Much of the ongoing debate in political, business and social/cultural arenas is rooted in an underlying disagreement about what best serves national interests and individual lives. Is it promoting the common good, or serving self-interest?
As interdependence and interconnection on this planet become ever-more apparent, new challenges and conflicts arise for personal life, the role of government and the conduct of business leadership. In response to these new realities, people's attitudes and behavior are shifting more towards serving the larger common good; now necessary for successful, flexible and psychologically resilient functioning.
However, these shifts clash with a long-prevailing ideology, that the primary pursuit of self-interest best serves the public interest and personal success. That ideology has also prevailed in our views of adult psychological health and maturity. In essence, the pursuit of greed, self-centeredness and materialism have become the holy trinity of public and private conduct. And it's generating a growing "social psychosis."
That is, the benefits of self-interest in personal lives and public policy supposedly trump any that accrue from serving the common good; the latter would undermine the former, if put into practice. For example, the argument against helping the unemployed, extending health insurance for all Americans or addressing climate change is that they would hurt the economy and therefore negatively impact your well-being and life success.
To question or critique this ideology might even be called "un-American." That would be correct; a good thing, actually, because the values and conduct that seem to have "worked" for so long now falter in today's rapidly changing world. No longer do they ensure long-term success, well-being or security. Several observers have written about the faltering of the old system in today's world. For example, Jeff Jarvis of CUNY, who has written about a "'great restructuring' of the economy and society, starting with a fundamental change in our relationships -- how we are linked and intertwined and how we act." Or Umair Haque, who has been describing "the new principles of a new economy, built around stewardship, trusteeship, guardianship, leadership, partnership" in his Harvard Business School blog posts.
The Social Psychosis Backlash
The reaction to the growing interconnection is a creeping "social psychosis." Like the frog in the pot of water who doesn't notice the slowly rising temperature and is eventually boiled alive, American society is living through growing, massive delusions about the new world realities -- and what's needed to deal with them effectively. This is highly dangerous for society and our personal lives.
I use the term "social psychosis" because a psychosis is a mental state in which a person shows a diminished or loss of a sense of reality. It typically includes delusions and diminished capacity to function effectively in daily life. When delusions are shared on a mass scale, they can be hard to recognize. In fact, individuals who share the mass delusion may not be psychotic, themselves; what they embrace, is.
When a social psychosis prevails, any proposals for dealing with social, political and global realities will be flawed from the start, since they are based on delusional thinking to begin with. They will lead to increasingly destructive outcomes. And that's the state we're in today.
The social psychosis that has taken root across our political, economic and social landscape contains delusions in four areas: personal values and conduct; political/economic ideology; public/social policy; and science and factual knowledge.
Personal Values and Conduct
This delusion is that narrow self-interest and self-absorption equates with a successful, stable life. Unfortunately, mental health practitioners have bought into this as well, by defining psychological health in terms of giving primacy to self-interest in careers and personal relationships. Even when social conditioning to such values and behavior fall short of narcissism, that view ends badly when you're hit with conflict or loss in your relationship or career because you ignored the need to support a larger purpose, not just your own needs and desires, in your relationship or your job.
Emotional and value conflicts are the downside of too much self-interest in careers and relationships. They've been apparent for some time. For example, I wrote about the "working wounded" several years ago in Modern Madness, but today we're seeing a broader impact in the context of current worldwide changes. And it's not pretty.
For example, Thomas Friedman has described in the New York Times a values breakdown that was reflected in an "epidemic of get-rich-quickism and something-for-nothingism," and that in a " flat world where everyone has access to everything, values matter more than ever." Honing in on serious problems of the new world environment, like decline in U.S. education, competitiveness and infrastructure, along with oil addiction and climate change, Friedman emphasizes the dangers of expecting that all solutions must be painless and the problem of having no sense of having to sacrifice or postpone gratification.
Yet those are the very kinds of values and behavior that support the well-being of all in today's world. They are also undermined by reactive fears of the "other," the person who's different from me and may take from me what should be "mine." The latter is one source of the growing acceptance of falsehoods from "birthers" and those convinced that Obama is a Kenyan-born Muslim.
Political-Economic Ideology
The delusion here is that it's possible to cut deficits without both tax increases and spending cuts, and also wage expensive wars without some kind of sacrifice in our way of life. In this delusion, Republicans denounce Keynes' views, despite the fact that Keynesian theory is universally embraced. Writing in the Washington Post, Dana Milbank has pointed out that, given this contradiction, "Republican denunciation of him has a flat-earth feel to it." He points out that Keynes described exactly what happened: that the financial crisis caused a spiral of falling demand, investments and employment, and that a sudden rise in savings among anxious consumers accelerated the decline. Yet the delusion that non-government action is going to help persists. As Milbank points out, an alternative, of course, is that "the government could do nothing, and let the human misery continue. The Democrats seem to be joining in with this delusion ... and this result."
Public/Social Policy
Ready for another one? This delusion is promoted by the Republican Tea Party, and embraced by rising numbers of Americans. Essentially, it's that government is bad for you. Except, of course, when it authorizes tax cuts for you, if you're rich. Or, when you would like some firefighters to come by when your house is burning. Or if you'd like schools to exist to educate your child. Or ... well, you get the point.
Even a conservative writer like David Brooks has objected to this false portrayal of the "badness" of government, per se, pointing out that the Republicans are mired in a delusion about American history. He writes that our history is not just about limited government, but about "energetic governments that used aggressive federal power to promote growth and social mobility." Leaders have treated government as "a useful tool when used judiciously and a dangerous menace when it gets out of control," he writes. The issue is not whether government is big or not; it's a means, not an end. Brooks also observes that there are going to have to be spending cuts and tax increases. And, "If Republicans decide that even the smallest tax increases put us on the road to serfdom ... the country will careen toward bankruptcy."
Similarly, Robert Reich argues in his new book, Aftershock, that the growing wealth gap is dangerous. The top-earning 20 percent of Americans received 49.4 percent of all income generated in the United States. The last time wealth was concentrated this much at the top was just before the Great Depression. He argues that a high concentration of wealth at the top hurts everyone, and that "the inevitable result is a slower economic growth and an economy increasingly susceptible to great booms and terrible busts." Yet the delusion persists that this gap is somehow good policy.
And as Brooks argues, "If all government action is automatically dismissed as quasi socialist, then there is no need to think." Exactly. Which brings us to the fourth delusion of our social psychosis:
Science and Factual Knowledge
The delusion here is that a society can progress -- or even hold it's own -- by embracing an anti-science position and glorifying ignorance. The delusion consists of the belief that denying scientific evidence or knowledge of facts in general is a good basis for making decisions that affect the public. Whether in the halls of Congress, in the media or on Boards of Education, the delusion of the anti-science/pro-ignorance crowd have increasing influence and impact, as polls indicate. It includes denial of evolution, rejection of the evidence for human-created rise of carbon emissions that creates ongoing climate change, and a general embrace of ignorance as a virtue; that it trumps the usefulness of empirical facts.
A Tsunami Of Awakening
Now for the good news: The current wave of social psychosis may be with us for a while, but it's destined to fade. Data from surveys, polls and research coalesce around a growing recognition of interconnection, coupled with embracing values and conduct that serve the common good. These shifts are increasingly visible in all sectors of society. Some highlights: The impact of diversity -- most children born in this country are nonwhite; near-majority support for gay marriage and acceptance of non-conventional definitions of family; a rising business model that combines profit with social benefit; the view that empathy, now known to be hard-wired, should drive personal behavior and public policy; and career paths based on the impact they enable you to have on something larger than personal power and recognition.
In my next post I'll elaborate on the evidence for these growing shifts towards serving the common good in personal and public life.
Douglas LaBier, Ph.D., a business psychologist and psychotherapist, is Director of the Center for Progressive Development, in Washington, DC. dlabier@CenterProgressive.org
Follow Douglas LaBier on Twitter: www.twitter.com/douglaslabier
Douglas LaBier: Obama's 'Win the Future' Requires Redefining 'Success' in American Life
Rev. Charles Gibbs: Those Whose Stories We Have Not Heard
Douglas LaBier: How to Turn the Loss of Your Job into a Gain for Your Life
They are purging their party of sane moderates - calling them RINO's. The danger is these delusional people have a predilection toward violence. They bring loaded guns to their events and openly threaten "second amendment remedies".
Right wing militias are thriving and these right wingers have a history and a record of violence. From their ranks we got the likes of Eric Rudolph ( Atlanta Olymipcs bomber ) to Jim Adkinson ( Unitarian Church shooter ) to James Von Brunn ( Holocaust Museum shooter ).
These are dangerous people and Republican leaders like Michele Bachmann are saying they want their constituents to be "armed and dangerous".
Newt Gingrich is inciting hatred of Muslims and Glenn Beck is spreading fear and paranoia on a daily basis. There have already been several acts of arson and violence against Muslims and no Republicans have spoken out against it.
marshal mcluhan captured our future alienation in the last century in his statement that high tech required high touch , a concept that is unprofitable and inconvenient to grow.
i wonder if the americans of today would have been competitive in the space race of the 1960's and able to have worked both as a team and individually with the creativity and commitment required.
Automation is accelerating and eliminating millions of jobs. Computers replace entire professions. The 500 largest firms in the world have sharply increased production and sales while reducing the workforce. Jobless growth is leading toward one billion unemployed worldwide.
The time has come to consider new ideas and lead the way, consistent with democracy, freedom and enterprise, to generate widespread prosperity. See New Paths to Liberty at www.aesopinstitute.org
Bertrand Russell, in his essay titled: In Praise of Idleness, states “if the ordinary wage-earner worked only four hours a day, there would be… no unemployment.” Read the article: 4 hour workdays? on the same Aesop Institute site.
If we define toil as work not freely chosen, no matter how simple. Work we choose, no matter how difficult, falls under the psychological category of play.
We can encourage efforts to gradually reduce the time people spend -- at work not chosen -- to twenty hours weekly. Money displaced from the nominal forty hour week will need to be replaced with sound, diversified, investment income that is not dependent upon savings. Difficult as this may be to accomplish, it can be done.
Most people are trapped by mortgage payments, car payments, etc., in jobs they do not love. A simple test: Would they continue the same work without pay?
The late Louis Kelso developed the ESOP, a path for average employees to receive income from investment other than savings.
Time to create widespread abundance!
We are social---because grouping together in societies helps us survive and reproduce, continuing the species. So, if we ignore group dynamics like altruism---individuals sacrificing self for the benefit of others---we don't do well.
Keynes believed the "...solution to the economic malaise that was sweeping the capitalist economies in the early 1930s was to accept ‘a large extension of the traditional functions of government’. But as Keynes (1926) argued in The End of Laissez-Faire, if the government is to be effective it should not concern itself with ‘those activities which private individuals are already fulfilling’ but attend to ‘those functions which fall outside the private sphere of the individual, to those decisions which are made by no one if the state does not make them’ (Keynes, 1972, Vol. IX, p. 291)."
Modern Macroeconomics
Its Origins, Development and Current State
Edward Elgar
Cheltenham, UK • Northampton, MA, USA
What I probably should have said is, "Keynesian economic philosophy as popularly imagined".
Whatever their classification, I disagree with economists who do not believe in altruism, either individual or institutional.
Altruism---personal sacrifice to benefit the collective good---does exist, is an important survival mechanism for our species, and it's hard-wired into our brains and the biological systems which influence behavior.
Therefore----it's not all about greed, and greed is not all good. What we have to have is balance, and balance can only be achieved via governments.
Thanks to this "greed is good", "everyone for himself" mindset, there is no more "we're all in this together" camaraderie among communities.
If you don't belong to this or that church or social set, this or that racial or ethnic group, you're out of luck, marooned, paddling against the current. Individuals and nuclear families, isolated from extended families and neighbors, even our landscapes reflect this fragmentation. Take a look at any American city or town, what do you see?
Dead and crumbling historic downtowns, suburban strip sprawl, no sidewalks, ugly signage, streets impossible for a pedestrian to cross, fortress subdivisions with gates and guardhouses, some even with moats. Public transportation is a joke, public schools a tragedy, and the police are drowning in poor pay, politics, all while on the front lines of a drug war we lost long ago. And litter everywhere.
Any wonder we're all psychotic and depressed?
This is where self-serving greed has gotten us.
I just blame tv.
I wrote and presented a paper in college (human development) my thesis was that there was a propensity by our culture to establish values as adolescents and that it was perpetuated by fallacious ideology.
My audience came out of their seats, one woman tried to pull my notes from my hand.
I don't much care for the "Social Psychosis" term it has negative connotations, I'll stick with "Faulty Logic". The reason being is that my logic can be arranged just like my belief system to benefit me the most. If I benefit most from being self centered than ?, If I benefit most from being benevolent then ?, If I benefit most from being selfish then?, If I benefit most from being kind then?.
We live in a culture that is far to convenient, the cost is immense.