Saturday, August 21, 2004

Realism and Inhumanity

By James L. Secor

Read full article...

Posted 08/21 | Add a Comment

    Comments:

    You must register to comment.

    Login | Register

  1. The most intriguing aspect of this insightful essay for me was the Milgram hypothesis that it takes 70% of a people to make the world over into some view or other.  I’ve found it helpful to measure progress with a social change benchmarking model that more or less stops at Milgrams ending point.  Just for the fun of it, I’ll throw it out here for dissection by the learned beings who stop by Press Action.

    One - an exceptional exception proves the rule
    15% - the change is achievable
    33% - the change is visible
    51% - the change is acceptable
    70% - the change is the norm, next

    In a hypothetical three-party democracy ruled by the principle of winner-take-all, the benchmark for doing serious damage to a prevailing political world view falls to a little more than 35%, or half the people it takes in the typical ‘for/against’ setting.  These are cold statistical reflections on James warm thinking which is similar to that found in William Greider’s notable book, ‘Who Will Tell The People?’ He says, paraphrasing, that the dehumanizing Propangandists are far more vulnerable to the life-affirming culture residing within and between the people than the people themselves realize. It’s a long, hard path to be sure but not nearly so far most of the controlled think.  The controllers bravado is the mask of fear for they know and feel how tenuous is their hold on power more intensely than anyone of us can.

    Posted by Scott Beckman from Santa Fe, NM  on  08/21  at  11:03 PM

  2. An intresting and thought provoking piece…
    Thankyou to the author.

    I did have one question regaurding this quote though: “Lately, feminists have proven that this is true via the interpretation of data: the interpreter makes his belief system known in what he chooses to declaim as “the” findings.”

    If the author (or anyone else here) could provide some context I’d be grateful as I’m unaware as to what is exactely being said here…

    Posted by RzG from  on  08/21  at  11:19 PM

  3. Scott, the difference in your proposals of percentages and Milgram’s is that Milgram’s are based on scientific fact and allude to acceeding to authority, doing what you’re told: he found that 70% of people will do what they’re told even if it results in harm to someone else. He then went on to note the parallels with Nazism/fascism. You note the low level of percentage within the system--assuming voting--that brings about change but you forget the 70% (or so) who said nothing, did nothing. Those people actually made the change possible; they have succumbed to the propaganda about not fighting city hall and the uselessness of voting. But the thrust of the article had little to do with this; it had to do with inhumanity thrust upon us by both our journalism and our writers who believe in “objectivity” and the unemotionalism that accompanies it. To divorce yourself from emotional involvement is to divorce yourself from humanity, humanness...and it is to deceive yourself. Adrienne Rich talks about the deleterious effects of lying to ourselves, how it distorts reality.

    Posted by secor from  on  08/22  at  10:30 AM

  4. RzG--cf Janet Shibley Hyde, Half the Human Experience for more on how a tester’s bias influences data interpretation. I extrapolated it because we all tend to do this: look at things and then intepret them within the framework of our own bias. Hyde suggests several different-minded individuals interpreting data would come closer to a truth. As I recall, she gives lots of examples. A different approach to this is in Janet Saltzman Chafetz’s Masculine/Feminine or Human? and Clarice Stasz Stoll’s Female and Male.

    Posted by secor from  on  08/22  at  11:03 AM

  5. Secor--Thanks for the observation. In trying to be courteous and concise, I deleted a long passage in the first post in which I explained that I was not implying that it is easy to hit a social change target because I felt the chronic endemic propaganda James describes to be just one of the more visible effective means and symptoms of an even more insidious and pervasive disease of dehumanization that includes physical and financial threat, bribery, criminalization of dissent, and many more tools of control.

    A couple of notes about how this might relate to the electoral process.  Many of the 50% or so of the people who don’t vote are making a statement that they’re so distanced from the political process that they reject it.  This decision empowers controllers, but it is an understandable, principled, and somewhat encouraging state of mind to speak to about political reality. One of the main challenges for progressives is to figure out if these rebels wish to be represented and to energize them if they do.  The fact that we haven’t succeeded does not mean there isn’t a way or that we should stop trying. 

    Additional research shows that of those people who vote, only about 15% do so on the basis of issues, i.e. objective reality.  The other 85% are swayed by intangibles such as habit, friends, single issues, “character,” i.e. subjective truth.  In my judgment, this implies the extent to which a successful social change must, of necessity, be almost completely about creating thoughtful appealing humanizing activities. 

    But, it essential, whether or not you agree with these premises are important to you, that I state my solidarity with James and you about the dangers of emergent fascism.  My own subjective reality is that I am living in 1932 Germany with the eyes of a 2004 American.  I do not pretend to statesmanship or aspire to the final word in these matters. But, I am willing to contribute my two cents in an effort to productive advance this important conversation.  I am with you in purpose and am listening to the broad discussion of how to take more effective action than those who have trod this path before us with an utmost sense of urgency.

    Posted by Scott Beckman from Santa Fe, NM  on  08/22  at  12:42 PM

  6. In actuality, Scott, it doesn’t matter why they don’t vote. They are still the causes of problems (and therefore have no right to complain). As Flannery and Katherine Ann Porter and others have noted, the “innocent” are as culpable as the perpetrators of horror, etc. People do not realize that freedom carries a great burden of responsibility (such a cliche!) and that not voicing your opinion, not holding your representatives to their stated task, is not being responsible. But being responsible is not always comfortable and the majority of
    Americans like their comfort. Alas. When I was a disability rights advocate, I found that even the great complainers in that community would not get off their asses and do anything: they just wanted to complain and be safe. It was terribly irksome. Even my bosses at the Independent Living Centre woud not stand up for me, so interested in their face were they. So too most Americans. (I think I can make that generalization because if it were any less than “most” we wouldn’t be in the fix we’re in, eh?

    Posted by secor from  on  08/23  at  07:10 AM

  7. Yes, most “innocent” Americans sitting on their obese bottoms, James.  Scott’s “emerging” state IS here, albeit in a different form than what we’ve studied in our schools, for...far too many.
    No Botox Ox

    Posted by No Botox Ox from  on  08/23  at  09:48 AM

  8. I agree with you secor about the cause and you too No Botox Ox (laughing) about the effect. 

    I am merely adding my humble voice to yours in service to our common cause. We are now faced with the blindingly obvious fact that our self-proclaimed wisdom and our passionate appeals to profound cliches has yet to translate into actions any more effective than those who have trod this path before us. 

    We do not bear the fullest measure of responsibility, for we are few, and have done our duty as best we see it so far.  But, if we are mentioned by history at all, our failure, America’s failure, to perceive the compelling truth Ox speaks, organize an effective resistance, to stake our lives on no less goal than the reclaiming the liberty that millions died to defend, will be viewed as less than a pale shadow of the founders who invested their all to create that freedom for us. 

    We must refute this judgment! I do not submit statistical postulates of social change, human psychology, and speak of humanizing activities because I delight in mental exercise. On deep reflection, I have found these matters to constitute elements of a much larger and better, “American Way” and seek meaningful bonds with those who wish to marry their passion, their gifts, their lives to the highest call of our time: preserving a world worth living in.

    I do not say these things thinking “I am better man, a righter man, a martyr.” I am just a man, who, for better or worse, will always place his faith and hope at the mercy of his equals.

    Posted by Scott Beckman from Santa Fe, NM  on  08/23  at  12:42 PM

  9. An opportunity for nonviolent, effective action lies before us, Scott. Let’s pick up on your plea to DO something. Again, why don’t we take the next step with the Leno idea?  As per Arundhati Roy in her recent San Francisco speech...if we don’t do stuff like that immediately then...violence will be the rule of the day on these shores...the main tactic for bringing about change.  The only antidote to terrorism now is a) justice or b) stuff like the Leno THANG.  Why are Press Action people and others not flocking to this call?  Why am I not receiving referrals up the Kazoo?  UnAmerican Way Ox

    Posted by UnAmerican Way Ox from  on  08/23  at  03:33 PM

  10. Although I don’t know much about it, Ox, I know enough to respect and appreciate the action you are planning. 

    I can’t participate because I am in earnest heeding the principles you’ve outlined previously about the importance of organizing multiple small-scale resistances.  I’m fully engaged doin’ my part on this end and that’s saying too much.

    Posted by Scott Beckman from Santa Fe, NM  on  08/23  at  04:06 PM

  11. Ahh, Scott...look at our failure, if it comes to pass, as that of the truly great: all of the heroes who established--if that is the right word--socio-cultural standards for behavior in Japan were failed heroes. That is, in the end they died without having truly accomplished their purpose while remaining loyal to their beliefs and sense of rightness. Eventually, though, we shall succeed. Grassroots activism is slow, often set back but ever victorious. But that’s the way it has to go, I think. Overcoming the inherent problems in our society/culture won’t come from the top down. Are you old enough to remember how to get Ma Bell to respond to complaints? Call in over and over and over...until they are so sick and tired of hearing from you that they give you what you want. La-la!

    Posted by secor from  on  08/23  at  04:52 PM

    12. Next entry: Who Really Learned the Most Valuable Lessons from the 1960s?

    Previous entry: A Lost Cause?

    [ads]

    Support Press Action