Monarchy, dictatorship, totalitarianism, socialism, communism, capitalism, democracy�these are some of the names used to describe political and economic systems that mankind has experimented with throughout its history, all of which either have failed or are doomed to failure. All of these systems, whether they are archaic or modern, whether they bother to present themselves as progressive and humanistic or not, are pyramids of power that permit relatively small privileged groups (royal families, dictators, politicians, corporations) to retain their position of power and/or wealth by controlling and manipulating the unenlightened masses. Back in the 1950s, Erich Fromm pointed out important similarities between capitalism and communism ( The Sane Society , © p. 311)

Communism in the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe has fallen. But not because it was defeated by the West, as former U.S. president Ronald Reagan liked to brag. Communism has collapsed, as I wrote in an earlier article, because it never had a chance, because it was flawed from the very beginning. First, it was premature. The human race was not ready, as it still is not ready even today, for such great ideas as true democracy, equal rights, spiritual freedom, morality, responsibility, dignity, etc.

Second, the humanist elite (i.e., those who may have truly cared about humanity) was too small in number to be able to build a new society without the help of a huge army of half-literate executives and bureaucrats eager for and easily corruptible by power, who eventually got rid of their teachers and became the masters of the Russian empire.

Third, promising an earthly paradise and materialistic cornucopia was in itself a crucial mistake, because instead of attaching greater significance to spiritual values, this promise left open Pandora's box of never-ending desires and fantasies, which have always been the driving force for the human animal. The first Soviet constitution should have included a very specific clause drawing a distinct line between the notion of sufficient comfort for the "servants of the people" to perform their duty and the notion of luxury and unlimited gratification of their materialistic needs. By proclaiming "material incentive" as a decisive factor in the building of communism, Nikita Khrushchev started digging the grave of the Soviet economy and the whole communist ideology. Also, carried away by the megalomaniac fancy of overtaking and surpassing the West in economic growth, the Soviet ideologists, just like everybody else, had no way of foreseeing the sinister consequences of the industrial, scientific, and technological progress for the environment and the human psyche.

Fourth, not only did communism not renounce violence as a barbarous custom; it used violence to seize power, to keep the new society under complete control, and to spread its ideology around the world. Concealed behind the attractive facade of humanist ideals, slogans, and promises, Soviet communists managed to stay in power for over 70 years by effectively combining demagoguery, hypocrisy, and brainwashing, with ruthless oppression of their subject peoples.

And finally, and most important, communism failed because its goal had never really been to humanize society, enlighten the masses, and develop reason and awareness. Without this goal, any human society is destined to oscillate between a quasi-democracy and a dictatorship on the road to eventual degeneration and collapse.

Contemporary Western-type democracy, which is driven by the principle of the survival of the fittest, is not a fully developed humanistic democracy either. It is a quasi-democracy, perhaps the best there is at the current stage, but far from being what it can and should be from the point of view of a mature, truly human society. In the West, quasi-democracy "works" for those who have reached a comfortable or affluent standard of living but obviously doesn't work for the poor or the anxiety-ridden lower middle class (We are not even talking about spiritual and intellectual contentment.) It certainly doesn't work for the majority of the countries of Africa, Asia, and Latin America, where millions of people try to survive in subhuman conditions.

To most people in the former Soviet Union and Eastern Europe, as well as in other parts of the world, Western quasi-democracy and capitalism seem to be the most attractive alternative because of the abundance of food and consumer goods, instances of affluent lifestyles, and relative freedom of gratifying one's needs, instincts, wishes, and fantasies. But to achieve even this materialistic goal, the East would need to have the same system of governmental and legislative institutions the West has developed over centuries, the system that at certain points in history may have been progressive, dynamic, and necessary, but which has now played its part, is no longer viable, and holds no future for mankind.

Capitalism had prospered in the past because it exploited to the maximum natural and human resources, with the result that today, instead of achieving reasonable economic sufficiency in all countries of the world and greater freedom for the human spirit, we find ourselves on the verge of destroying our habitat and turning into a technologically advanced society of barbarians and human robots. The Western economy is now terminally ill from overconsumption. Based on materialism, greed, selfishness and competition, it cannot stay "healthy" for a long time. And at the root of all these troubles is the erosion of human dignity, conscience, and spiritual values. As Fromm wrote in May Man Prevail? (p. 232), "The West presents a picture of moral bankruptcy to the `new world.' We preached Christianity to the `heathen' while we were taking them for slaves and treating them as inferiors; now we preach spirituality, morality, faith in God, and freedom, while our effective values (and it is part of our system of `doublethink' that we also preach them) are money and consumption."

Because of the growing chaos and anarchy in various parts of the world today, the idea of reverting to monarchy is gaining popularity in some countries. The question, of course, is: would the restoration of this useless (and expensive) relic of earlier barbaric rule in countries such as the former Soviet Union, Romania, Hungary, and Yugoslavia solve their political, economic, and social problems? Can it govern wisely in the interests of humanity? Can it resist the traditional urge to abuse its power in the interests of the royal elite? Can a monarch be a wise, responsible, moral, unselfish leader just because he or she has inherited the royal title? From what we know through the media, we'd better not count on it. I have watched interviews on TV with some of the offspring of royal families who have been in mothballs for several decades in exile elsewhere, and I have seen nothing to distinguish them from the common run of modern politicians, either intellectually or spiritually. Just look at the British royalty, the biggest living dinosaur of all, an empty and sterile symbol for the ignorant crowd who, still having no idea what human dignity means, don't mind being looked on as an inferior class. In these times of economic crises, political confusion, and bloody religious and ethnic conflicts, the royal family members are more concerned with pompous ceremonies, fashions, horse races, and their petty family troubles rather than mankind's predicaments. Until recently, they did not even have the decency to pay taxes on their enormous real estate empire, income, and personal wealth while everyone else was obliged to pay taxes on their, by comparison, miniscule holdings.

Unlike politicians, who depend for their power on the masses that elect them, the British royalty enjoy much greater financial and political freedom and have the best educational facilities available to them, all of which would be expected to create favourable conditions for developing wisdom, reason, morality, and spirituality. This is not happening yet. Perhaps, just as there have been individuals in the royal family who broke the rules by marrying outsiders, so there will emerge one day a more enlightened member of royalty who will break through the fossil mentality of his or her surroundings and rise to a higher level of humanistic statesmanship. Let us hope so.

5.2  The Government

Many people disagree on the concept of governments. On the one hand, there are those who complain about too much government control and intervention in their daily lives; on the other, there are those who will criticise the government for not taking good care of the public. In general, most people in the West advocate living in a free market society under conditions that allow any person to make a great deal of money, get appropriate tax breaks, and take advantage of whatever perks will push up his or her own standard of living. All this is invoked under the notion of capitalism�the all- American dream of making a fortune. This is all very fine as long as the economy goes strong. However, when the economy goes downhill and/or the market crashes, as it has in the past, the former beneficiaries of the system switch their thinking, attack their government for not doing enough to encourage economic prosperity, and insist that the government provide more jobs and allocate money to various training programs. Suddenly, they are more attuned to a socialist doctrine, showing an obvious paradox of our modern society.

The reality is that no country can exist without some form of government, because to be without one would result in chaos and anarchy, such as we are witnessing today in Somalia and Afghanistan. However, even in good times, there are people who still regard their government as something of a nuisance. On a TV talk show, the editor-in-chief of an American newspaper remarked with a certain degree of smugness, "We, Americans, tend to be mistrustful of our government."

People choose their government with the expectation that it will be able to fix their problems, especially economic ones, during a relatively short period of staying in office. The American president, for instance, is limited to two terms in office to safeguard democracy and protect against possible corruption in the system. The irony of the question is: what if the electorate chooses an administration that actually works and serves in the best interests of society? After two terms of good government, a less effective government may gain control by default.

This leads to my next point, namely, that governments made up of politicians are all subject to corruption. That should come as no surprise because we do, after all, live in a barbaric society. Our politicians grew up in the same world and learned to accept the same values and beliefs as anyone else. The main incentives for going into politics are power, wealth, and fame. The old adage of "What's wrong with making an extra buck?" is still much in favour as a convenient justification for some people's unethical actions and is accepted as a societal norm. When a politician is caught cheating or accepting bribes, there is huge public outcry and dismay. None of this, however, should come as a shock to anybody.

The only cure to this problem is to abolish the material incentives and look for candidates who are genuinely concerned about the problems of human society, prepared to serve the people without expecting excessive privileges, and able to present a comprehensive programme of social changes.

5.3  Media

Although they prefer to think of themselves as guardians of freedoms, principles, and constitutional rights, as a free spirit of truth and facts, the media are not a free, independent, objective, and impartial institution. They are a product and instrument of the existing social system, thriving on the herd mentality and suggestibility of the public. At the same time, they are part of the public, having been raised with the same shortcomings and limitations, their values being essentially materialistic.

Many will at least acknowledge that they operate in a business environment and that the bottom line for the owners of the broadcasting corporation is making a profit. If this body of "freethinkers" does not provide programming that will please the public and does not attract enough of the potential audience, they will not get paid. In order to please the masses and get higher ratings, the corporation has to lower its programming standards to a level of mediocrity. This is what Carl Becker wrote in "Modern Democracy" (p. 384):

"... the instruments of propaganda are themselves business corporations organized and financed for profit, and, as such, subject to those influences that condition and are conditioned by the system of free economic enterprise. Newspapers are free to print all the news that's fit to print; but they cannot consistently propagate ideas that will alienate the business interests whose paid advertisements enable them to distribute profits to the stockholders. Broadcasting corporations are free from government censorship, or reasonably so, reasonably free to broadcast what they will; but in the last analysis they will not broadcast that which seriously offends the prevailing mores or the business enterprises which, in this country at least, sponsor and finance their programs of entertainment."

Media people are expected to look professional and to speak in a certain manner, usually with a profound air. (As one comedian remarked, "To be a successful TV announcer, you have to look incredibly serious.") In some cases, trained actors are hired for the positions. People are more attracted by their mannerisms and looks than by the message conveyed, and the telecaster is more concerned with his or her own image than with the issue in question. Anchorpeople, who are paid six- figure salaries for simply retelling the news and keeping their opinions to themselves, enjoy stardom that is on par with that of movie stars and weather forecasters.

Often television documentaries and reports are introduced in a pretentious and pompous manner, accompanied by shrill and aggressive music. Though I have nothing against music per se, I do believe that its presence in what is claimed to be thoughtful and serious television reporting can be disruptive, as it conjures up feelings, passions, and images that may distract people from the reality they are supposed to see. This was particularly evident to me in the case of a supposedly profound report titled Anatomy of a Riot , which called upon a heavy dose of music. It was devoid of any real analysis or meaningful explanation. In fact, with the music constantly playing in the background, it was more like a rock video than a serious piece of reporting. If a report is to be a serious work, it must be done in a serious way, and music must not be excessively used to warp reality.

The media also like to create the impression that they serve the people and are accessible to them. It has become a must for the news media to accompany their reports with a shot or two of people in the street stating their opinion on the event in question, as if one individual's opinion could represent that of millions of others or elucidate the situation. Sometimes those interviewed say things that are downright wrong or stupid, but the reporter usually looks on blandly without comment, leaving the less educated listener or viewer in the dark as to whether the things being said are right or wrong. (Talking about interviewing people in the street, I remember how several years ago, when the Soviet Union was still under Brezhnev's control, ABC's anchor Peter Jennings switched to an American correspondent in Moscow, who was interviewing people in the street, and said, "And now let us hear what Soviet people think about this." That amazed me. I would have expected a former London-stationed reporter to realise that Soviet people could not afford to say what they thought, especially in front of a TV camera. But then, I wonder how many North American viewers noticed that.) However, as Carl Becker observed (ibid., p. 384), "The chief instruments of propaganda�the press and broadcasting stations�are not readily available to the average individual for conveying his ideas: they can be effectively used only by the government, political parties and party leaders, prominent organizations, wealthy men and business corporations, associations organized for specific purposes, and the writers of books which publishing houses find it worthwhile to publish."

Also, journalists have invented an idol of their own; they call it "the story." To them, it is an end in itself and justifies the means; it is above everything else, including ethics.

Journalists claim to be, or give the impression of being, totally free and independent, but are they? They may be brave enough to criticise some of the aspects of the establishment, but they never go too far. They never denounce the entire system. Few of them are able or care to look for the root causes of such complex problems as crime, violence, sexually transmitted diseases, pollution, etc. They may attribute them to peer pressure, poor education, poverty, unemployment, or family problems. And this is where their criticism usually ends, either because their insight runs out of depth or because their principles and ethical position are outweighed by their reluctance to part with the status, privileges, and material benefits acquired in the course of their careers.

Take television networks, for instance. One would not expect a TV journalist or a TV-show host to criticise seriously his network, a very powerful organisation, for that would be biting the hand that feeds him. Even the press seems rather evasive and ineffective when dealing with its "Big Brother." About 15 years ago I heard a radio announcer say that a book called The Age of Television was about to appear, in which the author "... lashes out at television." Later I tried to locate this book: the salespeople had never heard of it. I wonder what could possibly have prevented that book from being published.

Many journalists (some of them, perhaps, shying away from responsibility) maintain that their job is just to report the events, present facts, tell the truth, and let the public form their own opinions. But the sad truth is that people cannot be expected to take facts wholesale and be able to interpret the information themselves. Media people generally have a higher level of education than the "crowd" for whom they report. The less-educated need some type of guidance. If reporters have the facts, they should be allowed to analyse and interpret them, sharing their point of view with the masses. Giving the crowd the bare facts is naive, useless, and even harmful. Simple factual presentation is too much for the average mind to process. Besides, facts alone are not necessarily objective. For instance, the Western media reported in the summer of 1993 that a house was being built for Alexander Solzhenitsyn in an area near Moscow inhabited mostly by KGB officials. There were no comments, just the bare fact, a tiny, spicy "story." To those unfamiliar with Solzhenitsyn's principles (that is, to most Westerners), this statement in no subtle way suggested that he was going to rub shoulders with members of that notorious profession on a daily basis, whereas, in all probability, his family had chosen that place for its scenic beauty. Not even people with higher education are always able to evaluate the information present in the facts. They, too, need to hear varying points of view and analysis so that they can at least form an opinion of their own.

One way the media exercise their power and control over the public is by selecting and editing news material: they keep or embellish that part which is to their advantage, cutting or altering that information which is not in their interest to make known to the public. They do this under a pretext (partly justifiable) that the material needs to be processed and compressed to make the finished product as complete and effective (read: attractive ) as possible.

We should not accept everything the media report at face value, because they not only report the news; they also manufacture and sometimes distort it. Marshall McLuhan's theory of "the medium is the message" comes to mind.

5.4  Television

Although television is relatively new, it has become the most popular and powerful medium of our time. Television is a product of technology, just like computers, nuclear power, and genetics. Technology is indifferent; it has no sense of reasoning or feelings; it is merely a tool. On its own, it is not a problem. The problem lies in how the medium is used and by whom. In the hands of big corporations (such as ABC, NBC, and CBS), whose primary concern is to maximise profit rather than enlighten people and promote humanistic ideas, television actually corrupts people's minds, destroys moral values, and takes away the ability to think critically, rationally, logically, and analytically.

It acts effectively on the audiovisual senses but requires less thought and imagination than does reading. Prior to the advent of television, readers relied on their own powers of visualization; now they are bombarded with ready-made misrepresentations of reality. Television is too new for anyone to have developed a full understanding of its effect on society in general and the younger generations in particular. However, some definite trends can already be discerned. Today's children read less, and what they do read is often trivial and designed only for fun and entertainment. Children who watch a great deal of television may have difficulty participating in the real world when so much of their time is spent observing the unreal. Television seriously hinders our ability to think critically; in fact, it demands that we don't. There is no doubt that TV will change us, the question is how and to what degree. Will it affect our minds and abilities? Will those changes be for the better or the worse? We already have partial answers to these questions. Some abilities and activities, such as reading, imagination, and analysis, are being gradually atrophied. Watching television is both mentally and physically relaxing�it is designed for entertainment, not for stimulation or pursuit of knowledge. Programs geared towards debate and discussion have difficulty getting aired because they are not what the masses want. Neal Postman, in his book Amusing Ourselves to Death , observes (p. 152) that "... so far as many reputable studies are concerned, television viewing does not significantly increase learning, is inferior to and less likely than print to cultivate higher-order, inferential thinking."

Very often, when discussing violence and sex on television, most people, including journalists, politicians, and intellectuals, use the argument "if you don't like it, you can always turn it off." These people refuse to understand that it is not their values and tastes that are at issue, but the need to protect children from the corruptive influence of such programming.

In bygone eras, most children were brought up on moral and family values. They were not continuously exposed to ruthless, cruel, sadistic behaviour on the screen. Like a work of art, television should uplift and enlighten instead of degrade the human mind. Even cartoons, most of them full of violent scenes, watched by millions of children each weekend, have become morally corruptive. Also, a child left alone with the remote control becomes the unsuspecting witness of violent acts, sexual promiscuity, drug and alcohol abuse, and other criminal and/or immoral behaviour.

The public should have more control over television. There should be more public stations financed from the national budget and supervised by a minister of television who would be responsible for the content of TV programmes, for the proper balance between enlightenment and entertainment, and for keeping off the screen idiotic, misleading, and vulgar commercials, pornography, violence, and other degrading material.

A democratically elected government, too, should have a TV station of its own in order to present its point of view to the public. It is a shame that a president or a prime minister should have to ask commercial stations for the opportunity to address the public on television.

More and more new channels are introduced; more and more trash is fed to the viewer; higher and higher goes the price. The winners are the producers and the consumers of this trash. But all the rest are left with no choice but to pay for it. A solution to this unfair situation could be paid TV: every channel would have a price, and viewers could buy only the channels they liked. Such an arrangement would also give parents who are concerned about their children's education some control over the content and quality of TV programmes viewed in their homes.

The public is often reminded by those who make their comfortable living in television that we should be grateful to business and commercial advertising for financing this medium and keeping the price of TV programmes low for the consumer. We should, however, realise that advertising agencies make a nice bundle and businesses write off the cost of commercials as operating expenses and mark up the price of their products.

5.5  Hypocrisy, Demagoguery, Showmanship

Hypocrisy, demagoguery, and showmanship are characteristics without which no politician or celebrity could remain popular with the public for any appreciable length of time. Many members of the elite are also dedicated practitioners of showmanship. In politics and the entertainment business, that is the only means of getting to the top.

The gullible public, including the media, easily mistakes hypocrisy and demagoguery for charisma. The elite, which depends on the public for its existence, feigns a great affection for the latter. That is why politicians and celebrities smile so much. As Fromm observed ( Escape from Freedom , p. 268), "friendliness, cheerfulness, and everything that a smile is supposed to express, become automatic responses which one turns on and off like an electric switch." A top Canadian journalist once complained about former prime minister Pierre Trudeau that "the guy didn't even look human" because Trudeau did not display his emotions very openly and did not smile very often. For the same reason, he was often accused of being arrogant. But does a political leader have to wear a silly grin on his or her face all the time to make us believe we elected the right leader? Shouldn't we judge a leader by his or her ability to think and address national and international issues? Of course, this is not to say that Trudeau was a paragon of leadership, for I don't know of any politician who is not a hypocrite and a demagogue. Without these qualities, there would be no politics.

Governments, which, as we know, consist of politicians, also resort to demagoguery and deception on a regular basis. Watergate and Irangate are well-known examples. Or, when a government claims to fight for another country's freedom, the real motive is likely to be personal or national interests. Tempted by immediate economic benefits, many governments allow or even encourage arms sales to potential aggressors with no regard to how grave the consequences might be. All this is in the name of freedom, of course. "We build orphanages, and at the same time we stockpile the bombs that will be dropped on orphanages," wrote Huxley ("Madness, Badness, Sadness," Collected Essays , p. 299) long before Iraq attacked Kuwait and Yugoslavia was torn apart by war. In politics, too, the double standard is a way of life.

Showmanship, in our modern society, is a popular and lucrative commodity. Looks and mannerisms serve as cosmetic packaging to sell a product or a service in any walk of life or profession. As Postman wrote in Amusing Ourselves to Death (p. 98), "Our priests and presidents, our surgeons and lawyers, our educators and newscasters need worry less about satisfying the demands of their discipline than the demands of good showmanship."

People love to emulate high fashion and to mimic the mannerisms of their favourite stars. (A few years ago, there was a comeback in the popularity of cowboy hats. When a TV reporter questioned a young couple in a bar why the guy wore the hat, his girlfriend said, "I like it. It makes him look like Gary Cooper.") What is worse, the public tends to associate its idols' charm, whether natural or artificial, with positive human qualities. The idols automatically become "nice" people. Even wise. Even moral. The public forgives them all their sins and shortcomings. Few care or are able to discern the celebrity's true values behind the veneer of his or her image, unless, of course, they read popular tabloids like the National Enquirer .

5.6  Language and Symbolism

Human language is a unique phenomenon that puts us far ahead of animals on the evolutionary ladder. It is one of man's greatest achievements and has been a prerequisite for the flourishing of arts and the advance of science. However, language is also a source of some of man's most serious troubles, for we have learnt to twist and abuse language to a degree that, instead of promoting understanding and cooperation amongst all humans on the planet, we use it to promote our personal and national interests and to mislead, manipulate, and brainwash our own kind.

Today, we attach more importance to the sound and form of words and expressions than to their meaning. This is because, "educated" by the media, the masses have subconsciously perceived language as a form of art rather than an instrument of reason and logic. To paraphrase Marshall McLuhan's expression, the form has become the message. People are just as much fascinated with catchwords and slogans as they are with art. Entertainment media and politicians understand very well the power of words and use them effectively to achieve their personal goals.

Often it doesn't occur to people that some of the well-known "great" statements may not hold water, even though they have been in use for a long time. A particularly good example of this is Lord Acton's popular quotation "Power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely," which seems to be universally perceived as absolute and eternal truth. But if you really think about it, this statement actually implies that any person, whether honest or dishonest, is corruptible. But would you think of a corruptible person as honest? If not, then you would have to accept one of the two conclusions: either truly honest people don't exist or a truly honest person is not corruptible. "But," you might say, "corruption happens all the time!" Yes, that is true. However, it happens not because power corrupts but because those who come to power are already corruptible and, when the temptation arrives, they cannot resist it.

In Western democratic societies, language is constantly expanding, mainly because of the development of science and technology. But many new words and meanings also emerge as a result of mindless exaggeration, the irresistible urge to show off and impress, and the constant need for excitement. This only adds up to sloppiness and ambiguity in language. In everyday life, words such as super , great , fantastic , etc., tend to replace the more realistic good , okay , and all right and lose their power and true meaning from trivial overuse. Cool and hot may now mean the same thing�chic or popular. Adults, of course, may find the new connotations amusing, but children, who tend to take words in a literal sense, are likely to end up with a poorer vocabulary. Today, many people cannot say two sentences in a row without repeating "you know," "like," "I mean," etc. (Some even manage to combine them into a single phrase: "You know, like I mean...") Television, in particular the advertisement medium, is a great contributor to language malformations. © (A. Huxley, "The Oddest Science," Collected Essays , p. 325).

In modern society, where glib-tongued salesmanship is a honorable and lucrative skill, verbal skills have come to be regarded as a valuable asset, much more valuable than thinking ability. Very often, a smooth and fast talker, who may also know a lot of facts, is mistaken for an intelligent, perceptive, and judicious person, although the incessant flow of words devoid of any sense and ideas may be nothing but verbal diarrhea . As Neil Postman observed ( Amusing Ourselves to Death , p. 16), "... the content of much of our public discourse has become dangerous nonsense."

Even more serious discussions occasionally broadcast by public television, such as Firing Line debates, often amount to no more than an exercise in eloquence, rhetoric, and wit. They hardly ever get the bottom of things. They never resolve any problems. But they usually succeed in entertaining the audience who come to be entertained, not to look for truth or solutions.

Language reflects the perceptions, attitudes, and thinking currently prevalent in a society. In market- oriented societies, where there is an unhealthy preoccupation with material values, people often use in their everyday speech words and expressions related to money, buying, and selling. For example, when one of the first space shuttles returning to Earth touched ground, the controller who reported its landing cried out in admiration: "Right on the money, right on the money!" When people don't quite trust what you are saying, they ask you to "put your money where your mouth is." Many debaters, instead of not accepting the opponent's argument, don't "buy" it. When a U.S. president attempts to carry out a project, ABC reporter Sam Donaldson insists, the president first must "sell" it to the public or to the Congress. Once I talked about some of my ideas to someone who considered himself to be a humanist and he asked me, "But how can you sell them to people?" "For my money," instead of one all-purpose sell we should again learn to use different and more accurate words, such as offer , suggest , convince , etc., because through constant overuse, figurative meanings may eventually merge with the literal meaning in less critical minds. Also, we should learn to give rather than sell.

Excessive symbolism is another sin we are guilty of. We attach too much significance to symbols. We often talk in ready-made sentences and phrases without making an effort to see whether they truly reflect reality. Symbols can be useful as long as they bring out virtuous qualities in people, but very often the opposite is true. Symbols such as a national flag may provoke irrational passions and actions. If someone burns the national flag, many people get upset and angry. But we should realise that burning a flag is also a symbolic act that is as silly as worshipping it. People, including children, can be turned into symbols to be used for political propaganda. Such was the case with little Samantha, who had written a letter to Andropov asking for peace, was received by him, and instantly was transformed into a national icon. The only purpose for politicians' inventing such schemes is to brainwash the public.

I remember once going out to see a parade on the 1st of July, Canada Day, celebrations. Some of the people walked along the street as if in a trance, with a glazed look in their eyes, chanting, "Happy Birthday, Canada!" They were congratulating not each other, but some inanimate, abstract creature they worshipped, presumably a "United Canada," just as lots of Germans worshipped the image of a new Aryan nation and many Soviets worshipped the images of a future communist paradise and their long-dead leader Lenin ("Lenin lived, Lenin is living, Lenin shall live!"�a line from Vladimir Mayakovsky's poem turned into a slogan). As Aldous Huxley observed in one of his essays ("Words and Behavior," Collected Essays , p. 253), "By habitually talking of the nation as though it were a person with thoughts, feeling and a will of its own, the rulers of a country legitimate their own powers. Personification leads easily to deification; and where the nation is deified, its government ceases to be a mere convenience, like drains or a telephone system, and, partaking in the sacredness of the entity it represents, claims to give orders by divine right and demands the unquestioning obedience due to a god."

The above examples demonstrate how language may obscure our perceptions of reality. "Physical reality," said Ernst Cassirer ("An Essay on Man," p. 10), "seems to recede in proportion as man's symbolic activity advances. Instead of dealing with the things themselves man is in a sense constantly conversing with himself. He has so enveloped himself in linguistic forms, in artistic images, in mythical symbols or religious rites that he cannot see or know anything except by the interposition of [an] artificial medium."

We must keep in mind that language is just a communicative tool, which we could and should use to enhance our humanity, reason, and spirituality. It should not be regarded as an end in itself and an idol to be worshipped.

5.7  Manipulation, Brainwashing, and the Distortion of Values

Manipulation and brainwashing have become everyday realities in a democratic society in which greed, consumerism, and immorality prevail. In a world where one can only succeed at the expense of others, politicians, the media, so-called experts, and the advertisement industry frequently resort to manipulation and brainwashing in order to realise their personal goals, be it to gain power or make money. As Erich Fromm wrote in The Revolution of Hope (p. 26), "We are not on the way to greater individualism, but are becoming an increasingly manipulated mass civilization."

Promises made by politicians during electoral campaigns with the sole intention of obtaining the favour of the public; the use of scantily clad women and men in commercials to entice people into buying a product they may not even need; supposedly proven workshops and conferences promising quick and easy success�all these are but a few methods used to manipulate and control the masses. "In order to make the highest profit," said Fromm ( The Sane Society , p. 290), "the lowest instincts are artificially stimulated and the mind of the public is poisoned."

A manipulated mind increasingly becomes a dependent mind. Thus what is proclaimed to be a "standard" can be imposed easily. The entertainment industry, for instance, decides which paintings, written works, cinema, etc., however mediocre, should be considered genuine art. People who are unaccustomed to higher standards swallow these dictates, believe they are initiated into high culture, and demand more of this "art," which then does indeed become the standard they now look up to.

In this process of manipulation, true values are distorted and destroyed. One has only to look around to become aware of this reality. Positive traits such as modesty, kindness, self-control, and human dignity are readily given up and no longer perceived as important values in our world. Instead, they have been replaced by self-promotion, selfishness, and aggressiveness, which have become accepted in our competitive society and are now perceived as positive traits to be passed on to future generations. As Huxley observed in Jesting Pilate :

"... things which in the past had been regarded as possessing great value are disparaged, or, more often, things which were previously considered of small value come to be regarded as precious" [p. 273] "This falsification of the standard of values is a product, in our modern world, of democracy, and has gone furthest in America. It is much more dangerous than the mere denial of values, because it is much more popular" [p. 276] "Stupidity, suggestibility and business are held up as supremely precious. Intelligence, independence and disinterested activity�once admired�are in process of becoming evil things which ought to be destroyed" [p. 280].

"The hypnoid methods used in advertising and political propaganda are a serious danger to mental health, specifically to clear and critical thinking and emotional independence. I have no doubt that thorough studies will show that the damage caused by drug addiction is only a fraction of the damage done by our methods of brainwashing, from subliminal suggestions to such semihypnotic devices as constant repetition or the deflection of rational thought by the appeal to sexual lust... The bombardment with purely suggestive methods in advertising, and most of all in television commercials, is stultifying. This assault on reason and the sense of reality pursues the individual everywhere and daily at any time: during many hours of watching television, or when driving on a highway, or in the political propaganda of candidates, and so on. The particular effect of these suggestive methods is that they create an atmosphere of being half-awake, of believing and not believing, of losing one's sense of reality... These brainwashing methods are dangerous not only because they impel us to buy things that we neither need nor want, but because they lead us to choose political representatives we would neither need nor want if we were in full control of our minds. But we are not in full control of our minds because hypnoid methods are used to propagandize us. To combat this ever-increasing danger, we must prohibit the use of all hypnoid forms of propaganda, for commodities as well as for politicians ."

Advertising is one of the most hideous contemporary crafts, demonstrating the depth of man's stupidity, vulgarity, and lack of dignity. It can be useful only insofar as it lets the public know which products and services are available. What should have been an auxiliary service from the very beginning has turned into a monstrous parasite feeding on society. With the connivance of the media, politicians, and government bureaucrats, huge sums of money are spent on extravagant and idiotic commercials, most of which have little or nothing to do with the characteristics of the product itself. The main purpose of advertising is to manipulate and bamboozle the public into buying more goods. These expenditures are then passed on to the public in the form of tax write-offs. Companies and government agencies thus pay large amounts of taxpayers' money to profiteers and celebrities (including top-level politicians, opera singers, and complete symphony orchestras), who willingly prostitute what's left of their human dignity and values for an extra buck, profaning the very art they claim to represent.

The consumer has been conditioned into accepting commercials as a norm, as a necessity, as part of everyday life, unaware of their insidious corrupting effect on his/her mind. As Neal Postman politely put it in his book Amusing Ourselves to Death (p. 126), "an American who has reached the age of forty will have seen well over one million television commercials in his or her lifetime, and has close to another million television commercials to go before the first Social Security check arrives. We may safely assume, therefore, that the television commercial has profoundly influenced American habits of thought."

Especially disgusting is the irresponsible and unscrupulous use of children of all ages by advertising agencies that take advantage of the children's natural immaturity as well as the unnatural immaturity and greed of their parents. Children are especially popular with producers of junk food and plastic toys, who seduce kids with all kinds of images and useless gadgets, thereby pressuring their parents into buying the advertised goods. One of the best-known examples of a business organisation using such unethical techniques is McDonald's.

5.9  Psychology

Modern psychology, which Fromm characterized as "the crowning achievement of manipulation," is essentially a business. Armed with some diploma or other, practitioners of all kinds (be it in the field of psychiatry, psychoanalysis, or psychology), are sprouting up everywhere. Much like salespeople, many of them resort to all kinds of newfangled tricks and, if you are ready to meet their high wages, are eager to put their ideas to the test.

Because psychology deals with abstract ideas and notions, it is often very difficult for the average person to differentiate between the imposter and the real and true psychologist. Often, impressed by a diploma or the complicated terminology of these so-called specialists of the mind, the public listens to them in awe, as these charlatans (who appear regularly on television shows) advertise all sorts of fictitious theories and ideas. Modern psychologists are much more motivated by their love of money and fame than their concern with the patient's problems. Most of them, I believe, cannot and will not help people. A product of the system themselves, they have the same herd mentality as their patients and base their perceptions and behavioral theories on the assumption that human beings should be treated as mammals and mentally handicapped children.

The aim of psychology in our society is to mould people's minds according to the needs of the system. That is why Fromm ( The Revolution of Hope , p. 48) warns that "it is of vital importance to distinguish between a psychology that understands and aims at the well-being of man and a psychology that studies man as an object with the aim of making him more useful for the technological society." Unfortunately, psychologists of the first kind are all too rare in our modern world, and far too much trust has been foolishly placed in psychologists of the second kind.

The result is that people willingly sacrifice their freedom and allow themselves to be treated like objects, animals, or children. "Today the function of psychiatry, psychology and psychoanalysis," wrote Fromm ( The Sane Society , pp. 151-152), "threatens to become the tool in the manipulation of men.... their practitioners are evolving into the priests of the new religion of fun, consumption and selflessness, into the specialists of manipulation, into the spokesmen for the alienated personality."

5.10  Culture, Traditions, and Customs

Culture can be defined as a set of customs and values (a way of life) that characterizes a certain group of people who were brought up and are living together in the same conditions and have developed the same or at least a similar understanding of these customs and norms in relation to their origins.

Since every culture has its own values and norms, I don't believe one can objectively conclude that a particular culture is either good or bad. To a certain extent, however, some cultures can be considered richer than others. Countries with a longer history have accumulated more cultural treasures and traditions than relatively young countries such as Canada or the United States.

Although we cannot say that a particular culture can be either positive or negative, I submit that certain aspects or traditions of a culture can be categorized as one or the other. For example, human sacrifice in the ancient Aztec culture can be considered, from a humanistic point of view, a negative and repulsive custom.

The shaping of American culture owes much to the strenuous conditions and circumstances in which the United States "grew up." Thus the roots of American culture can be traced back to the harsh environment that required the pioneers to be aggressive, violent, and enterprising as they moved west from the Atlantic coast to the Pacific. These traits were perceived as essential virtues for those seeking out new opportunities and wealth in the raw frontier. Unfortunately, the same traits are still very much alive today in the American way of life, with the result that the United States is by far the most violent of all Western cultures.

Not only that, but what is currently being offered in America on the cultural level encourages mental and moral degradation. This is particularly alarming when we realise the impact American culture has had and still has around the world. This is how Huxley described the most powerful entertainment medium, the cinema, before the advent of television ( Jesting Pilate , pp. 198-200):

"The world into which the cinema introduces the subject peoples is a world of silliness and criminality. When its inhabitants are not stealing, murdering, swindling or attempting to commit rape... When they make money they do it only in the most discreditable, unproductive and socially mischievous way�by speculation. Their politics are matters exclusively of personal (generally amorous) intrigue. Their science is an affair of secrete recipes for making money�recipes which are always getting stolen by villains no less anxious for cash than the scientific hero himself. Their religion is all cracker mottoes, white-haired clergymen, large- hearted mothers, hard, Bible-reading, puritanical fathers, and young girls who have taken the wrong turning and been betrayed... kneeling with their illegitimate babies in front of crucifixes. As for their art�it consists in young men in overalls and large ties painting... feminine portraits worthy to figure on the covers of magazines. And their literature is the flatulent verbiage of the captions. Such is the white man's world as revealed by the films, a world of crooks and half-wits, morons and sharpers. A crude, immature, childish world. A world without subtlety, without the smallest intellectual interests, innocent of art, letters, philosophy, science. A world where there are plenty of motors, telephones and automatic pistols, but in which there is no trace of such a thing as a modern idea. A world where men and women have instincts, desires and emotions, but no thoughts... White men complain that the attitude of the members of the coloured races is not so respectful as it was. Can one be astonished?"

Many people are led to believe by politicians, activists, and other leaders that traditions are sacred to a culture and should be left untouched. However, as we have just seen, not all aspects of a culture are necessarily positive or correspond to the realities of our time. We should, therefore, carefully reexamine them to decide which should be preserved and which discarded. Just because a tradition has existed for thousands of years does not mean that it should be preserved at any cost and regarded as sacred. There are traditions and customs that are exceptionally cruel (e.g., circumcision of women, sacrificing animals, etc.) or discriminatory (e.g., requiring women in Islamic countries to completely cover their faces).

Immigrants, in particular, should be made aware of the negative effect that some of their traditions and customs may have upon the host population of their new country. Indeed, some immigrants don't realise that by being overtly proud of their culture and flaunting their traditions and customs they can provoke a hostile reaction from the local population. This inevitably leads to ethnic and racial tensions. I strongly believe, therefore, that one should keep one's culture and traditions within the home so as to avoid cultural clashes. Imported traditions and customs should be viewed and practised not as a way of life, but as a form of art. That is, we can simply be made aware of other cultures through the enjoyment of their paintings, writings, theatre, music, etc. It is time to rid ourselves of our tribal instincts and stop emphasizing our cultural differences. By doing so, we will have a better chance to build a country of equal citizens, regardless of their ethnic and cultural background, and thus avoid intercultural and interethnic tensions and conflicts.

In Canada, the Department of Citizenship and Multiculturalism strongly encourages Canadians to "celebrate the differences." A question quickly comes to mind: "What for?" If anything, it is differences that have always pulled people apart and have been the cause of much of the disharmony amongst humans. In real life, major differences cause more problems and tensions than so-called benefits. Be different if you must, but you don't have to celebrate it or flaunt it. I believe it is high time we paused and reconsidered the value of traditions and customs in our society.

I cannot see how mankind can resolve these problems unless nations unite into a global community that strives to preserve only those traditions which ennoble and uplift human beings and contribute to the further humanization of our society.