An Excerpt from the 1973 textbook, An Introduction to Moral and Social Philosophy,
edited by Jeffrie G. Murphy (pp.413-414):
What form of government would a moral man choose for himself and others? The position of liberalism holds (1) that freedom or liberty is the most important value[*] and (2) that democratic forms of government are most likely to maximize this value. According to this position, freedom or liberty is to be understood as the ability, without hindrance from others, to gain satisfaction for one's wants and desires, insofar as this is compatible with a like liberty for others.
John Stuart Mill is generally regarded as the most persuasive spokesman for this kind of liberalism. And one of his great strengths is that he perceives some of the pathologies to which democracy is susceptible. One of these pathologies, which Mill calls the "tyranny of the majority," results from the power that a majority has in a democracy to coerce an unpopular minority. To cure this pathology, Mill suggests that democracies should subscribe (in a legal constitution perhaps) to the following principle: society is justified in coercing any one of its members only to prevent harm to others. Only if the democratic principle of majority rule is limited in this way can the tyranny of the majority be avoided.
Herbert Marcuse [1898-1979], a contemporary Marxist, believes that even a democracy so limited will still have grave defects. Modern technological societies, even those calling themselves democracies, have subtle and terribly dangerous ways of repressing their citizens. This kind of repression is dangerous just because it does not seem repressive at all, since a substantial number of people in the population have most of their needs and desires satisfied. Suppose, however, that those needs and desires are artificial--that is, manufactured and satisfied by the power elite in a society to ensure that citizens remain pliant and cooperative. This supposition forms the basis for Marcuse's disquieting commentary on contemporary Western democracies. To use the language of Marx, the evil of these societies is that, despite the wants they satisfy, they have failed to reduce alienation. Indeed they rest on it. ...
[*Comment by T.J.White:
Notice that he nowhere mentions the value of security or safety, which is so much trumpeted about today. I hold that complete (or near-total) security or safety is wholly incompatible with a free society, one that cherishes the liberty of the individual. One cannot have both. Freedom necessarily entails risk, and it seems that nowadays, our society is (tragically) increasingly unwilling to take that risk to be truly free. Many people in our society would much rather (it seems apparent) give up those freedoms which their forefathers most cherished (and fought and died for) in the name of and for the sake of safety and security, rather than continue to be a truly free people, but constantly risk another "terrorist attack." And even more tragically, it seems equally obvious that there are many in our current government who are attempting to use the threat of "terrorism" and "terror attacks" to stampede the fearful American people (like a herd of buffalo over a cliff) into giving up those freedoms. And it appears clear that they are succeeding. How many more years before Americans will have lost all their basic (worthwhile) freedoms, and will be reduced to the level of serfs or slaves (albeit perhaps happy and contented--if brainless--ones)? How many more years (if we are to be honest) before we must call America the "United Fascist States of America"? I am stating this really somewhat tongue-in-cheek, for I feel that the time is already upon us, and our future condition can differ from our present one only in a matter of degree, not substance.]
Thursday, January 13, 2005
Society Neglecting Those It Considers Less Valuable
An Excerpt From Erich Fromm's 1965 book Escape From Freedom
The term normal or healthy can be defined in two ways. Firstly, from the standpoint of a functioning society, one can call a person normal or healthy if he is able to fulfill the social role he is to take in that given society. More concretely, this means that he is able to work in the fashion which is required in that particular society, and furthermore that he is able to participate in the reproduction of society, that is, that he can raise a family. Secondly, from the standpoint of the individual, we look upon health or normalcy as the optimum of growth and happiness of the individual.
If the structure of a given society were such that it offered the optimum possibility for individual happiness, both viewpoints would coincide. However, this is not the case in most societies we know, including our own. Although they differ in the degree to which they promote the aims of individual growth, there is a discrepancy between the aims of the smooth functioning of society and of the full development of the individual. This fact makes it imperative to differentiate sharply between the two concepts of health. The one is governed by social necessities, the other by values and norms concerning the aim of individual existence.
Unfortunately, this differentiation is often neglected. Most psychiatrists take the structure of their own society so much for granted that to them the person who is not well adapted assumes the stigma of being less valuable. On the other hand, the well-adapted person is supposed to be the more valuable person in terms of a scale of human values. If we differentiate the two concepts of normal and neurotic, we come to the following conclusion: The person who is normal in terms of being well adapted is often less healthy than the neurotic person in terms of human values. Often he is well adapted only at the expense of having given up his self in order to become more or less the person he believes he is expected to be. All genuine individuality and spontaneity may have been lost. On the other hand, the neurotic person can be characterized as somebody who was not ready to surrender completely in the battle for his self. To be sure, his attempt to save his individual self was not successful, and instead of expressing his self productively he sought salvation through neurotic symptoms and by withdrawing into a phantasy life. Nevertheless, from the standpoint of human values, he is less crippled than the kind of normal person who has lost his individuality altogether. Needless to say, there are persons who are not neurotic and yet have not drowned their individuality in the process of adaptation. But the stigma attached to the neurotic person seems to us to be unfounded and justified only if we think of neurotic in terms of social efficiency. As for a whole society, the term neurotic cannot be applied in this latter sense, since a society could not exist if its members did not function socially. From a standpoint of human values, however, a society could be called neurotic in the sense that its members are crippled in the growth of their personality. Since the term neurotic is so often used to denote a lack of social functioning, we would prefer not to speak of a society in terms of its being neurotic, but rather in terms of its being adverse to human happiness and self-realization.
(pp.159-161)
The term normal or healthy can be defined in two ways. Firstly, from the standpoint of a functioning society, one can call a person normal or healthy if he is able to fulfill the social role he is to take in that given society. More concretely, this means that he is able to work in the fashion which is required in that particular society, and furthermore that he is able to participate in the reproduction of society, that is, that he can raise a family. Secondly, from the standpoint of the individual, we look upon health or normalcy as the optimum of growth and happiness of the individual.
If the structure of a given society were such that it offered the optimum possibility for individual happiness, both viewpoints would coincide. However, this is not the case in most societies we know, including our own. Although they differ in the degree to which they promote the aims of individual growth, there is a discrepancy between the aims of the smooth functioning of society and of the full development of the individual. This fact makes it imperative to differentiate sharply between the two concepts of health. The one is governed by social necessities, the other by values and norms concerning the aim of individual existence.
Unfortunately, this differentiation is often neglected. Most psychiatrists take the structure of their own society so much for granted that to them the person who is not well adapted assumes the stigma of being less valuable. On the other hand, the well-adapted person is supposed to be the more valuable person in terms of a scale of human values. If we differentiate the two concepts of normal and neurotic, we come to the following conclusion: The person who is normal in terms of being well adapted is often less healthy than the neurotic person in terms of human values. Often he is well adapted only at the expense of having given up his self in order to become more or less the person he believes he is expected to be. All genuine individuality and spontaneity may have been lost. On the other hand, the neurotic person can be characterized as somebody who was not ready to surrender completely in the battle for his self. To be sure, his attempt to save his individual self was not successful, and instead of expressing his self productively he sought salvation through neurotic symptoms and by withdrawing into a phantasy life. Nevertheless, from the standpoint of human values, he is less crippled than the kind of normal person who has lost his individuality altogether. Needless to say, there are persons who are not neurotic and yet have not drowned their individuality in the process of adaptation. But the stigma attached to the neurotic person seems to us to be unfounded and justified only if we think of neurotic in terms of social efficiency. As for a whole society, the term neurotic cannot be applied in this latter sense, since a society could not exist if its members did not function socially. From a standpoint of human values, however, a society could be called neurotic in the sense that its members are crippled in the growth of their personality. Since the term neurotic is so often used to denote a lack of social functioning, we would prefer not to speak of a society in terms of its being neurotic, but rather in terms of its being adverse to human happiness and self-realization.
(pp.159-161)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
