Society

Tamara and I went to see the Revolution: Russian Art 1917-1932 exhibition at the Royal Academy. We learned that Lenin viewed culture as a stepping stone to the Communist State. When that was achieved, art would have no function and it would be removed ‘snip, snip’ as he described it.

Stalin allowed only Socialist Realism in art. That is art that could be understood by the most uneducated of workers.

The narrator described how Stalin disliked Avante Garde art because its message was unclear.

And suddenly I understood it. Art that has a message that is unclear requires that the viewer makes an attempt to understand it. The viewer has to think – and that is what Stalin did not want. Because of course, once people think, they are wild cards – unfathomable and unreachable.

And of course I understood why the Nazis banned what they described as decadent art – for the same reason. Previously I had thought it was because its themes were racy or against the stereotype of the Germanic ideal. But the reason was more basic; that people might think. And thinking carries all kinds of dangers.

Poster For Sale

We saw a poster from the exhibition for sale. The image at the top of this post is a snippet from the poster. The full image shows that giant carrying a red banner, marching inexorably towards Revolution while the masses march and run to defeat the Bourgoisie, the Church, the old State.

We were both attracted to the graphic of the image but we both also thought that the violent scene was one we didn’t want to live with. We came together at one point to talk about buying the poster and it struck me how wonderful it was that we had both independently concluded that we didn’t want to buy it.

In the modern world, with the breakdown of community and the eclipse of religion as a large part of life, all we have left is the society we make. If the society is unfair, then resentments have no outlets.

I have said before – people will put up with a lot if they know that we are all in the same boat. But when some people have it all and are riding rough-shod over the rest, then there is no society. There is just a fractured mass of people.

What can unite us? What is that ‘something in the air’ that we sense but cannot identify?

Part Two

In light of the Assisted Dying Bill before Parliament, when the topic comes up and I think of saying something, and I stop because – who knows – I may feel differently if I were in the shoes of a terminally ill person in pain or suffering other bad symptoms. But a couple of general points – it seems to me that the reason this Bill was approved is because of the death of religion.

The ultimate arbiters are now the people themselves – they are the pinnacle of all decision making and there is therefore no humility. Elon Musk’s citizen journalism on X is in the same mould – built on the principle that we are all adults now and can guide the ship of society into the next millennium. Maybe, but the evidence is that left to his own direction without a rudder, man will sink to the lowest common denominator.

That said, this is the arc of history – we are all so hemmed in by each other that big desires have nowhere to go without bumping into other people. And it will all go the right way or the wrong way – but it is going the way it was ordained according to the Sages.

On the subject of the Bill – it seems odd that someone might be in pain for years and then when he/she gets to the home straight with only six months to go – they get the green light. A person might say that having got this far, this last bit is the least of their worries.

Originally published here 15th September 2013

This is a quick rundown of the main points of The Psychology of Persuasion by Robert Cialdini

Reciprocity – We are more likely to be persuaded to do something when it involves repaying an obligation – a waiter/waitress in a restaurant will elicit more tips if he/she gives a mint to customers, especially if it appears to be a spontaneous act of generosity

Scarcity – Point out the benefits – tell them what’s unique about what you are offering – show them what they stand to lose by not taking up the offer

Authority – It’s important to signal to others what makes you a credible, knowledgable authority before you attempt to influence them – get someone to praise you. – the person who praises your can even be related to your business (e.g. receptionist who refers to your expertise) or likely to benefit from praising you.

Consistency – Once one gets someone to make small voluntary, active, and public contribution towards something, it is easier to then get them to do something bigger towards that goal.

Liking – We prefer to say yes to people who are similar to us, who pay us compliments, and who cooperate with us. Do these before negotiating or talking about business.

Consensus – For example – 75% of our guests reuse their towels, please do so as well. / 75% of our customers order again within a month. Please use this code when you reorder…

Originally published here 24 Oct 2011

Eric Hoffer was an American, born in 1902. He went blind as a child after an accident and then recovered his sight when he was a teenager.

He lost both parents at a young age, and was a bum on Skid Row for years until he decided to turn his life around.

He was a migrant worker during the Great Depression, so he saw life from the bottom.

Meanwhile, he read and read, borrowing books from public libraries as he moved around the country.

He wrote The True Believer, which was published in 1951.

In the book he analyses what it takes to make someone into a true believer in a mass movement. Just to be clear, he doesn’t use the phrase ‘true believer’ positively. In his view it is an unhealthy state of mind.

In his view, it doesn’t matter whether the mass movement is a religious movement, a fascist political movement, a communist movement, or any other kind of mass movement.

It’s any movement where the individual loses himself or herself in the movement.

Health, Indpendence, And Freedom

Hoffer says a person is psychologically healthy when he has self esteem.

Of course, societies vary in how much freedom they give to individuals. Some freedom is necessary, isn’t it, in order to have room to explore a sense of self esteem?

It must be difficult to have much self esteem when you are physically terrified all the time, such as in Cambodia in the 1970s or the death camps during WWII.

Or maybe not. Maybe, as Victor Frankl says, sometimes the only option is to suffer. And even in suffering, it’s possible to have a developed sense of self esteem.

Well it sounds good in theory – but if you subscribe to the two-dollar-watch theory (that human beings can be broken very easily – like a two dollar watch) – then maybe it’s pie in the sky to suggest that people can enjoy a sense of self esteem when they live in terror.

Back to Eric Hoffer – He says that when the individual is allowed to be free, it brings problems if he has low self esteem.

This is because freedom includes the freedom to feel inadequate.

So to distance himself from feelings of inadequacy, a man joins a movement that tells him that today is bad but tomorrow will be better – within the movement.

Tomorrow may be when the revolution is won, or in the next life, or at any time that is in the future and always unreachable.

Being within the movement is more important than the truth of the message of the movement itself, which is why Hoffer lumps fascist and communist movements together with religious movements..

In Civilisation and Its Discontents, Freud write about the good and the bad of civilisation, and what is needed for the individual to become whole in the context of others, I’ll write about that another time.