In the first three parts of this essay, I discussed the nature of social organization in Paleolithic hunter-gatherer groups and how environmental changes and the increase in group size affected social structure and governance in the Neolithic Age and beyond.    As social groups increased in size, social regulation changed from egalitarian, participatory ”governance,” which kept the power of leaders in check, to situations in which ”leveling down mechanisms” could no longer prevent power from being concentrated in the hands of an elite leader or leaders.

In modern times, as Shultziner points out:

Democratic mass elections are modern forms of a leveling-down mechanism by which unsatisfied rank and file can replace their leaders. Elections also reflect a social mechanism of reaching a consensus similar to the ones in foraging bands. And, elections are an acknowledgment in the importance of legitimacy. Almost all regimes in the world today employ elections or referendums in order to exhibit popular consent to their rule. Authoritarian and non-liberal regimes are no exception. Iran, for instance, is far from being a liberal democracy for ultimate political power is vested with an unelected religious clique; yet, elections are being held in Iran and real competition between parties and ideas exists. Interestingly, 120 out of 192 countries held democratic elections in 2000. This implies that the heritage of ancient egalitarianism is very strong and it shapes social practices and institutions not in liberal democracies alone.

Thus, we may legitimately ask: If egalitarianism has been bred into humankind, then what is the future of “participatory democracy?” What form will it take as the 21st century proceeds at literally breakneck speed to a political destiny only dimly perceived?  The exponential development of technology, with its potential for connecting every member of the human race, is arguably the key factor that will determine the future of governance in a global society.  We may ask with some degree of trepidation:  Will democracy devolve into a “One World Government” run by a small oligarchy?  Or will it evolve into a new synergistic form of governance, quite unlike the old, grammar school type of majority-rule democracy, i.e., a “World Governance” that is not under the control of a few, but operates within a nexus of a multiplicity of interdependent groups or organizations all linked for a common purpose.  To decide between these alternative scenarios, we need first to examine the difference between “government” and “governance.”  Then, perhaps, we can see more clearly in what direction the planetary society appears to be hurtling.

The Difference Between Government and Governance

 I shall use the term, “governance” essentially in the sense described by Elizabeth Meehan in a paper (2003) entitled, “From Government to Governance, Civic Participation and ‘New Politics’: The Context of Potential Opportunities for the Better Representation of Women.”  Meehan, an Irish writer from Belfast,  asks rhetorically, “What is governance?”  and, then, and attempts to answer this question.

The notion is hard to pin down, but it does seem accepted that a number of forces have converged so as to change the nature of what it means to govern: forces such as globalization…Europeanization…pressures on the traditional welfare state, and new political cultures in which traditional methods of delivering the services of the welfare state are no longer regarded as ‘empowering’. It is also accepted that there is a discernible difference between government and governance. This is not to say that governance is displacing government; merely that the two forms of activity coexist [Emphasis added].

Analysts of governance focus on a range of new arrangements and practices. These include the fragmentation or sharing of public power amongst different tiers of regulation such as the European Union (EU), state governments and sub-state governments. Secondly, they point to other arrangements encouraging policies to be formulated and implemented away from the centre; the ‘hollowing out’ of the state through the ‘agentization’ of government and the privatization of the provision of utilities and services [citation in original]. Thirdly, analysts note an increasing reliance on partnerships, networks and novel forms of consultation or dialogue that are at the heart of ‘Third Way’ thinking about policy design and delivery.

Governance is usually defined by contrasting it with what is thought of as the traditional pattern of public power in which authority is centralized and exercised hierarchically [or, pyramidally (Editor)]–often called the ‘command and control’ model [Emphasis added].  Here, Prime Ministers dominate other ministers, ministers dominate civil servants, and central government dominates local government [citation in original].

Conversely, analysts of governance [see]…power as dispersed and relational and argue that governance arises from a lack of capacity on the part of governments, acting alone, to effect desired changes. Instead, public power manifests itself through increasingly blurred boundaries between different tiers of government, the public and private, and between the state and civil society….[According to this view] it cannot now be taken for granted that the loci of effective political power are national governments.  Instead, ‘effective power is shared, bartered and struggled over by diverse forces and agencies at national, regional and global levels’. It is being ‘repositioned’ and, to some extent, ‘transformed by the growing importance of other less territorially based power systems’.

Meehan goes on to make a very important point.

…it should be noted that one classical view of civil society is that it is epitomized by self-organizing networks that are independent of government–sometimes even a countervailing force (McLaverty, 2002: 304). Other analysts of civil society see it and the state as interactive, with disputed implications for democracy [Emphasis added].

Thus, according to Meehan, the idea of “governing” changes from…

…acting through vertical chains of command and accountability in a hierarchy of institutions to becom[ing] a facilitator or regulator of what goes on in [society]… in order to try to solve problems [Emphasis added]. Governance means ‘collective problem solving in the public realm’ [citations in original].

In my view, the distinction between “government” and “governance” boils down to the fact that “government” typically is used to refer to a “State,” i.e., a “what.”  In contrast, “governance” refers to a process of social organization and control, i.e., a “how.”  Thus, it should be rather obvious that one can have governance in a social group without the necessity for there being a State (government).  Thus “governance” refers to a general process, whereas “government” refers to the implementation of a specific kind of process by a State.  In this sense, to govern, then, is to organize and control social activities, be they within the jurisdiction of a State or within the purview of a company or other non-governmental organization.

Meehan cites several authors in explicating how the terms “governance” and “government” differ.   To make her points clear in the context of the foregoing definitions which I offered, I shall refer to the specific process of a State as “governing” and the process of non-state organizations as “governance.” 

What, then, characterizes the role of the State in governing?  The State is construed to be the ultimate “Authority” within a geographical region.  Stefan Molyneux defines a government (State) as “a group of individuals within a geographical area who retain the monopolistic, moral and legal right to initiate force.”  Alternatively, what characterizes the role of non-State organizations in governance?  Non-governmental organizations tend more likely than not to be concerned with activation, regulation, or facilitation of social activities.

With regard to dominant mode of functioning, “governing” is characterized by the pursuit of a common, state-defined, ”national interest.”  In contrast, “governance” is concerned with coordinating and harmonizing the varied interests of group members.

What are the primary patterns of interaction under the governing mode and the governance mode?  The former is characterized by a “command and control,” and in most States today, it is based on majority rule.  The latter depends on multilateral negotiations to develop policies.

 Individuality and its Relationship to the Whole

We may justifiably ask: If egalitarianism is wired-in at birth as a result of evolutionary processes operating over millions of years, why then did we as a species develop into societies that so frequently have gone to war and have been governed by strong, dominant leaders who often dictate policy for members of their social or national groups?  I suggest that an answer may lie in the apparent parallelism between the development of the psychological organization of the individual  (individuation) and the development of the social organization of groups of individuals.  In addition to egalitarian tendencies within groups, there appears to be a strong evolutionary push toward individuality that competes with the purposes of social groups.

The human newborn is, ostensibly, without any sense of individuality.  For quite a long time after birth, the infant remains connected with the mother by “a psychological umbilical cord,” immersed in what psychologists call “psychological symbiosis.” Erich Fromm has written brilliantly about the individuation process that occurs as the child eventually begins to sense, as her brain develops, that she is separate from her mother.  This is a world shaking realization, which we see routinely manifested in what has come to be known as the “terrible twos” when the child says, “No” to everything.  She has learned that this little word has enormous power in manipulating her world.  She can get all kinds of interesting reactions from adults around her when she voices her “No.”  

However, as Fromm astutely observes, this burgeoning sense of separateness can also be very terrifying to some children and there is a desire to return to that symbiotic oneness with the mother.  Fromm says there is an urge to “Escape from Freedom,” which is the title of his marvelous and most famous book written in 1941.  The child can pursue a number of avenues or “mechanisms of escape,” including automaton conformity and sado-masochism.  Both of these two mechanisms can lead to the development of a tendency to submit to the dictates of an authoritarian leader. 

However, I would suggest that separateness and individuality are only frightening because Fromm is talking about a child growing up in a society in which the extended family of early humankind has almost disappeared in favor of the modern, nuclear family with all of its inherent social isolation and lack of support. 

It would seem that a child born into an early, egalitarian, hunter-gatherer group of 25 members, or so, probably did not go through such individuation, that is to say, if Julian Jaynes is correct.  Jaynes argues that the capacity for individual self consciousness did not exist at that time.   Individuality was, ostensibly, unnecessary, in fact, it was counterproductive to the group purpose of insuring survival.  Yet, as we observe the development of early humankind, we see an inexorable march toward individuality and all of the resulting conflicts between strong individuals competing for dominance. 

We see the same development in societies as we do in individuals.  The individual starts out submerged in a larger whole, then develops individuality, and if he reconnects with the larger whole in a positive way instead of escaping from his freedom, then individuality becomes integrated as part of the larger whole of society.  Likewise, groups started out with all members participating in the social order with more or less equal access.  Later, with the development of strong leadership in tribes and then nation states, the individual escaped from the freedom of individuality into submission to authority.  Now, in the 21st century, we are seeing a process developing on a global scale which appears to be quite similar to the positive reconnection of the individual with the larger whole of his society.  All over the world, we see groups of people attempting to integrate themselves within a global whole.  Some fear this as a potential return to the autocratic horrors of the past.  Others see an entire new and promising vista.  How we resolve the pessimistic and the optimistic views will be crucial in determining the future.  But, it appears to me that Life is impelling us in the direction of a new cooperativeness and interconnection, not to a development of the mega-authoritarianism of Orwell’s “Big Brother.”  However, the question remains whether the evolution of humankind will get shunted off the main path into an evolutionary cul-de-sac.

There is another perspective to consider which may shed some light on the development of individuality and its exaggerated perversion in the 20th century domination of the masses that occurred on a grander scale than in all of recorded history.  This different slant is to be found in the role of the human need for “recognition” as discussed by Shultziner. 

A Human Need for Recognition?

Shultziner points out that it is import to look beyond exogenous (environmental) factors in order to understand how democratic forms of government came into being.  He calls attention to the endogenous (psychobiological) factors which are involved in the development of democratic governance.

Transitions to democracy, modern and ancient, are not a result of environmental factors alone. A change in environmental conditions would not lead to the replacement of regimes, and leveling-down mechanisms would not lead to more egalitarian social structures, if human beings were not predisposed to react to environments in certain ways.

He goes on to say:

It is clear, then, that we must examine human nature (or endogenous factors) to seek a candidate for a psychological adaptive predisposition which can illuminate the generic historical course toward democracy. Democracies did not “just happen” in different places and at different times; something brought them into being. To my understanding, the proximate underlying factor which gives history its generic (sic) course is the psychological predisposition of the pursuit of recognition [Emphasis added].

Is there a human need for recognition that is just as strongly wired-in at birth as the egalitarian tendency that characterizes groups?  If so, then this would seem to be a outgrowth of the tendency toward individuation and a convenient measure of the tendency toward self assertion.  What do social psychological and genetic research have to say on this issue?

Democracy and the Striving for Recognition

To provide a foundation for his theory of the development of democracy, Shultziner links the striving for “recognition” to the social psychological research on self esteem.

Pursuit of positive self-esteem is a psychological motivation to achieve, maintain or defend one’s positive evaluation of oneself, a motivation not to lose a sense of positive self-worth. The motivation to achieve positive self-esteem is crystallized through acts that are meant to attain and maintain recognition from others. This main characteristic of the self-esteem phenomenon can be referred to as a search, a quest, or a pursuit of recognition [Emphasis added]….The level of self-esteem is defined by the contingencies [rewarding events] one subjectively deems as important to one’s life and not by objective criteria [citations in original].  In that sense, contingencies of self-esteem are not constant: they can, and usually do, change or alternate in their importance in the course of one’s life.

Some people’s contingencies [rewarding events]  for positive self-esteem are in individualistic terms such as successes in academic competence, athletics, physical appearance, god’s love, power and self-reliance [citation in original]; others’ self-esteem may depend on political and communitarian aspects such as adhering to community values for reasons of social acceptance, fulfilling and promulgating personal moral convictions, or pursuing public apology for recognition in perceived historical wrongs. People’s contingencies of self-esteem [rewarding events]  may vary but the psychological phenomenon itself is universal [citation in original]. The implications of these characteristics of self-esteem to politics are significant. People may define the way their regime treats them as a contingency[rewarding event]  of self-esteem. People may admire their royalties, kingships or religious sages (as people still do in many parts of the world) and regard their existence as important to their positive self-esteem; or, people may come to perceive certain regimes as despotic and detrimental to their positive self-esteem like they have in the past. Despotic regimes, however, cannot easily convince their populace that they are not despotic. And, once a regime is perceived as despotic (regardless of how enlightened it intends to be) it will be regarded as an obstacle to one’s positive self-esteem or even as an outright humiliation to one’s worth and dignity. This psychological predisposition to regain and defend positive self-esteem will motivate people to limit or dethrone the despotic regime by employing leveling-down mechanisms such as protests, elections or violent revolutions [citation in original].

Regimes around the world, democratic and non-democratic, are aware of the salience of being perceived as recognizing and respecting their citizens, and hence most regimes make an effort to be seen as speaking in the ‘name of the people’, as elected by the people, or at least as not disrespecting the worth and dignity of their populace. Citizens, on the other hand, can be quite sensitive to the way their regime treats them or to the policies their regime implements. Certain policies may be seen as lacking recognition or as misrecognizing people’s worth.

Shultziner proceeds to “present evidence to support the claim that the pursuit of recognition is a universal and central characteristic of human nature” and that “that perceptions of recognition or non-recognition shape politics.”

Self-esteem and pursuit of recognition are the most studied phenomena in social psychology. Although disagreements among contemporary theorists who specialize in the self-esteem phenomenon exist, one agreed fact does seem salient: almost all scholars agree that the pursuit of recognition is a pervasive characteristic of human behavior. Even those who content [sic - contest] the idea that pursuit of positive self-esteem is a psychological need and those who object that the pursuit of recognition is positive and healthy admit that in actual fact people do constantly pursue positive self-esteem in various ways, to various degrees and in healthy and unhealthy ways [citations in original].  Moreover, there is an agreement among social psychologists that positive self-esteem is a useful buffer against anxiety and that it brings about many other psychological benefits to the individual, and that the pursuit of recognition is a concept with useful explanatory power [citations in original].

What is undecided among students of self-esteem, though, is not if people pursue recognition, but rather why people do and whether the pursuit of positive self esteem is a universal human need, and whether it is a healthy pursuit or not [citation in original].

Shultziner goes on to say, regarding the human pursuit of recognition:

The universality of this phenomenon and its unique manifestations in different cultures have already been documented in a number of studies [citations in original].  Peculiarly then, social psychologists debate the theoretical origins of this phenomenon and not whether the pursuit of recognition is empirically a central behavioral characteristic of human beings.

In Part V of this essay, I shall discuss Shultziner’s review of evidence from genetic research and self-esteem and how these data illuminate “the innateness of the pursuit of recognition in an even more decisive way.”  Then, in the final installment (Part VI), I shall sum up the argument for an evolutionary perspective of the development of modern forms of democracy, including representative democracy as institutionalized in the U.S. Constitution.

Wenn junge Menschen den Glauben so praktizieren, grenzt das eigentlich schon an ein Wunder jedenfalls für mich. Elisabeth von Thurn und Taxis ist eine junge (wunderschöne) praktizierende Christin die mit Ihrem neuen Buch fromm! den Katholischen Glauben auch durch persönliche Geschehnisse erklärt. Sobald man den Namen liest, ein Bild sieht, hört das sie sich für Mode interessiert und auch derzeit in London lebt, kommt man zuerst gar nicht auf den Gedanken das so eine junge Dame den Glauben 100% ausübt. Die Heilige Gottesmutter Maria, Jesus, die Heiligen und Schutzengel sind für sie keine einfachen Symbole, sondern Freunde für die sie im Herz einen Platz frei hat. Während andere Menschen nur dem modernen und materiellen vernarrt nachrennen, rennt sie mit ihrem Glauben durch die Welt, von Weltmetropolen wie Paris, New York oder London bis Bayern oder gar Lourdes.

Ich habe das Buch fromm! welches aus 192 Seiten besteht, in 1 1/2 Stunden durchgelesen weil es mich eben fasziniert hat. Zum einen der starke Glaube dieser jungen Frau und zum anderen der Vergleich zu meiner Kindheit. Es ist schön zu wissen, das es da draußen noch Menschen gibt die meines Erachtens normal sind und nicht der heutigen halbzerstörten modernen Welt nachfolgen. Jeder wünscht sich eine bessere Welt, eine Welt in der Gott wieder eine zentrale Rolle spielt. Aber mit der Nachfolge des heutigen modernen kann man nicht viel verbessern. Vielmehr ist mit der Nachfolge Christi und dem Mut wie es Elisabeth hat viel zu machen. Eine bekannte und junge Autorin die ihren Glauben der Welt näher bringt. Mich hat es getroffen, mich hat es angespornt noch mehr im Glauben zu leben und mich hat es auch motiviert den Rosenkranz zu nehmen und zu beten. Danke Elisabeth für das nahezu perfekte Buch, denn es zeigt nicht nur den Mut einer jungen Frau sondern auch den Glauben und den Willen was zu verändern. Gott liebt dich!

Das Buch kann jeder bei Amazon für 9,95 € bestellen. Die 9,95 € sind wirklich sehr gut investiert, also nichts wie hin und bestellen!

Ein weiterer Grund für die heutige moderne Welt die sich langsam der Pforte der Hölle nähert ist definitiv die Sexualität die für Spaß und Lust missbraucht wird. Im Alten wie auch Neuen Testament erwähnt Gott, auch am Anfang der Schöpfung, dass Mann und Frau Geschlechtsverkehr haben sollen zur Vermehrung. Fromm sein heißt es also bis zum Heiligen Bund der Ehe, die mit Gott geschlossen wird. Analysieren wir was in den 10. Geboten steht:

• Das 6. Gebot: Du sollst keine Ehe brechen
• Das 9. Gebot: Du sollst nicht begehren deiner/s nächsten Frau/Mannes

Die Frage die sich auch die meisten Jungen Menschen stellen ist: “Wo breche ich eine Ehe, wenn ich vor ihr mit meinem/r Partner/in  schlafe?” Es ist einfach erklärend und sehr logisch. Wo keine Ehe ist wird allerdings irgendwann mal eine enstehen. Ob die Ehe nun vorher oder während gebrochen wird, ist egal denn sie wird nämlich schlicht gebrochen. Das neunte Gebot weist darauf hin, das mir die jeweilige Frau/Mann nicht gehört, erst wenn ich mich vor Gott binde, denn in der Ehe und in der Sexualität werden wir ein Fleisch. Mit der Sexualität die vor der Ehe durchgeführt wird, bricht man nicht nur die Ehe und verstößt gegen eines der Gebote Gottes, sondern man bricht auch das neunte Gebot. Gibt es schlimmeres als Gottes Gebote zu brechen?

Gut, vielleicht sind das zwei Gründe und Argumente die nicht viel bringen werden um junge Menschen umzustimmen aber legen wir mal alle Fakten von Sexualität vor der Ehe auf den Tisch. Was passiert, was ist gut und was ist schlecht?

• Wie oben erwähnt, bricht man zwei Gebote Gottes. Gut oder schlecht? Schlecht.
• Verhütungsmittel – man verhindert also neues Leben. Gut oder schlecht? Schlecht.
• Letzendlich kommt doch ein Kind und es wird eventuell abgetrieben. Somit tötet man einen Menschen und noch schlimmer: Ein ungeborenes. Gut oder schlecht? Schlecht.
• Viele entscheiden sich doch das Kind zu behalten, letzendlich geht die Beziehung kaputt und das Kind wächst ohne Vater auf. Gut oder schlecht? Schlecht.
• Durch Enthaltung bzw. Frömmigkeit ist man Gott letzendlich näher. Gut oder schlecht? Gut.

Wie ihr seht, gibt es nicht wirklich etwas positives an der Sexualität vor der Ehe weswegen die einfachste und beste Lösung ist, zu warten denn der Sex läuft nicht weg und ist definitiv viel schöner wenn man mit der wahren und richtigen Frau in der Einheit und im Bund der Ehe schläft.

Amen!

WSTĘP

„W toku jednak długiej i faktycznie nieustającej walki o wolność klasy walczące z uciskiem łączyły się na pewnym etapie z wrogami wolności: Mianowice po odniesionym zwycięstwie, kiedy trzeba było bronić nowych przywilejów”

Ten cytat z Fromma stanowi pozycję wyjściową do tego tekstu, który traktować ma o kolistości dziejów – w tym przypadku powiązanych z walką o wolność, uznaną za priorytetową wartość dla człowieka. Niemiecki intelektualista rozpatrzył ten aspekt w tak wybitny sposób, że trudno jest coś do jego toku myślenia dodać. Skupię się więc bardziej na samym wyłożeniu tego problemu, na podstawie ostatniego artykułu Adama Michnika  „Rewolucja i skandal zła” oraz książki Fromma „Ucieczka od wolności”. Będę starał się pokazać, że owa wyżej wymieniona kolistość dziejów stanowi nomen omen część ludzkiej natury – pełnej rządzy władzy. Inaczej nie dałoby się wytłumaczyć dorobków licznych rewolucji, które pochłonęły miliony ofiar. I mimo tego, że w większości przypadków rozpętywane były w dobrej wierze, to kończyły się tragicznie pochłaniając niewinne istnienia.

I

Deliberując nad aspektem rewolucji trzeba roztrząsać problem wolności. Nie rozpatruje się przecież rewolucji dążących do autorytaryzmu (chociaż te, o których rozmawiamy właśnie do nich zmierzają). Rewolucje zawsze nawołują do zrywania pętów, walki o wolność i wyswobodzenie jednostek (albo jak w przypadku komunizmu klas). Buntujemy się przeciwko władzy nadużywającej swoich uprawnień i ograniczającej nasze prawa. Przeciwko władzy totalitarnej, epatującej przemocą, stosującej wobec konfliktów społecznych rozwiązania siłowe. Początkowo przeciw tyranowi występują masy – bez określony przywódców tłumy walczące o swe prawa. Z czasem jednak nadchodzi moment, w którym do głosu docierają różnoracy demagodzy, manipulatorzy, kłamcy, a co najgorsze – tacy sami tyrani, jak w przypadku poprzedniej władzy. Niestety, tacy mali ludzie są  zazwyczaj od zwykłych silniejsi. Zło zasilone o populistyczne zdolności jednostek jest największym wrogiem prawa i dobra. Zmanipulowane przez tych despotów masy są pełne rządzy zemsty, pełnego przemocy odwetu. Walka o równość staje się w tym przypadku antagonizmem- równość, wolność i braterstwo przeradza się w wojnę  płynącą potokami krwi. Nie bez powodu podałem hasło Rewolucji Francuskiej. Bronisław Baczko mówił, że „Rewolucja Francuska stała się szybko modelem, swoistą matrycą następnych rewolucji” (cytat zapożyczony z wyżej wymienionego artykułu Adama Michnika). Przykład Robespierre’a pokazuje, jakie żniwa zbierają przewroty. I tak, jak pisze Michnik- „rewolucje pożerały swych ojców i swoje dzieci”- z siłą tej ideologii przegrywa każdy. Wspomniany przecież Robespierre, walczący ze zdemoralizowaną władzą monarchistyczną, sam stanął z nią na jednym poziomie. Jeszcze gorzej- liczbą ofiar „przegonił” francuskich monarchów.

II

Niedosyt rewolucji (przypomnę: „przewrotowej formy walki o wolność”) jest jej nieodzownym elementem. Ojcowie, którzy ją wywołali, płodzą dzieci dostrzegające w postępowaniu poprzednich niespełnione postulaty. Tyrani tworzą tyranów. Tak było też w przypadku Robesppiere’a, który sam stał się ofiarą swojego dzieła. Trudno orzec, że działania ojców nie determinują – a co najgorsze też potęgują – aktów przemocy, które osiągają stan pewnego rodzaju egzaltacji, radości z pełnienia zbrodni. Bo rewolucje powodują emanację przemocy. Te mechanizmy ujawniają się także w przypadku bolszewików czy Rewolucji Kubańskiej. Przykłady Włodzimierza Lenina, który potrzymał zdolnie swoją rewolucję dzięki systemowi terroru, sprawniejszym niż ten w wykonaniu swojego francuskiego odpowiednia (widać Rosjanin wyciągnął wnioski),  czy Che Guevary (ten skończył już źle), ukazują, że rozgoryczenie i niedosyt będą wynikową przewrotu. Ludzka zapalczywość, a  wręcz nieodpowiedzialny słomiany zapał, stają się pierwszym stopniem do klęski człowieczeństwa­.

III

Powracając jednak do Fromma, który rozpatrywał to zjawisko z perspektywy psychologicznej (a dzieło to wbrew ogólnemu mniemaniu, że ma zastosowanie jedynie przy aspekcie faszyzmu, jest uniwersalne). Wspominając Rewolucję Francuską, Rosyjską czy Kubańską miałem na celu pokazanie, jak bardzo kolisty jest system działania rzekomych oswobodzicieli. Fromm udziela nam przed tym przestrogi: „wolność bywa zagrożona w nie mniejszym stopniu, kiedy się ją atakuje w imieniu antyfaszyzmu, jak bezpośrednio przez faszyzm”. Na przykład wymienionego antyfaszyzmu można podać komunistów  odwołujących się do zwalczania nazizmu. Słowa Fromma należy jednak traktować jako uniwersalne, nie ograniczając się jedynie do faszyzmu i antyfaszyzmu.

Trzeba przy tej okazji wspomnieć, jak wielkim hipokrytą jest człowiek. W naszym toku myślenia dochodzi do pewnego paradoksu. Ludzie mianowicie jako najcenniejszą wartość pojmują wolność. Z drugiej jednak strony lubimy się określać i przyporządkowywać. Nacjonalizm, religia, poglądy polityczne – cierpimy na chorobliwą chęć odnalezienia się w czymś, co byłoby naszym wyznacznikiem, sposobem na życie. Robimy to wszystko automatycznie, instynktownie. Trudno powiedzieć, żebyśmy w ten sposób nie zatracali własnego ja – naszej osobowości, a co najważniejsze niezależności.

Dążąc do wolności (a radykalnym przejawem tego zjawiska jest właśnie rewolucja), odwołujemy się do pewnych ideologii czy sylwetek, które do tego nawołują. Początkowo nie jesteśmy tym „skażeni”, a jedynie się na wyżej wymienione przykłady powołujemy. Jednakże wraz z upływem czasu, coraz bardziej zmanipulowani stajemy się ich  niewolnikami. Dochodzimy jednak do punktu kulminacyjnego, w którym tezy głoszone przez pewne ideologie czy postacie nam nie wystarczają. Pomysły poprzednich są radykalizowane i w trywialny sposób reformowane. Rodzą się wnuki rewolucji, które tętnią żądzą wdrażania swoich pomysłów. Tak, jak mówił Ryszard Kapuściński: „Mechanizm terroru to mechanizm rozwijającego się i złośliwiejącego raka” (kolejny cytat z tekstu Michnika). Postulowana przez poprzedników wolność staje się wypaczana w rażący sposób.

Fromm winy w takim ludzkim działaniu dopatruje tego, czego człowiek boi się najbardziej – izolacji. Niesieni na fali przemocy ludzie boją się wykluczenia, alienacji. To właśnie ono determinuje rażące zachowania ludzkości, która w ten sposób zatraca swoje człowieczeństwo i sprowadza się do zwierząt łączących się w stada na czele z wodzem – najsilniejszym.

]]> http://yogaantiguo.wordpress.com/2009/10/15/la-oportunidad-de-dar/ Thu, 15 Oct 2009 18:57:58 +0000 Natalia Sanmartín Gil http://yogaantiguo.wordpress.com/2009/10/15/la-oportunidad-de-dar/

Por Yael Barcesat – Vía TuVerde

Foto: VivirMexico.com.

“Mucho pierde quien nada tiene: la oportunidad de dar”.

DeRose.

Dar genera fuerza. Erich Fromm aborda la dinámica de dar y recibir en su libro El arte de amar. El afirma que el placer de dar es mucho mayor que el de recibir, y eso se debe a que para dar es necesario tener. “Para el carácter productivo, dar […] constituye la más alta expresión de potencia”. El hecho de dar es, además, un ejercicio de la libertad.

Cuando uno da sin esperar nada a cambio, por el solo disfrute de la generosidad, recibe a cambio mucho más de lo que ofreció. Dar es más noble que recibir y produce más felicidad. El acto de dar tiene polaridad positiva en relación con el de recibir. Dar mueve el mundo, porque desencadena una reacción… [seguí leyendo acá]

“Marx wrote (in the Economic and Philosophical Manuscripts) that ‘free conscious activity’ (i.e., human activity) is ‘the species character of man.’ Labor, for him, represents human activity, and human activity is life. Capital, on the other hand, represents for Marx the amassed, the past, and in the last analysis, the dead (Grundrisse). One cannot fully understand the affective charge which the struggle between capital and labor had for Marx unless one considers that for him it was the fight between aliveness and deadness, the present versus the past, people versus things, being versus having. For Marx the question was: Who should rule whom – should life rule the dead, or the dead rule life? Socialism, for him, represented a society in which life had won over the dead.

“Marx’s whole critique of capitalism and his vision of socialism are rotted in the concept that human self-activity is paralyzed in the capitalist system and that the goal is to restore full humanity by restoring activity in all spheres of life.”

“For Spinoza, mental health is, in the last analysis, a manifestation of right living; mental illness, a symptom of the failure to live according to the requirements of human nature. ‘But if the greedy person thinks only of money and possessions, the ambitious one only of fame, one does not think of them as being insane, but only as annoying; generally one has contempt for them. But factually, greediness, ambition, and so forth are forms of insanity, although usually one does not think of them as ‘illness”(Ethics, 4, prop. 44). In this statement, so foreign to the thinking of our time, Spinoza considers passions that do not correspond to the needs of human nature as pathological; in fact, he goes so far as to call them a form of insanity.”

Only to the extent that we decrease the mode of having, that is of nonbeing – i.e., stop finding security and identity by clinging to what we have, by ’sitting on it,’ by holding onto our ego and our possessions – can the mode of being emerge. ‘To be’ requires giving up one’s egocentricity and selfishness, or in words often used by the mystics, by making oneself ‘empty’ and ‘poor.’”

“Perhaps the being mode may best be described in a symbol suggested to me by Max Hunziger: A blue glass appears to be blue when light shines through it because it absorbs all other colors and thus does not let them pass. This is to say, we call a glass ‘blue’ precisely because it does not retain the blue waves. It is named not for what it possesses but for what it gives out.”

“Having refers to things and things are fixed and describable. Being refers to experience, and human experience is in principle not describable. What is fully describable is our persona – the mask we each wear, the ego we present – for this persona is in itself a thing. In contrast, the living human being is not a dead image and cannot be described like a thing. In fact, the living human being cannot be described at all. Indeed, much can be said about me, about my character, about my total orientation to life. This insightful knowledge can go very far in understanding and describing my own or another’s psychical structure. But the total me, my whole individuality, my suchness that is as unique as my fingerprints are, can never be fully understood, not even by empathy, for no two human beings are entirely alike.”

“Human beings have a specific structure – like any other species – and can grow only in terms of this structure. Freedom does not mean freedom from all guiding principles. It means the freedom to grow according to the laws of the structure of human existence (autonomous restrictions). It means obedience to the laws that govern optimal human development. Any authority that furthers this goal is ‘rational authority’ when this furtherance is achieved by way of helping to mobilize the child’s activity, critical thinking, and faith in life. It is ‘irrational authority’ when it imposes on the child heteronomous norms that serve the purposes of the authority, but not the purposes of the child’s specific structure.”

Fromm afirma en su obra “El Corazón del Hombre”, que el hombre actual se caracteriza por su pasividad y se identifica con los valores del mercado porque el hombre se ha transformado a sí mismo en un bien de consumo y siente su vida como un capital que debe ser invertido provechosamente. El hombre se ha convertido en un consumidor eterno y el mundo para él no es más que un objeto para calmar su apetito.

Biografía de Erich Fromm

Según el autor, en la sociedad actual el éxito y el fracaso se basa en el saber invertir la vida. El valor humano, se ha limitado a lo material, en el precio que pueda obtener por sus servicios y no en lo espiritual (cualidades de amor, ni su razón, ni su capacidad artística). La autoestima en el hombre depende de factores externos y de sentirse triunfador con respecto al juicio de los demás. De ahí que vive pendiente de los otros, y que su seguridad reside en la conformidad; en no apartarse del rebaño. El hombre debe estar de acuerdo con la sociedad, ir por el mismo camino y no apartarse de la opinión o de lo establecido por ésta.
La sociedad de consumo para funcionar bien necesita una clase de hombres que cooperen dócilmente en grupos numerosos que quieren consumir más y más, cuyos gustos estén estandarizados y que puedan ser fácilmente influidos y anticipados. Este tipo de sociedad necesita hombres que se sientan libres o independientes, que no estén sometidos a ninguna autoridad o principio o conciencia moral y que no obstante estén dispuestos a ser mandados, a hacer lo previsto, a encajar sin roces en la máquina social. Los hombres actuales son guiados sin fuerza, conducidos sin líderes, impulsados sin ninguna meta, salvo la de continuar en movimiento, de avanzar. Esta clase de hombre es el autómata, persona que se deja dirigir por otra.
El humano, debe trabajar para satisfacer sus deseos, los cuales son constantemente estimulados y dirigidos por la maquinaria económica. El sujeto automatizado se enfrenta a una situación peligrosa, ya que su razón se deteriora y decrece su inteligencia, adquiriendo la fuerza material más poderosa sin la sabiduría para emplearla.

Más sobre el Autor

El peligro que el autor ve en el futuro del humano es que éstos se conviertan en robots. Verdad es que los robots no se rebelan. Pero dada la naturaleza del humano, los robots no pueden vivir y mantenerse cuerdos. Entonces buscarán destruir el mundo y destruirse a sí mismos, pues ya no serán capaces de soportar el tedio de una vida falta de sentido y carente por completo de objetivos.
Para superar ese peligro el autor dice que se debe vencer la enajenación, debe vencer las actitudes pasivas y orientadas mercantilmente que ahora lo dominan y elegir en cambio una senda madura y productiva. Debe volver a adquirir el sentimiento de ser él mismo y retomar el valor de su vida interior.

Te invito a conocer la web de Cocrear Ecuador

Temas Realacionados: Qué es el Coaching Ontológico Necesidad de Aprendizaje Resultados Extraordinarios El proceso de Coaching Coaching Empresarial Coaching Organizacional Entrenamiento en Empresas Entrenamientos Personales

“What is restricted is the free, spontaneous expression of the infant’s, the child’s, the adolescent’s, and eventually the adult’s will, their thirst for knowledge and truth, their wish for affection. The growing person is forced to give up most of his or her autonomous, genuine desires and feelings that are not autonomous but superimposed by the social patterns of thought and feeling. Society, and the family as its psychosocial agent, has to solve a difficult problem: How to break a person’s will without his being aware of it? Yet by a complicated process of indoctrination, rewards, punishments, and fitting ideology, it solves this task by and large so well that most people believe they are following their own will and are unaware that their will itself is conditioned and manipulated.”

“In the having mode, there is no alive relationship between me and what I have. It and I have become things, and I have it, because I have the force to make it mine. But there is also a reverse relationship: it has me, because my sense of identity, i.e., of sanity, rests upon my having it (and as many things as possible). The having mode of existence is not established by an alive, productive process between subject and object; it makes things of both object and subject. The relationship is one of deadness, not aliveness.”

Wissenschafter haben herausgefunden, dass Jesus der 1. Student war, weil:
1. Lange Haare
2. Immer Pleite
3. Bis 30 bei seinen Eltern gewohnt
4. Wenn er gearbeitet hat, war’s ein Wunder

Maria und Josef stehen in Bethlehem vor einer Herberge und bitten um Nachtquartier.
Wirt: “Seht ihr denn nicht das Schild `Kein Zimmer frei’?”
Josef: “Doch, doch, aber seht ihr denn nicht, dass mein Weib schwanger ist und jeden Augenblick niederkommen kann?”
Wirt: “Dafür kann ich doch nichts.”
Josef: “Ich vielleicht?”

Fragt der katholische Pfarrer den Rabbi: Wann wirst Du endlich Schweinefleisch essen?
Sagt der Rabbi : Auf ihrer Hochzeit, Hochwürden!

Ein katholischer Priester, ein evangelischer Pastor und ein jüdischer Rabbi wohnen nebeneinander in einer Strasse Eines Tages hat der katholische ein funkelnagelneues Auto vor der Tür stehen “Donnerwetter”, denkt sich der evangelische, “das kann ich auch”, und hat am nächsten Tag auch einen neuen Wagen vor der Tür Der Rabbi sieht’s und hat ebenfalls tags drauf ein neues Auto.
Am nächsten Wochenende sieht der evangelische Pastor, wie der katholische mit einem Eimer Wasser zu seinem Auto geht und ihn drübergiesst “Klar”, denkt er sich, “muss sein” Also geht auch er mit einem Eimer Wasser zu seinem Auto und giesst ihn drüber Nachdem der Rabbi das alles gesehen hat, denkt er kurz nach, holt eine Eisensäge, geht zu seinem Auto und sägt ein Stück vom Auspuff ab.

Ein Rabbi ärgert sich darüber, dass viele der Gläubigen ohne Käppi in die Synagoge kommen Also schreibt er an den Eingang: “Das Betreten der Synagoge ohne Kopfbedeckung ist ein dem Ehebruch vergleichbares Vergehen”
Am nächsten Tag steht darunter: “Hab ich probiert. Kein Vergleich!”

Ein Mann wollte wissen, ob Sex am Sabbath eine Sünde ist, denn er ist sich nicht sicher, ob Sex Arbeit oder Vergnügen ist. Also fragt er einen Priester nach seiner Meinung zu dieser Frage.
Der Priester schaut lange in der Bibel nach und sagt dann: “Mein Sohn, nach einer erschöpfenden Bibelsuche bin ich sicher dass Sex Arbeit ist und somit am Sonntag nicht erlaubt ist.”
Der Mann denkt sich: “Was weiß ein Priester schon vom Sex?” und geht zu einem Pfarrer einem verheirateten Mann, um von ihm die Antwort zu erfahren. Doch von ihm erhält er die gleiche Antwort: Sex ist Arbeit und darum nicht für den Sonntag.
Immer noch nicht zufrieden mit dieser Antwort sucht er die ultimative Autorität: Einem Mann aus jahrtausende alter Tradition und Wissen, einem Rabbi. Der Rabbi überlegt lange und sagt dann: “Mein Sohn, Sex ist eindeutig Vergnügen.”
Da fragt der Mann nach: “Rebbe, wie könnt Ihr dessen so sicher sein wenn mir alle anderen erklären, dass Sex Arbeit sei?”
Da antwortet der Rabbi leise: “Wenn Sex Arbeit wäre würde meine Frau es das Hausmädchen machen lassen.”

Here is a little quiz. Have fun with it.

Q. What kind of man was Boaz before he married?
A. Ruthless.

Q. What do they call pastors in Germany?
A. German Shepherds.

Q. Who was the greatest financier in the Bible?
A. Noah. He was floating his stock while everyone else was in liquidation.

Q. Who was the greatest female financier in the Bible?
A. Pharaoh’s daughter. She went down to the bank of the Nile and drew out a little prophet.

Q. What kind of motor vehicles are in the Bible?
A. Jeh–vah drove Adam and Eve out of the Garden in a Fury.
David’s Triumph was heard throughout the land.
Also, probably a Honda, because the apostles were all in one Accord.

Q. Who was the greatest comedian in the Bible?
A. Samson. He brought the house down.

Q. What excuse did Adam give to his children as to why he no longer lived in Eden?
A. Your mother ate us out of house and home.

Q. Which servant of God was the most flagrant lawbreaker in the Bible?
A. Moses. He broke all 10 commandments at once.

Q. Which area of Palestine was especially wealthy?
A. The area around Jordan. The banks were always overflowing.

Q. Who is the greatest baby sitter mentioned in the Bible?
A. David. He rocked Goliath to a very deep sleep.

Q. Which Bible character had no parents?
A. Joshua, son of Nun.

Q. Why didn’t they play cards on the Ark?
A. Because Noah was standing on the deck.

PS… Did you know it’s a man’s job to make coffee?
Yup, it’s in the Bible. It says . . . “Hebrews”

Four novice nuns were about to take their vows.
Dressed in their beautiful white gowns, they ceremoniously walked into the chapel, accompanied by their Mother Superior, about to undergo the ceremony which would marry them to Jesus, thus making them brides of Christ.
Just as the ceremony was about to commence, four respectful Hasidic Jews — with yarmulkes, payoths (long sideburns), and long beards — came in and sat down in the chapel’s front row pews.
The Mother Superior approached them and said, “I am honored that you would want to share this experience with us, but do you mind if I ask you why you came?”
One of the Hasidic Jews proudly replied, “We’re from the groom’s family.”

Frage: Was ist ein katholischer Priester?
Antwort: Das ist ein Mann, zu dem alle Vater sagen dürfen, außer seine Kinder.

Ach ja, noch für unsere Raucher: Ein Franziskaner sieht einen Jesuiten, der sein Brevier liest und dabei raucht – das geht aber nicht, meint er. “Doch”, sagt der Jesuit, mein Oberer hat es erlaubt.
“Toll”, sagt der Franziskaner, ich frage sofort meinen Prior.
Am nächsten Tag treffen sie sich wieder. “Na?”, fragt der Jesuit.
“Er hats verboten”, sagt der Franziskaner.
“Was hast Du ihn denn gefragt?”
“Na ja, ob ich beim Beten rauchen darf.”
“Das ist die falsche Frage. Du mußt fragen, ob du beim Rauchen beten darfst!”

Auf dem Sinai erhielt Moses Gottes Anweisungen. Einmal musste er nachfragen:
“Was? Die Araber bekommen das ganze Öl? Und dafür sollen wir uns WAS abschneiden?”

“The sentence ‘I have something’ expresses the relation between the subject, I (or he, we, you, they), and the object, O. It implies that the subject is permanent and the object is permanent. But is there permanence in the subject? Or in the object? I shall die; I may lose the social position that guarantees my having something. The object is similarly not permanent: it can be destroyed, or it can be lost, or it can lose its value. Speaking of having something permanently rests upon the illusion of a permanent and indestructible substance. If I seem to have everything, I have – in reality – nothing, since my having, possessing, controlling an object is only a transitory moment in the process of living.”

“The nature of the having mode of existence follows from the nature of private property. In this mode of existence all that matters is my acquisition of property and my unlimited right to keep what I have acquired. The having mode excludes others; it does not require any further effort on my part to keep my property or to make productive use of it. The buddha has described this mode of behavior as craving, the Jewish and Christian religions as coveting; it transforms everybody and everything into something dead and subject to another’s power.”

“Perhaps the most striking example of today’s consumer-buying phenomenon is the private automobile. Our age deserves to be dubbed ‘the age of the automobile,’ four whole economy has been built around automobile production, and our whole life is greatly determined by the rise and fall of the consumer market for cars.

“To those who have one, their car seems like a vital necessity; to those who do not yet own one, especially people in the so-called socialist states, a car is a symbol of joy. Apparently, however, affection for one’s car is not deep and abiding, but a love affair of somewhat short duration, for owners change their cars frequently; after two years, even after just one, an auto owner tires of the ‘old car’ and starts shopping around for a ‘good deal’ on a new vehicle. From shopping around to purchase, the whole transaction seems to be a game in which even trickery is sometimes a prime element, and the ‘good deal’ is enjoyed as much as, if not more than, the ultimate prize: that brand-new model in the driveway.

“Several factors must be taken into account in order to solve the puzzle of the seemingly flagrant contradiction between the owners’ property relationship to their automobiles and their so-short-lived interest in them. First, there is the element of depersonalization in the owner’s relationship to the car; the car is not a concrete object that its owner is fond of, but a status symbol, an extension of power – an ego builder; having acquired a car, the owner has actually acquired a new piece of ego. A second factor is that buying a new car every two years instead of, say, every six increases the buyer’s thril of acquisition; the act of making the new car one’s own is a kind of defloration – it enhances one’s sense of control, and the more often it happens, the more thrilled one is. The third factor is that frequent car buying means frequent opportunities to ‘make a deal’ – to make a profit by the exchange – a satisfaction deeply rooted in men and women today. The fourth factor is one of great importance: the need to experience new stimuli, because the old stimuli are flat and exhausted after but a short while. In an earlier discussion of stimuli, I differentiated between ‘activating’ and ‘passivating’ stimuli and suggested the following formulation: ‘the more ‘passivating’ a stimulus is, the more frequently it must be changed in tensity and/or in kind; the more ‘activating’ it is, the longer it retains its stimulating quality and the less necessary is change in intensity and content.’ The fifth and most important factor lies in the change in social character that has occurred during the past century and a half, i.e., from the ‘hoarding’ to the ‘marketing’ character. While the change does not do away with the having orientation, it does modify it considerably.”

“Our ego is the most important object of our property feeling, for it comprises many things: our body, our name, our social status, our possessions (including knowledge), the image we have of ourselves and the image we want others to have of us. Our ego is a mixture of real qualities, such as knowledge and skills, and of certain fictitious qualities that we build around a core of reality. But the essential point is not so much what the ego’s content is, but that the ego is felt as a thing we each possess, and that this ‘thing’ is the basis of our sense of identity.”