In the polis as well as in the marketplace, we have formative freedom of choice. How we vote or how we spend is technically up to us. We have a democratic constitution and a free market. But is this formative freedom also
true in substance? Are we in absolute control of all our choices, or are we susceptible to undue influence? The question is about human nature.
true in substance? Are we in absolute control of all our choices, or are we susceptible to undue influence? The question is about human nature.
The question of freedom of choice depends on whether we act rationally and furthermore on the quality of information available to us. It is argued that truly free choice is only informed rational choice. This hinges on two basic conditions: the ability of the individual to act rationally and the availability of good and reliable information. So immediately on both these grounds doubt is cast on the notion of freedom of choice. By evoking the subconscious and the irrational aspect of human nature or by controlling the information available (or the manner of its presentation) it is possible to manipulate individual choice.
Freedom of choice thus is reduced to a mere illusion. Individuals will think they are in control, but in reality they will be no more than puppets. But who pulls the strings? Who is doing the manipulation? The answer given by this theory is simple: according to this view it is the capitalists and politicians who ultimately exert undue influence on individual choice in the polis or the marketplace, in the age of so called mass democracy. Using sophisticated techniques, public relations specialists employed by either businessmen or politicians are able to dissect public opinion and direct it in a convenient direction. In this way marketing can generate novel needs, sell products, policies or even politicians. Let’s refer to this theory as the “puppet” theory.
According to the puppet theory “subconsciously imposed” choices which are either not rational or well informed are frowned upon as not genuinely free choices. Recent advances in the field of psychoanalysis and the understanding of the subconscious has allowed for a demonstrably more proficient exploitation of human weakness. This has essentially permitted the “manufacturing” of the modern passionate consumer on whose mind irrational desires for consumption in excess of objective needs have been implanted, who at the same time is conditioned to behave as a passive and subdued citizen. Thus individuals are fashioned and programmed to behave in a predictable and controlled way which has the potential of maximizing business profit while at the same time minimizing political uncertainty and risk. Happy and focused consumers make for subordinate and indifferent citizens. In all this is the perfect engineered “human cow”, specifically tailored for maximum exploitation on all levels.
The puppet theory considers the various means and modern tools by which specialists of public opinion are able to dissect and comprehensively understand public opinion, in such an insightful way that allows for maximum exploitation. The so called “focus groups” or the opinion polls are used for this purpose and are considered by this theory as instruments of subjugation. They are not means of expression of free will and desire, but tools of breaching the defenses of human reason, which lead to total submission through the backdoor of the subconscious.
I cannot help but find the puppet theory a highly moralizing and rather patronizing theory. It is no doubt driven by the most noble considerations and supported by the most accurate observations, backed by solid and scientific evidence. I find its morality appealing, but herein lies the problem. I am not sure that a moralistic, or puritanical analysis of the world is necessarily a very accurate or even a particularly helpful one. For one, the puppet theory appoints itself a judge over people’s freedom proclaiming that there is true and genuine freedom (that which is rational and well informed) on one hand, and untrue or disingenuous freedom (that which is irrational, and based on the sub-conscious) because it is susceptible to manipulation.
Such puritanical reading of freedom, is in my estimation rather un-free and patronizing as it denies people’s right to choose their own type of freedom, and to switch at will in a more relaxed way of decision making. If indeed human nature is a combination of subconscious atavistic instincts, fears and hopes, intertwined together with a highly sophisticated brain unique for its capacity for rational analysis, it may be that we humans are capable, willing or even – by our very nature – conditioned to act at different times in different modes, and that the very essence of our freedom is our ability and our right to switch from such modes as we see fit. Some of us may have a greater tendency towards more rational decision making, while others may have a greater tendency towards instinctive or subconscious conduct. The chances are that we are all very mixed, and we operate at all times in a very mixed way, and it is in fact very difficult or even impossible to view or to weigh the measure of our own freedom in exact degree. Indeed it is impossible to view such freedom in absolute terms at all.
We are products and integral parts of our society and we operate at all times with direct reference to it bound by its rules and impositions. Our freedom is notional and relative. Humans are after all social animals, no less than a flock of birds or a flight of fish. We are no more free than the stars in a galaxy, where each star pulls and is pulled by every other star, and where invisible gravitational ropes hold the entire structure together whilst the stars retain a certain sense of individual freedom in their own space, and where all other stars of the galaxy seem so far away. The crowd psychology is inextricable with the human psych. A sudden swing to the right or a sudden swing to the left in the human flock is part of our nature. It happens everywhere, and it happens all the time. Fashion is one such example. Another good example is the stock market. Optimism follows pessimism and sudden swings in psychology dictate whether one day it will be a buyer’s market, or whether the next day it will be the seller’s market. It is all very well to assume that there is an evil controlling super-mind lurking in the corner. But really all that there is, is human nature and human freedom at play. Ideas constantly struggling with ideas. Ideas are delivered in the most elegant and persuasive packaging possible, and depending on the audience or the nature of the subject they will be packaged in more or in less rational or evocative packaging. There is nothing fundamentally wrong with presenting the message in the most appropriate attire, in order to have the maximum effect, so long as all participants have equal freedom to compete imaginatively in this battleground of ideas, whereby ideas in this context can be commercial products, or political, philosophical or religious ideologies.
There are side effects, no doubt. And there are even ideologies that persuade an individual to denounce their own freedom. Fundamentalist religious ideologies, or absolutist political ideologies, may have such effect. But who is to say that being a royalist is objectively a lesser evil than being a fascist? Who is to say that either is objectively an evil at all? This is a deeply philosophical question, and it is the greatest issue that modern philosophy, it seems to me is trying to grapple with. How can we arrive in universally accepted norms that we can accept as true, if our starting point is individual freedom of thought that seems more consistent with relativism. How to arrive in the solid land of objective moral truth from a sea of subjective perception? Well, I would not dare even attempt an answer here, but it would seem to me that a beginning for an answer would be through a mechanism of approximation. And whether philosophically there is truth in the middle of our ocean of doubt or not, politically there is no way for dictating such truth, or for forcing everybody to the safety of such land without establishing dictators over our shoulders doing the dictating. Politically at least, we are bound to achieve the greatest approximation of freedom by allowing for this battleground of ideas to continue its grinding effect unchecked.
Puritanism of any sort, derived from the absolute conviction to the moral superiority of our own ideas, simply does not seem a convincing path to freedom, and the puppet theory, as a critical insight into our modern world, whilst appealing to our western rational and pure minds, craving for order and reason, is no closer to true freedom than the slippery slope of irrational fundamentalisms can be.
Democracy is an imperfect system. It is imperfect because it allows for just about anybody to use just about any arbitrary criterion for making decisions. Selfish, or fanatical, or indifferent individuals are all prepared to tear the fabric of society apart, each seemingly going their own way. Yet, somehow, magically in the mele of ideas, an aggregate vision ultimately emerges, and allows societies to find their way, to express their aggregate desires and aspirations. Those doing the influencing will always be only half a step ahead from those being influenced. The dialectic mutuality of this influencing process is apparent for all to see, in both the marketplace and the polis. The “focus groups” and the opinion polls are simply elements of this mechanic. They are not instruments of evil. Individuals, organized societies embraced with their leadership are simply dancing a tango, like a cosmic spiral galaxy, where one may think they determine their own purpose in life, yet all dance together to the tune of our human gravitational and empowering network which we call civilization.
No comments:
Post a Comment