The century of the Self

[mahnmut.livejournal.com]

While we're still about books and documentaries... First, a comment from a very interesting recent conversation around here:

I didn't leave the democratic party, it left me

An interesting observation, and much in line with this documentary (caution: lengthy material).

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6718420906413643126#
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-678466363224520614#
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-6111922724894802811#
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=1122532358497501036#

In a nutshell: psychoanalysis became an important tool for companies to read the mind of customers and shape the preferences of consumers in pursuit of more sales and profits; seeing this, politicians also used psychoanalysis (in its many forms) to detect the public's inclinations and then adjust to them in pursuit of more votes and power. This shifted the paradigm from "Here's our set of principles, vote for us if you agree with them" to "Tell us what you want, and we'll deliver it to you".

The documentary argues that the Conservative victories in the Reagan-Thatcher era were mainly due to their new message to the people: "You can be the master of your destiny, and we're the government that's gonna let you govern yourself on your own". Seeing that, Liberals realized that their only chance of regaining power was to adopt a new approach and instead of telling people what's best in their interest, they'd rather listen to what consumers voters expected from politicians and then give it to them. In the process, Liberals would abandon their inherent principles for the sake of appealing to the public, and thus they were successful - Liberal victories swept across the Western world (Blair, Clinton, etc). Conservatives weren't late to follow that trend, either, and we've ended up with the new way of doing politics that we have now.

Interesting stuff. I don't know how much you'd agree with it but it's interesting to consider nevertheless. Personally I think it's pretty much spot on. The cultural clash that we hear so often talked about is in my view exactly the clash of these two paradigms: the role of government in social life, and the two opposing ideas: A) S.Freud / E.Bernays / A.Freud: There are evil primitive forces lurking underneath the surface of every one of us, they should be suppressed and never let out because they're destructive, so society is one step away from becoming a mob, and we should keep it under control through psychoanalysis. B) W.Reich / P.Gould / M.Freud: The hidden powers of the ego should be let out to become the driving force of social progress, they should be catered to, listened to and let to define the making of policies, and psychoanalysis should be our primary tool for detecting, defining and recognizing them.

Comments

[jonathankorman.livejournal.com]

I'll join you in commending Century of the Self to folks' attention, and add that the director has another documentary, The Power of Nightmares (http://www.archive.org/details/ThePowerOfNightmares) which traces the parallel histories of jihadist political Islamism and western neoconservatism.

[mahnmut.livejournal.com]

It's also interesting to find out what part of the general audience are familiar with these concepts or at least the fact of their very existence. Got some observations?

[jonathankorman.livejournal.com]

Well, I'm pretty eccentric in my interests, so I went into Self already familiar with Reich and a bit of the history of marketing and PR; I knew the legend of the cake mix, but didn't know about Edward Bernays. And going in to Nightmares I had already read some of the liberal citiques of Strauss and his relationship to the neocons, and had done a little reading up on Qtub (thanks to meeting him in Bruce Sterling's eerily prophetic story “We See Things Differently.” (http://www.revolutionsf.com/fiction/weseethings/01.html))

My enthusiasm for Nightmares is partly because I think his analysis is useful, but also because he provides a good introduction to some key bits of history that many folks just don't know. I don't think that you can claim to have any kind of informed opinion about political Islamism, political Jihadism, or their connections to terrorism if you don't know the story of Sayyid Qtub, but of course that mix of interest and ignorance is unhappily common. Reasonable people may differ about Strauss' significance, but given the influence of the neocons in the last decade I think anyone serious about contemporary American politics should at least know enough about Strauss to have a considered dismissal of his importance.

Self is a trickier case. I think the impact of psychology on 20th century thinking is profound, and it's certainly a way to understand figures like Reagan, Thatcher, Blair, and Clinton, but it's hardly the way to understand them. I'm sure that Curry would also make that distinction, though I think the docu occasionally implies that it's the most important way.

And certainly it gives a useful dimension to the facile “liberals believe people are fundamentally good, conservatives believe people are fundamentally evil“ reading of the cultural divide which drives our current political divide.

[mahnmut.livejournal.com]

Indeed, things are much more complex than the majority of media outlets are trying to convince us, no?

[underlankers.livejournal.com]

Indeed. First of all, Liberals are a Right-Wing movement themselves. Second, the US version of the Left as a rule tends to see people as dumbasses swayed by the all-powerful Right-Wing pundits which IMHO doesn't reflect the real world all that well, and both sides see themselves as victims of broader conspiracies designed to oppress their secret understanding of the truth, life, the Universe and everything.

From my POV as someone who says "none of the above" the US Left and Right are more like each other than either will ever admit. It's just the Right Wing developed a better political machine.

[jonathankorman.livejournal.com]

Liberals are a Right-Wing movement themselves

I hate to be that guy, but ... can you define your terms here? I have no idea what you might mean.

the Left as a rule tends to see people as dumbasses ...

I'd call that a pretty crude oversimplification. I belong to the lefty school which you're describing, but while we regard many American Republicans as voting contrary to their own interests because of some deft propagandizing and media manipulation by conservative leaders, “dumbasses” and “all-powerful” don't enter into our conception. As you say, they've developed a more effective political machine.

[underlankers.livejournal.com]

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/liberalism/#ClaLib

I actually wouldn't given how if I go to Conservative stations the usual presumption is that the great masses are deluded and in the Progressive ones it's that they're just plain stupid. Even jokes about sterilizing the idiots.

[jonathankorman.livejournal.com]

Yes, I'm aware of the slipperiness of the terms here. Classical liberalism, liberalism as a broad tradition, liberalism as we refer to it in contemporary US politics, and left and right in the classical, broadly historical, and contemporary American rhetoric — all of these are meaningfully different from one another. Linking to a history of some of that does not helpfully clarify what you meant.

To which point, I think it's silly to claim that radio commentators speak for what The Left (or The Right) think “as a rule.”

[weswilson]

The Power of Nightmares was compelling... but I questioned recommending it to anyone because I try to avoid comparing political stances to those of terrorists. I wish there was a diet version of that film that was a little more palatable to those who might even subscribe to neo-conservative ideals.

[jonathankorman.livejournal.com]

Yeah, there's a reading of Nightmares that it equates the neocons with al-Qaeda, which is of course, both provocative and a misrepresentative oversimplification. The movie has something much more sophisticated to say, which is, after all, why it is so long. But as I commented above, I think it's as good an introduction as you'll find to some very important bits of factual history.

[underlankers.livejournal.com]

Of course one is free to note that Islamists actually are in the strange position of being nasty unpleasant sonsobitches who hate the very dictatorships that segments of the democracies hate but their governments as a whole bipartisanly prop up.

[underlankers.livejournal.com]

Is this the real NeoConservatism or the Umbrella-term Boogeyman of the Left?

[jonathankorman.livejournal.com]

Curry is quite precise: he means the strain of American conservatism which has historical roots on the left, favours strongly activist American foreign policy employing vigorous use of force, and opposes government efforts toward social justice (having concluded that the Great Society era efforts in that direction demonstrate that they are inherently counterproductive).

[underlankers.livejournal.com]

Good for him. Too many people use it as an umbrella term for the entire Right these days where it's not that.

[sagittipotens.livejournal.com]

If not that, it's just constant bickering and petty namecalling

"He got a blowjob in the Oval office!"

"He had a mixed baby with a black woman!"

And on it goes

[eracerhead.livejournal.com]

Clinton was liberal??

[mahnmut.livejournal.com]

OK, labeled as / perceived as.
He, like Blair, were what some call Third Way.

[ddstory.livejournal.com]

Seeing that, Liberals realized that their only chance of regaining power was to adopt a new approach and instead of telling people what's best in their interest, they'd rather listen to what consumers voters expected from politicians and then give it to them. In the process, Liberals would abandon their inherent principles for the sake of appealing to the public, and thus they were successful - Liberal victories swept across the Western world (Blair, Clinton, etc). Conservatives weren't late to follow that trend, either, and we've ended up with the new way of doing politics that we have now.

You know, seen from the Italian point of view for instance, it started with Berlusconi, and then its oppositors followed (and those who didn't follow, became extinct).

[mahnmut.livejournal.com]

If Berlusconi was the beginning in Italy, then it must've started a bit late there. :-)

[underlankers.livejournal.com]

Where to me the victories of Reagan-Conservatism had more to do with the Nixon wing of the party having discredited itself and the Carter Administration providing the first instance of what George W. Bush was the second-Evangelicals make great preachers but shitty Presidents. My feeling on the 80s is that if the Soviet dictator is the most moral and decent leader of a decade that's never a good thing.

[geezer-also.livejournal.com]

I don't know, 4 hours of watching video on the computer is a bit much for someone who watches almost no TV (the occasional soccer/futbol game and college basketball mostly)but since they did sound interesting, I book marked them for future boredom.

I understand the point made, and there is a lot of truth. I am a bit skeptical as it being absolute, and I would go along with the idea that there are other things involved. But there is no doubt that advertising works, and the old saying "repeat a lie often enough, it becomes truth" does seem to be a fact of life.

If you are going to tell a lie about your political opponent, wait until the last minute, so he doesn't have time to refute it before the election...you can always apologize after you've won.

[mahnmut.livejournal.com]

I know. The duration is a major drawback. Which is why I used it as a bedtime lullaby. I put some headphones while in bed and I just listened to it (the images are nothing special). I'm telling you it works. :-)