WAR MACHINE, prelude- The appeal of Western Civilization
“...our analysis of Protestant and Calvinist doctrines has shown that those ideas were powerful forces within the adherents of the new religion, because they appealed to the needs and anxieties that were present in the character structure of those to whom they were addressed. In other words, ideas can become powerful forces, but only to the extent to which they are answers to specific human needs prominent in a given social character.”
-Erich Fromm, Escape from Freedom
To me, these words figuratively leap off of the page. If the Invisible War is a conflict of Ideas which struggle for position in a hierarchy of influence mediated by the technology of human communication, the “fixed point” of which is presently established by the Plutocracy through the dominance of mass media, what does this imply about the needs and anxieties of the character structure of our present society? Has anything changed since the revolutionary ideologies of Calvinism and Lutheranism modified C Catholic doctrine to make it less intelligible to reason and more appealing to emotion? Or have we simply continued falling down that same slippery slope? Certainly, if there is a gutter at the end of such a road, our culture seems to resemble it. The notions of religious tolerance at the expense of meaningful religious debate, racial tolerance with the annihilation of cultural difference, and environmentalism which sees nature as something cute and helpless which must be protected are all pure sentimental crap which prevent us from using our reason.
Character structure, Fromm observes in Escape from Freedom, is partially reliant on external reinforcement. The power of all ideologies comes from their ability to produce material which appeals to the character structure of the people which these ideologies are trying to influence (see the previous Mickey Mouse post for one example of this). As we have seen in our modern democracy, it is hardly relevant as to whether or not the material produced is genuinely representative of the people that produce it. So long as the image and words of a potential leader is associated with materials that appeal to the character structure of the target group, that leader can conduct themselves more or less however they wish without fear of endangering that association. Although a certain extent of transgression can actually politically hurt these figures the fact of the matter is that western civilization is so incredibly cynical about power and leadership that we have come to expect these discrepancies, and assume that they are ubiquitously present.
So what aspect of our character structure is being appealed to by modern western civilization, arguably the most persuasive of civilizations? Without outright coercion, applying only what Focault would define as “soft control” (i.e. presenting an image for people to model themselves on), it has achieved totalitarian dominance over the values and assumptions of the individuals in western societies. Mass media allows for the materials generated by various figures in authority (and if we accept that the image as a form of control, Hollywood must be said to have authority, as well as Washington) to be transmitted on an unprecedented scale, but unless these materials answered specific human needs in the character structure of western civilization, the money simply would not be there to have developed the sprawling empire of images which, for many people, is more real than their own lives.
Fromm asserts, in his closing statements to Escape from Freedom, that human beings fundamentally desire freedom. Because freedom is a necessary precondition to all genuine personal growth, it is a need in our character structure every bit as much as the needs for food, shelter and human companionship. This drive can be repressed, but it cannot be destroyed, and in as much as freedom refers to the freedom TO be what one is in oneself, I would agree with Fromm on this point, although I must clarify myself: It is every bit as much an error to give a kingdom to a shepherd as it is to expect a king to spend his days herding sheep. The shepherd would be a slave on the throne of a nation in exactly the same way that a monarch would be a slave in the field. What one has freedom TO do is defined by one’s own essential being, but I think that it is safe to say that, although this desire might be sublimated for numerous reasons, we all have it.
It is this longing for freedom, a longing to grow and express oneself as a person, a longing which is uniquely and ubiquitously a human longing, that western civilization has generated material to appeal to. This is why the fundamental ideals (if not the practical realities) of western culture have a world-wide appeal. This is the image which the Plutocracy hit on, and I have to admit, as ideas go its a pretty brilliant one. We all desire food and shelter and sex, and appealing to these desires has always been the business of the businessman, since business first existed. But none of these desires, not even the desire for sexual companionship, is as deeply personal as the desire for freedom. It is necessarily tied to our essential Being, our “who we are,” our unconditioned selves.
It is more intimate than sex.
This image has such incredible power over the human spirit because it is, as Rousseau observed, “everywhere in chains,” that it has enabled and legitimized the most massive de facto tyrannical empire in the history of the human race.
-Erich Fromm, Escape from Freedom
To me, these words figuratively leap off of the page. If the Invisible War is a conflict of Ideas which struggle for position in a hierarchy of influence mediated by the technology of human communication, the “fixed point” of which is presently established by the Plutocracy through the dominance of mass media, what does this imply about the needs and anxieties of the character structure of our present society? Has anything changed since the revolutionary ideologies of Calvinism and Lutheranism modified C Catholic doctrine to make it less intelligible to reason and more appealing to emotion? Or have we simply continued falling down that same slippery slope? Certainly, if there is a gutter at the end of such a road, our culture seems to resemble it. The notions of religious tolerance at the expense of meaningful religious debate, racial tolerance with the annihilation of cultural difference, and environmentalism which sees nature as something cute and helpless which must be protected are all pure sentimental crap which prevent us from using our reason.
Character structure, Fromm observes in Escape from Freedom, is partially reliant on external reinforcement. The power of all ideologies comes from their ability to produce material which appeals to the character structure of the people which these ideologies are trying to influence (see the previous Mickey Mouse post for one example of this). As we have seen in our modern democracy, it is hardly relevant as to whether or not the material produced is genuinely representative of the people that produce it. So long as the image and words of a potential leader is associated with materials that appeal to the character structure of the target group, that leader can conduct themselves more or less however they wish without fear of endangering that association. Although a certain extent of transgression can actually politically hurt these figures the fact of the matter is that western civilization is so incredibly cynical about power and leadership that we have come to expect these discrepancies, and assume that they are ubiquitously present.
So what aspect of our character structure is being appealed to by modern western civilization, arguably the most persuasive of civilizations? Without outright coercion, applying only what Focault would define as “soft control” (i.e. presenting an image for people to model themselves on), it has achieved totalitarian dominance over the values and assumptions of the individuals in western societies. Mass media allows for the materials generated by various figures in authority (and if we accept that the image as a form of control, Hollywood must be said to have authority, as well as Washington) to be transmitted on an unprecedented scale, but unless these materials answered specific human needs in the character structure of western civilization, the money simply would not be there to have developed the sprawling empire of images which, for many people, is more real than their own lives.
Fromm asserts, in his closing statements to Escape from Freedom, that human beings fundamentally desire freedom. Because freedom is a necessary precondition to all genuine personal growth, it is a need in our character structure every bit as much as the needs for food, shelter and human companionship. This drive can be repressed, but it cannot be destroyed, and in as much as freedom refers to the freedom TO be what one is in oneself, I would agree with Fromm on this point, although I must clarify myself: It is every bit as much an error to give a kingdom to a shepherd as it is to expect a king to spend his days herding sheep. The shepherd would be a slave on the throne of a nation in exactly the same way that a monarch would be a slave in the field. What one has freedom TO do is defined by one’s own essential being, but I think that it is safe to say that, although this desire might be sublimated for numerous reasons, we all have it.
It is this longing for freedom, a longing to grow and express oneself as a person, a longing which is uniquely and ubiquitously a human longing, that western civilization has generated material to appeal to. This is why the fundamental ideals (if not the practical realities) of western culture have a world-wide appeal. This is the image which the Plutocracy hit on, and I have to admit, as ideas go its a pretty brilliant one. We all desire food and shelter and sex, and appealing to these desires has always been the business of the businessman, since business first existed. But none of these desires, not even the desire for sexual companionship, is as deeply personal as the desire for freedom. It is necessarily tied to our essential Being, our “who we are,” our unconditioned selves.
It is more intimate than sex.
This image has such incredible power over the human spirit because it is, as Rousseau observed, “everywhere in chains,” that it has enabled and legitimized the most massive de facto tyrannical empire in the history of the human race.