Andrew Bacevich, ex military, retired with the rank of colonel, thus an officer, and, in my mind, a management elitist by nature, thus someone who long ago bought into the legitimacy of hierarchy, should be someone whose thoughts I would immediately dismiss without much need for fore thought, dismiss as someone with a mental framework, a paradigm, as Thomas Kuhn called it out for us in his Structure of Scientific Revolutions, that would have him see the world through a lens that I find dangerous and distorted, ultimately authoritarian and pro archic. I would expect his words to follow a deep seated ontology that I’d find predictable and distasteful to my deepest sense of independence and free (from) dom (ination).
But that’s not been the case in his writings that Tom Engelhardt has shared with us on his ever outspoken against empire and militarism site: TomDispatch.com.
Bacevich introduces his own piece (Cow Most Sacred: Why Military Spending Remains Untouchable) with a tale of his visit to an annual meeting of Veterans For Peace in Berkeley, CA, a meeting I myself might have been at had I not left the Bay Area fourteen years ago. In it he expresses a sense of openness and appreciation for democratic processes that I would not expect to find in a management mentality. True, it comes with management words that make me cringe, like “rank and file” that echo those management frameworks that look down upon the hordes the management likes to manage, but still the words struggle to speak outward from that self enclosed Machiavellian box to see the possibilities and the values of freedom and liberty embedded in the outward behavior of the minions he’s observing. This paragraph in particular I found noteworthy, even eloquent:
What particularly impressed me was the ability of rank-and-file VFP members to articulate the structural roots of American militarism and imperialism. They understand that the problem isn’t George W. Bush and Barack Obama (and therefore won’t be solved by Hillary or The Donald). It’s not that we have a war party that keeps a peace party under its boot. No, the problem is bigger and deeper: a fraudulent idea of freedom defined in quantitative material terms; a neoliberal political economy that privileges growth over all other values; a political system in which Big Money’s corruption has become pervasive; and, of course, the behemoth of the national security apparatus, its tentacles reaching into the far quarters of American society — even into the funky precincts of the San Francisco Bay Area. There is no peace party in this country, even if a remnant of Americans is still committed to the possibility of peace.
If any of my weekend confreres have occasion to read this piece on the second go-round, I hope that it will pass muster with them. If not, I know they will let me know in no uncertain terms. Andrew Bacevich
I couldn’t have expressed my own vision and ongoing narrative of the structure of our civilized world and its inevitably liberty-constraining format any better. Of course, my vision only begins with this military format. I cannot speak for Andrew Bacevich, whose own history somewhat parallels mine back into the Vietnam era. His was management, mine was not.
My own big wake up to U.S. militarism and it’s relationship to what many are finally recognizing as “empire” came one morning in mid February, 1967 — I’m fuzzy on the exact date, they were all one big blur of days at the time — while I was lying in my “rack” waiting for that sleep jarring moment intended to awaken us all to another day of duty. Reveille. I hated reveille so much that my mind would pull me from sleep, no matter how sleep deprived — and we consistently were… sleep deprived, like adherents to a cult kept from thinking about what cult leaders want us to do for the cause, especially while at sea on Yankee Station — well before its blast so that I could mentally prepare myself for my emotional response. While I was lying there I was going over my past eight months of thoughts about my circumstances.
Unlike many of my fellow military cult members, the day I stepped down off the last step of that bus that had brought us into a Naval boot camp, what I felt through my feet, and saw taking place around me was not a scene where my ritual of passage to manhood was about to begin, but a replication of what I’d recently read in Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn’s One Day in the Life of Ivan Denisovich, and would later read about in his Gulag Archipelago; that is, a prison camp, complete with high razor wire topped chain link fences, uniformed men marching by in frozen faced pain, no doubt from their deeply suppressed personal freedom to express their inner feelings, and everything that the horrors of authoritarian dominance stimulated my inner nature to revile. That was mid May of 1966. It was Cold War, America, and I was about to go help save all of us from Solzhenitsyn’s Soviet Union that was, somehow (out of my pay grade and no doubt security clearance to know the details) extending itself into Vietnam.
I of course had not yet revealed that inner nature entirely to myself, I’d only experienced it in flitting bits and pieces, had read about it from fellow freedom lovers, like Henry David Thoreau, James Baldwin, Albert Camus, and a few others at that meager point in my exposure to the humanly civilized world. I had as yet met very few who actually expressed my own inner feelings and revulsions to this structure of dominance in the way that I felt them. Thus I wasn’t entirely sure that any such real person existed. The writings I’d indulged in were disembodied, much like my own dreams and imaginings. But the moment was a kind of crude awakening for me, nevertheless, and while everything that was to follow was intended to put those awakened sensations to sleep, in my case they did not. Rather they fed my awakening visions, and so I was lying there, waiting for reveille, reflecting, thinking I suppose you could call it, those visions, not necessarily in chronological order, but more in a kind of constantly sorting three dimensional focusing.
So all that is merely the beginning of a long process of exploration though which I developed my own vision of:
a fraudulent idea of freedom defined in quantitative material terms; a neoliberal political economy that privileges growth over all other values; a political system in which Big Money’s corruption has become pervasive; and, of course, the behemoth of the national security apparatus, its tentacles reaching into the far quarters of American society... – Andrew Bacevich
So, while I was lying there, waiting for reveille, going over the visuals of those eight months of impressions, feeling my frustration, my pain from constantly suppressing my deep need for freedom, I suddenly felt an immense sense relief, like a letting go of all that was troubling me, as I thought, what if we all just threw down our tools of war and walked away, all at once? What if we just left, and left those managers, those few elite officers at that top to do their war thing without us? What would they do? What could they do? And then came reveille. But that moment was like an awakening. And I began a new consciousness, I firmly believe, in that moment. I believe that’s how the closure of a rite of passage happens. And each rite of passage that includes a new consciousness becomes more and more refined.
I don’t know where I’d be without people feeding me all this “news” through email. Silence, I guess, or just listening to meditative music and meditating. I’m thoroughly isolated from the media now (intentionally) and I barely have the interest to turn on the computer most of the time. I don’t need a continuous stream of information, because the facts of the situation have been clear to me for years. In this iteration, the DLC chose its candidate, and there was no alternate Obama option this time around to make it seem like a genuine reality tussle. That’s how Bernie got his “revolution” going. People are starved for some election reality, though there never really was any chance for Bernie. Now the Trump phenomenon… that’s another matter entirely.
A few weeks back. I got a tip for a sci-fi novel from the seventies I’d missed. I wasn’t really into sci-fi then, or ever. But it can have some good metaphorical references to work with. The Matrix seems to last. The 1974 novel was The Continuous Katherine Mortenhoe by D.G. Compton. Compton turns out to have been writing in much the same vein as Phillip K. Dick. Don’t know if his was quite as drug induced; I actually found it to be some half way decent literature. Got into the character’s heads.
Amazing foresight from Compton, though. I can’t remember what clues going around then that might have foretold the very idea of books produced and read through computers. Kindle and other ebook formats would not have occurred to me, even though I was getting the news through writing courses that if I wanted to write fiction, good literature was on the way out, and formula fiction would be the future. Really killed my interest in writing that genre as a potential future when I stepped back and saw what was taking place media-wise. I never did get into television as a kid, so I wasn’t really paying attention. But then I began to, and what I saw was the death of the very environment out of which literature would be produced and shared. So I went a different route with my writing jones. But fiction that would be computer produced and spread was the job Compton imagined Katherine would be doing when she got the bad news about her imminent death.
But the most chilling conception was the televised reality notion, out of which, in a variation of that future, a Donald Trump would create his image and draw his notoriety from a continuous reality-starved public of media addicts. The key to understanding the novel and reality television’s emergence as a phenomenon is in the title, with the word ‘continuous’. You’ll have to read it to get it. Today Trump is probably as real to many who have helped put him on this bizarre path to the White House (can you imagine a nation calling it the Black House?) as their own discontinous lives.
So, as to the title of this blog… Looks like another message board site where I shoot up to appease my writing jones is history for me. On the 23 of July, the lights went out, thus the lines from an old country song now echoing in my head.
They left open the option of writing blog essays, to which people could make comments. Not the same as a message board and the somewhat anarchical freedom that abounds in such atmospheres. But I tried one. I discovered it was to be manually read and would have to be “approved” by management before it would be viewed by the public. Eventually it appeared. A small discussion followed. I wrote a second essay.
They killed my second blog piece. They are now giving me the cold shoulder when I ask why. That’s the same treatment I give others — trollish, rude combatants who I want to ignore. It works. They give up instead of taking over my topic. Appears they now have a formula down for complete control of their site. What does that say about the host? The host is a television and radio political talk show figure. What does it say about the concept of authenticity vs hypocrisy? The host himself has become a reality media creation of sorts. And D.G. Compton’s 1974 novel was a good read for me right about now. RH
I’ve been “training” the people in my small local group of associations to accept my help without the measure and objectification of immediate pay. I say things like, if I need help sometime and you can, it goes around, comes around… It’s been taking awhile but they are getting into it. They offer me things now, food, special foods they grow in their gardens. Yesterday I got three really nice shirts I accepted to replace some fifteen year old aging and tattered ones in my closet. It felt like a sincere gesture.
In my review of history, both the fossil record and recorded civilized history, I’m not at all convinced in any measure of certainty that complex society can exist in any form long term. The period of human experiments with civilized order has been estimated to be about 10,000 years. That’s not long term when put up against the geologic time of the earth and its life sharing biosphere. So when I say long term I’m thinking that.
Since we humans began experimenting with civilized hierarchical orders, those all seem to necessarily include attempts to preserve those order with rules we elevate above our immediate human capacity to make sense of our environment in what were once flexible, adaptive and process-oriented ways. Tribal societies may have been more adaptive in that direction. Hunter gatherers were probably the most adaptive groups since they seem to have lasted as a strategy the longest. That is, I mean adaptive immediately with the group’s innate sense of what needs to be done to survive the ever changing environment we are part of…
Anyway, since we began our ten thousand year experiment with complex hierarchy, those various orders have all followed a pattern of growth to inevitable collapse. If the growth of that order were to take down the biosphere and most of the species in a sixth mass extinction, that pattern may end on its own. This could be the last attempt at such an adaptive strategy. Or as one person astutely notices, repeating the same behavior that doesn’t work in hopes it will is the definition of insanity. Mercifully the insanity eventually ends itself.
The biosphere of the planet is in a constant state of change, and we are part of that change. Civilization itself is an attempt to codify the laws of the human world and make them stable in order to keep the human invented institutions ordered and stable. In the process we seem to lose sight of the original intentions of creating the institutions, that is, the underlying intention to create a means of adapting to the biosphere. We shift our adaptive capacities to our institutions while losing sight of the maladaptiveness those institutions tend to involve as they mechanically continue their designed purposes.
As the orders become less sensitive to change, and the people’s discontent inevitably rises, the orders need to be managed so that the humans will continue to follow the rules and keep everything functioning like a giant machine. In that process, society rigidifies and becomes unable to adapt to the ever changing environment. The logic of our species genius to create adaptive technologies now is called upon to serve the forces of conserving the system. The system then becomes its own maladaptive hubristic order. It becomes a malady. Some humans have become so addicted to the malady they will fight to the death to keep that order and impose it on anyone who disagrees. Expressions of that might be the very institutions of policing becoming aberrations of their own purpose, contradicting what’s considered the human-oriented spirit of the laws.
The emergence of anarchism, then, would be a sign of sorts from the whole group that change is needed… not just wanted for selfish reasons but needed for survival. Maybe anarchistic impulses are a deep expression of our collectively suppressed capacity for mutual aid rising from the subconscious of various minds in a desperate effort to help the group as a whole find ways to survive. Anarchistic thought in that sense emerges in hierarchical orderings in various guises as a kind of existential throwback impulse because a number of us realize we are stuck in a system that is not adaptive, at least for us, on an immediate level.
I’ve lost myself in the rhizome-rooted brambles of anarchist thought a number of times through the years. I often set out with one goal in mind and end up lured down tangled, twisting thoughts to find myself somewhere quite different than my imagined goal. But oddly and synergistically I find I’ve connected in some way that I find fascinating to contemplate in one of those “how did I get here” moments.
Like, I set off down this searched list of peter kropotkin influenced and dropped into a Mises Institute nest circa 2011 where I read The Anarchism of Peter Kropotkin. In it I found oddly striking suggestive correlations to the title of Craig Chalquist’s slide show mentioned in a previous post (outliving our ruling institutions). These are really core anarchistic thoughts that connect so many of those who like to identify as anarchists (and amusingly, in an ever contrarian way, contradict the image of anarchism as an instrument of chaos that propaganda has embedded in our social unconscious) even while they may differ in many specifics.
To read the following, it helps to have in mind where Thomas Hobbes fits into modern thought, and how Hobbes 17th century formulations of the human condition, in what we now think of as an Age of Reason tradition, fits into the creation of the modern state that’s evolved with the rise of industrial civilization:
Like all good students of that era (and later eras as well), Kropotkin knew his Thomas Hobbes. Hobbes had written, 200 years before, in the middle of the 17th century, about the conditions that had existed when human beings lived in what he called the “state of nature,” before coercive governments were established. Hobbes described the principal feature of this period as a “war of all against all” and the life of the average human during this time as “solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short.”
This conception of things seemed to be echoed in the language of Charles Darwin’s On the Origin of Species, published in 1859, when Kropotkin was 16 years old, with its talk of how (as George Woodcock summarizes it)
in nature there is never enough for all, and … it is not desirable that it should be, since the most potent force in the evolution of the animal world and of human societies is the struggle for existence within the species which procures the survival of the fittest and thus ensures the progress of the race.
The problem Kropotkin confronted with respect to all this, not long after his appointment to a post in Siberia, is described simply and succinctly in the opening pages of his most famous work, Mutual Aid: A Factor of Evolution, first published in 1902, when he was nearly 60 years old. “I failed to find,” he wrote, “although I was eagerly looking for it — that bitter struggle for the means of existence, among animals belonging to the same species, which was considered by most Darwinists (though not always by Darwin himself) as the dominant characteristic of struggle for life and the main factor of evolution.” What he saw instead was “Mutual Aid and Mutual Support carried on to an extent which made me suspect in it a feature of the greatest importance for the maintenance of life, the preservation of each species, and its further evolution.”
He concluded that
life in societies enables the feeblest animals, the feeblest birds, and the feeblest mammals to resist, or to protect themselves from the most terrible birds and beasts of prey; it permits longevity; it enables the species to rear its progeny with the least waste of energy and to maintain its numbers albeit a very slow birth-rate; it enables the gregarious animals to migrate in search of new abodes. Therefore, while fully admitting that force, swiftness, protective colors, cunningness, and endurance to hunger and cold, which are mentioned by Darwin and Wallace, are so many qualities making the individual or the species the fittest under certain circumstances, we maintain that under any circumstances sociability is the greatest advantage in the struggle for life. Those species which willingly abandon it are doomed to decay; while those animals which know best how to combine have the greatest chance of survival and of further evolution, although they may be inferior to others in each of the faculties enumerated by Darwin and Wallace, except the intellectual faculty.
As George Woodcock notes, this argument is potentially important to anyone who wants to allege that human society, with all its manifest advantages, can be carried on without the “protection” offered by the state. The argument was designed, Woodcock writes, “to show that anarchist proposals could work because they were based on the constants of social relations among beings of all kinds, human and animal.” It was also designed, of course, to put the quits to Thomas Hobbes’s assertion that life in the state of nature was a war of all against all. Perhaps, if life in the state of nature included mutual aid, then there could indeed be a free society, one in which force and the threat of force played no part.
And then the article tangents off in a not altogether surprisingly confused way into some Ayn Rand free market related cult thinking that justifies embedded versions of survival of the fittest with statements like:
In the 1960s, Barbara Branden famously responded, when asked what would happen to the poor and disabled in a libertarian society, that, “if you want to help [those people], no one will stop you.” Kropotkin envisioned a human society in which more than a few would want to help those who were poor and disabled.
Somehow, I suppose, in a tangled array of thought I care not negotiate ever again, that explains the humanistic outcomes of The Virtue of Selfishness. One of which I am convinced is the modern, privately held, for-the-virtue-of-selfish-profit, transnational corporation.
Should anyone want a break from the constant inundation of media images and a chance to retreat into a contemplative word environment, download your favorite free ebook version of Kropotkin’s most famous work: Mutual Aid: A Factor of Evolution here, at the Project Gutenberg site.
In his grand lament for the United States, Empire of Illusion: The End of Literacy and the Triumph of Spectacle, Chris Hedges warns that the U.S. Is in a death spiral. After a savagely moralistic revelation of the dominant propagandized images that fill the majority of American’s media image-blunted minds, he argues that the institutions that rule us profit from the functional illiteracy that feeds a spectacular array of mass media popularized illusions that now pass for what was once a laudable goal: a literate and participatory democracy. He argues that those who still prefer books, and quiet contemplation, combined with thoughtful perception of the world around us over the mass production of techno images, are a minority. While that literate minority can still cope with complexity and separate illusion from truth, the majority retreats from a reality based world into one of false certainty (“there ain’t no anthropogenic sixth mass extinction and there ain’t no anthropogenic climate change taking place”) and magic.
If Hedges’ assessment is true, then that truth may also imply that those who outlive “our” ruling institutions, as Craig Chalquist identifies them in Conscious Apocalypse: Outliving Our Ruling Institutions
will have to rely on something other than luck if they yearn to do so deliberately and consciously. That implies to me that those who become conscious will have to do so by metaphorically “stepping” outside a cocoon of mind numbing mass media images so that they can see the illusions those images create rather than be ruled by them unconsciously. That conscious act, I imagine, will take some individual perspicacity, and, well, courage.
In a June 28, 2015 article in Truthdig, Hedges revives yet another round of those themes of illusion and propagandistic institutional triumph.
Chris Hedges, The Lonely American:
Totalitarian societies, including our own, inundate the public with a steady stream of propaganda accompanied by mindless entertainment. They seek to destroy independent organizations. In Nazi Germany the state provided millions of cheap, state-subsidized radios and then dominated the airwaves with its propaganda. Radio receivers were mounted in public locations in Stalin’s Soviet Union; and citizens, especially illiterate peasants, were required to gather to listen to the state-controlled news and the dictator’s speeches. These totalitarian states also banned civic organizations that were not under the iron control of the party.
The corporate state is no different, although unlike past totalitarian systems it permits dissent in the form of print and does not ban fading civic and community groups. It has won the battle against literacy. The seductiveness of the image lures most Americans away from the print-based world of ideas. The fascination with the image swallows the time and energy required to attend and maintain communal organizations. If no one reads, why censor books? Let Noam Chomsky publish as much as he wants. Just keep his voice off the airwaves. If no one attends community meetings, group events or organizations, why prohibit them? Let them be held in near-empty rooms and left uncovered by the press until they are shuttered.
The object of a totalitarian state is to keep its citizens locked within the parameters of official propaganda and permanently isolated. Propaganda and isolation make it difficult for an individual to express or carry out dissent. Official opinions, little more than digestible slogans and clichés, are crafted and disseminated by public relations specialists on behalf of the power elite. They are repeated endlessly over the airwaves until the public unconsciously ingests them. And the isolated public in a totalitarian society is unable to connect its personal experience of despair, anxiety, fear, frustration and economic insecurity to the structures that create these conditions. The isolated citizen is left feeling that his or her personal misfortune is an exception. The portrayal of society by systems of state propaganda—content, respectful of authority, just, economically secure and free—is mistaken for reality.
Totalitarian propaganda, accompanied by isolation, or what Arendt called “atomization,” makes it possible for a population not to “believe in anything visible, in the reality of their own experience; they do not trust their eyes and ears but only their imaginations, which may be caught by anything that is at once universal and consistent in itself.” This propaganda, Arendt went on, “gave the masses of atomized, undefinable, unstable and futile individuals a means of self-definition and identification.”Corporate propaganda saturates the public, especially a generation wedded to new technology, with these lies. Its power, however, comes from the meticulous study of the moods, prejudices, whims and desires of the public, to manipulate the masses in their own language and emotions. Konrad Heiden made this point when he examined fascist propaganda in Nazi Germany, noting that propaganda must detect the murmur of the public “and translate it into intelligible utterance and convincing action.”
“The true aim of political propaganda is not to influence, but to study, the masses,” Heiden wrote. “The speaker is in constant communication with the masses; he hears an echo, and senses the inner vibration.” Heiden, forced to flee Nazi Germany, went on: “When a resonance issues from the depths of the substance, the masses have given him the pitch; he knows in what terms he must finally address them. Rather than a means of directing the mass mind, propaganda is a technique for riding with the masses. It is not a machine to make wind but a sail to catch the wind.”
Dissent will only be possible when we break the dark spell of corporate propaganda and the isolation that accompanies it. We must free ourselves from corporate tyranny, which means refusing to invest our emotional and intellectual energy in electronic images. We must build what the Russian anarchist Peter Kropotkin called “voluntary associations for study and teaching, for industry, commerce, science, art, literature, exploitation, resistance to exploitation, amusement, serious work, gratification and self-denial.”
Good luck fellow consciousness seekers!
Erich Fromm wrote:
Doubt is the starting point of modern philosophy; the need to silence it had a most powerful stimulus on the development of modern philosophy and science. But although many rational doubts have been solved by rational answers, the irrational doubt has not disappeared and cannot disappear as long as man has not progressed from negative freedom to positive freedom. The modern attempts to silence it, whether they consist in a compulsive striving for success, in the belief that unlimited knowledge of facts can answer the quest for certainty, or in the submission to a leader who assumes the responsibility for “certainty”— all these solutions can only eliminate the awareness of doubt. The doubt itself will not disappear as long as man does not overcome his isolation and as long as his place in the world has not become a meaningful one in terms of his human needs.
Fromm, Erich (2013-03-26). Escape from Freedom (pp. 78-79). Open Road Media. Kindle Edition.
Doubt inhibits action. Does anyone disagree with that?
I raise Erich Fromm yet another question in this poker game of doubt. Can doubt ever truly disappear from the conscious or subconscious mind of a rational, independent thinking human being? I have my doubts :).
The problem that goes with the topic of this thread is formulating some sort of sane policy in complex societies in the face of this psychological human problem of doubt.
When I say we need more peer reviewed studies, on one level I’m talking to that psychological need in humans, and thus human populations, to answer rational doubt where we need to address that rational doubt to come to rational decisions. In the case of complex ecosystems of the planet, both marine and land based, we are talking about answering that need with institutionally-based policies.
Those policies have their own rational systemic features, generally based in institutional rule and enforcement structures, and some of those related to global commons involve relationships between sovereign nation states.
What are some of the ways those relationships are being addressed so that some sort of mitigative action can occur in the case of nation states with policies that allow plundering of the world’s commons that goes on at the expense of us all, while individuals and private entities profit from environmental destruction?
In the realm of scientific peer reviewed efforts to deal with the details of rational doubts, we have macro efforts like the United Nations and their international scientists involved in merely the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Climate change is one aspect of a global systemic ecological meltdown (pun). Much more ecological damage is occurring based on other human causes. Too many to even begin to list them here. The conclusions of the UN’s IPCC macro studies on just climate change are made available on a voluntary basis to United Nations member nations. There is no international regulatory agency nor any means of enforcement to maintain a healthy biosphere for the good of all at this time.
On a policy-making level we have international bodies like the WTO, the World Bank, and we have various trade agreements arising all the time. The latest are discussed elsewhere on this board, often with some alarm on the part of many of us. From my own experience in trying to deal with NAFTA’s formation back in the 90’s, I am aware that trade agreements often work against the individual nation states that attempt to enact regulations to inhibit the plundering and destruction of their commons. The agreements can be used by private corporate profit-making interests to negate a nation’s specific regulation of some kind if it has some effect on an effort to compete profitably with other international profit-making interests. Thus international private interest can legally trump national common interests. As I noted before, there is no international regulatory enforcement system to deal with this problem.
On another level I’m talking about doubts that can impede a concerted need to act before we bring all this complexity down on our heads — if that is even possible. Given the history of complex societies as reviewed by such scholars as Joseph Tainter and others who have developed a field of management study being called complexity theory, we should harbor some doubts about our abilities as modern, complex societies in that direction.
More peer reviewed studies are part of the modern day effort to attack doubt, and mostly the rational doubt that Erich Fromm identified in that prescient piece published in the early years of WWII.
The macro studies that look at the whole of what is taking place by attempting to combine all the bits and pieces addressed by the many micro studies performed by university educated science people in nearly all the modern states keep coming to the same macro conclusions. We are breaking the complex web of life on this planet. I keep looking for studies that don’t, and they aren’t easy to find.
And the problem is, peer reviewed studies that will eliminate doubt take time. Meanwhile we appear to be looking at a potential global, ecological collapse scenario that may require immediate action if what’s left at this point is sufficient to come back without all the feedback loops triggering a thorough ecological collapse that includes the demise of most of the species on the planet, including our own.
Raising subconscious, or irrational doubt, is the grist of modern day propaganda programs. Immobilize the populations and those who can manage the system for their own ends are freer to make decisions of whatever kind. Simply put, remove the democracy factor in the big chess power game. Immobilized populations tend to look to an authority or an authoritarian leadership rather than to their own abilities to come together to address their circumstances and doubts. There is no guarantee that those leadership decisions will be made for the good of all. The history of the collapse of complex societies shows they seldom have been. And that’s especially so in systems designed to achieve power monopolized for the few. Systems like monopoly capitalist systems. Systems like ours.
This is sort of a side discussion to the larger problem, which is: what can we as individuals do about broken oceans and ecosystems around the globe within these larger social systems? We are supposedly gifted with all this freedom from confining systems of authority, but what can we actually do in a positive sense? The issue of doubt comes into that question in various complex ways and at different levels, as does the sense of positivist science, which unfortunately for those who still seek the security of knowing with positive certainty has been pretty much debunked as a possibility now after a century of deep philosophical questioning. For a good overview and summary of the arguments I recommend The Philosophy of Science.
Fromm attempts to describe the social and historical process of how in the past millenium European humans became aware of their individuality during the Renaissance and Reformation periods. With that he sees the rise two distinct types of freedom: awareness of freedom from (passive freedom) many social control factors, and with that goes awareness of how that impinges on a freedom to (active freedom) act for oneself in the newly emerging social system. The deep psychological effect of these freedoms gives way to a realization of individual helplessness and insignificance, and he then goes into describing the intricacies of how people have attempted to escape from these psychological conditions grounded in these two freedoms.
These were new social problems that did not even concern the Anglo and Germanic ancestors during Medieval Times of many who now live the U.S. Fromm connects these two individual concerns with the emerging economic system (capitalism), the class structure, and two of the emerging protestant religions led by Luther and Calvin. I am sure, from the way he introduces the problem, that he did not intend to provide a comprehensive view of everything that was going on. But what he does offer as a kind of explanatory theory, combined with historical processes, is interesting enough as a kind of working paradigm that sets the story line on stage for making sense of social movements preceding his analysis that led to what was taking place around him on the European continent while he was writing in 1941, especially so if we are interested in understanding movements alive today that worry us about the possibilities for the rise of yet another fascist stranglehold on our freedoms that we can be fairly certain will handcuff any efforts to fix what our sciences are telling us are broken ecosystems around the planet.
Fromm does address faith in his examination of the psychological factors involved in what he saw as escape from the uncertainties and ultimately the anxieties of freedom. I don’t know if his various discussions of faith relate to your modern epistemological views. He was examining the twin movements headed by Luther and Calvin and the details of how those helped form the character of what might be called a work ethic that emerged with the rise of capitalism and the release from the somewhat secure structure of belonging that he saw as the Medieval period where people could count on a place, both a social place and a place to be physically throughout their lives without the daily trauma of being responsible for determining that for themselves. Here is a passage where he links love and faith within Luther’s epistemology:
Eric Fromm wrote:
The analysis of ideas has mainly to do with two tasks: one is to determine the weight that a certain idea has in the whole of an ideological system; the second is to determine whether we deal with a rationalization that differs from the real meaning of the thoughts. An example of the first point is the following: In Hitler’s ideology, the emphasis on the injustice of the Versailles treaty plays a tremendous role, and it is true that he was genuinely indignant at the peace treaty. However, if we analyze his whole political ideology we see that its foundations are an intense wish for power and conquest, and although he consciously gives much weight to the injustice done to Germany, actually this thought has little weight in the whole of his thinking. An example of the difference between the consciously intended meaning of a thought and its real psychological meaning can be taken from the analysis of Luther’s doctrines with which we are dealing in this chapter.
We say that his relation to God is one of submission on the basis of man’s powerlessness. He himself speaks of this submission as a voluntary one, resulting not from fear but from love. Logically then, one might argue, this is not submission. Psychologically, however, it follows from the whole structure of Luther’s thoughts that his kind of love or faith actually is submission; that although he consciously thinks in terms of the voluntary and loving character of his “submission” to God, he is pervaded by a feeling of powerlessness and wickedness that makes the nature of his relationship to God one of submission. (Exactly as masochistic dependence of one person on another consciously is frequently conceived as “love.”) From the viewpoint of a psychological analysis, therefore, the objection that Luther says something different from what we believe he means (although unconsciously) has little weight. We believe that certain contradictions in his system can be understood only by the analysis of the psychological meaning of his concepts.
Fromm, Erich (2013-03-26). Escape from Freedom (pp. 67-68). Open Road Media. Kindle Edition.
One kind of faith that we need at the existential level of our daily lives is a kind of attitudinal trust and faith that we will accomplish what we are trying to accomplish, that our physical self will somehow do what it needs to do without the detail of thinking out each movement required. That’s a kind of letting go, a trust, I could call it faith in myself that takes place while mastering a skill. But how does that relate to this other problem of seeing a broken ocean and finding ourselves within complex social structures that bring about a different sort of action problem: the problem of being unable to take part in essentially individually willing large institutional systems to act for what we individually ascertain (I use that word intentionally) to be our best interest? Where does faith enter that scenario, and how?