Anger Mismanagement
It is frequently surprising to find non-fiction classics of sociology or psychology from bygone decades that seemed to have foretold of the sorts of problems we encounter today. The works I have in mind in particular are the ones that had advance comprehension of larger societal and psychological forces that would shape events in free and open societies, mainly pertaining to their nascent pathologies. Neil Postman’s Amusing Ourselves to Death springs to mind for its examination of the subtle and profound changes wrought by electronic media. Then there are semi-whimsical works like Parkinson’s Laws or The Peter Principle, noteworthy for describing how social dynamics in large organizations have an inadvertent trajectory of their own.
The types of books in question are notable in that they were quite popular in their day, but the warnings they contained about emerging pathologies apparently went forth unopposed. People could see the often undesired direction events were headed, but remained powerless to stop them.
Rob Henderson often does book summaries and reviews, distilling ideas down to a greater concentration than Reader’s Digest. His most recent post was on a prescient work by Eric Hoffer from 1951, The True Believer. The book fits the pattern described above. For, as Henderson explains, Hoffer might have presaged the evolution of American politics in recent memory, as the trends Hoffer elucidated gathered steam.
Hoffer observed that it was the people with too little direct social engagement who were most prone to appeals from extremists. Those who succumbed to such groups were typically dissatisfied with themselves, and were frustrated politically by the sense that their political nemeses were inflicting destructive policies on them. Thus, political enmity backed by emotional commitment became overwhelming.
But frustration alone isn’t enough. Political action doesn’t take place until frustration has been fueled by inspiration in the form of societal improvements. As the frustrated observe conditions around them improving, they grow impatient that they aren’t seeing improvements in their own lives fast enough. Frustration is insufficient until it finds the ignition source that is hope.
As Henderson describes:
The formula goes something like this. Mass movements that are good at what they do make previously content individuals frustrated and further frustrate their adherents while pretending to advance the movement. This means that the strongest mass movements are inevitably going to be the ones that are the best at not delivering the goods. Any movement that actually advances the interests of its frustrated supporters will make them less frustrated. Hence, they’ll stop being members.
A core aspect of Hoffer's argument is that the root of frustration lies not just in external circumstances or “the system,” but fundamentally in the burdens of being an individual. Outsourcing decisions about your life to the movement comes as a relief. While practical organizations (e.g., an employer) cater to self-interest and offer opportunities for self-advancement, a mass movement appeals to those who wish to escape or camouflage an unsatisfactory self. Mass movements hold the implicit promise of fulfilling the desire for self-renunciation.
When people feel their lives are meaningless, they seek meaning by telling others what to do with their lives […].
The book goes on, “A man is likely to mind his own business when it is worth minding. When it is not, he takes his mind off his own meaningless affairs by minding other people’s business.”
Rob Henderson’s article “Without Belief in a God, but Never Without Belief in a Devil” is here.
Well, the economist is saying he is definitely dead.
All that collateral damage as in other people, who may have been innocent is sad too
And on today's Capitolism, Mr. Lincicome was one of those who liked my comment. I should read Mr. Lincicome more often.