arkotik

Member since: 01.2.06
Topics: 2
Replies: 13
view gallery contributions
view blackbook contributions

1. The Industrial Revolution and its consequences have been a disaster\par for the human race. They have greatly increased the life-expectancy of\par those of us who live in "advanced" countries, but they have\par destabilized society, have made life unfulfilling, have subjected\par human beings to indignities, have led to widespread psychological\par suffering (in the Third World to physical suffering as well) and have\par inflicted severe damage on the natural world. The continued\par development of technology will worsen the situation. It will certainly\par subject human beings to greater indignities and inflict greater damage\par on the natural world, it will probably lead to greater social\par disruption and psychological suffering, and it may lead to increased\par physical suffering even in "advanced" countries.\par \par 2. The industrial-technological system may survive or it may break\par down. If it survives, it MAY eventually achieve a low level of\par physical and psychological suffering, but only after passing through a\par long and very painful period of adjustment and only at the cost of\par permanently reducing human beings and many other living organisms to\par engineered products and mere cogs in the social machine. Furthermore,\par if the system survives, the consequences will be inevitable: There is\par no way of reforming or modifying the system so as to prevent it from\par depriving people of dignity and autonomy.\par \par 3. If the system breaks down the consequences will still be very\par painful. But the bigger the system grows the more disastrous the\par results of its breakdown will be, so if it is to break down it had\par best break down sooner rather than later.\par \par 4. We therefore advocate a revolution against the industrial system.\par This revolution may or may not make use of violence: it may be sudden\par or it may be a relatively gradual process spanning a few decades. We\par can't predict any of that. But we do outline in a very general way the\par measures that those who hate the industrial system should take in\par order to prepare the way for a revolution against that form of\par society. This is not to be a POLITICAL revolution. Its object will be\par to overthrow not governments but the economic and technological basis\par of the present society.\par \par 5. In this article we give attention to only some of the negative\par developments that have grown out of the industrial-technological\par system. Other such developments we mention only briefly or ignore\par altogether. This does not mean that we regard these other developments\par as unimportant. For practical reasons we have to confine our\par discussion to areas that have received insufficient public attention\par or in which we have something new to say. For example, since there are\par well-developed environmental and wilderness movements, we have written\par very little about environmental degradation or the destruction of wild\par nature, even though we consider these to be highly important.\par \par THE PSYCHOLOGY OF MODERN LEFTISM\par \par \par \par 6. Almost everyone will agree that we live in a deeply troubled\par society. One of the most widespread manifestations of the craziness of\par our world is leftism, so a discussion of the psychology of leftism can\par serve as an introduction to the discussion of the problems of modern\par society in general.\par \par 7. But what is leftism? During the first half of the 20th century\par leftism could have been practically identified with socialism. Today\par the movement is fragmented and it is not clear who can properly be\par called a leftist. When we speak of leftists in this article we have in\par mind mainly socialists, collectivists, "politically correct" types,\par feminists, gay and disability activists, animal rights activists and\par the like. But not everyone who is associated with one of these\par movements is a leftist. What we are trying to get at in discussing\par leftism is not so much a movement or an ideology as a psychological\par type, or rather a collection of related types. Thus, what we mean by\par "leftism" will emerge more clearly in the course of our discussion of\par leftist psychology (Also, see paragraphs 227-230.)\par \par 8. Even so, our conception of leftism will remain a good deal less\par clear than we would wish, but there doesn't seem to be any remedy for\par this. All we are trying to do is indicate in a rough and approximate\par way the two psychological tendencies that we believe are the main\par driving force of modern leftism. We by no means claim to be telling\par the WHOLE truth about leftist psychology. Also, our discussion is\par meant to apply to modern leftism only. We leave open the question of\par the extent to which our discussion could be applied to the leftists of\par the 19th and early 20th century.\par \par 9. The two psychological tendencies that underlie modern leftism we\par call "feelings of inferiority" and "oversocialization." Feelings of\par inferiority are characteristic of modern leftism as a whole, while\par oversocialization is characteristic only of a certain segment of\par modern leftism; but this segment is highly influential.\par \par FEELINGS OF INFERIORITY\par \par \par \par 10. By "feelings of inferiority" we mean not only inferiority feelings\par in the strictest sense but a whole spectrum of related traits: low\par self-esteem, feelings of powerlessness, depressive tendencies,\par defeatism, guilt, self-hatred, etc. We argue that modern leftists tend\par to have such feelings (possibly more or less repressed) and that these\par feelings are decisive in determining the direction of modern leftism.\par \par 11. When someone interprets as derogatory almost anything that is said\par about him (or about groups with whom he identifies) we conclude that\par he has inferiority feelings or low self-esteem. This tendency is\par pronounced among minority rights advocates, whether or not they belong\par to the minority groups whose rights they defend. They are\par hypersensitive about the words used to designate minorities. The terms\par "negro," "oriental," "handicapped" or "chick" for an African, an\par Asian, a disabled person or a woman originally had no derogatory\par connotation. "Broad" and "chick" were merely the feminine equivalents\par of "guy," "dude" or "fellow." The negative connotations have been\par attached to these terms by the activists themselves. Some animal\par rights advocates have gone so far as to reject the word "pet" and\par insist on its replacement by "animal companion." Leftist\par anthropologists go to great lengths to avoid saying anything about\par primitive peoples that could conceivably be interpreted as negative.\par They want to replace the word "primitive" by "nonliterate." They seem\par almost paranoid about anything that might suggest that any primitive\par culture is inferior to our own. (We do not mean to imply that\par primitive cultures ARE inferior to ours. We merely point out the\par hypersensitivity of leftish anthropologists.)\par \par 12. Those who are most sensitive about "politically incorrect"\par terminology are not the average black ghetto-dweller, Asian immigrant,\par abused woman or disabled person, but a minority of activists, many of\par whom do not even belong to any "oppressed" group but come from\par privileged strata of society. Political correctness has its stronghold\par among university professors, who have secure employment with\par comfortable salaries, and the majority of whom are heterosexual, white\par males from middle-class families.\par \par 13. Many leftists have an intense identification with the problems of\par groups that have an image of being weak (women), defeated (American\par Indians), repellent (homosexuals), or otherwise inferior. The leftists\par themselves feel that these groups are inferior. They would never admit\par it to themselves that they have such feelings, but it is precisely\par because they do see these groups as inferior that they identify with\par their problems. (We do not suggest that women, Indians, etc., ARE\par inferior; we are only making a point about leftist psychology).\par \par 14. Feminists are desperately anxious to prove that women are as\par strong as capable as men. Clearly they are nagged by a fear that women\par may NOT be as strong and as capable as men.\par \par 15. Leftists tend to hate anything that has an image of being strong,\par good and successful. They hate America, they hate Western\par civilization, they hate white males, they hate rationality. The\par reasons that leftists give for hating the West, etc. clearly do not\par correspond with their real motives. They SAY they hate the West\par because it is warlike, imperialistic, sexist, ethnocentric and so\par forth, but where these same faults appear in socialist countries or in\par primitive cultures, the leftist finds excuses for them, or at best he\par GRUDGINGLY admits that they exist; whereas he ENTHUSIASTICALLY points\par out (and often greatly exaggerates) these faults where they appear in\par Western civilization. Thus it is clear that these faults are not the\par leftist's real motive for hating America and the West. He hates\par America and the West because they are strong and successful.\par \par 16. Words like "self-confidence," "self-reliance," "initiative",\par "enterprise," "optimism," etc. play little role in the liberal and\par leftist vocabulary. The leftist is anti-individualistic,\par pro-collectivist. He wants society to solve everyone's needs for them,\par take care of them. He is not the sort of person who has an inner sense\par of confidence in his own ability to solve his own problems and satisfy\par his own needs. The leftist is antagonistic to the concept of\par competition because, deep inside, he feels like a loser.\par \par 17. Art forms that appeal to modern leftist intellectuals tend to\par focus on sordidness, defeat and despair, or else they take an\par orgiastic tone, throwing off rational control as if there were no hope\par of accomplishing anything through rational calculation and all that\par was left was to immerse oneself in the sensations of the moment.\par \par 18. Modern leftist philosophers tend to dismiss reason, science,\par objective reality and to insist that everything is culturally\par relative. It is true that one can ask serious questions about the\par foundations of scientific knowledge and about how, if at all, the\par concept of objective reality can be defined. But it is obvious that\par modern leftist philosophers are not simply cool-headed logicians\par systematically analyzing the foundations of knowledge. They are deeply\par involved emotionally in their attack on truth and reality. They attack\par these concepts because of their own psychological needs. For one\par thing, their attack is an outlet for hostility, and, to the extent\par that it is successful, it satisfies the drive for power. More\par importantly, the leftist hates science and rationality because they\par classify certain beliefs as true (i.e., successful, superior) and\par other beliefs as false (i.e. failed, inferior). The leftist's feelings\par of inferiority run so deep that he cannot tolerate any classification\par of some things as successful or superior and other things as failed or\par inferior. This also underlies the rejection by many leftists of the\par concept of mental illness and of the utility of IQ tests. Leftists are\par antagonistic to genetic explanations of human abilities or behavior\par because such explanations tend to make some persons appear superior or\par inferior to others. Leftists prefer to give society the credit or\par blame for an individual's ability or lack of it. Thus if a person is\par "inferior" it is not his fault, but society's, because he has not been\par brought up properly.\par \par 19. The leftist is not typically the kind of person whose feelings of\par inferiority make him a braggart, an egotist, a bully, a self-promoter,\par a ruthless competitor. This kind of person has not wholly lost faith\par in himself. He has a deficit in his sense of power and self-worth, but\par he can still conceive of himself as having the capacity to be strong,\par and his efforts to make himself strong produce his unpleasant\par behavior. [1] But the leftist is too far gone for that. His feelings\par of inferiority are so ingrained that he cannot conceive of himself as\par individually strong and valuable. Hence the collectivism of the\par leftist. He can feel strong only as a member of a large organization\par or a mass movement with which he identifies himself.\par \par 20. Notice the masochistic tendency of leftist tactics. Leftists\par protest by lying down in front of vehicles, they intentionally provoke\par police or racists to abuse them, etc. These tactics may often be\par effective, but many leftists use them not as a means to an end but\par because they PREFER masochistic tactics. Self-hatred is a leftist\par trait.\par \par 21. Leftists may claim that their activism is motivated by compassion\par or by moral principle, and moral principle does play a role for the\par leftist of the oversocialized type. But compassion and moral principle\par cannot be the main motives for leftist activism. Hostility is too\par prominent a component of leftist behavior; so is the drive for power.\par Moreover, much leftist behavior is not rationally calculated to be of\par benefit to the people whom the leftists claim to be trying to help.\par For example, if one believes that affirmative action is good for black\par people, does it make sense to demand affirmative action in hostile or\par dogmatic terms? Obviously it would be more productive to take a\par diplomatic and conciliatory approach that would make at least verbal\par and symbolic concessions to white people who think that affirmative\par action discriminates against them. But leftist activists do not take\par such an approach because it would not satisfy their emotional needs.\par Helping black people is not their real goal. Instead, race problems\par serve as an excuse for them to express their own hostility and\par frustrated need for power. In doing so they actually harm black\par people, because the activists' hostile attitude toward the white\par majority tends to intensify race hatred.\par \par 22. If our society had no social problems at all, the leftists would\par have to INVENT problems in order to provide themselves with an excuse\par for making a fuss.\par \par 23. We emphasize that the foregoing does not pretend to be an accurate\par description of everyone who might be considered a leftist. It is only\par a rough indication of a general tendency of leftism.\par \par OVERSOCIALIZATION\par \par \par \par 24. Psychologists use the term "socialization" to designate the\par process by which children are trained to think and act as society\par demands. A person is said to be well socialized if he believes in and\par obeys the moral code of his society and fits in well as a functioning\par part of that society. It may seem senseless to say that many leftists\par are over-socialized, since the leftist is perceived as a rebel.\par Nevertheless, the position can be defended. Many leftists are not such\par rebels as they seem.\par \par 25. The moral code of our society is so demanding that no one can\par think, feel and act in a completely moral way. For example, we are not\par supposed to hate anyone, yet almost everyone hates somebody at some\par time or other, whether he admits it to himself or not. Some people are\par so highly socialized that the attempt to think, feel and act morally\par imposes a severe burden on them. In order to avoid feelings of guilt,\par they continually have to deceive themselves about their own motives\par and find moral explanations for feelings and actions that in reality\par have a non-moral origin. We use the term "oversocialized" to describe\par such people. [2]\par \par 26. Oversocialization can lead to low self-esteem, a sense of\par powerlessness, defeatism, guilt, etc. One of the most important means\par by which our society socializes children is by making them feel\par ashamed of behavior or speech that is contrary to society's\par expectations. If this is overdone, or if a particular child is\par especially susceptible to such feelings, he ends by feeling ashamed of\par HIMSELF. Moreover the thought and the behavior of the oversocialized\par person are more restricted by society's expectations than are those of\par the lightly socialized person. The majority of people engage in a\par significant amount of naughty behavior. They lie, they commit petty\par thefts, they break traffic laws, they goof off at work, they hate\par someone, they say spiteful things or they use some underhanded trick\par to get ahead of the other guy. The oversocialized person cannot do\par these things, or if he does do them he generates in himself a sense of\par shame and self-hatred. The oversocialized person cannot even\par experience, without guilt, thoughts or feelings that are contrary to\par the accepted morality; he cannot think "unclean" thoughts. And\par socialization is not just a matter of morality; we are socialized to\par confirm to many norms of behavior that do not fall under the heading\par of morality. Thus the oversocialized person is kept on a psychological\par leash and spends his life running on rails that society has laid down\par for him. In many oversocialized people this results in a sense of\par constraint and powerlessness that can be a severe hardship. We suggest\par that oversocialization is among the more serious cruelties that human\par beings inflict on one another.\par \par 27. We argue that a very important and influential segment of the\par modern left is oversocialized and that their oversocialization is of\par great importance in determining the direction of modern leftism.\par Leftists of the oversocialized type tend to be intellectuals or\par members of the upper-middle class. Notice that university\par intellectuals (3) constitute the most highly socialized segment of our\par society and also the most left-wing segment.\par \par 28. The leftist of the oversocialized type tries to get off his\par psychological leash and assert his autonomy by rebelling. But usually\par he is not strong enough to rebel against the most basic values of\par society. Generally speaking, the goals of today's leftists are NOT in\par conflict with the accepted morality. On the contrary, the left takes\par an accepted moral principle, adopts it as its own, and then accuses\par mainstream society of violating that principle. Examples: racial\par equality, equality of the sexes, helping poor people, peace as opposed\par to war, nonviolence generally, freedom of expression, kindness to\par animals. More fundamentally, the duty of the individual to serve\par society and the duty of society to take care of the individual. All\par these have been deeply rooted values of our society (or at least of\par its middle and upper classes (4) for a long time. These values are\par explicitly or implicitly expressed or presupposed in most of the\par material presented to us by the mainstream communications media and\par the educational system. Leftists, especially those of the\par oversocialized type, usually do not rebel against these principles but\par justify their hostility to society by claiming (with some degree of\par truth) that society is not living up to these principles.\par \par 29. Here is an illustration of the way in which the oversocialized\par leftist shows his real attachment to the conventional attitudes of our\par society while pretending to be in rebellion against it. Many leftists\par push for affirmative action, for moving black people into\par high-prestige jobs, for improved education in black schools and more\par money for such schools; the way of life of the black "underclass" they\par regard as a social disgrace. They want to integrate the black man into\par the system, make him a business executive, a lawyer, a scientist just\par like upper-middle-class white people. The leftists will reply that the\par last thing they want is to make the black man into a copy of the white\par man; instead, they want to preserve African American culture. But in\par what does this preservation of African American culture consist? It\par can hardly consist in anything more than eating black-style food,\par listening to black-style music, wearing black-style clothing and going\par to a black-style church or mosque. In other words, it can express\par itself only in superficial matters. In all ESSENTIAL respects more\par leftists of the oversocialized type want to make the black man conform\par to white, middle-class ideals. They want to make him study technical\par subjects, become an executive or a scientist, spend his life climbing\par the status ladder to prove that black people are as good as white.\par They want to make black fathers "responsible." they want black gangs\par to become nonviolent, etc. But these are exactly the values of the\par industrial-technological system. The system couldn't care less what\par kind of music a man listens to, what kind of clothes he wears or what\par religion he believes in as long as he studies in school, holds a\par respectable job, climbs the status ladder, is a "responsible" parent,\par is nonviolent and so forth. In effect, however much he may deny it,\par the oversocialized leftist wants to integrate the black man into the\par system and make him adopt its values.\par \par 30. We certainly do not claim that leftists, even of the\par oversocialized type, NEVER rebel against the fundamental values of our\par society. Clearly they sometimes do. Some oversocialized leftists have\par gone so far as to rebel against one of modern society's most important\par principles by engaging in physical violence. By their own account,\par violence is for them a form of "liberation." In other words, by\par committing violence they break through the psychological restraints\par that have been trained into them. Because they are oversocialized\par these restraints have been more confining for them than for others;\par hence their need to break free of them. But they usually justify their\par rebellion in terms of mainstream values. If they engage in violence\par they claim to be fighting against racism or the like.\par \par 31. We realize that many objections could be raised to the foregoing\par thumb-nail sketch of leftist psychology. The real situation is\par complex, and anything like a complete description of it would take\par several volumes even if the necessary data were available. We claim\par only to have indicated very roughly the two most important tendencies\par in the psychology of modern leftism.\par \par 32. The problems of the leftist are indicative of the problems of our\par society as a whole. Low self-esteem, depressive tendencies and\par defeatism are not restricted to the left. Though they are especially\par noticeable in the left, they are widespread in our society. And\par today's society tries to socialize us to a greater extent than any\par previous society. We are even told by experts how to eat, how to\par exercise, how to make love, how to raise our kids and so forth.\par \par THE POWER PROCESS\par \par \par \par 33. Human beings have a need (probably based in biology) for something\par that we will call the "power process." This is closely related to the\par need for power (which is widely recognized) but is not quite the same\par thing. The power process has four elements. The three most clear-cut\par of these we call goal, effort and attainment of goal. (Everyone needs\par to have goals whose attainment requires effort, and needs to succeed\par in attaining at least some of his goals.) The fourth element is more\par difficult to define and may not be necessary for everyone. We call it\par autonomy and will discuss it later (paragraphs 42-44).\par \par 34. Consider the hypothetical case of a man who can have anything he\par wants just by wishing for it. Such a man has power, but he will\par develop serious psychological problems. At first he will have a lot of\par fun, but by and by he will become acutely bored and demoralized.\par Eventually he may become clinically depressed. History shows that\par leisured aristocracies tend to become decadent. This is not true of\par fighting aristocracies that have to struggle to maintain their power.\par But leisured, secure aristocracies that have no need to exert\par themselves usually become bored, hedonistic and demoralized, even\par though they have power. This shows that power is not enough. One must\par have goals toward which to exercise one's power.\par \par 35. Everyone has goals; if nothing else, to obtain the physical\par necessities of life: food, water and whatever clothing and shelter are\par made necessary by the climate. But the leisured aristocrat obtains\par these things without effort. Hence his boredom and demoralization.\par \par 36. Nonattainment of important goals results in death if the goals are\par physical necessities, and in frustration if nonattainment of the goals\par is compatible with survival. Consistent failure to attain goals\par throughout life results in defeatism, low self-esteem or depression.\par \par 37. Thus, in order to avoid serious psychological problems, a human\par being needs goals whose attainment requires effort, and he must have a\par reasonable rate of success in attaining his goals.\par \par SURROGATE ACTIVITIES\par \par \par \par 38. But not every leisured aristocrat becomes bored and demoralized.\par For example, the emperor Hirohito, instead of sinking into decadent\par hedonism, devoted himself to marine biology, a field in which he\par became distinguished. When people do not have to exert themselves to\par satisfy their physical needs they often set up artificial goals for\par themselves. In many cases they then pursue these goals with the same\par energy and emotional involvement that they otherwise would have put\par into the search for physical necessities. Thus the aristocrats of the\par Roman Empire had their literary pretentions; many European aristocrats\par a few centuries ago invested tremendous time and energy in hunting,\par though they certainly didn't need the meat; other aristocracies have\par competed for status through elaborate displays of wealth; and a few\par aristocrats, like Hirohito, have turned to science.\par \par 39. We use the term "surrogate activity" to designate an activity that\par is directed toward an artificial goal that people set up for\par themselves merely in order to have some goal to work toward, or let us\par say, merely for the sake of the "fulfillment" that they get from\par pursuing the goal. Here is a rule of thumb for the identification of\par surrogate activities. Given a person who devotes much time and energy\par to the pursuit of goal X, ask yourself this: If he had to devote most\par of his time and energy to satisfying his biological needs, and if that\par effort required him to use his physical and mental facilities in a\par varied and interesting way, would he feel seriously deprived because\par he did not attain goal X? If the answer is no, then the person's\par pursuit of a goal X is a surrogate activity. Hirohito's studies in\par marine biology clearly constituted a surrogate activity, since it is\par pretty certain that if Hirohito had had to spend his time working at\par interesting non-scientific tasks in order to obtain the necessities of\par life, he would not have felt deprived because he didn't know all about\par the anatomy and life-cycles of marine animals. On the other hand the\par pursuit of sex and love (for example) is not a surrogate activity,\par because most people, even if their existence were otherwise\par satisfactory, would feel deprived if they passed their lives without\par ever having a relationship with a member of the opposite sex. (But\par pursuit of an excessive amount of sex, more than one really needs, can\par be a surrogate activity.)\par \par 40. In modern industrial society only minimal effort is necessary to\par satisfy one's physical needs. It is enough to go through a training\par program to acquire some petty technical skill, then come to work on\par time and exert very modest effort needed to hold a job. The only\par requirements are a moderate amount of intelligence, and most of all,\par simple OBEDIENCE. If one has those, society takes care of one from\par cradle to grave. (Yes, there is an underclass that cannot take\par physical necessities for granted, but we are speaking here of\par mainstream society.) Thus it is not surprising that modern society is\par full of surrogate activities. These include scientific work, athletic\par achievement, humanitarian work, artistic and literary creation,\par climbing the corporate ladder, acquisition of money and material goods\par far beyond the point at which they cease to give any additional\par physical satisfaction, and social activism when it addresses issues\par that are not important for the activist personally, as in the case of\par white activists who work for the rights of nonwhite minorities. These\par are not always pure surrogate activities, since for many people they\par may be motivated in part by needs other than the need to have some\par goal to pursue. Scientific work may be motivated in part by a drive\par for prestige, artistic creation by a need to express feelings,\par militant social activism by hostility. But for most people who pursue\par them, these activities are in large part surrogate activities. For\par example, the majority of scientists will probably agree that the\par "fulfillment" they get from their work is more important than the\par money and prestige they earn.\par \par 41. For many if not most people, surrogate activities are less\par satisfying than the pursuit of real goals ( that is, goals that people\par would want to attain even if their need for the power process were\par already fulfilled). One indication of this is the fact that, in many\par or most cases, people who are deeply involved in surrogate activities\par are never satisfied, never at rest. Thus the money-maker constantly\par strives for more and more wealth. The scientist no sooner solves one\par problem than he moves on to the next. The long-distance runner drives\par himself to run always farther and faster. Many people who pursue\par surrogate activities will say that they get far more fulfillment from\par these activities than they do from the "mundane" business of\par satisfying their biological needs, but that it is because in our\par society the effort needed to satisfy the biological needs has been\par reduced to triviality. More importantly, in our society people do not\par satisfy their biological needs AUTONOMOUSLY but by functioning as\par parts of an immense social machine. In contrast, people generally have\par a great deal of autonomy in pursuing their surrogate activities. have\par a great deal of autonomy in pursuing their surrogate activities.\par \par AUTONOMY\par \par \par \par 42. Autonomy as a part of the power process may not be necessary for\par every individual. But most people need a greater or lesser degree of\par autonomy in working toward their goals. Their efforts must be\par undertaken on their own initiative and must be under their own\par direction and control. Yet most people do not have to exert this\par initiative, direction and control as single individuals. It is usually\par enough to act as a member of a SMALL group. Thus if half a dozen\par people discuss a goal among themselves and make a successful joint\par effort to attain that goal, their need for the power process will be\par served. But if they work under rigid orders handed down from above\par that leave them no room for autonomous decision and initiative, then\par their need for the power process will not be served. The same is true\par when decisions are made on a collective bases if the group making the\par collective decision is so large that the role of each individual is\par insignificant [5]\par \par 43. It is true that some individuals seem to have little need for\par autonomy. Either their drive for power is weak or they satisfy it by\par identifying themselves with some powerful organization to which they\par belong. And then there are unthinking, animal types who seem to be\par satisfied with a purely physical sense of power(the good combat\par soldier, who gets his sense of power by developing fighting skills\par that he is quite content to use in blind obedience to his superiors).\par \par 44. But for most people it is through the power process-having a goal,\par making an AUTONOMOUS effort and attaining t the goal-that self-esteem,\par self-confidence and a sense of power are acquired. When one does not\par have adequate opportunity to go throughout the power process the\par consequences are (depending on the individual and on the way the power\par process is disrupted) boredom, demoralization, low self-esteem,\par inferiority feelings, defeatism, depression, anxiety, guilt,\par frustration, hostility, spouse or child abuse, insatiable hedonism,\par abnormal sexual behavior, sleep disorders, eating disorders, etc. [6]\par \par SOURCES OF SOCIAL PROBLEMS\par \par \par \par 45. Any of the foregoing symptoms can occur in any society, but in\par modern industrial society they are present on a massive scale. We\par aren't the first to mention that the world today seems to be going\par crazy. This sort of thing is not normal for human societies. There is\par good reason to believe that primitive man suffered from less stress\par and frustration and was better satisfied with his way of life than\par modern man is. It is true that not all was sweetness and light in\par primitive societies. Abuse of women and common among the Australian\par aborigines, transexuality was fairly common among some of the American\par Indian tribes. But is does appear that GENERALLY SPEAKING the kinds of\par problems that we have listed in the preceding paragraph were far less\par common among primitive peoples than they are in modern society.\par \par 46. We attribute the social and psychological problems of modern\par society to the fact that that society requires people to live under\par conditions radically different from those under which the human race\par evolved and to behave in ways that conflict with the patterns of\par behavior that the human race developed while living under the earlier\par conditions. It is clear from what we have already written that we\par consider lack of opportunity to properly experience the power process\par as the most important of the abnormal conditions to which modern\par society subjects people. But it is not the only one. Before dealing\par with disruption of the power process as a source of social problems we\par will discuss some of the other sources.\par \par 47. Among the abnormal conditions present in modern industrial society\par are excessive density of population, isolation of man from nature,\par excessive rapidity of social change and the break-down of natural\par small-scale communities such as the extended family, the village or\par the tribe.\par \par 48. It is well known that crowding increases stress and aggression.\par The degree of crowding that exists today and the isolation of man from\par nature are consequences of technological progress. All pre-industrial\par societies were predominantly rural. The industrial Revolution vastly\par increased the size of cities and the proportion of the population that\par lives in them, and modern agricultural technology has made it possible\par for the Earth to support a far denser population than it ever did\par before. (Also, technology exacerbates the effects of crowding because\par it puts increased disruptive powers in people's hands. For example, a\par variety of noise-making devices: power mowers, radios, motorcycles,\par etc. If the use of these devices is unrestricted, people who want\par peace and quiet are frustrated by the noise. If their use is\par restricted, people who use the devices are frustrated by the\par regulations... But if these machines had never been invented there\par would have been no conflict and no frustration generated by them.)\par \par 49. For primitive societies the natural world (which usually changes\par only slowly) provided a stable framework and therefore a sense of\par security. In the modern world it is human society that dominates\par nature rather than the other way around, and modern society changes\par very rapidly owing to technological change. Thus there is no stable\par framework.\par \par 50. The conservatives are fools: They whine about the decay of\par traditional values, yet they enthusiastically support technological\par progress and economic growth. Apparently it never occurs to them that\par you can't make rapid, drastic changes in the technology and the\par economy of a society with out causing rapid changes in all other\par aspects of the society as well, and that such rapid changes inevitably\par break down traditional values.\par \par 51.The breakdown of traditional values to some extent implies the\par breakdown of the bonds that hold together traditional small-scale\par social groups. The disintegration of small-scale social groups is also\par promoted by the fact that modern conditions often require or tempt\par individuals to move to new locations, separating themselves from their\par communities. Beyond that, a technological society HAS TO weaken family\par ties and local communities if it is to function efficiently. In modern\par society an individual's loyalty must be first to the system and only\par secondarily to a small-scale community, because if the internal\par loyalties of small-scale small-scale communities were stronger than\par loyalty to the system, such communities would pursue their own\par advantage at the expense of the system.\par \par 52. Suppose that a public official or a corporation executive appoints\par his cousin, his friend or his co-religionist to a position rather than\par appointing the person best qualified for the job. He has permitted\par personal loyalty to supersede his loyalty to the system, and that is\par "nepotism" or "discrimination," both of which are terrible sins in\par modern society. Would-be industrial societies that have done a poor\par job of subordinating personal or local loyalties to loyalty to the\par system are usually very inefficient. (Look at Latin America.) Thus an\par advanced industrial society can tolerate only those small-scale\par communities that are emasculated, tamed and made into tools of the\par system. [7]\par \par 53. Crowding, rapid change and the breakdown of communities have been\par widely recognized as sources of social problems. but we do not believe\par they are enough to account for the extent of the problems that are\par seen today.\par \par 54. A few pre-industrial cities were very large and crowded, yet their\par inhabitants do not seem to have suffered from psychological problems\par to the same extent as modern man. In America today there still are\par uncrowded rural areas, and we find there the same problems as in urban\par areas, though the problems tend to be less acute in the rural areas.\par Thus crowding does not seem to be the decisive factor.\par \par 55. On the growing edge of the American frontier during the 19th\par century, the mobility of the population probably broke down extended\par families and small-scale social groups to at least the same extent as\par these are broken down today. In fact, many nuclear families lived by\par choice in such isolation, having no neighbors within several miles,\par that they belonged to no community at all, yet they do not seem to\par have developed problems as a result.\par \par 56.Furthermore, change in American frontier society was very rapid and\par deep. A man might be born and raised in a log cabin, outside the reach\par of law and order and fed largely on wild meat; and by the time he\par arrived at old age he might be working at a regular job and living in\par an ordered community with effective law enforcement. This was a deeper\par change that that which typically occurs in the life of a modern\par individual, yet it does not seem to have led to psychological\par problems. In fact, 19th century American society had an optimistic and\par self-confident tone, quite unlike that of today's society. [8]\par \par 57. The difference, we argue, is that modern man has the sense\par (largely justified) that change is IMPOSED on him, whereas the 19th\par century frontiersman had the sense (also largely justified) that he\par created change himself, by his own choice. Thus a pioneer settled on a\par piece of land of his own choosing and made it into a farm through his\par own effort. In those days an entire county might have only a couple of\par hundred inhabitants and was a far more isolated and autonomous entity\par than a modern county is. Hence the pioneer farmer participated as a\par member of a relatively small group in the creation of a new, ordered\par community. One may well question whether the creation of this\par community was an improvement, but at any rate it satisfied the\par pioneer's need for the power process.\par \par 58. It would be possible to give other examples of societies in which\par there has been rapid change and/or lack of close community ties\par without he kind of massive behavioral aberration that is seen in\par today's industrial society. We contend that the most important cause\par of social and psychological problems in modern society is the fact\par that people have insufficient opportunity to go through the power\par process in a normal way. We don't mean to say that modern society is\par the only one in which the power process has been disrupted. Probably\par most if not all civilized societies have interfered with the power '\par process to a greater or lesser extent. But in modern industrial\par society the problem has become particularly acute. Leftism, at least\par in its recent (mid-to-late -20th century) form, is in part a symptom\par of deprivation with respect to the power process.\par \par DISRUPTION OF THE POWER PROCESS IN MODERN SOCIETY\par \par \par \par 59. We divide human drives into three groups: (1) those drives that\par can be satisfied with minimal effort; (2) those that can be satisfied\par but only at the cost of serious effort; (3) those that cannot be\par adequately satisfied no matter how much effort one makes. The power\par process is the process of satisfying the drives of the second group.\par The more drives there are in the third group, the more there is\par frustration, anger, eventually defeatism, depression, etc.\par \par 60. In modern industrial society natural human drives tend to be\par pushed into the first and third groups, and the second group tends to\par consist increasingly of artificially created drives.\par \par 61. In primitive societies, physical necessities generally fall into\par group 2: They can be obtained, but only at the cost of serious effort.\par But modern society tends to guaranty the physical necessities to\par everyone [9] in exchange for only minimal effort, hence physical needs\par are pushed into group 1. (There may be disagreement about whether the\par effort needed to hold a job is "minimal"; but usually, in lower- to\par middle-level jobs, whatever effort is required is merely that of\par obedience. You sit or stand where you are told to sit or stand and do\par what you are told to do in the way you are told to do it. Seldom do\par you have to exert yourself seriously, and in any case you have hardly\par any autonomy in work, so that the need for the power process is not\par well served.)\par \par 62. Social needs, such as sex, love and status, often remain in group\par 2 in modern society, depending on the situation of the individual.\par [10] But, except for people who have a particularly strong drive for\par status, the effort required to fulfill the social drives is\par insufficient to satisfy adequately the need for the power process.\par \par 63. So certain artificial needs have been created that fall into group\par 2, hence serve the need for the power process. Advertising and\par marketing techniques have been developed that make many people feel\par they need things that their grandparents never desired or even dreamed\par of. It requires serious effort to earn enough money to satisfy these\par artificial needs, hence they fall into group 2. (But see paragraphs\par 80-82.) Modern man must satisfy his need for the power process largely\par through pursuit of the artificial needs created by the advertising and\par marketing industry [11], and through surrogate activities.\par \par 64. It seems that for many people, maybe the majority, these\par artificial forms of the power process are insufficient. A theme that\par appears repeatedly in the writings of the social critics of the second\par half of the 20th century is the sense of purposelessness that afflicts\par many people in modern society. (This purposelessness is often called\par by other names such as "anomic" or "middle-class vacuity.") We suggest\par that the so-called "identity crisis" is actually a search for a sense\par of purpose, often for commitment to a suitable surrogate activity. It\par may be that existentialism is in large part a response to the\par purposelessness of modern life. [12] Very widespread in modern society\par is the search for "fulfillment." But we think that for the majority of\par people an activity whose main goal is fulfillment (that is, a\par surrogate activity) does not bring completely satisfactory\par fulfillment. In other words, it does not fully satisfy the need for\par the power process. (See paragraph 41.) That need can be fully\par satisfied only through activities that have some external goal, such\par as physical necessities, sex, love, status, revenge, etc.\par \par 65. Moreover, where goals are pursued through earning money, climbing\par the status ladder or functioning as part of the system in some other\par way, most people are not in a position to pursue their goals\par AUTONOMOUSLY. Most workers are someone else's employee as, as we\par pointed out in paragraph 61, must spend their days doing what they are\par told to do in the way they are told to do it. Even most people who are\par in business for themselves have only limited autonomy. It is a chronic\par complaint of small-business persons and entrepreneurs that their hands\par are tied by excessive government regulation. Some of these regulations\par are doubtless unnecessary, but for the most part government\par regulations are essential and inevitable parts of our extremely\par complex society. A large portion of small business today operates on\par the franchise system. It was reported in the Wall Street Journal a few\par years ago that many of the franchise-granting companies require\par applicants for franchises to take a personality test that is designed\par to EXCLUDE those who have creativity and initiative, because such\par persons are not sufficiently docile to go along obediently with the\par franchise system. This excludes from small business many of the people\par who most need autonomy.\par \par 66. Today people live more by virtue of what the system does FOR them\par or TO them than by virtue of what they do for themselves. And what\par they do for themselves is done more and more along channels laid down\par by the system. Opportunities tend to be those that the system\par provides, the opportunities must be exploited in accord with the rules\par and regulations [13], and techniques prescribed by experts must be\par followed if there is to be a chance of success.\par \par 67. Thus the power process is disrupted in our society through a\par deficiency of real goals and a deficiency of autonomy in pursuit of\par goals. But it is also disrupted because of those human drives that\par fall into group 3: the drives that one cannot adequately satisfy no\par matter how much effort one makes. One of these drives is the need for\par security. Our lives depend on decisions made by other people; we have\par no control over these decisions and usually we do not even know the\par people who make them. ("We live in a world in which relatively few\par people - maybe 500 or 1,00 - make the important decisions" - Philip B.\par Heymann of Harvard Law School, quoted by Anthony Lewis, New York\par Times, April 21, 1995.) Our lives depend on whether safety standards\par at a nuclear power plant are properly maintained; on how much\par pesticide is allowed to get into our food or how much pollution into\par our air; on how skillful (or incompetent) our doctor is; whether we\par lose or get a job may depend on decisions made by government\par economists or corporation executives; and so forth. Most individuals\par are not in a position to secure themselves against these threats to\par more [than] a very limited extent. The individual's search for\par security is therefore frustrated, which leads to a sense of\par powerlessness.\par \par 68. It may be objected that primitive man is physically less secure\par than modern man, as is shown by his shorter life expectancy; hence\par modern man suffers from less, not more than the amount of insecurity\par that is normal for human beings. but psychological security does not\par closely correspond with physical security. What makes us FEEL secure\par is not so much objective security as a sense of confidence in our\par ability to take care of ourselves. Primitive man, threatened by a\par fierce animal or by hunger, can fight in self-defense or travel in\par search of food. He has no certainty of success in these efforts, but\par he is by no means helpless against the things that threaten him. The\par modern individual on the other hand is threatened by many things\par against which he is helpless; nuclear accidents, carcinogens in food,\par environmental pollution, war, increasing taxes, invasion of his\par privacy by large organizations, nation-wide social or economic\par phenomena that may disrupt his way of life.\par \par 69. It is true that primitive man is powerless against some of the\par things that threaten him; disease for example. But he can accept the\par risk of disease stoically. It is part of the nature of things, it is\par no one's fault, unless is the fault of some imaginary, impersonal\par demon. But threats to the modern individual tend to be MAN-MADE. They\par are not the results of chance but are IMPOSED on him by other persons\par whose decisions he, as an individual, is unable to influence.\par Consequently he feels frustrated, humiliated and angry.\par \par 70. Thus primitive man for the most part has his security in his own\par hands (either as an individual or as a member of a SMALL group)\par whereas the security of modern man is in the hands of persons or\par organizations that are too remote or too large for him to be able\par personally to influence them. So modern man's drive for security tends\par to fall into groups 1 and 3; in some areas (food, shelter, etc.) his\par security is assured at the cost of only trivial effort, whereas in\par other areas he CANNOT attain security. (The foregoing greatly\par simplifies the real situation, but it does indicate in a rough,\par general way how the condition of modern man differs from that of\par primitive man.)\par \par 71. People have many transitory drives or impulses that are necessary\par frustrated in modern life, hence fall into group 3. One may become\par angry, but modern society cannot permit fighting. In many situations\par it does not even permit verbal aggression. When going somewhere one\par may be in a hurry, or one may be in a mood to travel slowly, but one\par generally has no choice but to move with the flow of traffic and obey\par the traffic signals. One may want to do one's work in a different way,\par but usually one can work only according to the rules laid down by\par one's employer. In many other ways as well, modern man is strapped\par down by a network of rules and regulations (explicit or implicit) that\par frustrate many of his impulses and thus interfere with the power\par process. Most of these regulations cannot be disposed with, because\par the are necessary for the functioning of industrial society.\par \par 72. Modern society is in certain respects extremely permissive. In\par matters that are irrelevant to the functioning of the system we can\par generally do what we please. We can believe in any religion we like\par (as long as it does not encourage behavior that is dangerous to the\par system). We can go to bed with anyone we like (as long as we practice\par "safe sex"). We can do anything we like as long as it is UNIMPORTANT.\par But in all IMPORTANT matters the system tends increasingly to regulate\par our behavior.\par \par 73. Behavior is regulated not only through explicit rules and not only\par by the government. Control is often exercised through indirect\par coercion or through psychological pressure or manipulation, and by\par organizations other than the government, or by the system as a whole.\par Most large organizations use some form of propaganda [14] to\par manipulate public attitudes or behavior. Propaganda is not limited to\par "commercials" and advertisements, and sometimes it is not even\par consciously intended as propaganda by the people who make it. For\par instance, the content of entertainment programming is a powerful form\par of propaganda. An example of indirect coercion: There is no law that\par says we have to go to work every day and follow our employer's orders.\par Legally there is nothing to prevent us from going to live in the wild\par like primitive people or from going into business for ourselves. But\par in practice there is very little wild country left, and there is room\par in the economy for only a limited number of small business owners.\par Hence most of us can survive only as someone else's employee.\par \par 74. We suggest that modern man's obsession with longevity, and with\par maintaining physical vigor and sexual attractiveness to an advanced\par age, is a symptom of unfulfillment resulting from deprivation with\par respect to the power process. The "mid-life crisis" also is such a\par symptom. So is the lack of interest in having children that is fairly\par common in modern society but almost unheard-of in primitive societies.\par \par \par 75. In primitive societies life is a succession of stages. The needs\par and purposes of one stage having been fulfilled, there is no\par particular reluctance about passing on to the next stage. A young man\par goes through the power process by becoming a hunter, hunting not for\par sport or for fulfillment but to get meat that is necessary for food.\par (In young women the process is more complex, with greater emphasis on\par social power; we won't discuss that here.) This phase having been\par successfully passed through, the young man has no reluctance about\par settling down to the responsibilities of raising a family. (In\par contrast, some modern people indefinitely postpone having children\par because they are too busy seeking some kind of "fulfillment." We\par suggest that the fulfillment they need is adequate experience of the\par power process -- with real goals instead of the artificial goals of\par surrogate activities.) Again, having successfully raised his children,\par going through the power process by providing them with the physical\par necessities, the primitive man feels that his work is done and he is\par prepared to accept old age (if he survives that long) and death. Many\par modern people, on the other hand, are disturbed by the prospect of\par death, as is shown by the amount of effort they expend trying to\par maintain their physical condition, appearance and health. We argue\par that this is due to unfulfillment resulting from the fact that they\par have never put their physical powers to any use, have never gone\par through the power process using their bodies in a serious way. It is\par not the primitive man, who has used his body daily for practical\par purposes, who fears the deterioration of age, but the modern man, who\par has never had a practical use for his body beyond walking from his car\par to his house. It is the man whose need for the power process has been\par satisfied during his life who is best prepared to accept the end of\par that life.\par \par 76. In response to the arguments of this section someone will say,\par "Society must find a way to give people the opportunity to go through\par the power process." For such people the value of the opportunity is\par destroyed by the very fact that society gives it to them. What they\par need is to find or make their own opportunities. As long as the system\par GIVES them their opportunities it still has them on a leash. To attain\par autonomy they must get off that leash.\par \par HOW SOME PEOPLE ADJUST\par \par \par \par 77. Not everyone in industrial-technological society suffers from\par psychological problems. Some people even profess to be quite satisfied\par with society as it is. We now discuss some of the reasons why people\par differ so greatly in their response to modern society.\par \par 78. First, there doubtless are differences in the strength of the\par drive for power. Individuals with a weak drive for power may have\par relatively little need to go through the power process, or at least\par relatively little need for autonomy in the power process. These are\par docile types who would have been happy as plantation darkies in the\par Old South. (We don't mean to sneer at "plantation darkies" of the Old\par South. To their credit, most of the slaves were NOT content with their\par servitude. We do sneer at people who ARE content with servitude.)\par \par 79. Some people may have some exceptional drive, in pursuing which\par they satisfy their need for the power process. For example, those who\par have an unusually strong drive for social status may spend their whole\par lives climbing the status ladder without ever getting bored with that\par game.\par \par 80. People vary in their susceptibility to advertising and marketing\par techniques. Some people are so susceptible that, even if they make a\par great deal of money, they cannot satisfy their constant craving for\par the shiny new toys that the marketing industry dangles before their\par eyes. So they always feel hard-pressed financially even if their\par income is large, and their cravings are frustrated.\par \par 81. Some people have low susceptibility to advertising and marketing\par techniques. These are the people who aren't interested in money.\par Material acquisition does not serve their need for the power process.\par \par 82. People who have medium susceptibility to advertising and marketing\par techniques are able to earn enough money to satisfy their craving for\par goods and services, but only at the cost of serious effort (putting in\par overtime, taking a second job, earning promotions, etc.) Thus material\par acquisition serves their need for the power process. But it does not\par necessarily follow that their need is fully satisfied. They may have\par insufficient autonomy in the power process (their work may consist of\par following orders) and some of their drives may be frustrated (e.g.,\par security, aggression). (We are guilty of oversimplification in\par paragraphs 80-82 because we have assumed that the desire for material\par acquisition is entirely a creation of the advertising and marketing\par industry. Of course it's not that simple.\par \par 83. Some people partly satisfy their need for power by identifying\par themselves with a powerful organization or mass movement. An\par individual lacking goals or power joins a movement or an organization,\par adopts its goals as his own, then works toward these goals. When some\par of the goals are attained, the individual, even though his personal\par efforts have played only an insignificant part in the attainment of\par the goals, feels (through his identification with the movement or\par organization) as if he had gone through the power process. This\par phenomenon was exploited by the fascists, nazis and communists. Our\par society uses it, too, though less crudely. Example: Manuel Noriega was\par an irritant to the U.S. (goal: punish Noriega). The U.S. invaded\par Panama (effort) and punished Noriega (attainment of goal). The U.S.\par went through the power process and many Americans, because of their\par identification with the U.S., experienced the power process\par vicariously. Hence the widespread public approval of the Panama\par invasion; it gave people a sense of power. [15] We see the same\par phenomenon in armies, corporations, political parties, humanitarian\par organizations, religious or ideological movements. In particular,\par leftist movements tend to attract people