affects the whole world.
119. The system does not and cannot exist to satisfy
human needs. Instead, it is human behavior that has to be modified to
fit the needs of the system. This has nothing to do with the political
or social ideology that may pretend to guide the technolog ical system.
It is the fault of technology, because the system is guided not by
ideology but by technical necessity. [18] Of course the system does
satisfy many human needs, but generally speaking it does this only to
the extent that it is to the advantag e of the system to do it. It is
the needs of the system that are paramount, not those of the human
being. For example, the system provides people with food because the
system couldn't function if everyone starved; it attends to people's
psychological need s whenever it can CONVENIENTLY do so, because it
couldn't function if too many people became depressed or rebellious.
But the system, for good, solid, practical reasons, must exert constant
pressure on people to mold their behavior to the needs of the sys tem.
Too much waste accumulating? The government, the media, the educational
system, environmentalists, everyone inundates us with a mass of
propaganda about recycling. Need more technical personnel? A chorus of
voices exhorts kids to study science. No on e stops to ask whether it
is inhumane to force adolescents to spend the bulk of their time
studying subjects most of them hate. When skilled workers are put out
of a job by technical advances and have to undergo "retraining," no one
asks whether it is hum iliating for them to be pushed around in this
way. It is simply taken for granted that everyone must bow to technical
necessity and for good reason: If human needs were put before technical
necessity there would be economic problems, unemployment, shortag es or
worse. The concept of "mental health" in our society is defined largely
by the extent to which an individual behaves in accord with the needs
of the system and does so without showing signs of stress.
120. Efforts to make room for a sense of purpose and
for autonomy within the system are no better than a joke. For example,
one company, instead of having each of its employees assemble only one
section of a catalogue, had each assemble a whole catalog ue, and this
was supposed to give them a sense of purpose and achievement. Some
companies have tried to give their employees more autonomy in their
work, but for practical reasons this usually can be done only to a very
limited extent, and in any case emp loyees are never given autonomy as
to ultimate goals -- their "autonomous" efforts can never be directed
toward goals that they select personally, but only toward their
employer's goals, such as the survival and growth of the company. Any
company would so on go out of business if it permitted its employees to
act otherwise. Similarly, in any enterprise within a socialist system,
workers must direct their efforts toward the goals of the enterprise,
otherwise the enterprise will not serve its purpose as part of the
system. Once again, for purely technical reasons it is not possible for
most individuals or small groups to have much autonomy in industrial
society. Even the small-business owner commonly has only limited
autonomy. Apart from the necessity of gov ernment regulation, he is
restricted by the fact that he must fit into the economic system and
conform to its requirements. For instance, when someone develops a new
technology, the small-business person often has to use that technology
whether he wants t o or not, in order to remain competitive.
THE 'BAD' PARTS OF
TECHNOLOGY CANNOT BE SEPARATED FROM THE 'GOOD' PARTS
121. A further reason why industrial society cannot
be reformed in favor of freedom is that modern technology is a unified
system in which all parts are dependent on one another. You can't get
rid of the "bad" parts of technology and retain only the "g ood" parts.
Take modern medicine, for example. Progress in medical science depends
on progress in chemistry, physics, biology, computer science and other
fields. Advanced medical treatments require expensive, high-tech
equipment that can be made available only by a technologically
progressive, economically rich society. Clearly you can't have much
progress in medicine without the whole technological system and
everything that goes with it.
122. Even if medical progress could be maintained
without the rest of the technological system, it would by itself bring
certain evils. Suppose for example that a cure for diabetes is
discovered. People with a genetic tendency to diabetes will then be
able to survive and reproduce as well as anyone else. Natural selection
against genes for diabetes will cease and such genes will spread
throughout the population. (This may be occurring to some extent
already, since diabetes, while not curable, can be c ontrolled through
the use of insulin.) The same thing will happen with many other
diseases susceptibility to which is affected by genetic degradation of
the population. The only solution will be some sort of eugenics program
or extensive genetic engineeri ng of human beings, so that man in the
future will no longer be a creation of nature, or of chance, or of God
(depending on your religious or philosophical opinions), but a
manufactured product.
123. If you think that big government interferes in
your life too much NOW, just wait till the government starts regulating
the genetic constitution of your children. Such regulation will
inevitably follow the introduction of genetic engineering of hum an
beings, because the consequences of unregulated genetic engineering
would be disastrous. [19]
124. The usual response to such concerns is to talk
about "medical ethics." But a code of ethics would not serve to protect
freedom in the face of medical progress; it would only make matters
worse. A code of ethics applicable to genetic engineering wo uld be in
effect a means of regulating the genetic constitution of human beings.
Somebody (probably the upper-middle class, mostly) would decide that
such and such applications of genetic engineering were "ethical" and
others were not, so that in effect t hey would be imposing their own
values on the genetic constitution of the population at large. Even if
a code of ethics were chosen on a completely democratic basis, the
majority would be imposing their own values on any minorities who might
have a differ ent idea of what constituted an "ethical" use of genetic
engineering. The only code of ethics that would truly protect freedom
would be one that prohibited ANY genetic engineering of human beings,
and you can be sure that no such code will ever be applied in a
technological society. No code that reduced genetic engineering to a
minor role could stand up for long, because the temptation presented by
the immense power of biotechnology would be irresistible, especially
since to the majority of people many of its applications will seem
obviously and unequivocally good (eliminating physical and mental
diseases, giving people the abilities they need to get along in today's
world). Inevitably, genetic engineering will be used extensively, but
only in ways consis tent with the needs of the industrial-technological
system. [20]
TECHNOLOGY IS A
MORE POWERFUL SOCIAL FORCE THAN THE ASPIRATION FOR FREEDOM
125. It is not possible to make a LASTING
compromise between technology and freedom, because technology is by far
the more powerful social force and continually encroaches on freedom
through REPEATED compromises. Imagine the case of two neighbors, each
of whom at the outset owns the same amount of land, but one of whom is
more powerful than the other. The powerful one demands a piece of the
other's land. The weak one refuses. The powerful one says, "OK, let's
compromise. Give me half of what I asked." The weak one has little
choice but to give in. Some time later the powerful neighbor demands
another piece of land, again there is a compromise, and so forth. By
forcing a long series of compromises on the weaker man, the powerful
one eventually gets all of his land. So it goes in the conflict between
technology and freedom.
126. Let us explain why technology is a more
powerful social force than the aspiration for freedom.
127. A technological advance that appears not to
threaten freedom often turns out to threaten freedom often turns out to
threaten it very seriously later on. For example, consider motorized
transport. A walking man formerly could go where he pleased, g o at his
own pace without observing any traffic regulations, and was independent
of technological support-systems. When motor vehicles were introduced
they appeared to increase man's freedom. They took no freedom away from
the walking man, no one had to h ave an automobile if he didn't want
one, and anyone who did choose to buy an automobile could travel much
faster than the walking man. But the introduction of motorized
transport soon changed society in such a way as to restrict greatly
man's freedom of l ocomotion. When automobiles became numerous, it
became necessary to regulate their use extensively. In a car,
especially in densely populated areas, one cannot just go where one
likes at one's own pace one's movement is governed by the flow of
traffic and by various traffic laws. One is tied down by various
obligations: license requirements, driver test, renewing registration,
insurance, maintenance required for safety, monthly payments on
purchase price. Moreover, the use of motorized transport is no lon ger
optional. Since the introduction of motorized transport the arrangement
of our cities has changed in such a way that the majority of people no
longer live within walking distance of their place of employment,
shopping areas and recreational opportuni ties, so that they HAVE TO
depend on the automobile for transportation. Or else they must use
public transportation, in which case they have even less control over
their own movement than when driving a car. Even the walker's freedom
is now greatly restri cted. In the city he continually has to stop and
wait for traffic lights that are designed mainly to serve auto traffic.
In the country, motor traffic makes it dangerous and unpleasant to walk
along the highway. (Note the important point we have illustrat ed with
the case of motorized transport: When a new item of technology is
introduced as an option that an individual can accept or not as he
chooses, it does not necessarily REMAIN optional. In many cases the new
technology changes society in such a way t hat people eventually find
themselves FORCED to use it.)
128. While technological progress AS A WHOLE
continually narrows our sphere of freedom, each new technical advance
CONSIDERED BY ITSELF appears to be desirable. Electricity, indoor
plumbing, rapid long-distance communications . . . how could one argue
against any of these things, or against any other of the innumerable
technical advances that have made modern society? It would have been
absurd to resist the introduction of the telephone, for example. It
offered many advantages and no disadvantages. Yet as we explained in
paragraphs 59-76, all these technical advances taken together have
created world in which the average man's fate is no longer in his own
hands or in the hands of his neighbors and friends, but in those of
politicians, corporation execu tives and remote, anonymous technicians
and bureaucrats whom he as an individual has no power to influence.
[21] The same process will continue in the future. Take genetic
engineering, for example. Few people will resist the introduction of a
genetic tech nique that eliminates a hereditary disease It does no
apparent harm and prevents much suffering. Yet a large number of
genetic improvements taken together will make the human being into an
engineered product rather than a free creation of chance (or of G od,
or whatever, depending on your religious beliefs).
129 Another reason why technology is such a powerful
social force is that, within the context of a given society,
technological progress marches in only one direction; it can never be
reversed. Once a technical innovation has been introduced, people us
ually become dependent on it, unless it is replaced by some still more
advanced innovation. Not only do people become dependent as individuals
on a new item of technology, but, even more, the system as a whole
becomes dependent on it. (Imagine what would happen to the system today
if computers, for example, were eliminated.) Thus the system can move
in only one direction, toward greater technologization. Technology
repeatedly forces freedom to take a step back -- short of the overthrow
of the whole techno logical system.
130. Technology advances with great rapidity and
threatens freedom at many different points at the same time (crowding,
rules and regulations, increasing dependence of individuals on large
organizations, propaganda and other psychological techniques, g enetic
engineering, invasion of privacy through surveillance devices and
computers, etc.) To hold back any ONE of the threats to freedom would
require a long different social struggle. Those who want to protect
freedom are overwhelmed by the sheer number of new attacks and the
rapidity with which they develop, hence they become pathetic and no
longer resist. To fight each of the threats separately would be futile.
Success can be hoped for only by fighting the technological system as a
whole; but that is r evolution not reform.
131. Technicians (we use this term in its broad
sense to describe all those who perform a specialized task that
requires training) tend to be so involved in their work (their
surrogate activity) that when a conflict arises between their technical
work and freedom, they almost always decide in favor of their technical
work. This is obvious in the case of scientists, but it also appears
elsewhere: Educators, humanitarian groups, conservation organizations
do not hesitate to use propaganda or other psycho logical techniques to
help them achieve their laudable ends. Corporations and government
agencies, when they find it useful, do not hesitate to collect
information about individuals without regard to their privacy. Law
enforcement agencies are frequently inconvenienced by the
constitutional rights of suspects and often of completely innocent
persons, and they do whatever they can do legally (or sometimes
illegally) to restrict or circumvent those rights. Most of these
educators, government officials and l aw officers believe in freedom,
privacy and constitutional rights, but when these conflict with their
work, they usually feel that their work is more important.
132. It is well known that people generally work
better and more persistently when striving for a reward than when
attempting to avoid a punishment or negative outcome. Scientists and
other technicians are motivated mainly by the rewards they get throu gh
their work. But those who oppose technilogiccal invasions of freedom
are working to avoid a negative outcome, consequently there are a few
who work persistently and well at this discouraging task. If reformers
ever achieved a signal victory that seemed to set up a solid barrier
against further erosion of freedom through technological progress, most
would tend to relax and turn their attention to more agreeable
pursuits. But the scientists would remain busy in their laboratories,
and technology as it pr ogresses would find ways, in spite of any
barriers, to exert more and more control over individuals and make them
always more dependent on the system.
133. No social arrangements, whether laws,
institutions, customs or ethical codes, can provide permanent
protection against technology. History shows that all social
arrangements are transitory; they all change or break down eventually.
But technologic al advances are permanent within the context of a given
civilization. Suppose for example that it were possible to arrive at
some social arrangements that would prevent genetic engineering from
being applied to human beings, or prevent it from being appli ed in
such a ways as to threaten freedom and dignity. Still, the technology
would remain waiting. Sooner or later the social arrangement would
break down. Probably sooner, given that pace of change in our society.
Then genetic engineering would begin to i nvade our sphere of freedom,
and this invasion would be irreversible (short of a breakdown of
technological civilization itself). Any illusions about achieving
anything permanent through social arrangements should be dispelled by
what is currently happeni ng with environmental legislation. A few
years ago it seemed that there were secure legal barriers preventing at
least SOME of the worst forms of environmental degradation. A change in
the political wind, and those barriers begin to crumble.
134. For all of the foregoing reasons, technology is
a more powerful social force than the aspiration for freedom. But this
statement requires an important qualification. It appears that during
the next several decades the industrial-technological syst em will be
undergoing severe stresses due to economic and environmental problems,
and especially due to problems of human behavior (alienation,
rebellion, hostility, a variety of social and psychological
difficulties). We hope that the stresses through wh ich the system is
likely to pass will cause it to break down, or at least weaken it
sufficiently so that a revolution occurs and is successful, then at
that particular moment the aspiration for freedom will have proved more
powerful than technology.
135. In paragraph 125 we used an analogy of a weak
neighbor who is left destitute by a strong neighbor who takes all his
land by forcing on him a series of compromises. But suppose now that
the strong neighbor gets sick, so that he is unable to defend himself.
The weak neighbor can force the strong one to give him his land back,
or he can kill him. If he lets the strong man survive and only forces
him to give his land back, he is a fool, because when the strong man
gets well he will again take all the land for himself. The only
sensible alternative for the weaker man is to kill the strong one while
he has the chance. In the same way, while the industrial system is sick
we must destroy it. If we compromise with it and let it recover from
its sickness, i t will eventually wipe out all of our freedom.
SIMPLER SOCIAL
PROBLEMS HAVE PROVED INTRACTABLE
136. If anyone still imagines that it would be
possible to reform the system in such a way as to protect freedom from
technology, let him consider how clumsily and for the most part
unsuccessfully our society has dealt with other social problems that a
re far more simple and straightforward. Among other things, the system
has failed to stop environmental degradation, political corruption,
drug trafficking or domestic abuse.
137. Take our environmental problems, for example.
Here the conflict of values is straightforward: economic expedience now
versus saving some of our natural resources for our grandchildren [22]
But on this subject we get only a lot of blather and obfus cation from
the people who have power, and nothing like a clear, consistent line of
action, and we keep on piling up environmental problems that our
grandchildren will have to live with. Attempts to resolve the
environmental issue consist of struggles and compromises between
different factions, some of which are ascendant at one moment, others
at another moment. The line of struggle changes with the shifting
currents of public opinion. This is not a rational process, or is it
one that is likely to lead to a timely and successful solution to the
problem. Major social problems, if they get "solved" at all, are rarely
or never solved through any rational, comprehensive plan. They just
work themselves out through a process in which various competing groups
pu rsing their own usually short-term) self-interest [23] arrive
(mainly by luck) at some more or less stable modus vivendi. In fact,
the principles we formulated in paragraphs 100-106 make it seem
doubtful that rational, long-term social planning can EVER b e
successful. 138. Thus it is clear that the human race has at best a
very limited capacity for solving even relatively straightforward
social problems. How then is it going to solve the far more difficult
and subtle problem of reconciling freedom with technology? Te chnology
presents clear-cut material advantages, whereas freedom is an
abstraction that means different things to different people, and its
loss is easily obscured by propaganda and fancy talk.
139. And note this important difference: It is
conceivab le that our environmental problems (for example) may some day
be settled through a rational, comprehensive plan, but if this happens
it will be only because it is in the long-term interest of the system
to solve these problems. But it is NOT in the inter est of the system
to preserve freedom or small-group autonomy. On the contrary, it is in
the interest of the system to bring human behavior under control to the
greatest possible extent. <24> Thus, while practical
considerations may eventually force the s ystem to take a rational,
prudent approach to environmental problems, equally practical
considerations will force the system to regulate human behavior ever
more closely (preferably by indirect means that will disguise the
encroachment on freedom.) This isn't just our opinion. Eminent social
scientists (e.g. James Q. Wilson) have stressed the importance of
"socializing" people more effectively.
REVOLUTION IS
EASIER THAN REFORM
140. We hope we have convinced the reader that the
system cannot be reformed in a such a way as to reconcile freedom with
technology. The only way out is to dispense with the industrial-tech
nological system altogether. This implies revolution, not necessarily
an armed uprising, but certainly a radical and fundamental change in
the nature of society.
141. People tend to assume that because a revolution
involves a much greater change than reform does, it is more difficult
to bring about than reform is. Actually, under certain circumstances
revolution is much easier than reform. The reason is that a
revolutionary movement can inspire an intensity of commitment that a
reform movement cann ot inspire. A reform movement merely offers to
solve a particular social problem A revolutionary movement offers to
solve all problems at one stroke and create a whole new world; it
provides the kind of ideal for which people will take great risks and
ma ke great sacrifices. For this reasons it would be much easier to
overthrow the whole technological system than to put effective,
permanent restraints on the development of application of any one
segment of technology, such as genetic engineering, but unde r suitable
conditions large numbers of people may devote themselves passionately
to a revolution against the industrial-technological system. As we
noted in paragraph 132, reformers seeking to limite certain aspects of
technology would be working to avoid a negative outcome. But
revolutionaries work to gain a powerful reward -- fulfillment of their
revolutionary vision -- and therefore work harder and more persistently
than reformers do.
142. Reform is always restrainde by the fear of
painful conseque nces if changes go too far. But once a revolutionary
fever has taken hold of a society, people are willing to undergo
unlimited hardships for the sake of their revolution. This was clearly
shown in the French and Russian Revolutions. It may be that in su ch
cases only a minority of the population is really committed to the
revolution, but this minority is sufficiently large and active so that
it becomes the dominant force in society. We will have more to say
about revolution in paragraphs 180-205.
CONTROL OF HUMAN
BEHAVIOR
143. Since the beginning of civilization, organized
societies have had to put pressures on human beings of the sake of the
functioning of the social organism. The kinds of pressures vary greatly
from on e society to another. Some of the pressures are physical (poor
diet, excessive labor, environmental pollution), some are psychological
(noise, crowding, forcing humans behavior into the mold that society
requires). In the past, human nature has been appro ximately constant,
or at any rate has varied only within certain bounds. Consequently,
societies have been able to push people only up to certain limits. When
the limit of human endurance has been passed, things start going rong:
rebellion, or crime, or c orruption, or evasion of work, or depression
and other mental problems, or an elevated death rate, or a declining
birth rate or something else, so that either the society breaks down,
or its functioning becomes too inefficient and it is (quickly or gradua
lly, through conquest, attrition or evolution) replaces by some more
efficient form of society. [25]
144. Thus human nature has in the past put certain
limits on the development of societies. People coud be pushed only so
far and no farther. But to day this may be changing, because modern
technology is developing way of modifying human beings.
145. Imagine a society that subjects people to
conditions that amke them terribley unhappy, then gives them the drugs
to take away their unhappiness. Scien ce fiction? It is already
happening to some extent in our own society. It is well known that the
rate of clinical depression had been greatly increasing in recent
decades. We believe that this is due to disruption fo the power
process, as explained in par agraphs 59-76. But even if we are wrong,
the increasing rate of depression is certainly the result of SOME
conditions that exist in today's society. Instead of removing the
conditions that make people depressed, modern society gives them
antidepressant dr ugs. In effect, antidepressants area a means of
modifying an individual's internal state in such a way as to enable him
to toelrate social conditions that he would otherwise find intolerable.
(Yes, we know that depression is often of purely genetic origin . We
are referring here to those cases in which environment plays the
predominant role.)
146. Drugs that affect the mind are only one example
of the methods of controlling human behavior that modern society is
developing. Let us look at some of the ot her methods.
147. To start with, there are the techniques of
surveillance. Hidden video cameras are now used in most stores and in
many other places, computers are used to collect and process vast
amounts of information about individuals. Information so obtained
greatly increases the effectiveness of physical coercion (i.e., law
enforcement).[26] Then there are the methods of propaganda, for which
the mass communication media provide effective vehicles. Efficient
techniques have been developed for win ning elections, selling
products, influencing public opinion. The entertainment industry serves
as an important psychological tool of the system, possibly even when it
is dishing out large amounts of sex and violence. Entertainment
provides modern man wi th an essential means of escape. While absorbed
in television, videos, etc., he can forget stress, anxiety,
frustration, dissatisfaction. Many primitive peoples, when they don't
have work to do, are quite content to sit for hours at a time doing
nothing a t all, because they are at peace with themselves and their
world. But most modern people must be contantly occupied or
entertained, otherwise the get "bored," i.e., they get fidgety, uneasy,
irritable.
148. Other techniques strike deeper that the fore
going. Education is no longer a simple affair of paddling a kid's
behind when he doesn't know his lessons and patting him on the head
when he does know them. It is becoming a scientific technique for
controlling the child's development. Sylvan Learning Ce nters, for
example, have had great success in motivating children to study, and
psychological techniques are also used with more or less success in
many conventional schools. "Parenting" techniques that are taught to
parents are designed to make children accept fundamental values of the
system and behave in ways that the system finds desirable. "Mental
health" programs, "intervention" techniques, psychotherapy and so forth
are ostensibly designed to benefit individuals, but in practice they
usually serve as methods for inducing individuals to think and behave
as the system requires. (There is no contradiction here; an individual
whose attitudes or behavior bring him into conflict with the system is
up against a force that is too powerful for him to conque r or escape
from, hence he is likely to suffer from stress, frustration, defeat.
His path will be much easier if he thinks and behaves as the system
requires. In that sense the system is acting for the benefit of the
individual when it brainwashes him int o conformity.) Child abuse in
its gross and obvious forms is disapproved in most if not all cultures.
Tormenting a child for a trivial reason or no reason at all is
something that appalls almost everyone. But many psychologists
interpret the concept of ab use much more broadly. Is spanking, when
used as part of a rational and consistent system of discipline, a form
of abuse? The question will ultimately be decided by whether or not
spanking tends to produce behavior that makes a person fit in well with
the existing system of society. In practice, the word "abuse" tends to
be interpreted to include any method of child-rearing that produces
behavior inconvenient for the system. Thus, when they go beyond the
prevention of obvious, senseless cruelty, programs for preventing
"child abuse" are directed toward the control of human behavior of the
system.
149. Presumably, research will continue to increas
the effectiveness of psychological techniques for controlling human
behavior. But we think it is unlikely that psychological techniques
alone will be sufficient to adjust human beings to the kind of society
that technology is creating. Biological methods probably will have to
be used. We have already mentiond the use of drugs in this connection.
Neurology may provide other avenues of modifying the human mind.
Genetic engineering of human beings is already beginning to occur in
the form of "gene therapy," and there is no reason to assume the such
methods will not eventually be used to modify those aspects of t he
body that affect mental funtioning.
150. As we mentioned in paragraph 134, industrial
society seems likely to be entering a period of severe stress, due in
part to problems of human behavior and in part to economic and
environmental problems. And a considerable proportion of the system's
economic and environmental problems result from the way human beings
behave. Alienation, low self-esteem, depression, hostility, rebellion;
children who won't study, youth gangs, illegal drug use, rape, child
abuse , other crimes, unsafe sex, teen pregnancy, population growth,
political corruption, race hatred, ethnic rivalry, bitter ideological
conflict (i.e., pro-choice vs. pro-life), political extremism,
terrorism, sabotage, anti-government groups, hate groups. A ll these
threaten the very survival of the system. The system will be FORCED to
use every practical means of controlling human behavior.
151. The social disruption that we see today is
certainly not the result of mere chance. It can only be a result f o
the conditions of life that the system imposes on people. (We have
argued that the most important of these conditions is disruption of the
power process.) If the systems succeeds in imposing sufficient control
over human behavior to assure itw own survi val, a new watershed in
human history will have passed. Whereas formerly the limits of human
endurance have imposed limits on the development of societies (as we
explained in paragraphs 143, 144), industrial-technological society
will be able to pass thos e limits by modifying human beings, whether
by psychological methods or biological methods or both. In the future,
social systems will not be adjusted to suit the needs of human beings.
Instead, human being will be adjusted to suit the needs of the system .
[27] 152. Generally speaking, technological control
over human behavior will probably not be introduced with a totalitarian
intention or even through a conscious desire to restrict human freedom.
[28] Each new step in the assertion of control over th e human mind
will be taken as a rational response to a problem that faces society,
such as curing alcoholism, reducing the crime rate or inducing young
people to study science and engineering. In many cases, there will be
humanitarian justification. For e xample, when a psychiatrist
prescribes an anti-depressant for a depressed patient, he is clearly
doing that individual a favor. It would be inhumane to withhold the
drug from someone who needs it. When parents send their children to
Sylvan Learning Center s to have them manipulated into becoming
enthusiastic about their studies, they do so from concern for their
children's welfare. It may be that some of these parents wish that one
didn't have to have specialized training to get a job and that their
kid di dn't have to be brainwashed into becoming a computer nerd. But
what can they do? They can't change society, and their child may be
unemployable if he doesn't have certain skills. So they send him to
Sylvan.
153. Thus control over human behavior will b e
introduced not by a calculated decision of the authorities but through
a process of social evolution (RAPID evolution, however). The process
will be impossible to resist, because each advance, considered by
itself, will appear to be beneficial, or at le ast the evil involved in
making the advance will appear to be beneficial, or at least the evil
involved in making the advance will seem to be less than that which
would result from not making it (see paragraph 127). Propaganda for
example is used for many good purposes, such as discouraging child
abuse or race hatred. [14] Sex education is obviously useful, yet the
effect of sex education (to the extent that it is successful) is to
take the shaping of sexual attitudes away from the family and put it
into the hands of the state as represented by the public school system.
154. Suppose a biological trait is discovered that
increases the likelihood that a child will grow up to be a criminal and
suppose some sort of gene therapy can remove this trait. [29] Of course
most parents whose children possess the trait will have them undergo
the therapy. It would be inhumane to do otherwise, since the child
would probably have a miserable life if he grew up to be a criminal.
But many or most primitive societies ha ve a low crime rate in
comparison with that of our society, even though they have neither
high-tech methods of child-rearing nor harsh systems of punishment.
Since there is no reason to suppose that more modern men than primitive
men have innate predatory tendencies, the high crime rate of our
society must be due to the pressures that modern conditions put on
people, to which many cannot or will not adjust. Thus a treatment
designed to remove potential criminal tendencies is at least in part a
way of re-e ngineering people so that they suit the requirements of the
system.
155. Our society tends to regard as a "sickness" any
mode of thought or behavior that is inconvenient for the system, and
this is plausible because when an individual doesn't fit into the
system it causes pain to the individual as well as problems for the
system. Thus the manipulation of an individual to adjust him to the
system is seen as a "cure" for a "sickness" and therefore as good.
156. In paragraph 127 we pointed out that i f the
use of a new item of technology is INITIALLY optional, it does not
necessarily REMAIN optional, because the new technology tends to change
society in such a way that it becomes difficult or impossible for an
individual to function without using that technology. This applies also
to the technology of human behavior. In a world in which most children
are put through a program to make them enthusiastic about studying, a
parent will almost be forced to put his kid through such a program,
because if he d oes not, then the kid will grow up to be, comparatively
speaking, an ignoramus and therefore unemployable. Or suppose a
biological treatment is discovered that, without undesirable
side-effects, will greatly reduce the psychological stress from which
so m any people suffer in our society. If large numbers of people
choose to undergo the treatment, then the general level of stress in
society will be reduced, so that it will be possible for the system to
increase the stress-producing pressures. In fact, some thing like this
seems to have happened already with one of our society's most important
psychological tools for enabling people to reduce (or at least
temporarily escape from) stress, namely, mass entertainment (see
paragraph 147). Our use of mass enterta inment is "optional": No law
requires us to watch television, listen to the radio, read magazines.
Yet mass entertainment is a means of esc