5.21 Nationalism and Patriotism —Our Form of Incest
From a true humanist's point of view, nationalism and patriotism are unhealthy and negative concepts. Indeed, one man's pride in his country can only go against another man's pride in his own country. In a world that becomes smaller and smaller as communication technologies are developed to link people of every nation and continent, nationalistic pride is discriminatory and divisive. No people or nationality wants to feel second-rate. Pride only fuels antagonism amongst them. Must we really admire statements such as "I'm proud to be American"? To an Arab, for example, the United States may not be the greatest country in the world. Nationalism and patriotism, in my opinion, can only provoke and promote ferocious competition and hatred. These notions, however, are not viewed negatively by politicians and other manipulators who see in them effective tools to achieve their own personal goals. Occasionally, politicians will get into a skirmish over who is the greater patriot, as was the case during the Mulroney-Turner debate in Canada. Indeed, people whose minds have been poisoned by patriotism and nationalism are prepared to do anything their "patriotic" politicians tell them to do. Patriots are those who don't give a damn about people of other nationalities or subconsciously fear them and are capable of deception and murder in the name of their fatherland.
Patriotic slogans are particularly useful, and can even be justifiable, in time of war. But when a nation is not in a state of war, these slogans can only do harm. I fully agree with Fromm, who wrote ( The Sane Society , p. 60): "Nationalism is our form of incest, is our idolatry, is our insanity. Patriotism is our cult... By `patriotism' I mean that attitude which puts the own nation above humanity, above the principles of truth and justice... Love for one's country which is not part of one's love for humanity is not love, but idolatrous worship."
In principle, people of different nationalities can live together peacefully. In the former Soviet Union, despite the many shortcomings and faults inherent in a totalitarian regime, ethnic hatred was the exception rather than the rule. Many refugees from Bosnia-Herzegovina and other parts of former Yugoslavia said they had had no problem living together with Serbs, Croats, or Muslims, amongst whom they had numerous friends. It is politicians and religious fanatics fighting for power who create artificial ethnic barriers and fan nationalistic feelings and hatred, setting people against each other.
Instead of identifying ourselves with a nation, we should regard ourselves as belonging to the human race, with planet Earth as our home. Instead of keeping everything within the family, so to speak, we should learn to develop and cooperate with all the other countries of the world.
5.22 Elections —the Big Circus
It is hard to believe that amidst the colourful banners and balloons, the party hats and confetti, the cymbals and blaring horns, the chants and cheers of election campaigns something as important as choosing a political representative is taking place. Hard to believe, yes, but not entirely surprising when one considers the way an electoral campaign is run in our society.
Consider, for instance, the use of costly mud-slinging television commercials to promote one party while sinking the other and televised debates that appeal more to people's emotions than to reason, as politicians try to impress the audience by the way they talk and carry themselves rather than by any kind of substantive political programme or new ideas.
When a political candidate promises to solve problems (eliminate the deficit, cut taxes, give jobs to everyone, etc.), people should realise that he either doesn't know what he is talking about or is knowingly lying, which is more likely. Considering the fact that problems are hardly ever solved, the overwhelming majority of presidents and prime ministers must have been either liars or incompetents or both.
When it comes down to it, political campaigns resemble a circus more than an election—a circus in which the illusions are upheld that democracy works and that politicians (who really care more about their own personal well-being than about social issues) are capable of solving problems.
As Fromm observed in To Have or to Be? (p. 168), "Elections become an exciting soap opera, with the hopes and aspirations of the candidates—not political issues—at stake. The voters can even participate in the drama by giving their votes to the candidate with whom they side. Even though a large part of the population refuses to make this gesture, most people are fascinated by these modern Roman spectacles in which politicians, rather than gladiators, fight in the arena."
It is no secret to anyone that money is the most essential factor in running a successful campaign. The system operates in such a way that no matter how honest, wise, or caring a candidate may be, he or she has no chance of being elected if not enough capital has been raised. When it comes to big money, there is no room for scruples. The bulk of the money needed to run an electoral campaign comes from rich and powerful organisations and interest groups that lobby the administrative and legislative establishments to secure special advantages and privileges for themselves, thereby influencing the nation's domestic and foreign policies.
More and more people are becoming disillusioned with politicians. Already voices are heard suggesting that we should get rid of them altogether; however, no suggestions are made as to who is to replace them. When George Bush was elected U.S. president, nearly half of all Americans did not vote: some of them because they did not like any of the available candidates, others because they didn't give a damn. This fact alone should ring a bell of alarm. In a democratic state, people shouldn't blame the government they have elected but rather themselves for having elected the wrong government.
If we want to live in a healthier society, our electoral system needs to be changed. Money and financial considerations of all kinds must play no part in a campaign and have no influence on the electors' choice. As a first step, a limit on election expenses should be strictly enforced. Those found going over the imposed limit should be disqualified from participating in the elections. Today, in the age of television and advanced communications technology, there is no need for candidates to travel around the country speaking before gregarious folks (who are too few, anyway, to represent, officially or unofficially, a town, a province, or a state) and wasting a lot of money and time. Frequent debates and discussions on radio and television would be a much more efficient, informative, and inexpensive way for the public to learn about the candidates' abilities and intentions. Each candidate must be allotted equal and sufficient air time in order to present his or her ideas, views, and solutions. Each candidate would be expected to have a well-defined, purposeful, and comprehensive program of action. His or her programme should not be a spur-of-the moment invention, but a program on which he or she has spent considerable thought and time.
All commercials publicizing a political party should be banned, because their only purpose is to promote the party's own image and throw dirt on others. Nothing constructive is accomplished through these commercials—no new ideas or programmes—just promotion. It is a waste of money more than anything else.
We must also do away with excessive privileges for politicians. Numerous perks, such as all- expense-paid trips (allegedly for business) and sky-high pensions, should be eliminated. Then we are likely to have a greater number of worthy candidates to choose from, who would be guided by other motives than a high salary and special privileges a big-name party can offer. The ability to raise money should not be considered an indispensable quality for a politician running for office.
Certain criteria for age, maturity, and experience should be established to determine who can qualify to vote as well as run for office. Quantity does not make up for quality. It is easier for politicians to manipulate larger quantities of undereducated people than a smaller number of well-educated ones. The age qualification, for instance, could be increased to twenty-five or thirty. The recent and sometimes senseless wave of democratization that is sweeping the western hemisphere has brought people to consider prisoners and the mentally handicapped as a potential electorate. This is nonsense. The first, having harmed society by committing serious offences don't deserve to have a voice, and the second, easily influenceable, will be like Silly Putty in the hands of our manipulating politicians. Those who violate the law should be deprived of voting rights for an extended period of time.
If the above measures were adopted, the electorate would not have to put up with a slate of imposed candidates and face the difficulty of having to choose between the lesser of two evils.
5.23 Economics —the Eternal Puzzle
It is generally believed that a strong, growing economy is the answer to most of our problems and the key to our well-being and happiness. That, however, is just another grandiose delusion we are encouraged to cherish under a system where material wealth is equated with success and power. No doubt, economy is an important part of any society. But a healthy society can only exist if it is based on a healthy economy. Then, what is a healthy economy?
First of all, economy (which characterizes the material well-being of a nation) is a function of economics , which, itself, is not a science as such but a mechanism or a method for tying in our requirements with our possibilities. It is not economics that should determine our needs; rather, it is our needs that should determine economics. An economy can be considered healthy only if it can be sustained practically indefinitely through the use of renewable resources, causes no damage to the environment, and provides (at least as a minimum) the necessities of life for the planet's population. A healthy economy is not abundance for some and poverty for others, but reasonable sufficiency for all.
However, what the economically advanced countries actually have is an economy based on such dubious principles as equal opportunity, competition, speculation, spending, planless production, job creation, etc. Although the global economy is still struggling without much success to find its way out of a prolonged recession, politicians and economists continue to believe (or pretend to believe) in the virtues of a free, self-regulating market. If the principles on which Western free-market economics is based were truly sound, they would be universal, that is, applicable to all countries that have adopted these principles. This, however, is not the case. There are quite a few countries with unregulated economies (Brazil, Mexico, India, and others) that are plagued with economic problems.
No one seems to be able to figure out why the free market is not working properly. Often one can watch on television two equally reputable experts present completely opposite views on a particular economic problem. This means that at least one of them (if not both) must be wrong, since there cannot be two opposing truths on the same point. From this we can conclude that we should not rely too much on experts' opinions, no matter how impressive their credentials may be, but do some hard thinking of our own as well. To those believers in the self-regulating market passionately arguing about how to make it behave, I would suggest: Why bother at all? Why not just relax, sit back, and wait till the free market has regulated itself and the deficit has wiped itself out? In the meantime, the Canadian debt, which is nowhere near the American one, is reported to have reached nearly half a trillion dollars by 1994 and continues to grow at a rate of $1,000 per second.
So, let us take a closer look at some of the "sacred" principles underlying the free-market, Western- type economy. First of all, we cannot be so blind as not to realise an important shortcoming of a free market—its unpredictability. Because of this factor alone, we can never be reasonably sure what our economic future has in store for us. We are left to float with the ups and ever-so-prolonged downs of an economy that depends to a large extent on the mood of the mindless consumer, who, in turn, is manipulated by big business and politicians desperately seeking to gain the consumer's confidence in order for the economy not to collapse altogether. As Fromm remarked in The Sane Society (p. 126), "The giant state and economic system are not any more controlled by man. They run wild, and their leaders are like a person on a runaway horse, who is proud of managing to keep in the saddle even though he is powerless to direct the horse."
Equal opportunity , which is a driving force behind free enterprise, is certainly one big lie. Indeed, at what age or stage in our lives can we avail ourselves of equal opportunities? Certainly not when we are born or are growing from a baby to a teenager. But this is precisely when our character, abilities, attitudes, and outlook are being formed. The truth is we are born different: with different genes, in different environments, and in different social and economic conditions, and thus cannot expect to ever have equal opportunities. Contemporary systems can favour only those who are born and raised rich and/or who are unscrupulous, aggressive, conniving, and selfish.
I have already talked about competition in previous chapters. International competition, which is still accepted as a normal activity in our barbaric world, divides the world into us and them—the United States, Europe, and Japan accuse each other of market penetration and see each other as potential threats to their respective national interests. Competition will always lead to conflicts and may eventually again cause armed confrontation between rival economic blocs.
Or how can speculation be seen as a constructive and beneficial activity? There is no productive labour involved, no values created. Basically, speculation is a small-chance gamble for the naive ones hoping to make a fast buck and a legal way for professional parasites and crooks to live at other people's expense. It is all about greed, selfishness, and unscrupulousness.
To revive an economy in trouble, we consumers are very often told by our leaders and learned economists to spend more. In the US, for instance, consumer spending is said to represent two-thirds of the country's economic activity. It does not seem to matter what we spend our money on, as long as it is thrown in the engulfing mouth of this ever-so-hungry beast—the economy. I ask: how can buying unnecessary things be seen as something constructive? Spending for the sake of spending is basically wasting . Getting rid of a car that functions perfectly well just because we want a newer, better-looking model; buying clothes simply for pleasure or out of fear that we may be behind the current fashion; destroying food stocks when they cannot be marketed at a profit while millions of people are faced with starvation; etc.—all this testifies to the indifference with which we treat our habitat and fellow human beings. We should not forget that manufacturing products and luxury items we could easily do without entails considerable expenditure of money, effort, and resources (which, as we know, are limited). If our economic system can only survive through unbridled waste, then it is time we wasted our economic system.
Job creation is another absurd idea that is part of the free-market economy. It is a "creation" of the capitalist bureaucracy trying to put on a human face. The system pretends to care about people, but certainly not free of charge! It is against the very nature of capitalism to give things away. The system would rather spend more money on creating useless jobs than spend less on providing free necessities of life—another silly paradox. Today job creation is the most important item on the agenda of politicians trying to get elected. They even go so far as to promise jobs for everyone, which is as likely as pigs flying. Of course, this is not all the politicians' fault. Most of us have been conditioned to believe that material abundance will make us happy, and we are ready to risk our health and peace of mind to secure as much of it as we can.
In this connection, the idea of a guaranteed income (first introduced by Fromm in The Sane Society as a "universal subsistence guarantee") may seem like a very good solution. Indeed, a specific amount of money everyone would be entitled to receive (whether working or not) would make us much more free economically. People receiving a guaranteed income would be able to concentrate on what they like to do (as long as it is not a nuisance to society) without having to worry about making ends meet. One typical objection to this idea is: but who would want to work then? "This assumption," wrote Fromm (ibid., p. 292), "rests upon the fallacy of the inherent laziness in human nature; actually, aside from neurotically lazy people, there would be very few who would not want to earn more than the minimum, and who would prefer to do nothing rather than to work." John Dewey was basically of the same opinion when he wrote in Human Nature and Conduct (p. 32): "It is `natural' for activity to be agreeable... If there are difficulties in the way of social alteration—as there certainly are—they do not lie in an original aversion of human nature to serviceable action, but in the historic conditions which have differentiated the work of the labourer for wage from that of the artist, adventurer, sportsman, soldier, administrator and speculator."
Another foreseeable objection is that those living on a guaranteed income would not be making a viable contribution to the economy but would place an additional burden on those who make up the active work force. I would argue that science and technology today have reached a high-enough level to ensure reasonable sufficiency for all.
However, in a modern free-market society where individuals are not really expected to have values and a sense of responsibility, the idea of a guaranteed income would be grossly abused and undermined. With all this emphasis on entertainment, lots of people would sit all day in front of their television sets and do nothing, or be sucked up by the many distractions and pleasures our society has to offer. Guaranteed income, it is sad to say, is not yet a very realistic idea for our society.
Free enterprise, which is nothing more than a euphemism for an unplanned and unregulated economy, has led Western nations to produce (and overproduce) in areas that yield the biggest profits, with little regard to the environment or the needs of society as a whole. To Western economists, planning is anathema. It is associated with a Soviet-type economy and is regarded as one of the aberrations that led to the collapse of the Soviet Union. But is the idea of planning that evil? In the first place, one of the reasons why the Soviet economy collapsed was not planning as such but bad planning. Soviet planning was irresponsible and inefficient because its main purpose was to meet not the needs of the population, but those of the ruling class and, at the same time, to convince the whole world that socialism and communism were superior to capitalism. Planning is the right way to run the economy and is in fact practised by all corporations using the latest computer technology. Today a corporation is unlikely to survive if it does not analyse the market trends and plan its budget.
With economic blocs springing up here and there, there is more and more talk about free trade . These agreements cannot work, for we live in a society in which competition, and not cooperation, prevails. Agreements should normally be based on compromises and cooperation. Many factors such as the human psyche and the nature of human relations are not seriously taken into account when countries sign such agreements. One has only to look at the free trade agreement between Canada and the United States to be made aware of this. Instead of helping each other out, each country is fighting to obtain the lion's share of the market as Canadian and American producers repeatedly accuse each other of illegally dumping products such as wood, beer, and steel. Such problems will always exist, and conflicts and disagreements are sure to continue surfacing. If one sector of the national economy is ailing, a public outcry is raised against the other country. The result of free trade is that some people may prosper while others will suffer. Free trade is a nice idea, but we do not possess the necessary maturity to implement it correctly.
The current economic system allows corporations to grow big and powerful and eventually retain the monopoly in various business sectors and even exercise an influence in the field of politics. Corporations should be regulated in order to give smaller and often more reliable businesses a fair share of the market. In general, companies' activities should be limited to the purely economic sphere. Limits on the size of corporations as well as the quantity of their product should also be enforced. This would not only cut down on waste, but would also be more in line with the notion of equal opportunities, since large and powerful corporations would not be allowed to impose their will and power on smaller businesses or on society in general.
Far too much importance is being given to services , which are constantly growing. This, we are told, is good for the economy. Indeed, thanks to all sorts of services, life for us is so much easier and more pleasant. People have come to see them as essential, so much so that we continue to improve and add services in our society despite the fact that they don't really produce anything essential, such as food and shelter, while we have homeless and hungry people wandering the streets. Where are our priorities? Canadians, for example, spend 40 percent of their food dollar on restaurants, although food is plentiful and easy to get in all shapes and forms for a much cheaper price. There is a whole army of waiters and waitresses who are not always paid by their employers but depend for their livelihood on tips from their customers—a situation that is regarded by some, myself included, as humiliating and that can sometimes be embarrassing for both parties. Tipping, which is supposed to be a sign of appreciation on the part of a satisfied customer, has practically become an obligation, and the customer even risks being verbally abused if the tip is not good enough.
If a country's economy can no longer provide its people with the basics and the essentials (including a job), it may very well be because the population has grown beyond all reasonable limits. With every new day, the problem of overpopulation is a harsher reality. Like it or not, a country's economic problems are linked, one way or another, to the size of its population. One does not have to be a math wizard to realise that more resources would have to be used to provide for a larger number of people than for a smaller number. The bottom line is that we cannot solve our economic problems without addressing the problem of overpopulation.
In order to solve our economic problems we must put in place a sustainable and better-planned economy built on balanced production and consumption. However, such an economy would entail certain sacrifices, including a change in attitudes towards material life and pleasures. If we could learn to do with less, we would be freer and would not work for useless and harmful luxuries and pleasures, sacrificing our own health. If we concentrated our efforts on strictly what we really need, we would be able to devote much more time to spiritual activities such as science, art, and religiosity instead of wasting time on creating material wealth and worrying ourselves, sometimes literally to death, about our physical survival.
We must realise the pointlessness of economic growth per se. What good does it bring to the general population? Little, for in a society with no equitable system of distribution of wealth, it is the rich and the powerful who reap the benefit. If economic growth could be translated into a greater well-being for all, then, and only then, could it be viewed as a positive idea. But at present, we still live in a society where, to quote Fromm ( The Sane Society , p. 85), "... our motive for production is not social usefulness, not satisfaction in the work process, but the profit derived from investment," and where, he goes on to say (ibid., p. 88), "a living human being ceases to be an end in himself, and becomes the means for the economic interests of another man, or himself, or of an impersonal giant, the economic machine."
5.24 Arms Trade —Crime and No Punishment
The arms trade is one of the biggest and most lucrative businesses in the world. According to Project Ploughshares statistics, "As every second goes by, the world is squandering $30,000 on arms. Current world military spending stands at $1,299 billion." It has also been reported that $1 trillion a year is spent on war and preparations for war, the profits from arms sales being as high as $16 billion a year.
Arms trade is the most outrageous unpunished crime on earth, for it contributes to death, great physical and emotional pain, famine, poverty, misery, and countless other torments and suffering. It is not surprising, therefore, that our "peace-seeking" governments and the companies that finance these governments and enrich themselves on the weapons trade prefer to keep their activities hush- hush. (In fact, in many a case, the governments and the companies themselves, in line with the well- known saying of "see no evil, hear no evil," prefer to remain in the dark as to how and against whom the weapons sold will be used.)
Besides several muffled whispers here and there, there exists no generalized official outcry against the barbaric activity that is the arms trade. It is a tolerated and deemed-important part of many a country's economy. Meanwhile, the United Nations looks on helplessly as Bosnians and Serbs kill each other off with weapons readily made available to them.
5.25 Law —It Pays to Keep Things Complicated
One would have to be a fool to deny that without law there could only be anarchy. For what is law if not a set of rules and regulations that guides a person's conduct and assures a sufficient level of conformity so that people in all walks of life can live together in relative harmony? In fact, law is the cornerstone of society. Every society that exists (or has existed, for that matter) rests on laws (be they inspired by custom, enforced by fiat, or accepted by consensus).
In spite of all of this, laws in Western democratic societies are neither very popular nor taken very seriously. Westerners, and particularly North Americans, tend to think there are too many laws, and seem to have trouble respecting and dealing with an instrument that must restrict their own freedoms and rights to protect the greater interests of society as a whole.
Many people have difficulty understanding and accepting that the legitimate and just interests of society must come ahead of their own narrow and selfish interests, and that there cannot be a law to protect each and every individual interest. People must be educated to understand this important principle. However, if our legal system is to earn sufficient respect, it must first prove to be worthy of it.
Law must cease to reflect the interests of the rich and powerful (who "make" the laws, in the first place). The whole legal system is based on money and, therefore, provides little protection for the average person. For example, a middle-class family often cannot afford to take a legal action against a corporation by which it has been victimized. On the other hand, when celebrities sue tabloids for millions of dollars, they enjoy the full support of the law, often being awarded huge sums of money. One might ask why they should deserve it. After all, they don't lose their fortunes. Instead, the bulk of the money should go to public funds, because these celebrities are using the judicial system at the taxpayers' expense to make more money for themselves. Although pretending to be offended by stories published in tabloids, many of them may actually welcome the publicity generated by such trash media. Thus, despite what we are constantly told, we are not all equal in terms of enjoying the protection of the law.
Moreover, legal terminology has been intentionally made difficult to understand for the ordinary person, who often feels helpless and has no choice but to be totally dependent on handsomely paid lawyers. One has only to stroll into the offices of the bigger law firms to realise that it pays to keep things complicated. In addition, I believe that the general public places too much faith in these men and women of the bar who may not always be as competent as we imagine them to be and also often end up dictating to, rather than serving, the clients who hire them. Power, money, and prestige, which go with the legal profession, can have a corrupting influence on lawyers, who often take advantage of the loopholes in the legal system to feather their own nests.
The practice of law must not be seen as just another form of business with big money and fame being the primary objectives. Just as the practice of medicine ought to be concerned with the relief of human suffering rather than pecuniary goals, so should the practice of law be concerned with the furthering of justice for all rather than with winning court cases and collecting generous fees.
Last, a stricter, yet fair, application of laws will also earn more needed respect for our legal system. We must stop closing our eyes to crime. Any act that disrupts the public order and infringes on the rights and property of an individual should be dealt with promptly and firmly. We must learn to always abide by the law even if we don't agree with it. Those who oppose a particular law must strive to have it changed by peaceful means. If one chooses to break the law, one must accept the consequences, however severe they may be.
In most Western societies, a rather negative image surrounds law enforcement. The public and the media have taken upon themselves to openly criticize police work. This poor image is reinforced by the entertainment media, which take advantage of the freedom of expression to portray this profession in a negative and mocking fashion. Instead of looking down on the police, we should treat them with much more respect. Indeed, how many of us can sincerely claim to have enough courage to make a living by putting our life on the line on a daily basis to protect the lives and property of total strangers?
Since we enjoy so much scrutinizing police activity, we should not fail to also recognize the difficult and often thankless role that the police play in suppressing crime and violence in order to enable society to function without fear. Working under stressful conditions in a dangerous criminal environment, the police need more support and understanding on the part of the public in cases where they have to resort to taking stronger measures, such as the use of force. Force is often the only language that criminals understand. In any event, why should people bent on harming society be treated and protected in the same way as law-abiding citizens are? Too much leniency on the part of the public can only translate into more abuse from wrongdoers.
This is not to say that police brutality (when it indeed occurs) should be tolerated. Alleged police brutality should be investigated and properly dealt with, away from the sensationalist media, which are always eager to cash in on the event. The problem of sporadic violence in the police force could be partly resolved by a more careful selection of recruits, using higher standards and criteria. This, in turn, would improve the reputation of the police in the eyes of the public and enable them to function in a more efficient and humane manner.
5.27 Education —on the Wrong Track
Education is one of the most important issues that society should be deeply concerned about. It is education, more than anything else, that shapes our minds, our social behaviour and attitudes, our understanding of ourselves and of the surrounding world. Such a perception of the role of education, bequeathed to us by the great humanists of the past, seems to be on the decline today. The term education is more and more frequently used to denote the acquisition of scientific and technological knowledge and skills whose main purpose is to ensure a high level of competitiveness in the world market and the maximum domestic production of material wealth. That is what former president Bush had in mind when he boldly proclaimed himself an "education president" at a meeting with the governors of the 50 U.S. states. That is what national leaders, politicians, economists, and businesspeople usually have in mind when they talk about education.
What we need is not so much education in the commonly accepted sense of the word, but rather enlightenment or humanistic education, aimed at developing a child into a mature, reasonable, and responsible human being. The need for reforms in education is obvious to anyone who cares to pay attention to the abundant statistics. Here are some of them:
On a CBC talk show devoted to school education, the panel (a couple of Board of Education "experts," a few teachers, and a policeman) discussed the problem of juvenile delinquency and gangs in schools. Almost unanimously, the panellists identified boredom as the main cause of the problem. Each of them, in a typically superficial manner, made suggestions or recommendations about how to make learning fun for the poor kids. One teacher even insisted that kids should be left alone, because they are smart enough to know right from wrong without interference from educators. None of these "experts," however, came even close to raising the question why boredom had become a chronic disease amongst the young generation.
The answer is obvious. Contemporary culture and, in particular, television, which is largely run for profit, constantly stimulate a craving for excitement in children who, if not properly guided by parents, are apt to become addicted to it. And when it is time to learn at school, they, as would any other addict, experience withdrawal symptoms (in this case, boredom) and the need to "get high." So they find their high in gang activities and crime. As long as they continue to have free access to low-grade material on TV and in movies, children will remain victims and prisoners of the "Devil of Fun."
Let us consider some other shortcomings of contemporary education. One of them is infantility and sensationalism, which characterize the current methods of teaching and learning. The trend amongst educators these days is to treat students of all ages as children. The so-called Accelerated Learning method is a good example of this. In books and manuals promoting this method, the reader is constantly reminded to behave like a child, and Marshall McLuhan's aphorism "the media is the message" has been accepted as an axiom. The method, allegedly based on suggestopedia, offers an effortless and effective way of implanting knowledge. Though the idea has been around for some thirty years without any apparent success, the promise of a magic formula still keeps it alive in people's minds.
Not only should an adult student not be treated as an infant, but also, I believe, a child should be treated as an adult in reasonable measure to mature more quickly. (On the average, man seems to mature, in terms of experience, responsibility, and wisdom, around the age of 50, if at all.) Huxley believed ("Tomorrow and Tomorrow and Tomorrow," Collected Essays , p. 382) that
"there is no substitute for correct knowledge, and in the process of acquiring correct knowledge there is no substitute for concentration and prolonged practice. Except for the unusually gifted, learning, by whatever method, must always be hard work. Unfortunately there are many professional educationists who seem to think that children should never be required to work hard. Wherever educational methods are based on this assumption, children will not in fact acquire much knowledge; and if the methods are followed for a generation or two, the society which tolerates them will find itself in full decline."Until our sick society (and that applies to any system or country in the world) adopts a humanistic system of values and starts curing itself of its numerous festers, until it undergoes a series of fundamental changes in all its aspects, any attempts at improving the educational system (even in terms of scientific literacy) will be in vain. However, to effect these changes, society must have a sufficiently large number of well-educated, sensible people who care and are willing to look into the cause of the problem, who are able to think and to work out solutions through reasonable compromise .
Unfortunately, we are confronted with just another vicious circle: on the one hand, true education can be achieved only through the coordinated efforts of educated people, an elite of sorts; on the other hand, for such an elite to evolve, there must exist proper social conditions, of which a humanistic educational system is the most important part. In the meantime, the "elite" seem to worry more about their own security than about the state of affairs in the educational system if we are to believe the following Canadian statistics reported on CBC Radio News in April 1993:
But the biggest gap in the school system is in the complete lack of responsibility for children's moral education. The new generation of parents can no longer be relied on to teach their kids moral values because many of them have none left themselves. The Church, the traditional keeper of morality, is rapidly losing ground.
The problem, then, is how to break the vicious circle in which the educational system finds itself. This is not an easy task and certainly not one that could be accomplished in a short time. But let's not kid ourselves: there is no other alternative. The only way to stop the ongoing mental, cultural, and moral degeneration of the human species is to spread enlightenment, to teach people to think, and to make them aware of the world beyond their immediate physical horizon and of the dangers of mindless, irresponsible, materialistic existence.
To be effective and provide positive results in the long run, the educational process should comprise three important stages:
5.28 Science and Technology —Gods or Tools?
Over the last two hundred years, science and technology have advanced to the point that today we rely upon them on a daily basis for solving a wide range of problems as well as achieving greater economic prosperity. Although scientific innovations are both necessary and important, and may indeed improve the quality of our life, it must be borne in mind that science and technology affect our lives in a variety of ways—adversely as well as beneficially. As Postman observed in his book Amusing Ourselves to Death (p. 157), "... to maintain that technology is neutral, to make the assumption that technology is always a friend to culture is, at this late hour, stupidity plain and simple."
The way we sometimes use science and technology is open to criticism. For example, politicians, governments, and the military often use scientists, some of whom are motivated by power and profit, to develop new weapons of mass destruction as well as create countless useless entertainment products such as three-dimensional sound, high-resolution TV, computer games, and other useless gadgets. The latest invention is "virtual reality," which, in reality, is next to perfect fantasy. Of course, it could find a number of useful applications, such as flight-simulation systems. But, more likely than not, some big corporation is going to lay its hands on it and make huge profits by selling to the fun- addicted public a variety of games. Some of the designers and promoters of virtual reality are particularly excited about the prospect of achieving greater "authenticity," "realism," and sophistication in the domain of pornography.
Uncontrolled scientific development is not the key to a better life. How many of us can honestly say that we have more time to relax and think than we did fifty years ago? The contrary is probably true as technology continues to force us to move faster and faster in our daily activities, with increased competition, stress, and fatigue. Do we want to turn into creatures who, in the phrase of Fromm ( The Revolution of Hope , p. 46), would "combine the emotions of a primate with a computer-like brain." Increasingly, our "Big Brothers"—the government and corporations—are using technology to watch and control us. Hidden miniature TV cameras installed in stores, banks, offices, and other public places monitor our behaviour. Powerful computers gather and store (unbeknownst to us and sometimes illegally) information on our financial status, habits, interests, and social behaviour in general. Some of these measures, however, are the direct consequence of the permissive (excuse me, "democratic") society we live in. Theft, drugs, murder, and other forms of crime are on the increase and can no longer be controlled by conventional means.
We must also understand that many spectacular breakthroughs in science and technology are but products of man's curiosity and intelligence rather than his reason. Thus scientists often prefer not to think about possible negative effects and consequences that new discoveries may have on the planet and its inhabitants. With all their knowledge and talent, such scientists still lack vision, understanding, and a sense of moral responsibility. As psychologist B. F. Skinner was led to conclude (p. 97), "decisions about the uses of science seem to demand a kind of wisdom which, for some curious reason, scientists are denied."
The rapid development of science and technology has also taken a heavy toll on man and his environment. Pollution, destruction of natural habitats and species, and depletion of the ozone layer are but a few examples. Driven by ambition and backed by governments and firms that are obsessed with making money, scientists continue to "mess around" with genetic engineering and biotechnology. According to some statistics, half of all varieties of grain have been lost through genetic interference. Not only are we wasting valuable resources, but we seem to be losing control over the technology itself (e.g., Chernobyl). This raises the question of whether science and technology are tools to be used for our benefit or gods to be worshipped blindly. For our own good, we had better take the view that science and technology are not ends in themselves, that they must serve mankind, and not the other way around.
In short, scientists are not necessarily interested in improving human well-being but rather in satisfying their personal curiosity and ambitions. In Fromm's opinion ( The Revolution of Hope , p. 49), "... with the increasing complexities of life, which lost all human proportions, with the growing feeling of individual powerlessness and isolation, the science-oriented man ceased to be a rational and independent man. He lost the courage to think for himself and to make decisions."
The purpose of the health care system is perceived as keeping people as healthy as possible for as long as possible. But should the prolongation of life be one of its aims? I believe not.
One of the most serious potential problems facing the elderly, whose numbers and health requirements are rising in a world of shrinking resources, is what will happen when the coffers are empty?
As in other areas, people have been brainwashed, in this case with the idea that a long life full of pleasures is their right, to be paid for by the government whether or not they themselves had contributed to the health costs. Many people insist on it, not caring about the burden they place on society. What have they really done to improve man's lot that would justify such insistence? Most would probably answer using the well-worn cliché of "I have worked all my life for society and now society owes me." If they had indeed worked hard, chances are that it was not for society, but only for themselves and their immediate family. In my opinion, only those people who have truly devoted themselves to the betterment of society have the moral right to expect society to provide for their longer life.
In Canada, health care is certainly one of the most abused government services around. It is extremely popular with elderly and lonely people who consult doctors for everything from a broken nail to a broken heart. Too old or embarrassed to hang out in the shopping mall like their younger counterparts, they spend their afternoons in doctors' offices, wasting the taxpayers' money. For many, consulting a physician has become an addiction, as they move on from prescribed drug to prescribed drug. You won't hear any complaints from the doctor, though; it's an easy way for him to make money. Thus it is not only the users who irresponsibly abuse the health care system, but also the ones who took the Hippocratic oath to abide by the code of medical ethics. What's more, since doctors are free to decide which drugs to give to their patients, profit-oriented pharmaceutical companies are eager to get "friendly" with them by offering free samples, all-expense-paid trips, etc. with the aim of having doctors advertise and sell the company's product. Can this be called corruption?
Instead of making the necessary, though perhaps unpopular, decisions, we have merely stalled for time, hoping that the problem would go away. It will not, and there is no other way out but to change our philosophy towards life and death.
It would also be naive to set our hopes of a healthier and longer life on the use of artificial organs (hearts, kidneys, etc.). Considering the ever-growing costs of medical research, development, production, and services, as well as the decreasing availability of financial resources, such complicated artificial organs, when and if developed, would be beyond the means of the average consumer.
Prolongation of life at any cost cannot be justified if it is to be achieved at the expense of society in general and the younger generations in particular. People who can afford a high standard of living ought not to be preoccupied with seeking more and more pleasures in life, but should think of sharing their wealth for the betterment of society, of their fellow human beings, of their own children and grandchildren. If they really felt part of the bigger human family to whose well-being they had made a measurable contribution, they would not feel so lonely and isolated in their old age. Instead of living their last days in chilling fear of approaching death or partying away to suppress that fear, old people should be ready to meet it with dignity. As the ancient Roman philosopher Seneca said, "... throughout life one must learn to die." The knowledge of having made society a better place to live would help us leave this world more easily when our time finally comes.
It is time we changed our attitude towards life and made it more useful, meaningful, and interesting, not necessarily long.
An old social institution, the family, has come to possess a dual status in today's modern society. On the one hand, it is exalted and regarded as a sacred institution that binds people into an intimate relationship; yet, on the other hand, it is left to disintegrate as our hectic way of life has brought on an increasing number of divorces and separations. Our modern way of life has destroyed many of the qualities once associated with family life. In the past, the family, in collaboration with the Church, provided a strong, though far from perfect, influence on the conduct of children. Parenthood had some kind of meaning back then, when father and mother would teach morals and values to their children.
The younger parents of today are too busy looking for fun in their own lives to pay adequate attention to their kids' education. Many of these parents grew up during the turbulent antiestablishment 1960s and 1970s, which accelerated the process of family disintegration. Today they spoil their kids with too much permissiveness and liberty, which is detrimental to children's mental and physical health. The gap left open by the parents has been filled by television, which dumps all sort of garbage into the naive minds of children. Parents are more and more losing control over their children to television and the entertainment industry, whose main concern is the expansion of the consumer market.
Before we start looking for a remedy to the family crisis, we must understand the factors that underlie human family relations. These relations are patterned after those existing in the animal world. The parents (especially the mother) are guided by the species-survival instinct to raise and protect their progeny, who, in turn, are totally dependent for their survival on their parents. This atavistic blood bond is still very strong in the more complicated human family relations. That is why, for most people, family always comes first. That is why some mothers support and proudly declare their unwavering love for children who have committed atrocious crimes such as serial killings. And not many people would dare disagree with such mothers, because although we ourselves are responsible for the destruction of the family, we pretend to cherish it as something sacred, as something that is permanently established. The cult of the family, if based only on blood relations, is a blind force that can get in the way of reason and objectivity. Parents can love their child very much, but if they care only about their own egoistical love and don't pay attention to the child's upbringing, they actually may make that child's future life unhappy and meaningless.
Since it is clear that today's parents are not able to provide the basis for moral education, I suggest that this task should eventually be assumed by the school (which must reform itself first), because that is where children spend most of their time. The school would ensure that each and every child is taught basic human values, ideas, and activities such as behavioral norms, the difference between good and bad, attitude towards nature, other human beings and animals, etc.
Parents, on their part, must realise that they, too, have obligations. They should stop treating their children like cute dolls and continuously entertaining them with silly plastic toys and computer games. They should not be afraid to broach serious subjects to young children, who treat all subjects, whether serious or light, as play anyway. Besides, a serious subject can always be presented in the form of an intelligent game that stimulates the child's interest and brain activity. Since, unlike adults, young children do not have a sense of time, parents need not worry that their kids miss all the fun of being young. Instead, parents should try to create an environment where children, without being deprived of the joys of childhood, can mature faster to become intelligent, responsible, and enlightened members of society. The earlier we mature, the more years of meaningful life will be left for us to enjoy.
Also, it is high time we took the overpopulation problem seriously and changed the widespread perception that large families are something that we should admire without reservations. As we know, it is not a particularly great achievement for a husband to make his wife pregnant on a yearly basis. Nevertheless, those who do are expected to be proud of it, which they are, because this is seen as a proof of their masculine vigour. As for the consequences, many husbands let their wives do most of the worrying. Some women think of married couples who don't want to have children as selfish, whereas in reality, blindly obeying their motherly instinct, often some women conceive a child just because they want to experience the joys of motherhood, not really bothering to think about what the future may have in store for the very child they profess to care for so much.
5.31 Institutionalized Religion —a Lucrative Business
Basically, religion is religiosity institutionalized. While religiosity or religiousness could be defined as awareness of some supreme power that may be inherent in man, religion is a system of theistic ideas (an ideology) implanted by the dominant religious establishment in the minds of people living in the same social environment. That is why a person born, for instance, in Saudi Arabia is most likely to be a Muslim, a person born in the former Soviet Union , a member of the Eastern Orthodox church (if not an atheist), a person born in Spain a Catholic, etc. As a result, because they are dogmas, religions act as a divisive rather than cohesive force, thus creating conditions for religious conflicts and violence. (There is no need for examples here.)
Traditionally, religion has largely been perceived as a moral and humanistic force whose purpose is to hold man in check, to protect him against his own animal nature. In this, religions and their institutions have failed miserably. Today they are not capable of preventing or stopping the erosion of moral values and humanism either in society as a whole or in their own institutions. In the West, Christianity, similarly to other dogmatic teachings, is going through a crisis, trying to adapt to the changing conditions of modern life, and the Bible (with its 16 or so interpretations) can offer no practical solutions to societal problems. Here is what Fromm, an earnest student of world religions himself, said about the diminishing role of the Bible in our days ( May Man Prevail? , p. 63):
"... the Bible is still the most widely sold and presumably the most widely read book in the West, and yet ... this same book fails to have any marked influence on the real experience of modern man, either on his feelings or on his actions. In short the Bible has become escape literature, needed to save the individual from facing the abyss of emptiness that his mode of life opens up before him, yet without much effect because no connection is made between the Bible and his real life."Every now and then, we hear of scandals and/or scams involving priests who sexually abuse children and women in their parishes and famous preachers who embezzle huge sums of money from their institutions' funds or have a liaison with a prostitute. Preaching on television has become big business, the Bible and God's commandments having been reduced to a commercial product. "I am selling the greatest product in the world,— said Billy Graham,— why shouldn't it be promoted as well as soap?" Many TV evangelists engage in lectures and crusades for their own material benefit, using all the tricks of the trade, advertising and selling their own literature, audio- and videotapes, and miscellaneous junk. They don't care about people's souls—they are after people's wallets. Some TV evangelists collect hundreds of thousands of dollars a day, not stopping short of squeezing the last penny out of a poor person. Are they not the "false prophets" the New Testament warns us against? No wonder the Church has discredited itself in the eyes of many people.
Religions should, from the very outset, have included in their doctrines and dogmas the requirement that people be enlightened by their priests. Different people understand religion differently. They practise and use it in their own interests according to their level of awareness and intelligence. And far too many of them are ignorant. That is why when claiming to bring salvation to people, religions should focus on enlightening them, so that the people are able to see the writings of prophets in their true light. Then there wouldn't be so many contradictions and discrepancies in interpreting religious teachings. Unfortunately, most religions expect people not to understand, but just to believe blindly. Ignorant people can be led astray by an unscrupulous manipulator just as easily as sheep can be led to the slaughterhouse by their shepherd.
In my opinion, if man needs a religion, it should be one of a higher order—contemplation of the unfathomable mystery of the Universal Truth, Existence, Reason, and Spirit; if man needs a God, he should seek him through awareness and understanding, instead of unquestioningly accepting other people's beliefs. In fact, spiritual search is crucial for the survival of the human race and needs to be encouraged. As Huxley said in Jesting Pilate (p. 193), "The fact that men have had stupid and obviously incorrect ideas about God does not justify us in trying to eliminate God from out of the universe. Men have had stupid and incorrect ideas on almost every subject that can be thought about."
When I try to understand man from the standpoint of Christianity, I cannot help suspecting that God must have made a mistake or played a practical joke on us. Because the way we are now, we are a joke. We are a haphazard mix of contradictory and conflicting traits and notions—one part of us fights another; we have to fight against our own selves. It would seem to me ungodly to have created us the way we are. If God exists as he is interpreted by mainstream religions, then to a logically thinking person it might seem that either God is powerless to defeat evil (the Devil) and put things in order on Earth or there are too many other worlds for him to pay close attention to one single planet such as ours, or he is conducting some kind of experiment with humans. The latter seems to agree with the Christian dogma, which maintains that God created man, endowing him with a number of traits, qualities, and abilities as well as a free will or, in other words, freedom of choice. It is logical, therefore, to assume that reason was the most likely ability given to man to help him make the right choice. Man must have ignored reason and made the wrong choice. The result is a horrible mess on Earth.
If God were all-powerful, he could change the world into a paradise with a snap of the fingers, and if he is not doing that, his intention must be that humanity should suffer. If this is so, then we are not supposed to interfere with God's scenario, then suffering is not bad and there is no need for us to try to improve the situation. If, on the other hand, God is not all-powerful or if he left it to the people to solve their problems, then this is exactly what we must try to do and not be afraid of being accused of taking God's task upon ourselves. On the contrary, it may our responsibility and moral duty to mend our ways, to think and act globally, and to find solutions to humanity's problems, rather than sit and wait for God to punish us for our sins. I believe that there must exist in the universe some absolute that man will never be able to understand completely but must constantly search for, becoming more and more knowledgeable in the process. At this stage, I would call it Absolute Truth, which should be sought through Reason rather than blind faith and whose true expression is Goodness. I cannot conceive of a God that needs or wants to be praised and worshipped by people who themselves are so cruel, immoral, and stupid as to cause so much suffering to each other and be capable of self- destruction. Such a perception of God can only be a figment of man's imagination. As Huxley said ("Do What You Will," Collected Essays , p. 76), "... of God we know nothing and, knowing nothing, are at liberty to invent as freely as we like." Freud was even more blunt when he said that religion was a kind of cultural neurosis that must be transcended as civilisation moved from infancy to adulthood.
Having grown up in an atheistic environment, I have come to recognize
the possibility of the existence of a supreme power not by "a leap of faith,"
but by looking for answers in philosophical and scientific literature and
trying to think logically. My beliefs are based on the following two reasons:
(1) no scientist can really explain how the universe came into being (the
big bang theory ignores the question of what or who "created" the big bang);
(2) human existence, imagination, ideas, and principles would have no justification
or meaning whatsoever if we were just animallike creatures striving for
physical survival. To those "humanists" who would snort and scoff at such
a view, I would answer with the words of Mr. Calamy in Huxley's Those
Barren Leaves (p. 312): "The fools, the innumerable fools, take it
all for granted, skate about cheerfully on the surface and never think
of inquiring what's underneath. They're content with appearances,... call
them realities and proceed to abuse any one who takes an interest in what
lies underneath these superficial symbols as a romantic imbecile."