A few unrelated thoughts have been bouncing around my head lately however - just some psychological observations about people and politics - so I think I'll try to put them down in writing. Not sure this will make much sense - but what the hey.
I've been thinking quite a bit about the whole idea of ideology and identity politics. Not just in ideological political terms, but even the likes of personal relationships. But I digress...
Years and years ago, when I first read "Escape From Freedom" by Erich Fromm, it hit me how authoritarianism seems to come in cycles (eg. Feudalism -> Fascism -> Communism). And I think this snippet explains it well:
"In the process of becoming emancipated from an overbearing authority/set of values, Fromm argues, we are often left with feelings of emptiness and anxiety (he likens this process to the individuation of infants in the normal course of child development) that will not abate until we use our 'freedom to' and develop some form of replacement of the old order. However, a common substitute for exercising "freedom to" or authenticity is to submit to an authoritarian system that replaces the old order with another of different external appearance but identical function for the individual: to eliminate uncertainty by prescribing what to think and how to act. "This quite neatly explains why rigid identity politics tends to bug me. Having grown up in a true authoritarian system - which ultimately crashed - coming of age I often had a sense that there really is no such thing as a "good" fixed ideological system. One that's worth setting in stone and using as a permanent road map forever. It seems like the best we can do is have some sensible general framework in place, accept change as a constant, and always leave details up for re-evaluation and tweaking. Most importantly - allow for an ongoing competition of ideas.
To torture the metaphor further: Yes, keep the road map, but make sure you're in a 4WD! And be ready to go offroad at times!
Control Freaks rise to the Top
I think pretty much every hierarchy on Earth takes the following form: Loud-mouthed control freaks and sociopaths who know how to manipulate people and get their own way rise to the top, while honest hard-working people tend to labour quietly behind the scenes.It's not a universal explanation of course, but I think it's common enough that in big enough systems - you'll almost always see relatively unpleasant and self-serving characters in higher positions. The reason why I often bring this up is because I believe this psychology transcends the usual political divides. It isn't really a "progressive vs conservative" issue, per se, because as noted above - when a seemingly "progressive" authoritarian system gets its way, it'll almost invariably become "conservative" - after a generation or so.
These days, I often think about the history of Yugoslavia, especially how - during the 1960s - it was often touted as a positive example of communism in the West. Some aspects were of course (at least relative to some other parts of the Eastern Bloc), but on the whole the above is basically what happened: control freaks rose to the top, there was no way to remove them - and the entire system became almost as regressive and scary as what came before it. Barring some overall global improvements in the human condition of course (which were happening universally in every semi-functional society at the time anyway).
But worst of all - society in general was high on ideology. Many people were relatively comfortable and didn't see much need for change. Even though there was plenty of evidence around that things were beginning to fester and rot. But most just treated politics as an elephant in the room, and didn't get involved in uprisings or dissent - it was simply easier and safer to remain a "faithless follower". And I saw the tail end of this personally, growing up there in the 1980s.
The events of the "Croatian Spring" were the culmination of all this I think. The very generation that smashed Fascism and modernised the country now had control freaks in higher positions who were afraid of taking the next step - and loosening the Party's grip on the country, potentially allowing it to transition towards becoming a Western European style social democracy (that extent of possibilities is possibly a pipe dream, but this bit is just a pointless revisionist rant anyway - so I'm entitled to speculate :P).
Ideology and Voting
I generally think of myself as progressive/left-wing, leaning towards Nordic-style democratic socialism as a theoretical ideal (for now). But on the other hand, I've got a libertarian streak too, which in some ways clashes with this. I suppose it's a mix of believing in solid foundations while giving as much freedom as possible at the same time. Not much is carved in stone though, which is what makes voting rather difficult at times.When I go to the ballot box, I suppose these days I'm just happy that there is a ballot box - and that whichever control freak ends up in power and screws things up - four years later (or less) they will probably be replaced. If we're lucky, they'll do a good job, and they might get an extra term. But on the whole - the ability to kick them out is what seems to make democracy a winner over every other system that's been tried. Which isn't unusual when you think about the psychology of hierarchies.
Meanwhile, here I am trying to work out which minor parties have the best individual policies on various things. And of course, it's impossible to find anyone who speaks for all of my views on everything consistently.
Now I just have to make sure that this lack of fixed ideology doesn't become an authoritarian ideology in itself! Both in my political views as well as personal life (but that's a topic for another rant).
No comments:
Post a Comment