Certainly, to some extent, in every society some form of entertainment or other is necessary. Today, however, the importance of fun and fantasy has been so blown out of proportion that entertainment has become one of the most influential forces of Western social life. Why is this so? The answer is obvious. Since the only goal of the entertainment industry is to make money (and not to educate and enlighten the masses), there is little incentive to provide high-quality programs on either radio or television.
The industry provides the public with low-quality entertainment that is passed off as high culture. In turn, the unenlightened public, satisfied with the trash they are being offered, becomes addicted to it and keeps asking for more. Thus a vicious circle is created. This inevitably leads to a dulling of the mind, a loss of imagination, and a distortion of perceptions.
Entertainment, just like many other human activities, has become a commodity. Valuable resources, which could otherwise be used for the benefit of society as a whole, are being wasted as the public spends large sums of money on worthless shows and games. What is more, the "religion of fun," by encouraging people to live in a world of fantasy, diverts attention from the important and urgent problems that cry out for solution in our confused world of today.
With few exceptions, art has always been a form of escapism, even when it has attempted to imitate or depict real life. Modern cinema and literature, though righteously claiming to reflect reality and truth, take the viewer and the reader away from reality into the world of fantasy. Even the most brutal and violent scenes described in books and shown on the screen are there to entertain the public, not to help them understand man's problems. Most writers, artists, and musicians are as ignorant of reality as the public they claim to enlighten or entertain. They are more concerned with freedom to "express" their own precious selves, to gratify their own insecure egos by lending themselves to public adulation, and to escape from responsibility into the same world of fantasy, without, however, giving up their more "earthly" motivemaking money (sometimes to the point of falling into the category of "filthy rich").
For some time already, art has been transformed into a commodity that is bought and sold, a business where "lovers of art" make their living by speculating on it. These so-called connoisseurs have done a fine job of creating a huge market and artificially inflating the value of art beyond any reasonable proportions! But does art have an intrinsic monetary value? If it did, the work of painters such as van Gogh, for example, would have been promptly recognized by all as masterpieces instead of being ridiculed, only to fetch exorbitant prices today. The fact is that before it can gain any such value, a work of art must pass through the hands of business.
A definition of art found in a respectable dictionary can still be somewhat vague or incomplete; no wonder art is almost universally perceived as something intrinsically virtuous, even divine. I would define art , in very simple terms, as any work of imagination that relatively few of us can produce. What most of us are able to do (which is considered commonplace, anyway) cannot be qualified as art.
Some would say that art is art and, therefore, good in itself. Well, that might be true if art existed independently of human imagination. (For example, the beauty we observe in nature is not art.) Yes, art is art, but since humans are far from perfect, so the art they practise may be far from good. In other words, I would argue that there is good art and bad art. Although art is relative in terms of how it affects our feelings, we must, nevertheless, distinguish between positive and negative art in terms of its objective social impact. This difference can be measured by the effect a particular art form can have upon an individual. If it uplifts and makes a better person of someone, it is positive art. If, however, it makes a person regress to animality by becoming more aggressive, violent, and stupid, then it is clearly negative art. Take rock music, for instance. A lover of classical music may dismiss it as trash. But there is a lot of rock that makes people experience feelings associated with kindness, gentleness, romantic love, etc. On the other hand, excessively loud, aggressive, and downright obscene songs of the heavy-metal or rap genre (which is art, too) can only evoke negative images and destructive emotions that tend to make less mature humans behave like savages.
Many artists apply their talents to creating "works of art" that depict the seamy side of human nature in great detail and contain a generous dose of profane language. They justify their own propensity for perversity by saying, "This is reality!" as if most of us are not painfully aware of it already, as if there is a short supply of foul language, violence, and suffering in our daily lives, and, what's more important, as if the current reality is something perpetual and can never be changed.
There are people who believe, as many artists obviously do, that humanity's problems can be solved through art. This, of course, is nonsense. In the first place, art is a time-consuming activity and leaves its practitioners with little time to think about social problems. Second, artistic people are not famous for having a responsible attitude towards life. Some of those who are lavishly remunerated for their art (regardless of its quality) can afford statements such as "Don't take life so seriously!" or "Life is a joke!" or "Live every day as if it were your last," etc., although they take seriously enough anything that may impair their own prestige or affect their pocketbook. As Mr. Propter says in Huxley's After Many a Summer Dies the Swan (p. 182):
"Misplaced seriousnessthe source of some of our most fatal errors. One should be serious... only about what deserves to be taken seriously. And, on the strictly human level, there was nothing that deserved to be taken seriously except the suffering men inflicted upon themselves by their crimes and follies. But, in the last analysis, most of these crimes and follies arose from taking too seriously things which did not deserve it. And that... was another of the enormous defects of so-called good literature; it accepted the conventional scale of values; it respected power and position; it admired success; it treated as though they were reasonable the mainly lunatic preoccupations of statesmen, lovers, business men, social climbers, parents. In a word, it took seriously the causes of suffering as well as the suffering. It helped to perpetuate misery by explicitly or implicitly approving the thoughts and feelings and practices which could not fail to result in misery. And this approval was bestowed in the most magnificent and persuasive language. So that even when a tragedy ended badly, the reader was hypnotized by the eloquence of the piece into imagining that it was all somehow noble and worth while. Which of course it wasn't... But the treatment of these themes had been in the highest degree sublime and thrilling, so that the reader or the spectator was left with the conviction that, in spite of the catastrophe, all was really well with the world, the all too human world, which had produced it."We must be aware that art is not only a form of expression, but may also be an instrument of manipulation. Art can be dangerous, because uninformed people tend to take it literally, as if it were reality. They see all art as good and end up giving it too much importance, to the point of making it the priority in their life, regardless of whether it is good or bad. This, of course, is what the entertainment industry wants. Indeed, the more people come to regard all art as positive and important, the more the entertainment industry will prosper. © (A. Huxley, Jesting Pilate , pp. 234-235).
Since art in modern society is largely a business and its vendors are mainly concerned with profit, there is a tendency to substitute quantity for quality. The public, whose tastes seem to be deteriorating rather than improving, is satisfied with low-quality art, creating a huge market for mass-produced embellishments, gaudy trinkets, and imitations of the kind one can easily acquire in supermarkets. Movies and television programmes are predominantly trash. Bookstores are overflowing with Harlequin romance novels and sports literature, which, according to statistics, are at the top of the list of popular books in America. These are considered by the establishment and the media no less important than classical literature. In Huxley's After Many a Summer Dies the Swan (p. 185), Mr. Propter is annoyed at:
"... the wearisomeness, to an adult mind, of all those merely descriptive plays and novels which critics expected one to admire. All the innumerable, interminable anecdotes and romances and character-studies, but no general theory of anecdotes, no explanatory hypothesis of romance or character. Just a huge collection of facts about lust and greed, fear and ambition, duty and affection; just facts, and imaginary facts at that, with no co-ordinating philosophy superior to common sense and the local system of conventions, no principle of arrangement more rational than simple aesthetic expediency."All this is not to say that arts and literature are of little importance. On the contrary, I believe that art is part of man's spiritual existence and, after reason, may be as important to humanity as science. (Artists and scientists are likely to disagree on that.) Strictly speaking, it is possible to determine the significance and humanistic value of a piece of art by means of a scientific analysis of its effect on the human brain, nervous system, and behaviour, or by pondering its impact over short and long periods of time. The former method is available but outrageously expensive; the latter is cheap but outrageously rare. (Pondering, as the word's etymology implies, seems to be, for many, an excruciatingly painful activity.)
The main purpose of positive art should be not to indulge people's fantasies and relieve their minds of the bother of thinking about serious issues, but to explore man's potential as well as limitations with a view to solving his problems. Again, if we were not witnessing acute human suffering in many parts of the world today and approaching a possible ecological catastrophe, we might hope to gradually reach higher levels of humanity by worshipping and practising fine arts. But time is short, and the only powers we can rely on now are reason and conscience . Arts and literature, which wield an enormous influence over people's perceptions, attitudes, and behaviour, could play an important role in man's survival and further humanization.
Beauty, as we all know, is a relative notion. In nature, physical beauty is essentially a ploy to attract a mate. Humans have "perfected" it into a symbol of social status and turned it, like about everything else, into a commodity. Physical beauty is perceived as a very important quality in our society, its standards being set and controlled by the entertainment media. People have been brainwashed into believing that in order to become a more worthy and successful human being, one must look good. No wonder some 3 million insecure Americans undergo cosmetic surgery every year. The effectiveness of this brainwashing can be measured in the billions being made by the cosmetics industry, which, through advertisements, has succeeded in artificially creating and standardizing what was once thought to be in the eye of the beholder. Once again, money is behind it all.
For us to progress as human beings, the value of physical beauty should be reassessed. We should cease glorifying it and investing millions in "beauty research." Instead, we should direct our attention and efforts to the real problems of our world.
We should stop using physical beauty as an attribute of sex propaganda and turn instead towards the all too often ignored inner beauty (reason, intelligence, spirituality, creative imagination, caring, etc.), which only humans in this world can possess. By encouraging this latter form of beauty, society could only change for the better.
Fashions are one of the most perverted, narcissistic, egotistic, and irresponsible forms of art in our modern society. This is an occupation for the bored and/or stupid rich. In its wake, this industry leaves only moral decay and garbage in exchange for fleeting moments of snobbish satisfaction for the rich and famous. It is all about expensive rags designed by degenerate artists who make their lavish living by sucking the juices out of the degenerate elite. The poor couturiers have to worry about competition and sometimes have to go to any length, even to the point of obscenity. The industry employs bimbo- type young females whose work requires zero brain activity, an anorexic body, and the ability to sway their hips in an intricate pattern at an incredulous amplitude and with an unbearably mysterious, femme fatale expression on their made-up faces. Parading their product in front of the paying clientele and the media, they look at them with an intense contempt (well, not real, of course), which lends an extra touch of perversity to the whole show.
In keeping ourselves healthy and fit as well as in obtaining some form of enjoyment, sports can be considered a rather positive and useful activity, which we should continue to encourage. However, this type of sport must be distinguished from a second type that seems to relate more to business and entertainment than athletics. I am talking about "big business sport," which is alive and well in the form of most so-called professional sports.
Because it is essentially a business, professional sport is more interested in making money than in promoting sport as a healthy exercise and enjoyable pastime. Playing on the insatiable appetite of the masses for spectacles of rivalry, aggressive confrontation, and, not least, violence, it conditions people into believing in the priority of sports in their lives. In order to prosper, big-business sport must market a product that will grab the public's attention. Ongoing violence, swelling egos, sky-high salaries, and spectacular antics turn a game of hockey, basketball, or football into an event that resembles much more a show than a sport. "Like the Roman mob," remarks a character in Huxley's Those Barren Leaves (p. 264), "the mobs of our modern capitals delight in sports and exercises which they themselves do not practise..."
Today, big-business sport has taken on alarming proportions. It is more detrimental than beneficial to the well-being of our society. With the connivance and financial support (taxpayers' money) of governments, which are interested in distracting the public's attention from burning social issues and appeasing their growing discontent, valuable resources are being wasted on building huge stadiums, producing costly equipment, and paying exorbitant fees to athletes.
Ironically, the people who gladly give up their money for a sporting event (either by going down to the stadium, adding a sponsor's beer to that belly of theirs, or buying sport paraphernalia) are the same ones who complain about their measly wages and long hours of work. They seem somehow to forget that it is their money that helps to finance these enormous expenses and salaries of star athletes who, in the final analysis, contribute little to our society, while others are being paid modest salaries to work hard in factories, stores, schools, offices, etc. Big-business sport has become an immoral and obscene activity, siphoning off large sums of money and effort from other urgent and serious preoccupations.
Sex is one of man's physical functions. Its purpose, as meant by nature, is procreation. The feeling of pleasure and orgasm that accompany the sexual act serve as incentives for the species to procreate. In contemporary society, sex as a source of pleasure has become an end in itself. An animal need has ceased to be just that. Instead, it has been transformed into a commodity. Sexual prowess has become almost an ideal, a symbol of social status to be aspired to and achieved by methods and tools readily supplied by the sex industry. In the phrase of Stephen Vizinczey ("In Praise of Older Women," p. 162), "We turn lovemaking into a compulsory sport... We take the libertine as our hero." When people become bored with "straight" sex, it means that their animal sexual drive has been satisfied. But instead of using the remaining energy to develop their reason and spirituality, they desperately seek new, "kinky" forms of sex, losing in the process their capacity for authentic human love.
Very often when talking about sex, people use the word "normal." If by "normal" we mean "natural," then there is no such thing as "normal human sex." We can speak only of "normal animal sex," which is determined and controlled by nature to ensure procreation of species. Procreation plays only a small part in human sex. Most parents would have two or three children during their entire life (already too many, if we consider the overpopulation problem). Basically, humans copulate only for the purpose of having fun. This is not to say that they should not do so, especially when they love each other, but we should not allow sex to be turned into a religion, an obsession, and a commodity by a bunch of perverts, manipulators, and profiteers.
Sex propaganda is harmful to society because:
Whether sex propaganda and pornography are allowed to be dumped on the public will have to be decided in the long run by the majority of society. If society indicates its preference for this kind of lifestyle, it will set out on the road to spiritual, intellectual, moral, and, possibly, physical degradation. Particularly vulnerable are the more innocent younger generations. As Huxley observed ("Do What You Will," Collected Essays , p. 76) even before the sex revolution had set in, "Reacting against the absurdities of the old mythology, the young have run into absurdities no less inordinate at the other end of the scale. A sordid and ignoble realism offers no resistance to the sexual impulse, which now spends itself purposelessly, without producing love, or even, in the long run, amusement, without enhancing vitality or quickening and deepening the rhythms of living." I don't believe that humanity deserves such a fate.
5.17 Tolerance of Violence, Crime, and Stupidity
Often we are told that in order for democracy to triumph, we must become more tolerant towards one another. But is tolerance always a good idea, the right way to treat people? Imagine, for instance, someone telling you that he or she is tolerant of your racial, ethnic, cultural, or religious background. Would you "tolerate" such a condescending statement? Wouldn't you be insulted by it? Shouldn't we instead talk of mutual respect and equal rights ?
More important, this tolerance we are exhorted to practise has yielded a far from gratifying result, as our society grows increasingly tolerant of violence, crime, and stupidity. Indeed, confused by what should and should not be tolerated in a democracy (which itself is a confusing notion), we have become all-accepting, unable to draw the line between the acceptable and the unacceptable, and reluctant to pass judgement on other people's ideas and actions (whether right or wrong, good or bad, brilliant or stupid) for fear of infringing upon someone's vaguely defined rights and freedoms. We prefer tolerating the portrayal of violence and pornography on the big and small screen as well as in all sorts of magazines for fear of being labelled bigots. Even crime is tolerated in our society as repeat offenders roam the streets. In fact, it seems nowadays that criminals have more rights and protection and receive more compassion than the victims themselves. As Herbert Marcuse wrote in "Repressive Tolerance" (p. 475), "The toleration of the systematic moronization of children and adults alike by publicity and propaganda,... the impotent and benevolent tolerance toward outright deception in merchandising, waste, and planned obsolescence are not distortions and aberrations, they are the essence of a system which fosters tolerance as a means for perpetuating the struggle for existence, and suppressing the alternatives."
Besides, it is easy to be tolerant and permissive when you don't really care about the rest of the world.
"... an ill-defined tolerance [wrote Gustav Ichheiser in "Discussion: On `Tolerance' and `Fanaticism,'"] is not actually social sanity but rather social insanity wearing the mask of sanity" [p. 473]. "...we cannot afford being always "tolerant" about what we cannot help but consider to be evil, for such tolerance... would, in fact, amount to elevating indifference to the height of a sublime and supreme moral principle" [p. 470]. "We cannot be dedicated to a cause, whatever its nature, and at the same time be tolerant about what is inimical to it for, if we are tolerant about what is inimical to our cause, it means, obviously, that we are not actually and seriously committed to it" [p. 471].If we sincerely care about the well-being of our society, we should promptly, clearly, and objectively reevaluate our current understanding and application of tolerance. As moral values are eroded, society deteriorates. Unreasonable tolerance of pornography, prostitution, sex propaganda, drugs, crime, and violence is undermining ethics and morality in our society and, consequently, its entire structure.
Rights and freedoms must be one of the most ill-interpreted and abused concepts in today's democratic societies. Indeed, many people believe that because they live in a democracy, they have the absolute right and freedom to do or say what they please, regardless of consequences to others or to society at large. These are the people who would rally around the popular slogans of "I have the right" and "this is a free country," which are more conducive to anarchy than democracy. The main problem with rights and freedoms comes from the fact that everybody understands and interprets these abstract notions in their own way and in their own interests. Very few people come to the important, sane conclusion that nobody owes them anything, let alone rights.
Minority and individual rights and freedoms, on which the libertarians like to pontificate so much, do not exist per se. These are concepts developed by various social groups to reflect their specific interests. They become "rights" only after they have been recognized by law or written down in the Constitution.
Many people, even intellectuals, not giving themselves the trouble to look for an accurate definition, have a rather vague idea about such notions as the right and freedom of thought and expression. (By the way, as Fromm observed in Escape from Freedom [p. 266], "the right to express our thoughts... means something only if we are able to have thoughts of our own...") For example, when a price was put on Salman Rushdie's head for having written his controversial book Satanic Verses , those who spoke in his defence said that he was being denied his freedom of expression. Writers from around the world showed their support for Rushdie, demanding that his freedom of expression, as well as his personal safety, be ensured by his government and that his book be continued to be sold. However, they failed to realise that his freedom of expression had been effectively respected. Indeed, how else could he have possibly conceived, written, and submitted his manuscript if his freedom of expression had been denied?
Writers conveniently confuse the notion of "freedom of expression" with that of "freedom of propagation." But then, freedom of propagation, which is commonly mistaken for "freedom of expression," finds itself at the mercy of the publisher, who, as a general rule, is primarily concerned with the market value rather than the conceptual or artistic merits of a work. If Rushdie is entitled to government protection, he is entitled to it not as an author of a controversial book, but as any ordinary citizen.
Another example of distortion and abuse of the notion of freedom is the controversial case of Canadian researcher Philip Rushdon, who, given funds by a university, chose to conduct an academic research project on race differences. Rushdon came up with certain data that led him to conclude that people of different races possessed different physiological and mental abilities. For example, people of the yellow race were particularly apt at mathematics-related sciences, black people could pride themselves on physical and sexual prowess if nothing else, and the white race was somewhere in between.
Rushdon's opponents, including Canadian genetics scientist David Suzuki, argued that his study was too shallow and unscientific to be credible. But even it were, let us ask ourselves: What's the use of such a study? Who's to benefit by it? I side with those who believe that there is no positive use for this research because it only aggravates the racial problem by emphasizing the differences and could conveniently be used by any one race or interest group (e.g., neo-Nazis) to justify its superiority over others. Rushdon and his supporters argued that it was not their concern how or by whom Rushdon's findings could be used, and that he simply exercised his freedom of academic research. But then, using the same line of logic, one could justify, for instance, research aimed at developing a new, more effective weapon of mass destruction.
The point is that not only is there no such thing as absolute freedom, whether academic or otherwise, but the notion of freedom is inseparable from the notion of morality. We must not make an idol of academic freedom but use it reasonably for the benefit of all people. If a research project is going to cause more harm than good, then it should not be permitted, let alone funded at society's expense.
It is time for us to realise that rights and freedoms cannot exist without certain limits and that they must necessarily be accompanied by a code of responsibilities and obligations. If each and every one of us grew more conscious of our moral obligations, we would not put so much emphasis on our own interests and would surely have more consideration for people around us.
I believe that under the harsh and ruthless capitalism that prevailed during the nineteenth century and a significant part of this century, strikes were justified. Strikes (and later the right to strike itself) could be used by workers as an efficient weapon against all kinds of abuse from a system that thrived on the exploitation of the majority (the workers) by a powerful minority (the capitalists).
We have come a long way since those days of blatant exploitation. Ironically, we've now reached the stage where the shoe is on the other foot: powerful unions are using the rights, won over the years, to exploit the system for their own particular self-interests, often with little or no concern for the general well-being of society.
How many strikers stop to think for one moment what impact such actions as stopping production, using pickets to prevent fellow employees from earning their living (what about their rights?), and resorting to acts of violence and vandalism (which we tolerate) will have on society? Do they care?
Considerable harm is being done when one segment of the population is determined to obtain more benefits that do not necessarily translate into any advantages for society as a whole. Strikes that benefit only one group of the labour force tend to lead to more strikes as other groups of employees in other industries want to obtain similar or better monetary and other benefits. All this is to say that the right to strike, like so many other rights in our society, is being abused for selfish interests.
In particular, those working for the military and the police and fire services as well as those employed by the government or any other essential service should not be allowed to strike. Indeed, since these are indispensable services on which the whole population has come to rely, strikes can disrupt the whole system and lead to serious consequences as well as suffering for many. It should be made clear to those choosing government service that public interests come first. If that is not acceptable, they should work for the private sector. They should not forget that the civil service already enjoys multiple benefits that the private sector doesn't, such as good pensions, holidays, insurance, sick leave, etc.
In a society that propagates self-interest and material wealth, strikes have to be accepted as a necessary evil. They are needed to balance the interests of employers and workers in their struggle for the maximum share of the wealth promised by capitalism.
However, in a humanistic society, which would attach greater value to morality, cooperation, and consideration for everybody's welfare, strikes and power-hungry big-boss unions would certainly not have their place.
5.20 Politics the Universal Attraction
Pushed by the media and politicians, society has come to be fascinated by politics. In fact, with sports and weather, politics must be one of the most discussed topics both on TV and around the coffee table. People are so engrossed in the intricate world of political games, rumours, scandals, intrigue, manipulation, personalities, superficial character analysis, idle speculation, and in-house fighting, smacking their lips over every insignificant detail, that they forget that behind politics and its appealing symbols and abstractions, there exists a real world with real problems.
From a humanistic point of view, politics is essentially a negative activity. Indeed, it is an instrument used to manipulate people's minds for the specific interests and purposes of a nation and its leaders, powerful corporations, pressure groups, etc.almost never for the interests of all. As Fromm described it in The Art of Loving (p. 111), "Our society is run by a managerial bureaucracy, by professional politicians; people are motivated by mass suggestion, their aim is producing more and consuming more, as purposes in themselves. All activities are subordinated to economic goals, means have become ends..."
Because it does not concentrate on the total picture, politics can rarely bring any permanent or real solutions to the table. In this dog-eat-dog world, politics is a barbarian activity in which manipulating politicians (whom we keep reelecting in the false hope that things will change) use all sorts of unethical means (deception, war, half-truths, etc.) to achieve selfish goals and obtain the lion's share of available benefits. "... the average individual," writes Carl Becker ("Modern Democracy," p. 384), "although free to express his ideas, plays a distinctly minor role in the molding of opinion: his role is not to initiate, but passively to receive information and ideas presented to him by others."
In a humanistic society, politics would give way to intelligent cooperation.
The latter would be an efficient tool for finding real solutions to the
problems and concerns of all humanity.