This is the Way We Wash Our Brains (So early in the Morning)
May 14
This is the Way We Wash Our Brains (So Early in the Morning) Part 8: What is a Cult?
I found several websites which list the characteristics of cults. To summarize them, basically, the techniques used by cults are the same ones used in brainwashing. It is true that the number of characteristics listed for inclusion as a cult vary, anywhere from 7 to 31 among 9 different sources, but the gist of each description is the same. Cults are groups which perform brainwashing techniques (as listed on May 8) in order to manipulate their members. In order to qualify as a cult, the group does not have to use all possible brainwashing techniques, only those with which its leaders are familiar and find to be useful. The only differences between cults and any other institution which uses brainwashing techniques are the following:
1. Cults are identified by the general public as "cults," although they resist this form of labelling, while churches, military institutions, autocratic famiilies, and gangs which apply such techniques are not so identified. Thus, the labelling of a group as a cult is a matter of social perception.
2. Cults typically put more effort into keeping its members separate from the rest of the population, something which contributes to their being identified as cults. However, even this distinction is equivocal, as many of the more cult-like churches, military institutions, families, and gangs also separate their members from the world at large, psychologically and/or physically. Churches tend to emphasize psychological (or "spiritual" they claim) separation from others, but also may have activities nearly every day in which their more active members usually participate. Military institutions have boot camps, and deployments during which the personnel are separated from family, friends, nation, news, etc. and kept relatively "in the dark" regarding what is happening in the "outside world." Families in which the parents brainwash their own children, also tend to isolate themselves from others, sometimes moving to remote areas in order to make it easier for them to isolate their children from outside influences. Their may even be "compounds" at which extended family members live, such as the polygamous group which just recently came to light in Texas. Gangs, as well, are known for forming tight-knit, surrogage families which tend to do everything together, including activities both criminal and non-criminal.
3. Those groups identifies as cults tend to rely on the guidance of one "charismatic leader" to a greater extent than these other institutions. This leader often claims superhuman powers and some fantastic cosmic purpose for the group, which it must by destiny fulfill. However, churches, the military, families, and gangs often have "charismatic" (another matter of social perception) leaders as well, who emphasize their great purpose, although perhaps less forcefully than so-called "cult leaders."
4. There is social and government sanction for churches, military institutions, and families. Even gangs are socially, but not governmentally, sanctioned in some quarters. In fact, churches do not have to pay taxes, members of the military receive many government benefits and official government "thanks" for their service to their country, and famlies with dependent children receive some tax breaks.
To conclude, my startling conclusion is that there may be little difference between many of these "mainstream institutions," at least in their more extreme forms, and cults.( In fact, the similarity of the U.S. Marines to a cult is strong enough to prompt an article pointing out the differences. For example, Marine Corps members are allowed to visit their families.) The difference is largely one of public sanction and perception. However, churches, military institutions, families, and gangs are ordinarily not as extreme as those groups which are identified as cults, so that they operate for the most part in sort of a mid-range between those groups which sanction free thought, and those which attempt to exercise complete control of its members minds and bodies. However, as human beings, we should all have the right to free thought, and freedom from such manipulative and oppressive techniques, so the widespread use of such techniques is something that I find to be destructive and subversive to the conduct of a happy, enlightened, and free society.
The following are some websites which further discuss cult characteristics and their effects:
May 13
Since yesterday, I have recalled more apparent "other side" experiences regarding my niece's drowning. Around the time my niece drowned, around 4:30 that afternoon, I lay down on the couch and suddenly was overcome by fatigue and a deep sinking feeling. I may have just been tired that afternoon, but that type of feeling is not normal for me. In fact, this may be revisionist thinking, but I cannot recall ever having had another sensation quite like that. Also, my sister-in-law's younger sister recounted having a similar real-dream experienceto mine in which she was visited by my niece, in which Rachelle was wearing a yellow dress (that is all I remember of what she said) around the same time frame as mine. The other experience, was told to me by my parents, who are very skeptical (especially mom), but told me with a sense of great significance, how a butterfly flew out of Rachelle's grave as the coffin was lowered. Maybe the butterfly was just relaxing in the shade, but when you put enough coincidences together, it forms a meaningful and suggestive pattern.
To add a comment on the brainwashing topic, not every church, military institution, or of course family uses the brainwashing techniques listed. Certainly, the Unitarian-Universalist Church which I used to attend of my own volition certainly did not make much use of these techniques. Unfortuantely for me, Eunice has a different idea regarding what a proper church is. On the other hand, even cults do not necessarily use all of the listed techniques. One other context for brainwashing techniques that I have since thought of is sports teams. However, this is a relatively minor context, and it really depends on the coach. I also thought of another aspect of brainwashing, which increases its power. This is a sense of purpose. The greater the sense of purpose a group leader can engender in the member's minds, the greater the leader's power to use brainwashing as a means of controlling the member's minds, That is why church leaders pontificate about the great ulitimate purpose of the church, generals and politicians pontificate about the great purpose of the military, and coaches pontificate about the purpose of the team going beyond just playing the game and winning games.
This is the Way We Wash Our Brains (So Early in the Morning) Part 7: Groupthink
There is a phenomenon among leadership which psychologists have identified as groupthink. This is an application of conformity-producing and brainwashing techniques. In groupthink, the group members (e.g. president and cabinet in the U.S.) have a sense of moral superiority, a sense of purpose, and a sense of "rightness" (whatever the prevailing view is, must be correct). Consequently, at least some of the group members suppress information which contradicts the prevailing view and course of action. Furthermore, some group members may have doubts about the group's beliefs and course of action, but are afraid to express these doubts. This leads to a false sense of unanimity and a false sense of security. "If we are the good guys, and we all agree on our ideology and course of action, whatever we do cannot go wrong" is the mantra produced by groupthink. Thus, the groupthink process utilizes the following brainwashing techniques: peer group pressure, metacommunication, disinhibition, uncompromising rules, vebal abuse, finger pointing, no questions, guilt and fear, along with a great sense of purpose creating great group cohesion, in order to create unanimous conformity among the members to a course of action.
If this description does not remind you of what has been happening with the Bush administration in the U.S., you apparently have not been paying attention these past few years. Even to foreigners, the groupthink qualities of the Bush administration should be readily apparent. I will write more about this issue in future posts when I go into more detail on politics, but basically, the Bush administration's groupthink has allowed it to boldly go forward where no administration has ever gone before, nor ever should have gone. Thus, the "neo-conservative" ideology (called neo-liberalism in Europe) of the Bush Administration, combined with its groupthink, allowed it to steadily move forward with plans to attack and occupy Afghanistan and Iraq, despite evidence that these moves would be disastrous; and, allowed the Bush Administration to give tax breaks for the wealthy and for corporations, those who least needed them; and, allowed the Bush Administration to continue the policies of favoritism toward corporations which was begun during the Reagan Administration; and, allowed for the further coalescence of Church, Business, Military and State to become the Great Republican Military-Industrial-Religious-Political Complex (my term), conflating each of these types of undue monetary and social influence and bringing its might to the support of the Republican Party. This is a very dangerous development, especially considering that at least some of those in power seem not to be above outright cheating, which they feel is justified. Keep in mind that groupthink is integral to this dangerous conflation of powers and contributes greatly to it. In fact, this is just the sort of thing that Dwight Eisenhower, before he left office, warned the world against, and ironically, Eisenhower himself was a Republican. How quickly the world of politics changes! My nation is desperately in need of a change in politics and policy now.
May 10
This is the Way We Wash Our Brains (So Early in the Morning) Part 6: The Dangers of "Ordinary Everyday" Brainwashing
We all know about or at least have heard of cults. That is a topic for another post in the near future. However, as I attempted to point out last time, brainwashing does not only occur in cults, but to a large extent, is an everyday, ordinary phenomenon. This time, I will take a brief look at the dangers of this brainwashing phenomenon.
First and foremost, as I concluded last time, brainwashing is a major source of discord in society. That is ironic, given that brainwashing is has the purpose of making people think alike and agree with each other. It may make people who are members of a particular group (church, military institution, family, or gang) think similarly, but at the same time, it also has the effect of causing a rift between the group and the rest of society. Different groups inculcate different beliefs in their members -- beliefs different enough to cause open conflict oftentimes. Thus, people commited to different causes and adhering to different group identities see different worlds, something to which these brainwashing techniques described last time conribute greatly. And we all know that when different worlds collide, bad things happen. It's Catholic versus Protestant, Protestant versus Muslim, Muslim versus Hindu, "The Great American Way" (as taught by the U.S. military's indoctrination) versus Communism (or whatever our government tells our military to oppose), and Communism versus Buddhism. It's gang versus gang, or peer group versus peer group. It's one family's vaunted values versus that of another family. It's the Hatfields versus the McCoys. It's the Montagues versus the Capulets. We all know how that turned out in Romeo and Juliet. Okay, so that was a work of fiction, but the fact that this play remains such a classic indicates the underlying truth behind it -- that even different families can promote opposing world views in their children, especially since they get to propagandize and brainwash them from birth if they are so inclined.
Secondly, many brainwashing techniques have the effect of tearing down a person's self-esteem. Rejection of old values, verbal abuse, confession, guilt, and self-criticism to name a few, all tear away at one's self-esteem. The object is to make the person feel worthless without the group; only through his or her participation in the group, can that person gain acceptance and redemption. This is clearly causing intentional psychological damage, at least to those who are vulnerable to such techniques.
Thirdly, a couple of these brainwashing techniques are bad for a person's health. In particular, sleep deprivation and change of diet such as fasting, both of which are very common techniques, tend to damage a person's health. Sleep deprivation is the most dangerous. It causes considerable stress to the body, making the person prone to illness, confusion, mistakes, and irritability, for example. Change of diet can deprive the person of important nutrients, and fasting, in particular, while it is a good way to lose weight, deprives a person of all nutrition, and carried to the extreme, can become anorexia.
Fourthly, brainwashing can lead to rebellion. How many children of the extremely religious end up being atheists? That is a very common sort of rebellion against the church. Many children raised in the church rebel against the nonsense and autocratic techniques of the church by becoming the opposite, once they have the chance. they go from one extreme to the other. And of course, this increases the level of conflict in society. Many soldiers, or ex-soldiers, become psychologically damaged. They are trained to use lethal weapons, but something deep in their psyches tells them to become pacifist. (One study of soldiers who participated in World War II found that the majority of them -- 70% I believe -- never even fired their guns, even during combat.) They suffer nightmares and post-traumatic syndrome. All of these problems are exacerbated by the brainwashing they have received as members of the military. And let us not forget those children from authoritarian-type families who swear never to raise their children the way they were raised, who have strained, if any, relations with their parents after becoming adults.
Lastly, but not least. brainwashing techniques contribute to delusional thinking. A particular, inaccurate world view is inculcated. A person who accepts all of the brainwasher's messages pays the price of believing their delusions in order to gain acceptance to the group and share in its feeling of moral superiority and ultimate triumph. Only if, and when the person finds out that the moral superiority and eventual triumph of his or her adopted world view are delusions, the person realizes the deal made to gain group acceptance was not worth it. They were conned, and the conmen (or conwomen) were the leaders of the group, the brainwashers.
May 8
This is the Way We Wash Our Brains (So Early in the Morning) Part 5: What is Brainwashing?
My Webster's Dictionary defines brainwashing (which comes from the Chinese term "xi-nao" literally meaning "wash-brain") as "1. Indoctrination 2. The systematic alteration of personal convictions, beliefs, habits, and attitudes to follow politically acceptable lines." Essentially, brainwashing amounts to persuasion techniques, in which one persuader is in a position of authority over the "persuadee," and in which the persuader exercises considerable pressure to conform on the "persuadee." Two main forms that brainwashing take are religious indoctrination, and political indoctrination. Brainwashing is something which people generally associate with religious cults and totalitarian political regimes. While it is true that brainwashing is most overt and prevalent in these contexts, brainwashing, or at least many of its characteristic techniques, are frequently applied in a variety of contexts. In other words, brainwashing is another one of those activities that people think "doesn't happen here; we don't do that type of thing," while, in fact, brainwashing, or at least many of its elements, is something to which the vast majority of us are subjected in both a religious and a political sense.
A website I found which surprisingly enough is from Finland and mostly about music provided the best list I could find of brainwashing techniques. With only minimal explanations (the Finnish website has those), here are the techniques. Keep in mind that in order to qualify as brainwashing, not all of these techniques need to be applied. There is no exact definition regarding exactly which of these and/or how many need to be applied in order to qualify as brainwashing, so I guess the determination of whether or not brainwashing has taken place is somewhat subjective. I also indicate which of these techniques are typically seen in church (i.e., "mainstream churches) and which are applied by military institutions, family (especially authoriarian parents) and/or gangs, following the dashes. All of these techniques may be used by socially isolated cults, or by totalitarian governments engaging in political indoctrination, but my main point here is how many of these techniques are applied by "regular" churches, government operated military institutions (army, navy, air force, or marine corps, for example), families, or even peer groups such as gangs. You may recognize that you have been exposed and perhaps continue to be exposed to many of these techniques in your own life
1. Hypnosis (repetitiveness, music, voice patterns, airy rooms) -- church
2. Peer Group Pressure -- family, gangs, church
3. "Love Bombing" -- church
4. Rejection of Old Values -- church
5. Confusing Doctrine -- church
6. Metacommunication (emphasizing key words) -- church
7. Removal of Privacy -- family, military, church
8. Disinhibition (encouragement of childlike obedience) -- military, church
9.. Uncompromising Rules -- family, gangs, military, church
10. Verbal Abuse -- military, family
11. Sleep Deprivation -- military
12. Dress Codes -- family, military
13. Chanting or Singing -- gangs, church
14. Confession -- church
15. Financial Commitment -- church
16. Finger Pointing (at the sinful "outside world") -- church
17. Isolation -- military
18. Controlled Approval -- military
19. Change of Diet (by fasting or reduction in important nutrition) -- church
20. Games (with obscure rules) -- ?
21. No Questions -- family, military, church
22. Guilt -- church
23. Fear (threats of physical beatings or spritiual damnation for even the slightest undesirable thoughts, words, or deeds) -- family, military, church
Final Tally: church, 17 techniques; military, 10 techniques; family, 7 techniques; gangs, 3 techniques.
Additionally, there are three principles of Re-Education:
1. Repetition -- family, gangs, miltary, church
2. Activity Pedagogics (being kept too busy to critically analyze what is really going on) -- military, church
3. Criticism and Self-Criticism -- church
Final tally: church, 3 techniques; military, 2 techniques; family, 1 technique; gangs, 1 technique.
Notice how many of these techniques are commonly used in church and/or military, as well as family and gangs. These are based on my own judgment, knowledge, and observation, but is a matter of great consternation to me. People often lament at our constant disagreements and wonder why people cannot get along, why they see the world differently. I think a major part of the answer lies in these brainwashing techniques.
May 7
This is the Way We Wash Our Brains (So Early in the Morning) Part 4: The Birthday Day
The date May 7 is an unusual one for me. It is the birthday of three significant persons in my life, and they are definitely not triplets. But they all share the same brithday -- same date, different years. First and most important is my mother. She was born on this date in 1929, the year of the stock market crash and the beginning of the Great Depression. I credit my mother as well as my father for setting me on the path of intellectual freedom and giving me the ability to resist influence attempts such as propaganda. (And you thought this post had nothing to do with fighting propaganda.) Actually, I will have more flattering things to say about both of my parents in future posts, but for now, I will stick to the topic. As I had mentioned previously, my parents are well-educated. However, some well-educated parents attempt to force a very specific world view and belief system on their children -- not so with my parents. They would express their own opinions about many topics, but made it clear that we (my two brothers and I) were to think for ourselves, just as they had for themselves. Of course, to a paranoid and control-obsessed mind, that would be inviting the disaster of children who turn out very differently and very much in disagreement with their parents, but to an enlightened mind, this approach to parenting invites children to make role models of their parents, and take what is good about their approach to life, world view, and belief systems, while allowing for disagreement, further growth, and refinement on other issues.
Yes, my brothers and I are different from our parents in some ways, but by and large, we are similar in the things we value and our approach to life, as well as many of our opinions. One difference is that my parents are Republicans, and I certainly am not a Republican. I am pretty sure neither of my brothers is either. (Interestingly enough, all of my grandparents were "Roosevelt Democrats.") But my parents are not typical Republicans, and were not even before George W. Bush became President. They are pacifists. They are non-religious. They understand that some of the corporations in the U.S. have gotten out of control and are not operating in the interests of the public. (At least I think they understand this.) They tell me that the United States needs a third political party. (Actually, the reason we have a two-party system has to do with the fact that we have a winner-take-all election system, with no instant run-offs and no public campaign funding, as birthday boy Thom Hartmann has explained. Thus, if we want more political parties to enjoy true power, we need to change the way that elections are done in America.) They like Barack Obama, who I am 95% certain will be our next, and first non-white, President, and for whom I voted in the California primary. Things aren't always what they seem. When I think about it, my parents and I are really not that far apart even on a volatile issue such as politics.
The way my bothers and I were raised by my parents, seems to me to embody the Humanistic idea of raising children with unconditional love (my dad too). That is a style of parenting which allows children to develop their own talents and interests. Actually, their parenting style most resembles something I have run across called Nurturing Parenting, which involves discussions between parents and children, parents serving as role models, and setting broad limits on children's potential misbehavior, with only vague threats of punishment that are rarely if ever carried out, since the embarrassment of dissapointing one's parents is generally enough to keep children from misbehaving. Nurturing parenting as a whole leads to well-behaved, creative, open-minded childrenl.
My mother and I were always close as I grew up, and had frequent discussions about many matters. I am sure these discussions influenced me, but they also allowed me to develop as an independent thinker. Since my mother was a stay-at-home mom, while my father worked, she was the parent I generally spent the most time with, even as a teenager. Both of my parents are still blessed with relatively good health, by the way, and my wife Eunice has prepared a beautiful gift basket for her that we will take to her later today. Happy 79th Birthday, mother!
The next birthday person is my graduate school advisor, Carolyn Murray. Carolyn is an Afircan American Social Psychology professor at U.C. Riverside. Sometimes, we seemed like an odd pairing, but actually, we complemented each other very well. I have always had more non-white friends than white friends, anyway, to tell the truth, even though I am Anglo; my friends are Asian, Black, Hispanic and Euro-American. I appreciate all of them and their backgrounds. I suppose that is part of the open-mindedness imparted to my brothers and myself by my parents. (Both of my brothers seem to have a large percentage of non-white friends, as well.) Being African-American, and politically aware, Carolyn Murray helped educate me, not only regarding the discipline of social pschology in general, but also regarding the African-American point of view. I came to realize that African-Americans often see a different America than Euro-Americans do, and that African-Americans often see America more clearly and accurately than do Euro-Americans, or persons of any other race, for that matter. They see America with all of its faults, injustices and great potential in ways that are usually not evident to "white folks" such as myself. Dr. Murray has allowed me to see America as African-Americans do -- to understand the context of the recently publicized controversial statements made by Reverend Jeremiah Wright, for instance. I also am privileged in having experiences which allow me to have an Asian perspective (my wife, among others) as well as a Hispanic perspective on life. Happy Birthday, Carolyn! I know you must be thrilled about Barack Obama's success.
The final birthday person is Thom Hartmann a (brilliant, IMHO) progressive talk show host. He was born on this date in 1951. The first time I heard Thom Hartmann, around 2 years ago, I knew he was something special. I have listened to his show most mornings since then, and, if anything, I only become more impressed by him as time goes on. The very first topic I heard him talk about was him reading something he wrote about "Joe Republican." It was all about how Joe used all of the products and services of good, liberal government with the public good in mind, but at the end of the day, all he can do is complain about paying taxes, bureaucracy, tree huggers, and big government meddling in his affairs. Well, to sum it up, I found that Thom expresses opinions which I had long agreed with that I was not hearing anywhere else, at least not in the media, but at the same time, he is extremely well-read and well-informed, so that listening to his show is an educational experience. He has also written many books on a wide ranging variety of topics -- very much a renaissance man, and not really a specialist. That is another thing we have in common. Thom also has a great wife, Louise, who helps him, plus two daughters and a son, so he is a truely good family man. (In fact, contrary to conservative propaganda, divorce rates are consistently higher in the so-called "red states," so I have a hypothesis that progressives tend to make better spouses, which I plan to explore in a future post.) Thom is also a philanthropist who recently went to Sudan for about 2 weeks to help the people there out. Even though we have never met, Happy Birthday, Thom!
May 6
This is the Way We Wash Our Brains (So Early in the Morning) Part 3: What is Propaganda?
p.s. Excuse me if I seem rather irritated. I just accidentally erased this post when I was nearly finished, so I have to begin again from "scratch."
My Random House dictionary defines propaganda as "1. information of ideas methodically spread to promote or injure a nation, cause, etc. 2. the deliberated spreading of such information or ideas." Notice that this definition does not state that the agent of propaganda must be a government. Propaganda can be perpetuated by news media, churches, corporation, or any institution which has enough money and the motivation to spread information favorable to its point of view, in addition to governments. If you think that this definition of propaganda is too broad. let me try another. According to my Webster Dictionary, propaganda is "1. Any institution or scheme for propagating any doctrine, or system 2. Effort directed systematically toward the gaining of public support for an opinion or course of action." Either definition basically winds up with the same result. Propaganda can be and probably is promulgated pervasively by just about any institution with an "axe to grind," a point of view it wishes to promote. Even worse, an increase in propaganda is one of the unintended consequences of technological innovations which allow greater communication among people. We are caught in a vicious cycle; we need communcation in order to express ourselves freely and promote antipropagandistic ideas, for instance, but those same communication channels are taken advantage of by propagandists to gain undue influence over the public, perhaps even to the point of blatantly manipulating or controlling public opinion in some instances, all the while hypocritically casting themselves as heroes in the fight against oppression, propaganda, and totalitarian thought. The United States of America is thought to be the leader in the fight against propaganda, according to the doctrine of conventional American "wisdom," which itself is propaganda. Indeed, there is probably more propaganda going on in the U.S. than anywhere else in the world, because of the prevalence of major media communications in the U.S.
There are ameliorating factors, fortunately, in regards to the propaganda we are being blitzed with in the U.S. One is that it hits us from all sides; where there is propaganda from one side, there is likely to be propaganda promoting alternative viewpoints as well. The second factor which may ultimately help us to amend the problem of propaganda is that we can educate ourselves about propaganda and thus innoculate ourselves against the effects of propaganda. In fact, that is why I am witing this series of posts. A third factor fighting propaganda is free and open communication through the internet, as I am doing here. Also, keep in mind that propaganda, according to the above definitions, is not necessarily bad. For instance, government programs to educate the public and turn public opinion in a direction which is in the public interest is a good thing. For example public service messages against smoking cigarettes, against drunken driving, against taking illicit drugs, or in favor of education, are all examples of propaganda which ultimately help the public. I would consider these examples of good, productive, cost-effective government. (I believe that puts me in direct opposition to Libertarians, who believe the only legitimate role of government is to protect us from assaults on our liberties using whatever means it can including military force. The fundamental problems with Libertarianism are that 1. we need to function as a free society, not free individuals; and 2. what gives one person liberty may detract from and restrain the liberties of others.) Propaganda becomes destructive and against the public interest when it is used to promote the self-interests of those doing the propagandizing, or when it promotes self-delusional ways of thinking which the propagandists believe, in a one-sided way, without giving any consideration to information which contradicts the propaganda.
Unfortunately, there are many examples of self-promoting and/or self-delusional propaganda present in our society. In one of those fortunate coincidences which seem to happen so often, I heard about a program of government produced propaganda this morning on the Thom Hartmann show. Actually, it was the second or third time I had heard about this. Frankly, it is quite disturbing but not surprising. It seems that a reporter for the New York Times, whose name I did not catch, recently investigated the so-called "military experts" who have been appearing on news programs. He found out that since 2002, many of them -- around 80, I think -- have been paid by the Bush administration to help the administration out by supporting its invasion of Afghanistan and its attack on Iraq. Now, they are busy beating the war drums against Iran. Thus, they basically are being paid to tow the Republican Party line, all the while pretending to be unbiased and impartial military experts offering their genuine opinions on military strategy and options. This is one of the more blatant examples of propaganda presently taking place in the U.S. Yet, those perpetrating even this destructive propaganda are largely getting away with it. Why? One reason is that the media is in on it, too. Most of the media moguls (such as Rupert Murdoch) are Republican conseratives themselves, who are helped financially by the corporatistic policies of the Republican Party, at the expense of the vast majority of Americans, so they slant the media in favor of Republican "talking points" and ignore information to the contrary. Another reason is that after a lifetime of exposure to such propaganda, most Americans tend to believe it: "We are the good guys. Those guys are the experts. They know what they are talking about." In fact, it is to the credit of the American public that as a society, around 3/4 of us have become quite skeptical of the Bush Administration and its wars and policies. But it has taken a great toll on American society to convince most of us that we are, and have been, headed in the wrong direction. A third reason may be apathy or a lack of education about the dangers of propaganda in any society, including ours. We all need to be open-minded to the evidence, skeptical of likely propaganda, and get our "BS-ometers" working. Perhaps we need a national antipropaganda program to educate the public. That is what I would call really good government.
May 5
April 13
This is the Way We Wash Our Brains Part 2: Is Conformity Cool?
There are many factors which influence conformity behavior -- doing things one would not do otherwise for the sake of social acceptance. One way of looking at it is that social acceptance and companionship when a person conforms, outweigh any personal preferences or even principles or morals the person may have. Others, who do not conform, may suffer, but still refuse to conform because these things, being themselves, living up to their standards and morals, are more important than any potential reward for conforming. From the Humanistic Psychology standpoint, the road to self-actualization requires that a person become a non-conformist in order to follow his or her own individual path of self-improvement. Ironically, it is only through individuation -- becoming one's own person -- and self-improvement that a person can become a greater contributor to society, and even more, have genuine relationships with other human beings. This philosophy is one aspect of Humanistic Psychology that appeals to me, and I agree with wholeheartedly. However, since we are all individual, and carry a unique genetic code, unless one has an identical twin, genetics may play a role not only in determining our self-actualizing possibilities, but also in the tendency to conform. From an Evolutionary Psychology point of view, perhaps conformity has been adaptive; perhaps those who are conformist reap more rewards from the people around them, including opportunities to have offspring, so the gene or genes which contribute to conformity would become more common over time. This arguement is plausible and would explain why most people show conformist tendencies; however, as I stated yesterday, I am inclined to disagree with it to an extent. I believe that socialization, especially early experiences, play a greater role in conformity. Furthermore, I would argue that evolution would not favor very much conformity tendency, if any. It is the nonconformists who make creative innovations which allow societies to thrive and expand, and their citizens to multiply. Conversely, highly conformist societies tend to crash and burn; just ask the Mayans, the Spartans, the original scandanavian residents of Greenland, or the residents of Easter Island about that. Whoops! They are all long gone; all of those societies were highly conformist and thus unable to adapt to changing conditions. Add to that the conflict and disastrous wars which occur when conformist societies clash, and the arguement in favor of conformity seems pretty vacuous.
In my personal example, I stated that basically I have never been a conformist throughout my life. This is one of the most important factors, in fact, which led me to become a psychologist. I also said that I was naturally nonconformist, which seems inconsistent with a socialization explanation and may be somewhat misleading. I think it would be more accurate to say that whatever genetic influence there is on conformity or traditionalism, I got the form of those genes which favor nonconformity and nontraditionalism. However, if my life circumstances had been different, I may have turned out much differently, living a much more conformist and traditionalist lifestyle, perhaps. I was raised by nurturing. loving parents who rarely punished us. I was the youngest of three boys, so my parents were probably even more tolerant of my behavior than that of my older brothers, although they say I was easy to raise because I was well-behaved and exercised self-restraint and disciplined behavior relative to most children (especially boys). Thus, I really did not feel much, if any, pressure to change my behavior in order to please my parents. Rather, I felt loved, cute and naturally good and lovable by nature. As far as I was concerned, it was normal for children to be this way, at least ones I wished to consider my friends. I felt that if I just was myself and used my conscience to guide me to good behavior, people should like me for who I was. In that sense, I was already a Humanist before I had even heard of Humanism.
There were also children that I did not care for including several bullies, so I realized that some children were very different from me, and had suffered some sort of oppression. My mother made me more aware of that when she told me that the father of the first bully I encountered, who was a Black kid, had been killed by a White man about a year earlier, so he was angry and did not know how to deal with it. That gave me compassion toward him, and I never tried to retaliate against him, verbally or physically, nor the subsequent bullies, for that matter. However, I think parenting is a much greater influence on conformity behavior, or bullying behavior, for that matter. Research on parenting styles shows that children of Authoritarian (strict and punitive) parents tend to be more shy and conformist than children whose parents utiliize other parenting styles. They are also more likely to be aggressive when given the opportunity, especially boys who have been subject to much corporal punishment.
Another factor influencing conformity is culture. Autocratic societies may force people to greater degrees of conformity than they would otherwise like to display. In extreme circumstances, such as imprisonment or slavery, when a person's behavioral freedom has been taken away, the person does not have much choice but to behaviorally conform. Conformity of thoughts and feelings is a different matter, however. People who wish to "brainwash" others seek to control a person's thoughts and feelings, not only their behaviors; this is the only way to get true conformity. Most people live in a social microclimate of relative freedom. Despite the restrictions that governments may attempt to place on people, they operate amongst their families and peers realtively freely. Thus, although culture, and a person's freedom or lack of freedom to live as one wishes, can be an enormous factor in conformity behavior, personal experience factors such as upbringing and peer influences probably play a greater role in inducing conformity behavior. After all. people are people, and basically live their lives largely among family and peers.
Another finding concerning confomity concerns age. Early adolescence has been found to be the period of greatest conformity. Thus young people, kids, adolescents, and young adults, for whom being "cool" is often a great concern, are typically the most conformist. For people this age, being "cool" is often thought of as being different, as breaking away from parental influence, but while that may be true, being "cool" is about the most conformist thing that a person can do. People who try to be "cool" and different and nonconformist, ironically, wind up being the same, imitating each other. They delude themselves into thinking they are nonconformist, when in fact, they are joining a conformist culture not of their own making. The one exception to that may be the one who other people are trying to be like -- the "cool" celebrity who others are emulating. The leader of the gang does not need to conform. The leader of the gang makes the rules to suit himself (or herself). That reflects another finding by social psychology researchers. The higher a person's group status, the less conformity is seen. But that does not mean that the original "cool" guy (or gal) is some sort of maverick; the person may be a maverick, a truely creative person leading a creative lifestyle, or perhaps the person is simply well-known -- a child of wealth or a creation of the media, for example.
To answer the initial question, conformity is not only uncool, it is probably the least "cool" thing a person can do. The people who do things to be like, and be liked by, other people are probably the ones who should be called "nerds." There are people who might be consdered truely "cool," but they are people who know how to be themselves, who do not give in to conformity pressure, and they don't particularly care about "coolness," knowing it is only an evanescent social perception anyway, not a reality.
April 12
This is the Way We Wash Our Brains (So Early in the Morning) # 1: Born to Conform?
This multipart topic I have put more research into than others on this site. The first aspect to address is that of conformity, since it provides the underpinnings to other topics such as "brainwashing," "cults," and "gangs."
Conformity may seem rather simple, but actually it turns out to be quite complex. I admit I have a real problem when it comes to conformity. My parents have always said that I was "different" in a good way from other people from the time I was a small child. One quality they were referring to was my intellect, but there was a more important difference; after all, my entire family is smart. My father is a medical doctor, mother is college educated, and both brothers have Ph. D's. What really made me stand out was my lack of willingness to conform for the sake of being liked. I picked up principles very quickly and stood by them no matter what. I have a very low tolerance for nonsense and insincerity. There are just many things a have a hard time understanding about people concerning conformity. As my wife says when she is angry at me, I am the "stupid person of the world", but when she is not angry, I am one of the smartest persons she has ever met. One man's idiot is another man's genius. What she really means is that I have a certain nonconformist way of doing things and way of thinking which is not subject to compromise. I normally tolerate behaviors that I disagree with in others, since I usually have little choice but to do so, but I refuse to condone them or participate in them. I have come to realize that there are many other people who are naturally nonconformist yet perfectly sane, as I am, my wife fortunately being one of them, but by and large, as a social psychologist and even before I became a social psychologist, I see conformity being the norm all around me.
Conformity is a strange topic. When asked, nobody admits to being a conformist, but when tested in psychology experiments, the large majority of people are indeed conformists. We live in a "free society here in the U.S. Rugged individualism and nonconformity are valued. Only dummies are conformists, people say. Yet they stare at each other when another person in their midst is having a medical or psychological emergency, deciding that inaction is the best course of action -- it is better not to stand out form the crowd and make a fool of oneself. It seems better to leave the distressed person to his or her fate. This is called the "Bystander Effect" in social psychology and is well-documented. We say we are free-thinkers, yet most children adopt their parent's or cultures religion and values, even when it drastically conflicts with other religions or other cultures, and is a source of conflict as we are seeing currently in the world. A true free thinker would carefully examine all of the world's religions, for example, and then either adopt one, or more likely, decide that none of them is completely true and develop her or his own approach to spirituality or join in some alternative spritiual movement.
A few days ago, when I had already determined that I would begin this multi-part topic, I by fortuitous circumstance, turned the radio just before arriving home to a news station which was interviewing a man who was a former member of the polygamous cult in Texas which is being investigated by police in recent days. He was asked why the girls were forced to get married so young. I was expecting he might say that was so that they could have more and earlier babies in life for their polygamous so-called husbands. But what he said was that they were easier to convince when they were younger. They were more impressionable, more mentally manipulable, more "brainwashable." Perfecto! I already had the "so early in the morning" part of the title, and he just confirmed it: the younger they are, the easier it is to shape their world view. (I still suspect that baby-making also has someting to do with it, especially considering how many children were found on the compound, and the Mormon emphasis on large families as a way to higher standing in heaven.)
The question at hand, however, is whether people are born with a propensity to conform, or whether it is socialized into us. Perhaps most people have a genetic tendency to conform, just in order to "fit in" and be liked, but others, such as my wife and myself (and Barack Obama's mother, for example), do not. I suspect, however, with my usual optimism, that confrmity is mostly a matter of early socialization, and most people learn it is rewarding (instrumental, to use the behaviorist terminology) to be a conformer, because otherwise, people will not like you much, and make you an outcast of sorts. I must explicate here that there are two main forms of conformity, as I see it. The one I have been writing about is essentially conformity which is done for selfish reasons, to make oneself popular or feel good about oneself. That is the type of conformity which is problematic. The other type of conformity is that which is needed to have a coherent, functional society -- speaking the same language, following the same traffic rules and common courtesies. There is nothing insidious about this second type of conformity, but there is regarding the first, which can and does often lead to destructive behavior when such behaviors are the norm within a given context, and terrible conflict when intransigent world views clash.