![[tmbchr]™](/journal/popocculture-blog-logo.jpg){kind=logo}
Oversocialization of Liberals
Somebody recently pointed out to me a document called Industrial Society and Its Future, also known as the Unabomber Manifesto. Whether or not you agree with or what the man himself did, there are certainly some very thought-provoking pieces in it.
This one in particular I have been mulling over for quite some time:
24. Psychologists use the term “socialization” to designate the process by which children are trained to think and act as society demands. A person is said to be well socialized if he believes in and obeys the moral code of his society and fits in well as a functioning part of that society. It may seem senseless to say that many leftists are over-socialized, since the leftist is perceived as a rebel. Nevertheless, the position can be defended. Many leftists are not such rebels as they seem. […]
28. The leftist of the oversocialized type tries to get off his psychological leash and assert his autonomy by rebelling. But usually he is not strong enough to rebel against the most basic values of society. Generally speaking, the goals of today’s leftists are NOT in conflict with the accepted morality. On the contrary, the left takes an accepted moral principle, adopts it as its own, and then accuses mainstream society of violating that principle. Examples: racial equality, equality of the sexes, helping poor people, peace as opposed to war, nonviolence generally, freedom of expression, kindness to animals. More fundamentally, the duty of the individual to serve society and the duty of society to take care of the individual. All these have been deeply rooted values of our society (or at least of its middle and upper classes for a long time. These values are explicitly or implicitly expressed or presupposed in most of the material presented to us by the mainstream communications media and the educational system. Leftists, especially those of the oversocialized type, usually do not rebel against these principles but justify their hostility to society by claiming (with some degree of truth) that society is not living up to these principles.
The section that I cut out from the middle of that is also very much worth reading. I would be curious to hear the reaction of people who consider themselves liberals to these statements - especially since they come from someone who was a notorious bomber way back before terrorism was “cool.”
August 1st, 2006 at 9:49 am
I used to have a copy of the unibomber manifesto, and I agreed with much of it but not all. The section about surrogate activities was interesting. This particular section is strange to me. It seems to be suggesting that people with leftist ideals are programmed to be that way, just because it isn’t rebellious. The argument seems to be that if you hold an opinion that is widely agreed upon, you didn’t come to the conclusion through your own reasoning. that isn’t always the case. But I know why he is saying it. He wrote a story in a book called Apocalypse Cuture II where a ship with all kinds of people were protesting to the captain about their rights to equality, sexuality ect. where everyone ignored the boy who kept trying to point out that were headed for an iceburg. Many people are more interested in political correctness than actually fixing society so we don’t crash. It’s a great story. If you can get your hands on it check it out. I still think he held collectivist ideas. but the collective is made of the individuals, and if any group or individual is being oppressed or not given the same oppertunities as everyone else, than the collective is not woth defending.
August 1st, 2006 at 11:50 am
Wilhelm Reich had a similar POV, that liberalism is essentially a defense mechanism (so is conservatism, but it functions in a different way)
August 1st, 2006 at 12:07 pm
………the circumstances surrounding reich’s death were suspicious……i only bring this up because it emphasizes the fact that his work and ideas were a real threat to the “status quo”……
August 1st, 2006 at 3:08 pm
What leftists would disagree with this? From what I’ve seen, most liberals would say that calling this “over”-socialization implies what they might call undersocialization or sociopathy. (Both terms beg the question.) They’d say that ‘obviously’ we should teach and live by the values he mentions, and attack hypocritical or ignorant contradictions between word and deed in people who claim to believe in, say, equality. At most, leftists would object that they don’t believe individuals should serve society, except where society protects life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
This brings me to a larger issue. I’ve often seen people here say that liberals act from ‘the wrong motives’ — which seems plausible enough — and that liberals therefore can’t change the world for the better — which seems almost clinically insane to me. A glance at history shows that “leftists” can change our world, and I assume most of us would call (say) civil rights an improvement. If anything, the argument proves that ‘lack of spiritual evolution’ (or whatever) can benefit other people.
August 1st, 2006 at 7:22 pm
I guess I just think that one should figure out what one believes to be morally right (can I say that without being laughed at here?), an follow those morals as well as one can. Whether those morals are in opposition to society’s morals or in agreement with them, or if they are in agreement with society’s supposed morals which society hypocritically doesn’t live up to, is not really important.
Of course, this does not answer the question of how one acquires those values — the whole socialization thing. Oh no! How can we ever know if we believe in X just because our culture tells us to? Well, this is an important question, but hey, if it’s impossible to come up with values different from your socialization, then … well, then there’s not much of a conversation to be had here, I suppose.
August 1st, 2006 at 7:29 pm
Plus, what about all the stuff like ol’ Ran Prieur was saying over on his blog where contemporary American/Western society is decried as overly self-centered, technological, SUV-driving, etc.? Just for the record, Tim, don’t you agree with Ran on this analysis? And if so, then how can a liberal who opposes this stuff in favor of cooperation and nonviolence and ethanol be over-socialized? Yes, of course you can say that the liberal’s values in some way grew out of or were based upon the status quo’s values, but what else is new? That idea’s been around forever, and any rate, I’m not sure that liberal values growing out of status-quo values means over-socialization any more than — I don’t know, I’m bad at metaphors and similes — a mushroom growing on trash means the mushroom is a form of overly concentrated trash.
August 1st, 2006 at 10:04 pm
Boy, you sure have seen it all, huh Justin?
August 1st, 2006 at 10:06 pm
Who is it that you’re talking to? Isn’t part of the whole “quest” of this website that a bunch of people are working together to figure out what is morally right and then live by it - just like you said?