Archive for the 'Psychology' Category

Book Review – The True Believer

Wednesday, July 21st, 2010

What would Moses, Adolf Hitler, Martin Luther, Osama bin Laden, and Josef Stalin have in common?

 They were all leaders of mass movements comprised of The True Believer, as described in Eric Hoffer’s 1951 provocative classic.

 Impossible, you say?  Insane, you say?  Not if taken merely in the psychosocial terms that Hoffer lays out in his book.  He sets forth his working hypothesis and presuppositions in the preface (you should always read the preface!): “All mass movements generate in their adherents a readiness to die and a proclivity for united action; all of them…breed fanaticism, enthusiasm, fervent hope, hatred and intolerance; all of them are capable of releasing a powerful flow of activity in certain departments of life; all of them demand blind faith and singlehearted allegiance.  …There is a certain uniformity in all types of dedication, of faith, of pursuit of power, of unity and of self-sacrifice.  There are vast differences in the contents of holy causes and doctrines, but a certain uniformity in the factors which make them effective.  …However different the holy causes people die for, they perhaps die basically for the same thing.”

 Quick critique: One of Hoffer’s basic presuppositions is the moral equivalency of all mass movements.  Again, from the preface (you should always read the preface!): “The book passes no judgments, and expresses no preferences.  It merely tries to explain…”  Of course, this is self-referentially absurd: not judging is itself a judgment, and not preferring is itself a preference.  Complete objectivity and absolute neutrality are myths.  Leveling all mass movements is a reductive fallacy of the first order (I call it “nothing buttery’): reducing Judaism, Christianity, Islam, Communism, and National Socialism all to “nothing but” fanaticism may account for some of their similarity, but it fails to take into account not only the obvious differences in their doctrines, but also the stark differences in their outcomes. 

 However, on a strictly human level (akin to Solomon’s view of life “under the sun” in Ecclesiastes), Hoffer’s analysis is fascinating.  As I read, I found myself applying his characteristics of the true believer to various political, cultural, and religious leaders in the news today.  See if this reminds you of anything in our recent experience: “…extravagant hope, even when not backed by actual power, is likely to generate a most reckless daring.  For the hopeful can draw strength from the most ridiculous sources of power – a slogan, a word, a button.  …As for the hopeful…they all proceed recklessly with the present, wreck it if necessary, and create a new world.  …When hopes and dreams are loose in the streets, it is well for the timid to lock doors, shutter windows and lie low until the wrath has passed.  For there is often a monstrous incongruity between the hopes, however noble and tender, and the action which follows them.  It is as if ivied maidens and garlanded youths were to herald the four horsemen of the apocalypse.”

 How and why do people become fanatical?  Said another way: what kind of person is susceptible to fanaticism?  This is what Hoffer is trying to explain most of all.  Basically, his answer is: those who are unhappy with their lives as they are and have no hope of changing their situation.  “The ideal potential convert is the individual who stands alone, who has no collective body he can blend with and lose himself in and so mask the pettiness, meaninglessness and shabbiness of his individual existence.”  The two greatest needs of the human psyche – a sense of belonging and a sense of purpose – are unfulfilled in this person, until the mass movement offers them both to him.  Part Two of the book devotes a chapter to each type of potential convert: the poor, misfits (including youth, unemployed college graduates, and immigrants), the inordinately selfish, the ambitious, minorities, the bored, and sinners (more on that last one later).  Do we know any of these in America today?

 What kind of society is a breeding ground for a fanatical movement?  “The milieu most favorable for the rise and propagation of mass movements is one in which a once compact corporate structure is…in a state of disintegration.  …Where the corporate pattern is strong, it is difficult for a mass movement to find a footing.”  So where families, churches, communities, and nations are strong and vibrant, people are satisfied with life, and they are resistant to being radicalized, but where these institutions and cultural bonds are in decay, mass movements may be fomented.  Do we know anything like this in America today?

 Hoffer maintains that the two outstanding marks of a mass movement are “united action” and “self-sacrifice.”  He deals with these two dynamics in detail in Part Three.  Techniques and tools used by movement leaders to unify their followers include: hatred, imitation, persuasion and coercion, action, and suspicion.  Factors promoting self-sacrifice include: identification with the group, make-believe (rituals, symbols, etc.), a coherent system of doctrine (plausible worldview), deprecation of the present in favor of a better future.  On the latter: “Possessed of a vivid vision of past and future, the true believer sees himself part of something that stretches endlessly backward and forward – something eternal.”  Of the fanatical self-discipline and self-sacrifice that these movements demand (and get!), Hoffer, consistent with his premises, gives a psychological explanation: “The self-mastery needed in overcoming the appetites gives [the true believers] an illusion of strength.  They feel that in mastering themselves they have mastered the world.  …It is a device to camouflage their shortcomings.”

 There are several types of leaders who generate, expand, and sustain mass movements.  One type is “the man of words.”  Observes Hoffer: “It is easy to see how the faultfinding man of words, by persistent ridicule and denunciation, shakes prevailing beliefs and loyalties, and familiarizes the masses with the idea of change.  …For it is a remarkable fact that the militant man of words…often prepares the ground not for a society of freethinking individuals but for a corporate society that cherishes utmost unity and blind faith.”  Does this sound familiar?

 Here are a few more random but quality soundbites.  Think about our current religious/political/social milieu and you will find these immensely and intensely relevant.

  • “A man is likely to mind his own business when it is worth minding.  When it is not, he takes his mind off his own meaningless affairs by minding other people’s business.”
  • “We cannot be sure that we have something worth living for unless we are ready to die for it.”
  • “Every mass movement is in a sense a migration – a movement toward a promised land…”
  • “The game of history is usually played by the best and the worst over the heads of the majority in the middle.”
  • “Unless a man has the talents to make something of himself, freedom is an irksome burden.  Of what avail is freedom to choose if the self be ineffectual?”
  • “There is perhaps no more reliable indicator of a society’s ripeness for a mass movement that the prevalence of unrelieved boredom.”
  • “Glory is largely a theatrical concept.  There is no striving for glory without a vivid awareness of an audience…”
  • “When there is no hope, people…allow themselves to be killed without a fight.  …How else explain the fact that millions of Europeans allowed themselves to be led into annihilation camps and gas chambers, knowing beyond doubt that they were being led to death?  It was not the least of Hitler’s formidable powers that he knew how to drain his opponents…of all hope.”
  • “It is startling to realize how much unbelief is necessary to make belief possible.  What we know as blind faith is sustained by innumerable unbeliefs.”
  • “It is the true believer’s ability to ‘shut his eyes and stop his ears’ to facts that do not deserve to be either seen or heard which is the source of his unequaled fortitude and constancy.”
  • “There is thus an illiterate air about the most literate true believer.  He seems to use words as if he were ignorant of their true meaning.  Hence, too, his taste for quibbling, hairsplitting, and scholastic tortuousness.”
  • “They pray not only for their daily bread, but also for their daily illusion.  …They are easily persuaded and led.”
  • “The atheist is a religious person.  He believes in atheism as though it were a new religion.”
  • “It is doubtful whether the fanatic who deserts his holy cause or is suddenly left without one can ever adjust himself to an autonomous individual existence.  He remains a homeless hitchhiker on the highways of the world thumbing a ride on any eternal cause that rolls by.”
  • “The fanatical soldier is usually a fanatic turned soldier rather than the other way around.”
  • “Hatred is the most accessible and comprehensive of all unifying agents.”
  • “Mass movements can rise and spread without belief in a God, but never without belief in a devil.”
  • “Passionate hatred can give meaning and purpose to an empty life.  Thus people haunted by the purposelessness of their lives try to find a new content not only by dedicating themselves to a holy cause but also by nursing a fanatical grievance.  A mass movement offers them unlimited opportunities for both.”
  • “When we lose our individual independence in the corporateness of a mass movement, we find a new freedom – freedom to hate, bully, lie, torture, murder and betray without shame and remorse.”
  • “It is probably as true that violence breeds fanaticism as that fanaticism begets violence.  It is often impossible to tell which came first.  …The practice of terror serves that true believer not only to cow and crush his opponents but also to invigorate and intensify his own faith.”
  • “The leader…articulates and justifies the resentment dammed up in the souls of the frustrated.”
  • “Not all the qualities enumerated above are equally essential.  The most decisive for the effectiveness of a mass movement leader seem to be audacity…”
  • “The frustrated follow a leader less because of their faith that he is leading them to a promised land than because of their immediate feeling that he is leading them away from their unwanted selves.  Surrender to a leader is not a means to an end but a fulfillment.  Whither they are led is of secondary importance.”
  • “The true believer is eternally incomplete, eternally insecure.”
  • “A movement is pioneered by men of words, materialized by fanatics and consolidated by men of action.”
  • “The blindness of the fanatic is a source of strength…but it is the cause of intellectual sterility and emotional monotony.”
  • “The fanatic is also mentally cocky…  At the root of his cockiness is the conviction that life and the universe conform to a simple formula – his formula.”

 Due to his methodological atheism, Hoffer gets a lot wrong – e.g., he asserts that fanaticism actually originated with Judaism and Christianity, he claims that Christianity was originally radically anti-family, he considers all religions to be irrational at their core, etc. – but he gets enough right that 60-year-old classic is worth a read, for as he says in the preface (and you should always read the preface!), “It is necessary for most of us these days to have some insight into the motives and responses of the true believer.  For though ours is a godless age, it is the very opposite of irreligious.  The true believer is everywhere on the march, and both by converting and antagonizing he is shaping the world in his own image.  And whether we are to line up with him or against him, it is well that we should know all we can concerning his nature and potentialities.”

Book review: Atlas Shrugged

Thursday, August 27th, 2009
Atlas Shrugged is either destined to have a place in future sets of The Great Books of the Western World…or it is the most pretentious politico-economic-manifesto-thinly-disguised-as-a-novel ever written.  The best way I can think of to describe it is in a good news/bad news format.
 

The good news is that Ayn Rand passionately hated statism in all of its forms (socialism, communism, fascism), and just as passionately loved America’s political liberty and economic free-market capitalism.  The bad news is that she considered all religion to be mere irrational superstition, and worshipped at the twin altars of naturalism and human reason.
 

The good news is that some passages in the book set forth brilliant analyses of the futility of the pseudo-morality of “social justice” and “the public good” that nearly always produces injustice in the form of political tyranny and economic poverty.  The bad news is that many of these analyses are embedded on boorish speeches by the characters that are supposed to pass as dialogue (nobody in the real world speaks in such long-winded soliloquies, because everybody around them would fall asleep), and crop up as predictably and often as songs in a bad musical.  (Example: The renegade radio broadcast from John Galt to the American public is over 50 pages long, and is referred to later as having taken 3 hours to deliver.  I believe it!)
 

The good news is that the book crafts a compelling description of the nation’s descent into anarchy at the hands of slimy, self-absorbed bureaucrats who worship money and power, and hide behind the facade of concern for the common man and use his natural compassion and sense of responsibility to enslave him.  The bad news is that the novel is filled with dopey scenes of aggressive, greedy sexual immorality by the principal characters.  (I’m sure this was daring and avant garde and shocking in the 1950s when the novel was published.)
 

Lest this review emulate the the marathon-like nature of the novel itself, I’ll give a brief summary of the story line.  The quizzical question, “Who is John Galt?”, is found on the lips of many characters as an expression of the meaninglessness and mystery of life (cf. “under the sun” in Ecclesiastes).  It turns out that John Galt is not just a mythical character.  He actually exists, and he has been recruiting the world’s movers and shakers - industrialists, bankers, scientists, etc. – to disappear without explanation in order to let the world devolve into chaos and squalor without their leadership.  This is because the world failed to appreciate them, disrespected them, and even punished their “greed” with confiscatory taxes and stifling regulation.  Galt called it “mind on strike,” and it was intended to “stop the motor of the world.”  (This is reminiscent of the thrice-repeated phrase in Romans 1 in describing God’s wrath on the Greco-Roman empire: “He gave them over…”)  Galt realized that the only way to defeat the parasitical “looters” (the statists, the collectivists, the progressives who don’t produce wealth, but just redistribute it) is to “answer the fool according to his folly, lest he be wise in his own eyes” (Prov. 26:5).  Galt conducts a planetary reductio ad absurdum: he lets the looters run the world in their own way, until they run it down completely.  This alone will give the lie to all of their beautiful but empty promises of “justice” and “compassion.”  This alone will break their spell over the common man and pave the way for the re-emergence of society’s true leaders.  Atlas doesn’t drop the world, but he does shrug…
 

Dagny Taggart, a railroad heiress and a brilliant and tenacious businesswoman, is targeted for recuitment, but she refuses to go on strike and tries to the very end of her strength to save the world by trying to outwit and outlast the bureaucrats.  However, in the end, she, too, takes Galt’s pledge, which summarizes Ayn Rand’s philosophy of life: “I swear – by my life and my love of it – that I will never live for the sake of another man, nor ask another man to live for mine.”  The heroes of the novel are Nietzsche’s “supermen,” who are larger than life, beyond good and evil, above the “morality of the herd” (which is what Nietzsche called Christianity), and who live for themselves.  In her thinking, this enlightened self-interest has a trickle-down effect, blessing others in the updraft of freedom and wealth that they create.  Objectivism is libertarianism on steroids.
 

A Christian critique of Rand’s worldview (which she and her devotees developed into a philosophical system called “objectivism”) would include, among others, the following points:
  • Her epistemology – her hyper-rationalism, the self-sufficiency and infallibility of man’s reason – is unsupportable, philosophically.  If, as her atheism requires, reality is just molecules in motion, then so is man’s mind (brain, really), so how can one trust it to perceive reality and explain it correctly?  In her worldview, my brain is made up of the same stuff as a raven, a river, or a rock – so why do I think I’m so smart?  Rand can’t explain that, and she doesn’t.  She just assumes it.
  • Her morality – which actually boils down to social Darwinism – also lacks a solid foundation.  Based in her atheism (see above), she has no justification for choosing John Galt’s honesty over the deceit of the bureaucrats, or even the violence of the looters.  There is no real reason to choose life over suicide.  Yet she does, thus sneaking Christian values into her system without giving religion any credit.  She sits in God’s lap to slap Him in the face.
  • Her politics and economics (federalism and free-market capitalism) – with which I happen to agree, largely, as the most workable applications of Christian doctrines to society in a fallen world – are unsupportable for the same reason.  In these cases, she actually makes the right choices, but for the wrong reasons.
I’ll finish with a very few quotes that give the flavor of the book.  (When I say “few,” keep in mind that this is a 1,000+ page book!)
  • “Yet no penny of his wealth had been obtained by force or fraud; he was guilty of nothing, except that he earned his own fortune and never forgot that it was his.”
  • “We haven’t any spiritual goals or qualities.  All we’re after is material things.  That’s all we care for.”
  • “So I want to be prepared to claim the greatest virtue of all – that I was a man who made money.”
  • “Dagny, there’s nothing of any importance in life – except how well you do your work.  Nothing.  Only that.  …It’s the only measure of human value.”
  • “He had the vitality of a healthy human being, a thing so rare that no one could identify it.  He had the power of certainty.”
  • “It is against the sin of forgiveness that I wanted to warn you.”
  • “By the essence and nature of existence, contradictions cannot exist.  …Check your premises.  You will find that one of them is wrong.”
  • “Run along, punk.  Go and try to pour a ton of steel without rigid principles, on the expediency of the moment.”
  • “Governmental scientific inquiry is a contradiction in terms.”
  • “So you think that money is the root of all evil?  …Money is not the tool of the moochers, who claim your product by tears, or of the looters, who take it from you by force.  Money is made possible only by the men who produce.  Is this what you consider evil?”
  • “Wealth is the produce of man’s capacity to think.  …To trade by means of money is the code of the men of good will.”
  • “Run for your life from any man who tells you that money is evil.  That sentence is the leper’s bell of an approaching looter.”
  • “Money is the barometer of a society’s virtue.”
  • “I have no higher, more reverent tribute to pay America, for this means: a country of reason, justice, freedom, production, achievement.”
  • “There are no evil thoughts…except one: the refusal to think.”
  • “The worst guilt is to accept an undeserved guilt.”
  • [From the bad guys]: “Freedom has been given a chance and has failed.  Therefore, more stringent controls are necessary.”
  • [From the bad guys]: “Man’s mind is the root of all evil.  This is the day of the heart.  …There once was an Age of Reason, but…this is the Age of Love.”
  • “It is this foulest of creatures – the double-parasite who lives on the sores of the poor and the blood of the rich – whom men have come to regard as a moral ideal.”
  • “Gold is the objective value.”
  • “The college had taught him that the purpose of ideas is to fool those who are stupid enough to think.”
  • “There had been a time when he had been expected to think.  Now, they did not want him to think, only to obey.”
  • “This would always remain to her – the immovable conviction that evil was unnatural and temporary.”
  • “To work – with no chance for an extra ration, till the Cambodians have been fed and the Patagonians have been sent through college.  To work – on a blank check held by every creature born, by men you’ll never see, whose needs you’ll never know, whose ability or laziness or sloppiness or fraud you have no way to learn and no right to question – just to work and work and work…  And this is the moral law to accept?  This – a moral ideal?”
  • “She turned to Galt.  ‘You were first.  What made you come to it?’  He chuckled.  ‘My refusal to be born with original sin.’”
  • “I had felt that I would kill the man who’d claim that I exist for the sake of his need – and I had known this was the highest moral feeling.”
  • “I saw that the harder I worked, the more I tightened the noose around my throat, I saw that my energy was being poured down a sewer…that the whole industrial establishment of the world, with all of its magnificent machinery, its thousand-ton furnaces, its transatlantic cables, its mahogany offices, its stock exchanges, its blazing electric signs, its power, its wealth – all of it was run, not by bankers and boards of directors, but by any unshaved humanitarian in any basement beer joint, by any face pudgy with malice, who preached that virtue must be penalized for being virtue, that the purpose of ability is to serve incompetence…”
  • “If any part of your uncertainty is a conflict between your heart and your mind – follow your mind.”
  • [From a bad guy]: “My misery is the measure of your sin.  My contentment is the measure of your virtue.  …You have the privilege of strength, but I – I have the right of weakness!  That’s a moral absolute!”
  • [From a bad guy]: “What’s logic when people are suffering?”
  • [From a bad guy]: “It’s pity that we need, pity, not logic!”
  • “The desire [to kill] was…directed at the soft, safe assassins of college classrooms who, incompetent to answer the queries of a quest for reason, took pleasure in crippling the young minds entrusted to their care.”
  • “There is a morality of reason, a morality proper to man, and Man’s Life is its standard of value.  All that which is proper to the life of a rational being is the good; all that which destroys it is the evil.”
  • “By the grace of reality and the nature of life, man – every man – is an end in himself, he exists for his own sake, and the achievement of his own happiness is his highest moral purpose.  …The purpose of morality is to teach you, not to suffer and die, but to enjoy yourself and live.”
  • “Truth is the recognition of reality; reason, man’s only means of knowledge, is his only standard of truth.”
  • “A rational process is a moral process.  …There is no greater, nobler, more heroic act of devotion than the act of a man who assumes the responsibility for thinking.  …Thinking is man’s only basic virtue, from which all the others proceed.  …This, in every hour and every issue, is your basic moral choice: thinking or non-thinking, existence or non-existence, A or non-A, entity or zero.”
  • “Faith is only a short-circuit destroying the mind.”
  • “Virtue is not an end in itself.  …Life is the reward of virtue, and happiness is the goal and the reward of life.”
  • “Happiness is possible only to a rational man.”
  • “Be it a highwayman who confronts a traveler with the ultimatum: ‘Your money or your life,’ or a politician who confronts a country with the ultimatum: ‘Your children’s education or your life,’ the meaning of that ultimatum is: ‘Your mind or your life’ – and neither is possible to man without the other.”
  • “The name of this monstrous absurdity is Original Sin.  A sin without volition is a slap at morality and an insolent contradiction in terms: that which is outside the possibility of choice is outside the province of morality.”
  • “Do not remind me that it pertains only to this life on earth.  I am concerned with no other.  Neither are you.”
  • “The creed of sacrifice is a morality for the immoral.”
  • “When need is the standard, every man is both victim and parasite.”
  • “Destruction is the only end that the mystics’ creed has ever achieved.”
  • “I am, therefore I’ll think.”
  • “Moral perfection is an unbreached rationality.”
  • “Your happiness is the only moral purpose of your life, and that happiness – not pain or mindless self-indulgence – is the proof of your moral integrity.”
  • “The only proper purpose of a government is to protect man’s rights, which means: to protect him from physical violence.  A proper government is only a policeman…  The only functions of a government are…the police…the army…the courts.”
Ayn Rand…so near, yet so far…

What happened then?

Wednesday, December 12th, 2007

“Then the angel left her” (Luke 1:38).

I wonder how Mary felt.  Did she doubt?  Think it a dream?  A hallucination? 

Did the night seem the same as before?  Profoundly different?

Was she exhilarated?  Exhausted?  Afraid?  Supremely alone?  Did she laugh?  Cry?  Sleep?  Faint?  Shiver?

We know what happened later – the Great Miracle.

But in the minutes after the luminous voice disappeared, I wonder what happened then.