ISAIF Commentary - Oversocialization (part 2)

"29. (fr) Here is an illustration of the way in which the oversocialized leftist shows his real attachment to the conventional attitudes of our society while pretending to be in rebellion aginst it. Many leftists push for affirmative action, for moving black people into high-prestige jobs, for improved education in black schools and more money for such schools; the way of life of the black “underclass” they regard as a social disgrace. They want to integrate the black man into the system,make hima business executive, a lawyer, a scientist just like upper-middle-class white people. The leftists will reply that the last thing they want is to make the black man into a copy of the white man; instead, they want to preserve African American culture. But in what does this preservation of African American culture consist? It can hardly consist in anything more than eating black-style food, listening to black-style music, wearing black-style clothing and going to a black-style church or mosque. In other words, it can express itself only in superficial matters. In all ESSENTIAL respects most leftists of the oversocialized type want to make the black man conform to white, middle-class ideals. They want to make him study technical subjects, become an executive or a scientist, spend his life climbing the status ladder to prove that black people are as good as white. They want to make black fathers “responsible,” they want black gangs to become nonviolent, etc. But these are exactly the values of the industrial- technological system. The system couldn’t care less what kind of music a man listens to, what kind of clothes he wears or what religion he believes in as long as he studies in school, holds a respectable job, climbs the status ladder, is a “responsible” parent, is nonviolent and so forth. In effect, however much he may deny it, the oversocialized leftist wants to integrate the black man into the system and make him adopt its values."

This passage is crucial in understanding the kind of rebellion the author is advocating and why leftist movements fail in influencing the system with their own rebellions. Rebellions that focus on culture, governements, politics, moral values, etc. will ultimately pose no threat to the system. The technological base of our society is what mostly determines its rules, values and course of evolution. As a result, focusing on moral values and such will be as ineffective as trying to hit a boxer's hands instead of aiming for his head.


"30. (fr) We certainly do not claim that leftists, even of the oversocialized type, NEVER rebel against the fundamental values of our society. Clearly they sometimes do. Some oversocialized leftists have gone so far as to rebel against one of modern society’s most important principles by engaging in physical violence. By their own account, violence is for them a form of “liberation.” In other words, by committing violence they break through the psychological restraints that have been trained into them. Because they are oversocialized these restraints have been more confining for them than for others; hence their need to break free of them. But they usually justify their rebellion in terms of mainstream values. If they engage in violence they claim to be fighting against racism or the like.


31. (fr) We realize that many objections could be raised to the foregoing thumbnail sketch of leftist psychology. The real situation is complex, and anything like a complete description of it would take several volumes even if the necessary data were available. We claim only to have indicated very roughly the two most important tendencies in the psychology of modern leftism.


32. (fr) The problems of the leftist are indicative of the problems of our society as a whole. Low self-esteem, depressive tendencies and defeatism are not restricted to the left. Though they are especially noticeable in the left, they are widespread in our society. And today’s society tries to socialize us to a greater extent than any previous society. We are even told by experts how to eat, how to exercise, how to make love, how to raise our kids and so forth."

Rightwing liberals surely do have a point in criticizing the excessive control society is trying to exert over the individuals' private sphere. It's actually very similar to the church's tentatives of controlling the individuals' life and morality during the Middle Ages. With the difference this time we're even told it's all done for our own good.

ISAIF Commentary - Oversocialization (part 1)

24. (fr) Psychologists use the term “socialization” to designate the process by which children are trained to think and act as society demands. A person is said to be well socialized if he believes in and obeys the moral code of his society and fits in well as a functioning part of that society. It may seem senseless to say that many leftists are over-socialized, since the leftist is perceived as a rebel. Nevertheless, the position can be defended. Many leftists are not such rebels as they seem.

25. (fr) The moral code of our society is so demanding that no one can think, feel and act in a completely moral way. For example, we are not supposed to hate anyone, yet almost everyone hates somebody at some time or other, whether he admits it to himself or not. Some people are so highly socialized that the attempt to think, feel and act morally imposes a severe burden on them. In order to avoid feelings of guilt, they continually have to deceive themselves about their own motives and find moral explanations for feelings and actions that in reality have a nonmoral origin. We use the term “oversocialized” to describe such people.

I think I personally experienced oversocialization issues when I wasn't an atheist yet. At the very least I remember continously deceiving myself and trying to look for moral explanations of my own nonmoral behaviour. That's also where my personal hate for religions comes from.

26. (fr) Oversocialization can lead to low self-esteem, a sense of powerlessness, defeatism, guilt, etc. One of the most important means by which our society socializes children is by making them feel ashamed of behavior or speech that is contrary to society’s expectations. If this is overdone, or if a particular child is especially susceptible to such feelings, he ends by feeling ashamed of HIMSELF. Moreover the thought and the behavior of the oversocialize person are more restricted by society’s expectations than are those of the lightly socialized person. The majority of people engage in a significant amount of naughty behavior. They lie, they commit petty thefts, they break traffic laws, they goof off at work, they hate someone, they say spiteful things or they use some underhanded trick to get ahead of the other guy. The oversocialized person cannot
do these things, or if he does do them he generates in himself a sense of shame and self-hatred. The oversocialized person cannot even experience, without guilt, thoughts or feelings that are contrary to the accepted morality; he cannot think “unclean” thoughts. And socialization is not just a matter of morality; we are socialized to conform to many norms of behavior that do not fall under the heading of morality. Thus the oversocialized person is kept on a psychological leash and spends his life running on rails that society has laid down for him. In many oversocialized people this results in a sense of constraint and powerlessness that can be a severe hardship. We suggest that oversocialization is among the more serious cruelties that human being inflict on one another.

.....I just can't help but agree with the last line.....

27. (fr) We argue that a very important and influential segment of the modern left is oversocialized and that their oversocialization is of great importance in determining the direction of modern leftism. Leftists of the oversocialized type tend to be intellectuals or members of the upper-middle class. Notice that university intellectuals constitute the most highly socialized segment of our society and also the most leftwing segment.

28. (fr) The leftist of the oversocialized type tries to get off his psychological leash and assert his autonomy
by rebelling. But usually he is not strong enough to rebel against the most basic values of society. Generally speaking, the goals of today’s leftists are NOT in conflict with the accepted morality. On the contrary, the left takes an accepted moral principle, adopts it as its own, and then accuses mainstream society of violating that principle. Examples: racial equality, equality of the sexes, helping poor people, peace as opposed to war, nonviolence generally, freedom of expression, kindness to animals. More fundamentally, the duty of the individual to serve society and the duty of society to take care of the individual. All these have been deeply rooted values of our society (or at least of its middle and upper classes for a long time. These values are explicitly or implicitly expressed or presupposed in most of the material presented to us by the mainstream communications media and the educational system. Leftists, especially those of the oversocialized type, usually do not rebel against these principles but justify their hostility to society by claiming (with some degree of truth) that society is not living up to these principles.

I believe oversocialized individuals do not exclusively belong to the leftwing segment however I agree that those guilty of the described behaviour (taking an accepted moral principle as their own and accusing society of violating it) most of the time do.

ISAIF Commentary - Feelings of inferiority (part 2)

"16. (fr) Words like “self-confidence”, “self-reliance”, “initiative”, “enterprise”, “optimism”, etc., play little role in the liberal and leftist vocabulary. The leftist is antiindividualistic, pro-collectivist. He wants society to solve every one’s problems for them, satisfy everyone’s needs for them, take care of them. He is not the sort of person who has an inner sense of confidence in his ability to solve his own problems and satisfy his own needs. The leftist is antagohistic to the concept of competition because, deep inside, he feels like a loser."

While this traits might apply to the leftists I do not feel they necessarily belong to the liberals as well. Liberal ideology itself was historically born as a movement that enphasized on the individuals' and their capacity to economically produce and take care of themselves, strongly rejecting any influence from governments over the individuals' private sphere. I believe the reason the author considers them involved too is possibly because of liberals and leftists being somewhat close in the American political spectrum, but apart from this specific case my opinion remains the same: liberalism and leftism are radically different ideologies with a radical different history behind them.

"17. (fr) Art forms that appeal to modern leftish intellectuals tend to focus on sordidness, defeat and despair, or else they take an orgiastic tone, throwing off rational control as if there were no hope of accomplishing anything through rational calculation and all that was left was to immerse oneself in the sensations of the moment."

I'm not an art expert but this kinda sounds like an exaggeration to me. Art is ambiguous and can be interpreted in very different ways too. The author could have proven his point without bringing art into this, which simply overcomplicates things.

"18. (fr) Modern leftish philosophers tend to dismiss reason, science, objective reality and to insist that everything is culturally relative. It is true that one can ask serious questions about the foundations of scientific knowledge and about how, if at all, the concept of objective reality can be defined. But it is obvious that modern leftish philosophers are not simply cool-headed logicians systematically analyzing the foundations of knowledge. They are deeply involved emotionally in their attack on truth and reality. They attack these concepts because of their own psychological needs. For one thing, their attack is an outlet for hostility, and, to the extent that it is successful, it satisfies the drive for power. More importantly, the leftist hates science and rationality because they classify certain beliefs as true (i.e., successful, superior) and other beliefs as false (i.e., failed, inferior). The leftist’s feelings of inferiority run so deep that he cannot tolerate any classification of some things as successful or superior and other things as failed or inferior. This also underlies the rejection by many leftists of the concept of mental illness and of the utility of IQ tests. Leftists are antagonistic to genetic explanations of human abilities or behavior because such explanations tend to make some persons appear superior or inferior to others. Leftists prefer to give society the credit or blame for an individual’s ability or lack of it. Thus if a person is “inferior” it is not his fault, but society’s, because he has not been brought up properly."

Putting the blame on society becomes expecially important for the leftist if he himself hasn't been able to overcome the specific weakness he's now trying to blame on society. Apart from this, one should be very careful when attacking relativism and relativity of thought. Fortunately the author expressed himself clearly enough in saying he's attacking not the idea itself but rather the reasons for the leftists to support it. On a side note, I also believe leftists and people who hold a grudge on western culture in general have a tendence to overpraise exotic cultures and beliefs as a way of promoting an alternative to our model. This process has become more frequent since the fall of Soviet Union which used to be the main alternative model the leftists were looking up to.

"19. (fr) The leftist is not typically the kind of person whose feelings of inferiority make him a braggart, an egotist, a bully, a self-promoter, a ruthless competitor. This kind of person has not wholly lost faith in himself. He has a deficit in his sense of power and self-worth, but he can still conceive of himself as having the capacity to be strong, and his efforts to make himself strong produce his unpleasant behavior. [1] But the leftist is too far gone for that. His feelings of inferiority are so ingrained that he cannot conceive of himself as individually strong and valuable. Hence the collectivism of the leftist. He can feel strong only as a member of a large organization or a mass movement with which he identifies himself.

20. (fr) Notice the masochistic tendency of leftist tactics. Leftists protest by lying down in front of vehicles, they intentionally provoke police or racists to abuse them, etc. These tactics may often be effective, but many leftists use them not as a means to an end but because they PREFER masochistic tactics. Self-hatred is a leftist trait.


21. (fr) Leftists may claim that their activism is motivated by compassion or by moral principles, and moral
principle does play a role for the leftist of the oversocialized type. But compassion and moral principle cannot be the main motives for leftist activism. Hostility is too prominent a component of leftist behavior; so is the drive for power. Moreover, much leftist behavior is not rationally calculated to be of benefit to the people whom the leftists claim to be trying to help. For example, if one believes that affirmative action is good for black people, does it make sense to demand affirmative action in hostile or dogmatic terms? Obviously it would be more productive to take a diplomatic and conciliatory approach that would make at
least verbal and symbolic concessions to white people who think that affirmative action discriminates against them. But leftist activists do not take such an approach because it would not satisfy their emotional needs. Helping black people is not their real goal. Instead, race problems serve as an excuse for them to express their own hostility and frustrated need for power. In doing so they actually harm black people, because the activists’ hostile attitude toward the white majority tends to intensify race hatred."

Not much needs to be said here. I've familiarized myself well enough with a leftist movement to say the hostility trait tends to be very true. The one about masochistic tactics not quite as much, but I can still see what the unabomber was pointing out.

"22. (fr) If our society had no social problems at all, the leftists would have to INVENT problems in order to provide themselves with an excuse for making a fuss."

Or rather to provide themselves with ways to blame society for failures/problems that belong to the individuals.


"23. (fr) We emphasize that the foregoing does not pretend to be an accurate description of everyone who might be considered a leftist. It is only a rough indication of a general tendency of leftism."

ISAIF Commentary - Feelings of inferiority (part 1)

"10. (fr) By “feelings of inferiority” we mean not only inferiority feelings in the strict sense but a whole spectrum of related traits; low self-esteem, feelings of powerlessness, depressive tendencies, defeatism, guilt, self-hatred, etc. We argue that modern leftists tend to have some such feelings (possibly more or less repressed) and that these feelings are decisive in determining the direction of modern leftism.

11. (fr) When someone interprets as derogatory almost anything that is said about him (or about groups with whom he identifies) we conclude that he has inferiority feelings or low self-esteem. This tendency is pronounced among minority rights activists, whether or not they belong to the minority groups whose rights they defend. They are hypersensitive about the words used to designate minorities and about anything that is said concerning minorities. The terms “negro”, “oriental”, “handicapped” or “chick” for an African, an Asian, a disabled person or a woman originally had no derogatory connotation. “Broad” and “chick” were merely the feminine equivalents of “guy”, “dude” or “fellow”. The negative connotations have been attached to these terms by the activists themselves. Some animal rights activists have gone so far as to reject the word “pet” and insist on its replacement by “animal companion”. Leftish anthropologists go to great lengths to avoid saying anything about primitive peoples that could conceivably be interpreted as negative. They want to replace the word “primitive” by “nonliterate”. They may seem almost paranoid about anything that might suggest that any primitive culture is inferior to ours. (We do not mean to imply that primitive cultures ARE inferior to ours. We merely point out the hyper sensitivity of leftish anthropologists.)"

I'll be damned if the Unabomber didn't hit the nail on the head. The whole political correctness thing has definitely got out of hand. I bet everyone will have examples of this from everyday's life, I myself am a student of anthropology and can confirm that 1) anthropology is the sector of society with the highest concentration of leftists and 2) those people are hyper sensitives, expecially the teachers. Some of them will go as far as not to make you pass during exams unless you refrain from using words such as primitive, indians, etc.

"12. (fr) Those who are most sensitive about “politically incorrect” terminology are not the average black ghettodweller, Asian immigrant, abused woman or disabled person, but a minority of activists, many of whom do not even belong to any “oppressed” group but come from privileged strata of society. Political correctness has its stronghold among university professors, who have secure employment with comfortable salaries, and the majority of whom are heterosexual white males from middle- to upper-middle-class families."

While this part is mostly right, I believe there's also a lot of people oversensitive about the "politically incorrect" topic who belong to oppressed groups but aren't being oppressed themselves as individuals. Some gay rights activists who are gay themselves but aren't being bullied, for example.

"13. (fr) Many leftists have an intense identification with the problems of groups that have an image of being weak (women), defeated (American Indians), repellent (homosexuals) or otherwise inferior. The leftists themselves feel that these groups are inferior. They would never admit to themselves that they have such feelings, but it is precisely because they do see these groups as inferior that they identify with their problems. (We do not mean to suggest that women, Indians, etc. ARE inferior; we are only making a point about leftist psychology.)

14. (fr) Feminists are desperately anxious to prove that women are as strong and as capable as men. Clearly they are nagged by a fear that women may NOT be as strong and as capable as men.

15. (fr) Leftists tend to hate anything that has an image of being strong, good and successful. They hate America, they hateWestern civilization, they hate white males, they hate rationality. The reasons that leftists give for hating the West, etc. clearly do not correspond with their real motives. They SAY they hate the West because it is warlike, imperialistic, sexist, ethnocentric and so forth, but where these same faults appear in socialist countries or in primitive cultures, the leftist finds excuses for them, or at best he GRUDGINGLY admits that they exist; whereas he ENTHUSIASTICALLY points out (and often greatly exaggerates) these faults where they appear in Western civilization. Thus it is clear that these faults are not the leftist’s real motive for hating America and the West. He hates America and the West because they are strong and successful."

The interaction between points 15 (leftist hatred towards what is successful) and 14 (feminist activity and fear of women not being as strong and capable as men) resulted in a full scale war against male role models in the name of political correctness which ended with women ultimately and silently taking over education in our society. This is exactly what this famous fight club quote is pointing at:
 
"We are a generation of men raised by women, I wonder if another woman is what we need" -Tyler Durden

ISAIF Commentary - The psychology of modern leftism

"6. (fr) Almost everyone will agree that we live in a deeply troubled society. One of the most widespread manifestations of the craziness of our world is leftism, so a discussion of the psychology of leftism can serve as an introduction to the discussion of the problems of modern society in general."

Such a direct attack on the left political wing could look like a wrong move from a revolutionary wanna be, considering the political opposition (hence opposition to the modern system as well) usually draws from this sector of politics. The fact is (as Unabomber himself will later specify) that many leftists consider themselves revolutionaries but in the end turn out to be more under control of the system than it looks like. I liked a lot the "Almost everyone will agree that we live in a deeply troubled society" part: while nobody seems to be able to explain the reasons, it seems like that "something went wrong with the world" feeling has eventually gotten into everyone.

7. (fr) But what is leftism? During the first half of the 20th century leftism could have been practically identified with socialism. Today the movement is fragmented and it is not clear who can properly be called a leftist. When we speak of leftists in this article we have in mind mainly socialists, collectivists, “politically correct” types, feminists, gay and disability activists, animal rights activists and the like. But not everyone who is associated with one of these movements is a leftist. What we are trying to get at in discussing leftism is not so much movement or an ideology as a psychological type, or rather a collection of related types. Thus, what we mean by “leftism” will emerge more clearly in the course of our discussion of leftist psychology. (Also, see paragraphs 227-230.)

8. (fr) Even so, our conception of leftism will remain a good deal less clear than we would wish, but there doesn’t seem to be any remedy for this. All we are trying to do here is indicate in a rough and approximate way the two psychological tendencies that we believe are the main driving force of modern leftism. We by no means claim to be telling the WHOLE truth about leftist psychology. Also, our discussion is meant to apply to modern leftism only. We leave open the question of the extent to which our discussion could be applied to the leftists of the 19th and early 20th centuries.

9. (fr) The two psychological tendencies that underlie modern leftism we call “feelings of inferiority” and “oversocialization”. Feelings of inferiority are characteristic of modern leftism as a whole, while oversocialization is characteristic only of a certain segment of modern leftism; but this segment is highly influential.

The concept of leftist is strongly ambiguous and thereby shouldn't have been brought into this in first place (in my opinion, at least). The author seemed to have no choice: while what he's trying to describe is mostly a mere psychological type, choosing any word other than "leftist" to identify the subject carrying it wouldn't have conveyed the same connection to such a specific political sector. This connection is crucial as what the author will do from now on is showing how this specific psychological type affected the leftist movements through out modern history. Still, Unabomber was smart enough to leave out the historical leftist movements of 19th and early 20th centuries thus preventing even further confusion and ambiguity (his points might still apply to those movements as well, but since they belong to a different context from the computer age taking them into consideration would result in straying off the main topic).

ISAIF Commentary - Introduction

The first chapter is very linear, clear and relatively short so it doesn't need to be broken down in parts.

"1. (fr) The Industrial Revolution and its consequences have been a disaster for the human race. They have greatly increased the Iife-expectancy of those of us who live in “advanced” countries, but they have destabilized society, have made life unfulfilling, have subjected human beings to indignities, have led to widespread psychological suffering (in the Third World to physical suffering as well) and have inflicted severe damage on the natural world. The continued development of technology will worsen the situation. It will certainly subject human being to greater indignities and inflict greater damage on the natural world, it will probably lead to greater social disruption and psychological suffering, and it may lead to increased physical suffering even in “advanced” countries."

"2. (fr) The industrial-technological system may survive or it may break down. If it survives, it MAY eventually achieve a low level of physical and psychological sutfering, but only after passing through a long and very painful period of adjustment and only at the cost of permanently reducing human beings and many other living organisms to engineered products and mere cogs in the social machine. Furthermore, if the system survives, the consequences will be inevitable: There is no way of reforming or modifying the system so as to prevent it from depriving people of dignity and autonomy."

"3. (fr) If the system breaks down the consequences will still be very painful. But the bigger the system grows the more disastrous the results of its breakdown will be, so if it is to break down it had best break down sooner rather than later."

"4. (fr) We therefore advocate a revolution against the industrial system. This revolution may or may not make use of violence; it may be sudden or it may be a relatively gradual process spanning a few decades. We can’t predict any of that. But we do outline in a very general way the measures that those who hate the industrial system should take in order to prepare the way for a revolution against that form of society. This is not to be a POLITICAL revolution. Its object will be to overthrow not governments but the economic and technological basis of the present society."
 

The author speculates a lot in points 2, 3 and 4 but I find his outcome prediction to be roughly correct. Even without taking possible revolutions into account, there isn't really any other option for mankind's future after all: whatever the case, our society will either go on and keep growing or collapse at some point for some reason. What's left unclear is the nature of the pathologic relationship between individuals and society based on which human suffering will keep increasing as society keeps growing. This is just the introduction though, therefore more light will be shed on this points later on. As by now, what the author cares to outline is that if society were to collapse, the sooner this happens the less individuals would suffer. A remarkable point is the one stating a revolution against the system would not imply overthrowing a government but rather a lifestyle, in a much similar way to what happens in the movie fight club (in fact I mentioned something about it in my recent review).

"5. (fr) In this article we give attention to only some of the negative developments that have grown out of the industrial-technological system. Other such developments we mention only briefly or ignore altogether. This does not mean that we regard these other developments as unimportant. For practical reasons we have to confine our discussion to areas that have received insufficient public attention or in which we have something new to say. For example, since there are well-developed environmental and wilderness movements, we have written very little about environmental degradation or the destruction of wild nature, even though we consider these to be highly important."

Needless to say, the areas in which the author has something new to say are of course the parts where the manifesto's originality resides. Without those it wouldn't be as interesting to read and wouldn't differ that much from other radical environmentalist manifestos.

Controversial Turn: Industrial Society and its future commentary project begins!

The reflections I've been stuck into during the last few days, mostly revolving around human society and its future (they also led me to make the earlier post about overpopulation) brought me back to the time when I stumbled upon a very controversial essay which ended up changing most of my ideas and views about humanity. For a long time I've been unsure wheter to speak about it or not but after giving it some thought I figured out I definitely should on this blog as many of my ideas are actually inspired by it as well as a lot of my posts' content. This consists however in a very controversial turn for this blog because the essay I'm speaking of is Industrial Society and its future by Ted Kaczynski, better known as the Unabomber's manifesto. Yes, we're dealing with one of the most famous American terrorists and one of FBI's most wanted in the 80s who will moreover find on this blog a place to have his ideas published.

The fact is, no matter how controversial the author's nature and no matter how much I can despise terrorism and murder, I was surprised since the very beginning. Without justifying the author's actions I thereby set my prejudices aside and kept reading on. In the end the manifesto struck me with some very unique observations, concepts and conclusions as well as the general sociopolitical ideal behind it. Many initially unexplainable/unclear factors of human behavior became clearer to me after reading Industrial Society and its future which brought me to the need of sharing it, along with my personal thoughts/comments, with the others. Willing or not.

Since the manifesto is pretty long, I'll break it down into parts and comment on each one separately. This should also make it easier to read for the viewers. Unfortunately, this also comes with 2 consequences: the first one is that while busy on the manifesto it is likely I won't have much time for posts about other topics anymore, hence the blog's attention will remain almost completely focused on the manifesto for some time. The second one is that comments will be disabled for the whole duration of the project. Sorry guys, I know it's a low blow. It's just that I've seen way too many discussions turn into useless flame wars just because of the author's radical nature. You may or may not agree with this, but I've made my decision.