Dialogue

Dialogue with polymaths Auerbach and Borkosky

Discussing fears regarding on the left about attempts to restrict abortion, I wrote...

The fears have symmetry on each side. The conservative equivalent would be a fear that the government will suppress individual or religious freedoms. Both sides fear loss of individual freedoms to a monolithic government. It would be nice if people could convey that they would help their neighbors if any severe schism occurred between warring factions. My perception is that most people are not as enmeshed in partisanship as it seems.

My personal take is that dictatorship is unlikely in the US. Oppositionality to government is engrained, though more so on the right. This is comparatively speaking to other parts of the world.  The preoccupation with the daily minutia of government and constant critique has risen to soap opera dimensions. Scrutiny and hostility is more directed towards the government than people despite notable exceptions. Somehow that strand seems to survive generation to generation.

My particular fears are the loss of rationale debate, the inability to detach from worn themes of discourse, a general dumbing down of discussion, the decimation of the environment, and an increasing atmosphere of illiteracy. I am (grandchild)  of an immigrant, but anti-foreign themes are nothing new, even recently. Was it the 54 election that was so xenophobic and preoccupied with foreigners? In fact, that election seems probably a more interesting reflection of today's time than Nazi Germany. To liberals dismay, Stevenson loss to Ike, like Trump, of German ancestry. Liberals were devastated. And along with Eisenhauer came the villainous Nixon, when he was full strength. My sense is that the new students are countering current themes, and eventually the hyper-politicized participants of our era will be tomorrow aged hippies.

One regime was left out in your analysis, Dr. Auerbach, Mao's and subsequently his wife's. Where does the cultural revolution fit in your continuum? 

Damon L

Dr. Auerbach wrote:

In response to your specific question, though, it is a fair assessment that the most murderous regime in history, from the point of view of sheer numbers, was Mao’s China and that the second most murderous, on this one dimension, would almost certainly be Stalin’s Russia.  Still, I think that the logic of left-wing authoritarianism is different from that of right-wing authoritarianism, so I did not discuss those regimes in my first post.

Here are a few nonsystematic but unfortunately lengthy thoughts on the matter.  To introduce a note of levity into a grim discussion, I am a believer in the great theorist Yogi Berra’s recommendation to avoid making wrong mistakes.  So here is the fundamental issue. The deepest moral passage in the Hebrew Scriptures, what non-Jews call the Old Testament, is Genesis 1:26-28, in which humans are created in the image of God.  This notion, at the heart of all Abrahamic religion, means that all humans have the same moral worth. It is specifically this idea that right-wing authoritarianism, with its emphasis on hierarchical order and its assault on reason, attempts to destroy.  That is their wrong mistake.

OTOH, the fact that we all have equivalent moral worth does not mean that we have equivalent talents, capacities, or abilities—that we are all the same.  In theory, although of course not in practice, left-wing authoritarianism forces us, in the name of “reason” and “equality,” to be all the same, as the official program of Mao and of Pol Pot and probably also of Lenin and Stalin.  That is their wrong mistake. It follows from this theory that there can be no “others,” people who are different, because supposedly we are all the same time. Here, otherness threatens equality and sameness, but in right-wing ideology, otherness threatens authoritarian hierarchy and tradition.  Thus, both left-wing and right-wing authoritarian regimes are likely to target Jews and other minorities but for very different reasons.

Because of this different logic between left and right authoritarianism, I did not include Lenin or Mao in my discussion of Franco, Mussolini, Hitler, Putin, and Trump, but I would note that right-wing authoritarian influences often remain present in officially left-wing authoritarian societies. For example, although Jews, seeking liberation from the ghettos, were disproportionately involved in Western left-wing or socialist movements, including, sadly, Communism, throughout the 19th and 20th centuries, the Stalininist regime was extremely anti Semitic and rigorously targeted “rootless cosmopolitans,” their euphemism for Jews, for extermination. And the rise of Putin in Russia can easily be seen as a reawakening of the underlying right-wing authoritarian (and I would add anti Semitic) order that dominated Czarist Russia, Russia being among the very last of European countries to abolish serfdom, with the only real period of democracy in Russia being the few months between the First and Second Russian revolutions of 1917.  

I cannot provide intelligent commentary on China in the same way because I am no expert at all on Asian cultures, but first, it is really obvious the Chinese Communist Party, despite their official Marxist-Leninist and hence nondemocratic socialist ideology, is not pursuing policies that favor the elevation of the lower classes or the pursuit of social equality, and, second, it appears that this government is now actively pursuing the suppression of minority ethnic and religious groups, mainly those which are Muslim.  But, more important, a plausible case can be made that Confucian society is essentially traditional and hierarchical society.  Tradition and hierarchy of course are not necessarily authoritarian, but they easily can be, especially in a native culture in which individualism and the moral equality of all humans are not prominent themes.

I have gone on way too long, but I hope these ideas are clarifying.

John

~Psychology Practice in Florida

yes, John, that's my experience too. In response to your question, I have two thoughts:

1. if you recall, a while back I started a thread called 'talking to Trump voters' - my attempt to understand the psychology of the new Trumpianism. I came to the conclusion that this is not an intrapersonal, psychological issue. I wouldn't even call it sociological. Rather, it seems to me that it's a function of language. That is, people here a phrase, often several times ... that phrase is consistent with their worldview / psychological needs, so they repeat it... and, by repeating it, they believe it. It occurred to me when a nurse at work said (of immigrants) something to the effect of 'we need to take care of our own'. I realized that was likely inconsistent with her religious beliefs, and yet it was word for word what I've heard before. It seemed to me that there was no thought that had gone into this belief, it was merely that she had heard it from others.

2. The other thought is the scarier of the two. Which is that humans all have a baser instinct - there is a perverse pleasure in having power over other people, which is enhanced when that power is exercised in a destructive manner. I see it all the time here in prison. It seems to me that the only thing that separates us from those other dictatorships you mentioned is a thin veneer of culture. There will always be those who easily give in to their baser instincts - its just the majority  who set the standard of behavior. Now you have the government giving credence to hate mongers .... who knows where the tipping point is? I suspect it's a lot closer than we would like to think.

BB

In re

On Fri, Nov 1, 2019 at 5:30 PM John Auerbach <000009eba1592f75-dmarc-request@listserv.icors.org> wrote:

~Psychology Practice in Florida

I just posted again on this because I had some time to kill. My alleged brilliance aside—I will deny it whenever possible, and I am not much for false modesty—I learn a great deal from everyone else on the list serve. It helps me a great deal to here from psychologists who comE from a different perspective than mine.  Any I know as much as I do about these issues in part because of my undergraduate history background but also because I am having to do a great deal of psychological work to deal with my own considerable anxiety regarding the current world.

John

Sent from my iPhone

On Nov 1, 2019, at 4:05 PM, Bruce Borkosky <bruce.borkosky.1978@owu.edu> wrote:



~Psychology Practice in Florida

I think Damon was referring to the brilliancy of your thinking in this area. At least, that's how I experienced it. I felt my contribution was now puny..... :-)

BB

On Fri, Nov 1, 2019 at 3:52 PM John Auerbach <000009eba1592f75-dmarc-request@listserv.icors.org> wrote:

~Psychology Practice in Florida

I have never thought of myself as a buzzsaw, even if I am intellectually challenging, so in all sincerity I worry about that.  And I was going to to try to write something respectful and raising questions of my own because I have them about these very dark times.  I therefore might write something anyway, just to see what comes out.

Sent from my iPhone

On Nov 1, 2019, at 3:05 PM, Damon LaBarbera <00000051867784e1-dmarc-request@listserv.icors.org> wrote:



~Psychology Practice in Florida

That's all right John. I'd rather retract my statements that go up against the Auerbach buzzsaw.

On Friday, November 1, 2019, 02:01:25 PM CDT, John Auerbach <000009eba1592f75-dmarc-request@listserv.icors.org> wrote:

~Psychology Practice in Florida

Bruce,

Thanks for this compliment too.

As I said, undergraduate history major, although ancient history ago.

I did this in addition to my psychology major because the psych major was my preprofessional training but the history major was to help me learn something about people.  Think about what that last statement means with regard to what gets studied in academic psychology.

I still have to come up with some additional thought for Damon.

John

Sent from my iPhone

On Nov 1, 2019, at 1:43 PM, Bruce Borkosky <bruce.borkosky.1978@owu.edu> wrote:



~Psychology Practice in Florida

HOLY COW, JOHN!!!! I feel like I've had a college history course, all in 3 minutes! I could read this kinda stuff every day....

BB

On Fri, Nov 1, 2019 at 1:20 PM John Auerbach <000009eba1592f75-dmarc-request@listserv.icors.org> wrote:

~Psychology Practice in Florida

Damon,

I would probably disagree with you on a lot here, but I will have to take my time to think on it.

In response to your specific question, though, it is a fair assessment that the most murderous regime in history, from the point of view of sheer numbers, was Mao’s China and that the second most murderous, on this one dimension, would almost certainly be Stalin’s Russia.  Still, I think that the logic of left-wing authoritarianism is different from that of right-wing authoritarianism, so I did not discuss those regimes in my first post.

Here are a few nonsystematic but unfortunately lengthy thoughts on the matter.  To introduce a note of levity into a grim discussion, I am a believer in the great theorist Yogi Berra’s recommendation to avoid making wrong mistakes.  So here is the fundamental issue. The deepest moral passage in the Hebrew Scriptures, what non-Jews call the Old Testament, is Genesis 1:26-28, in which humans are created in the image of God.  This notion, at the heart of all Abrahamic religion, means that all humans have the same moral worth. It is specifically this idea that right-wing authoritarianism, with its emphasis on hierarchical order and its assault on reason, attempts to destroy.  That is their wrong mistake.

OTOH, the fact that we all have equivalent moral worth does not mean that we have equivalent talents, capacities, or abilities—that we are all the same.  In theory, although of course not in practice, left-wing authoritarianism forces us, in the name of “reason” and “equality,” to be all the same, as the official program of Mao and of Pol Pot and probably also of Lenin and Stalin.  That is their wrong mistake. It follows from this theory that there can be no “others,” people who are different, because supposedly we are all the same time. Here, otherness threatens equality and sameness, but in right-wing ideology, otherness threatens authoritarian hierarchy and tradition.  Thus, both left-wing and right-wing authoritarian regimes are likely to target Jews and other minorities but for very different reasons.

Because of this different logic between left and right authoritarianism, I did not include Lenin or Mao in my discussion of Franco, Mussolini, Hitler, Putin, and Trump, but I would note that right-wing authoritarian influences often remain present in officially left-wing authoritarian societies. For example, although Jews, seeking liberation from the ghettos, were disproportionately involved in Western left-wing or socialist movements, including, sadly, Communism, throughout the 19th and 20th centuries, the Stalininist regime was extremely anti Semitic and rigorously targeted “rootless cosmopolitans,” their euphemism for Jews, for extermination. And the rise of Putin in Russia can easily be seen as a reawakening of the underlying right-wing authoritarian (and I would add anti Semitic) order that dominated Czarist Russia, Russia being among the very last of European countries to abolish serfdom, with the only real period of democracy in Russia being the few months between the First and Second Russian revolutions of 1917.  

I cannot provide intelligent commentary on China in the same way because I am no expert at all on Asian cultures, but first, it is really obvious the Chinese Communist Party, despite their official Marxist-Leninist and hence nondemocratic socialist ideology, is not pursuing policies that favor the elevation of the lower classes or the pursuit of social equality, and, second, it appears that this government is now actively pursuing the suppression of minority ethnic and religious groups, mainly those which are Muslim.  But, more important, a plausible case can be made that Confucian society is essentially traditional and hierarchical society.  Tradition and hierarchy of course are not necessarily authoritarian, but they easily can be, especially in a native culture in which individualism and the moral equality of all humans are not prominent themes.

I have gone on way too long, but I hope these ideas are clarifying.

John

Sent from my iPhone

On Nov 1, 2019, at 11:00 AM, Damon LaBarbera <00000051867784e1-dmarc-request@listserv.icors.org> wrote: