In a Berlin museum, a controversial exhibition entitled “Hitler and the German People” is on display. Well over seven decades later, Germany is still struggling to deal with the events which followed Adolf hitler’s rise to power. His popularity was due to a mix of the economic climate in Germany, his personality, and his propaganda machine. As we can see from recent world history, if people are poor or see themselves as victims of some kind, a leader can take full advantage of their vulnerability and coerce them into believing or doing whatever they are instructed to do.
In general, people are surprisingly malleable. I’ve previously mentioned some of the famous psychology experiments which demonstrated this fact. This episode of a psychology series presented by Philip Lombardo (one of the organizers of the Stanford prison experiment) discusses cult behaviour, and how it can be induced:
Early on in the video, a technique known as thought stopping is introduced. Subjects are taught to exclude independent thoughts in order to conform and submit to a leader. This and other more subtle techniques are used against ordinary people everyday. After watching the video, consider how politicians, media organizations, religious leaders and corporations use the same methods to try to steer our thoughts and opinions. How easily do we turn against other groups of people? How easily are we convinced that we need to buy a new product?
This topic is huge; it concerns the torture of enemy combatants, police brutality, racism, consumerism – the list goes on. Those in control who stand to benefit are well aware of the effects of their actions. If we are to become more than pawns on a giant chessboard, we have to recognize these attempts to control our behaviour. We need to learn to review information objectively. We need to find ways to work together instead of dividing into exclusive groups and looking for a convenient scapegoat. Until we are capable of this, we constantly risk another repeat of the darker chapters of human history.
Friday, October 15, 2010
Friday, October 8, 2010
The Entertainers
There have been several discussions regarding the upcoming Stewart / Colbert rallies in Washington, D.C.. Many of the high profile comments suggest that both Stewart and Colbert are comedians who have no place in politics, or even that they are making a mockery of ‘real’ politicians. Of course, most of those comments come from the US far-right. After all, these rallies are largely in response to Glenn Beck’s Tea Party rally, and he is on the extreme fringe of the far-right.
All three have their own shows on major cable TV networks. Beck works for the GOP-funding Fox News, while Stewart and Colbert have their shows on Comedy Central. Beck uses his own brand of confused logic, hysterics and hate mongering (while selling gold to his paranoid viewers), while Stewart and Colbert use satire to entertain an entirely different yet politically aware audience.
That’s enough about Beck. Let’s look at whether Stewart and Colbert should be holding rallies. Obviously, they are entitled to do so (as is anyone else with the funds and the audience – and the permits).
Should the words of a ‘comedian’ or celebrity be taken seriously? I would raise two points in response to that. Firstly, we often tend to generalize. It is a common method of simplifying decision making but it is inaccurate. The ability to make people laugh does not prohibit the ability to understand politics. In fact, it could be argued that comedians often have a better than average understanding of people. Secondly, many modern-day politicians are in positions of power simply because they have the ambition, influence and/or funding required. They tell people what they want to hear. The famous Kennedy / Nixon debate demonstrated the power of the performance. Kennedy worked his magic and it helped him to win the election. Kennedy had better policies and was a better human being than Nixon, but on that night it was showmanship which really counted.
We seem to be quite fickle when it comes to politics. The personality seems to trump the policies all to often. Should an actor get involved in politics? Ronald Reagan and Arnold Schwarzenegger are two prominent examples (although Reagan may be a poor example of a good politician). There have been several celebrity mayors across the country (Clint Eastwood was an extremely good and well-liked mayor of Carmel).
It’s clear that leaders and potential leaders should be evaluated on their beliefs and personality – on an individual basis. Their profession has little bearing on their suitability.
Why are some many people supporting and planning to attend these two rallies (which were organized at the request of Reddit’s users)? People are tired of the political games. They are tired of the influence of big business in politics and the politicians who support corporations over individuals, and complain about freedom while trying to take it away from other people, or complain about big government while enjoying the benefits of big government. They are looking for honesty and truth, if only for a few hours.
All three have their own shows on major cable TV networks. Beck works for the GOP-funding Fox News, while Stewart and Colbert have their shows on Comedy Central. Beck uses his own brand of confused logic, hysterics and hate mongering (while selling gold to his paranoid viewers), while Stewart and Colbert use satire to entertain an entirely different yet politically aware audience.
That’s enough about Beck. Let’s look at whether Stewart and Colbert should be holding rallies. Obviously, they are entitled to do so (as is anyone else with the funds and the audience – and the permits).
Should the words of a ‘comedian’ or celebrity be taken seriously? I would raise two points in response to that. Firstly, we often tend to generalize. It is a common method of simplifying decision making but it is inaccurate. The ability to make people laugh does not prohibit the ability to understand politics. In fact, it could be argued that comedians often have a better than average understanding of people. Secondly, many modern-day politicians are in positions of power simply because they have the ambition, influence and/or funding required. They tell people what they want to hear. The famous Kennedy / Nixon debate demonstrated the power of the performance. Kennedy worked his magic and it helped him to win the election. Kennedy had better policies and was a better human being than Nixon, but on that night it was showmanship which really counted.
We seem to be quite fickle when it comes to politics. The personality seems to trump the policies all to often. Should an actor get involved in politics? Ronald Reagan and Arnold Schwarzenegger are two prominent examples (although Reagan may be a poor example of a good politician). There have been several celebrity mayors across the country (Clint Eastwood was an extremely good and well-liked mayor of Carmel).
It’s clear that leaders and potential leaders should be evaluated on their beliefs and personality – on an individual basis. Their profession has little bearing on their suitability.
Why are some many people supporting and planning to attend these two rallies (which were organized at the request of Reddit’s users)? People are tired of the political games. They are tired of the influence of big business in politics and the politicians who support corporations over individuals, and complain about freedom while trying to take it away from other people, or complain about big government while enjoying the benefits of big government. They are looking for honesty and truth, if only for a few hours.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
