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.
Wednesday, September 22, 2010
Disconnected
For decades, the rise of TV and our viewing habits have been the subject of many studies. Some were of course conducted by advertisers and broadcasters, but there has been a great deal of interest from psychologists who have been concerned at the impact of TV on our lives. Technological advances gave us more and more leisure time, but as TV gained popularity, we spent more time in front of it. Of course in moderation, TV retains the potential to enlighten us and enrich our lives, but we often watch bland programming for hours at a time, which erodes the time we have to spend on fulfilling hobbies and interests or with friends and family. We are so accepting of TV that in many cases our capacity for critical thought is diminished. TV as a distracting ‘easy option’ is probably also a factor.
We’ve lived through the supposed threat of 5th columnists in the form of communists and now, we are told, muslims / liberals / socialists (take your pick). What if the real 5th columnist is hiding in plain sight – in your living room?
Watch a few minutes of a movie classic to illustrate my point.
This summer, I spent two weeks without TV. Most of that time was spent without a phone of any kind or an internet connection. This probably sounds like a nightmare to some of you. To be honest, it did take a few days to get used to it, but I felt like I was really living. I took walks, met new people, and spent a lot more time outside. It is hard to deny that TV and our more modern gadgets isolate and distract us. They give us more excuses not to exercise. We risk becoming more divided, more easily manipulated and less physically involved with the world around us. By now, a whole generation has grown up with the internet.
Like TV, there are advantages. These new and evolving tools can make information more accessible, make communication easier or more affordable, and create new jobs and opportunities. However, we have to resist the glow of the screen and the allure of another 100 ‘friends’ you’ll never meet if we are to hold on to our humanity. Without strong communities, respect for our fellow Man and our health, we remain at the mercy of those who want our vote or our money.
Maybe next time you feel like checking your email, take a walk around the block instead (and leave the cell phone at home).
We’ve lived through the supposed threat of 5th columnists in the form of communists and now, we are told, muslims / liberals / socialists (take your pick). What if the real 5th columnist is hiding in plain sight – in your living room?
Watch a few minutes of a movie classic to illustrate my point.
This summer, I spent two weeks without TV. Most of that time was spent without a phone of any kind or an internet connection. This probably sounds like a nightmare to some of you. To be honest, it did take a few days to get used to it, but I felt like I was really living. I took walks, met new people, and spent a lot more time outside. It is hard to deny that TV and our more modern gadgets isolate and distract us. They give us more excuses not to exercise. We risk becoming more divided, more easily manipulated and less physically involved with the world around us. By now, a whole generation has grown up with the internet.
Like TV, there are advantages. These new and evolving tools can make information more accessible, make communication easier or more affordable, and create new jobs and opportunities. However, we have to resist the glow of the screen and the allure of another 100 ‘friends’ you’ll never meet if we are to hold on to our humanity. Without strong communities, respect for our fellow Man and our health, we remain at the mercy of those who want our vote or our money.
Maybe next time you feel like checking your email, take a walk around the block instead (and leave the cell phone at home).
Friday, September 10, 2010
A Matter of Faith
Religion has dominated the headlines recently, and I’m going to try to avoid the story, which I’m sure we are all tired of hearing about (I thought we left book burning in the 1930’s). I’m going to try to discuss religion as objectively as possible.
The belief in a god requires faith. To be a person of faith, by definition, requires a suspension of critical thinking. People don’t question the details of their chosen god. Faith requires acceptance of the basic premise. Religious faith brings several perceived benefits. As far as I can tell, the greatest benefit is a source of comfort. The higher power is deemed to love believers and offer some level of protection, and of course belief in an afterlife is a great source of comfort when dealing with loss or facing one’s mortality. On the flipside, the existence of a demonic force is used to explain the ‘evil’ actions of people. In essence, religion provides explanations for the unanswered questions of life, and alternatives to the harsh realities.
I am more familiar with Christianity than other religions, and so I have a basic understanding of the Bible. I can’t help but notice that many people have differing interpretations of the messages conveyed in the Bible. I’m sure that some of the more dedicated scholars could quote a passage to lend weight to almost any opinion. Some branches of Christianity seem to be divided into Old Testament and New Testament schools of thought. The former is often described as “fire and brimstone”, and is regarded as the harsher of the two. However, even with my minimal schooling on the subject, I do recall that one clearly demands that one should not kill, steal or worship false idols, while the other describes how the main character “turns the other cheek” in the face of hostility and has a particular dislike for money lenders. It seems to me that followers can be quite selective in their reading and indeed their definition of what it means to be a Christian.
To paraphrase a favorite character of mine, we want to believe. We want to have a convenient explanation for life’s hardest questions. Is it possible that the thirst for comfort and simplistic answers is open to abuse? If we want to believe, for example that our leaders do no wrong, and someone in authority makes a fitting statement, are we more likely to accept that without questioning? If a person has believed in a particular religion for his whole life, and someone questions the existence of a god by statements based on critical thinking, that person faces an attack on his or her whole belief system. It doesn’t matter if it makes sense, because everything he or she has believed in and used to makes sense of the world (and don’t forget that convenient comfort) would mean nothing if it was accepted as truth. Denial is a powerful force, and we see it all the time in politics. If the truth is too awful, we can simply tell ourselves that it isn’t true.
Where would we be without religion? What would a world of godless heathens do with themselves? I’m not sure of the answer to that. Clearly religion has been the basis for a great deal of slaughter over the centuries, but humans always seem to find a difference to divide them and give rise to hatred. I believe that a truly civilized society would evolve past such irrational hatred. Currently, we are predisposed to it, and politicians love how easily we are manipulated. The Stanford Prison Experiment and Stanley Milgram’s work demonstrates our capacity to carry out orders and cause suffering. We like to be controlled, especially when the controller allows us to indulge our dark side.
What if we could accept our presence here is fleeting. How many suicides would be prevented if we all knew that (to quote another character) “there ain’t no coming back”. There would be good and bad people, regardless of religion. I think that we don’t give ourselves much credit if we need a religion to form a moral code and know right from wrong. Without easy answers we would be forced to ponder those large, difficult questions, and maybe we wouldn’t be so (okay, I’ll say it) gullible when our leaders talk to us. Maybe we’d have one less excuse to fight, too.
The belief in a god requires faith. To be a person of faith, by definition, requires a suspension of critical thinking. People don’t question the details of their chosen god. Faith requires acceptance of the basic premise. Religious faith brings several perceived benefits. As far as I can tell, the greatest benefit is a source of comfort. The higher power is deemed to love believers and offer some level of protection, and of course belief in an afterlife is a great source of comfort when dealing with loss or facing one’s mortality. On the flipside, the existence of a demonic force is used to explain the ‘evil’ actions of people. In essence, religion provides explanations for the unanswered questions of life, and alternatives to the harsh realities.
I am more familiar with Christianity than other religions, and so I have a basic understanding of the Bible. I can’t help but notice that many people have differing interpretations of the messages conveyed in the Bible. I’m sure that some of the more dedicated scholars could quote a passage to lend weight to almost any opinion. Some branches of Christianity seem to be divided into Old Testament and New Testament schools of thought. The former is often described as “fire and brimstone”, and is regarded as the harsher of the two. However, even with my minimal schooling on the subject, I do recall that one clearly demands that one should not kill, steal or worship false idols, while the other describes how the main character “turns the other cheek” in the face of hostility and has a particular dislike for money lenders. It seems to me that followers can be quite selective in their reading and indeed their definition of what it means to be a Christian.
To paraphrase a favorite character of mine, we want to believe. We want to have a convenient explanation for life’s hardest questions. Is it possible that the thirst for comfort and simplistic answers is open to abuse? If we want to believe, for example that our leaders do no wrong, and someone in authority makes a fitting statement, are we more likely to accept that without questioning? If a person has believed in a particular religion for his whole life, and someone questions the existence of a god by statements based on critical thinking, that person faces an attack on his or her whole belief system. It doesn’t matter if it makes sense, because everything he or she has believed in and used to makes sense of the world (and don’t forget that convenient comfort) would mean nothing if it was accepted as truth. Denial is a powerful force, and we see it all the time in politics. If the truth is too awful, we can simply tell ourselves that it isn’t true.
Where would we be without religion? What would a world of godless heathens do with themselves? I’m not sure of the answer to that. Clearly religion has been the basis for a great deal of slaughter over the centuries, but humans always seem to find a difference to divide them and give rise to hatred. I believe that a truly civilized society would evolve past such irrational hatred. Currently, we are predisposed to it, and politicians love how easily we are manipulated. The Stanford Prison Experiment and Stanley Milgram’s work demonstrates our capacity to carry out orders and cause suffering. We like to be controlled, especially when the controller allows us to indulge our dark side.
What if we could accept our presence here is fleeting. How many suicides would be prevented if we all knew that (to quote another character) “there ain’t no coming back”. There would be good and bad people, regardless of religion. I think that we don’t give ourselves much credit if we need a religion to form a moral code and know right from wrong. Without easy answers we would be forced to ponder those large, difficult questions, and maybe we wouldn’t be so (okay, I’ll say it) gullible when our leaders talk to us. Maybe we’d have one less excuse to fight, too.
Sunday, September 5, 2010
Labor Day
This year, labor Day is going to be a strange one for a lot of people. The official unemployment rate stands at 9.6%, although some estimates put the real figure at more than 16.7%. That would be a minimum of 14 million people out of work - maybe over 20 million. Many of the jobs they've lost are not going to be replaced anytime soon. A jobless recovery is no recovery for those left behind.
For many at the top, especially bankers, business is returning to normal and the bonuses are flowing again. For those at the bottom, final demands and foreclosure letters are all they can expect. Back in 1911, a US anti-capitalist poster was produced, which clearly shows a Communist view of the system. Yet, at times like this, similar viewpoints are difficult to avoid.
More and more, it seems that we are on our own, just as people found themselves on their own after the Katrina disaster. Has globalization and outsourcing resulted in the obsolescence of many of the currently unemployed? If so, this reveals the ugly side of our system.
Happy Labor Day. Spare a thought for those who are struggling.
For many at the top, especially bankers, business is returning to normal and the bonuses are flowing again. For those at the bottom, final demands and foreclosure letters are all they can expect. Back in 1911, a US anti-capitalist poster was produced, which clearly shows a Communist view of the system. Yet, at times like this, similar viewpoints are difficult to avoid.
More and more, it seems that we are on our own, just as people found themselves on their own after the Katrina disaster. Has globalization and outsourcing resulted in the obsolescence of many of the currently unemployed? If so, this reveals the ugly side of our system.
Happy Labor Day. Spare a thought for those who are struggling.
Wednesday, September 1, 2010
The American Dream
Since I didn't grow up in the US, I've often wondered exactly what the American Dream is. I have several ideas, based on my experiences here:
Owning a car
Owning a house
Freedom (along the lines of the Bill of Rights)
Owning a business
Having a family with 2.4 children
Or a combination of the above
It seems to be a difficult thing to define. It depends on who might be trying to sell you a product, and whatever it might be, it is probably being revised to suit our current financial situation. Maybe these days, the American Dream should be having a place to live and a job to support you. George Carlin once famously said that it was called the American Dream because "you have to be asleep to believe it".
So many of our products are sold to us on the basis of what they will tell others about us, or that we will achieve a certain milestone in life, and yet if we think about it, we can see that much of it means nothing. Sure, we can own a car and a house, but if they are not the biggest and best available (or at least better than our friends' or coworkers'), does it really mean that we have failed somehow? Doesn't it just mean that we paid more? We talk about a work/life balance (notice how the two are separate), but do we really think about how much of our earnings, or how many hours of our lives, goes to pay for the latest phone, the more expensive car, the 500sf of our house that we never use, or the credit card and mortgage interest?
Owning a car
Owning a house
Freedom (along the lines of the Bill of Rights)
Owning a business
Having a family with 2.4 children
Or a combination of the above
It seems to be a difficult thing to define. It depends on who might be trying to sell you a product, and whatever it might be, it is probably being revised to suit our current financial situation. Maybe these days, the American Dream should be having a place to live and a job to support you. George Carlin once famously said that it was called the American Dream because "you have to be asleep to believe it".
So many of our products are sold to us on the basis of what they will tell others about us, or that we will achieve a certain milestone in life, and yet if we think about it, we can see that much of it means nothing. Sure, we can own a car and a house, but if they are not the biggest and best available (or at least better than our friends' or coworkers'), does it really mean that we have failed somehow? Doesn't it just mean that we paid more? We talk about a work/life balance (notice how the two are separate), but do we really think about how much of our earnings, or how many hours of our lives, goes to pay for the latest phone, the more expensive car, the 500sf of our house that we never use, or the credit card and mortgage interest?
Friday, August 20, 2010
Class War
The term "classless society" is often found in communist or Utopian theories. Obviously, the idea is that everyone is truly equal where classes do not exist. In the UK, the classes can be traced back at least as far as feudalism. In the US republic, great efforts were made to erase the class system (at least in terms of the monarchy and hereditary peers). However, classes are almost unavoidable with our current capitalist system, with wealth determining one's status. Once again, an individual's class can be hereditary. Once again, the serfs or working poor are at the mercy of the so-called upper classes.
Over the last few years, we have seen a more sustained, unambiguous assault on the middle class (in the UK, this would be the working class people and the lower-middle class). Those people who could live in reasonable comfort, maybe own their own homes, drive a reliable car are the latest group to be targeted. We hear of a jobless recovery. Ask yourself who is doing the recovering, if 10% or the population is going to remain unemployed. Why are benefits and services for the poor and middle class always such a bone of contention, while tax cuts for the rich are a sacred cow? Taxes for the rich are at their lowest levels for around 60 years. What do the Taxed Enough Already party expect? Why, for that matter, is the biggest military budget in the world (bigger than the rest combined!) untouchable? Remember Ike's farewell address?
Should we, the working/lower/middle classes take some of the blame for our situation? In the US, we've spent money like its going out of fashion for decades, and now many of us are reaping the whirlwind. A few years ago, one man decided to try to lift the blinkers on our culture of consumption:
Reverend Billy and the Church of Stop Shopping tried their best to make people think before they buy. We are under constant assault by advertisers to keep up with our neighbors, to desire new gadgets, to be afraid or inadequate. It is the job of corporations to make a profit above all else. If it leads to destruction of lives or environmental damage, but still makes a profit after any lawsuits, then everything is okay. Their mission is to separate you from your money. That is the system we have built. Only corporations are bailed out. Only corporations can buy politicians.
Over the last few years, we have seen a more sustained, unambiguous assault on the middle class (in the UK, this would be the working class people and the lower-middle class). Those people who could live in reasonable comfort, maybe own their own homes, drive a reliable car are the latest group to be targeted. We hear of a jobless recovery. Ask yourself who is doing the recovering, if 10% or the population is going to remain unemployed. Why are benefits and services for the poor and middle class always such a bone of contention, while tax cuts for the rich are a sacred cow? Taxes for the rich are at their lowest levels for around 60 years. What do the Taxed Enough Already party expect? Why, for that matter, is the biggest military budget in the world (bigger than the rest combined!) untouchable? Remember Ike's farewell address?
Should we, the working/lower/middle classes take some of the blame for our situation? In the US, we've spent money like its going out of fashion for decades, and now many of us are reaping the whirlwind. A few years ago, one man decided to try to lift the blinkers on our culture of consumption:
Reverend Billy and the Church of Stop Shopping tried their best to make people think before they buy. We are under constant assault by advertisers to keep up with our neighbors, to desire new gadgets, to be afraid or inadequate. It is the job of corporations to make a profit above all else. If it leads to destruction of lives or environmental damage, but still makes a profit after any lawsuits, then everything is okay. Their mission is to separate you from your money. That is the system we have built. Only corporations are bailed out. Only corporations can buy politicians.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
