Feeling Guilty for Disobedience

[Blueskyboris]

http://img39.imageshack.us/img39/1835/scan0004rk.jpg

TO HAVE OR TO BE?, Erich Fromm, page 98.

[Blueskyboris]

I thought this was an interesting. I don't have much to say here, but the quote does remind me of Obama for some reason.

[Jobar]

Obama? Why?

I think it would be impossible to have a society without some acceptance of authority. At the very least, children have to be obedient to their parents and elders when very young, or they stand not much chance of becoming an elder themselves- the world is a dangerous place, and children don't have the experience to deal with it. If they don't have an inborn willingness to obey parents and older people, they probably would die.

I do agree with Fromm that the sense of sin was cultivated by state and church- both try to extend the instinctive obedience children have for their parents and transfer that sense of submissiveness to the authority figures of those organizations.

[Blueskyboris]

Obama is a Christian who seems to crave cooperation to the point that he seems guilty about delivering attacks against his political foes. I think he thinks of disobedience as a sin, sub-consciously.


OMG. 5 years later Jobar is talking to the text without pointing out that the OP has little or no content other than the quote.

[JamesBannon]

Well, BSB, it is kind of difficult when there is no context to relate to. Are we to take the quote as a critique of authority? religion? conventional morality? Just what are you offering a critique of?

[Blueskyboris]

Hi JamesBannon,
After 4 years you still do not understand that I just want to see what others think, to see if anyone has an interested perspective to offer.

As for Obama, I have no more context than what is offered to me in the books he has written and the image he portrays in print and on television. Just a feeling, you know. I think he is a good actor, not an authentic democrat.

[Yahzi]

Obama is a Christian who seems to crave cooperation to the point that he seems guilty about delivering attacks against his political foes. I think he thinks of disobedience as a sin, sub-consciously
The article you quoted is incomplete. It neglects a perfectly rational reason for obeying the law: because it's a good idea. Because human beings are evolved to live in social groups. This activity requires fairness, and laws are pretty good tools for achieving fairness.

No need to posit cowardice or inadequacy to explain why people follow the rules. Nor do we need to extol rule-breakers as mythic heroes: we can recognize them for the selfish simpletons they really are.

As for Obama, he is as obviously atheist as it is possible to be and still get elected. Every word and deed the man emits screams of metaphysical naturalism. He probably thinks that cooperating with his opponents in a democracy is the best way to achieve his goals. The tyrannical exercise of the will to power is not really that efficient, or effective. One would think the shattered remains of the legacy of Shrub, Stalin, or Hitler would have made that abundantly clear, already.

[Jobar]

Jobar is talking to the text

No I'm not! I don't talk while typing.
;)

[Blueskyboris]

As for Obama, he is as obviously atheist as it is possible to be and still get elected. Every word and deed the man emits screams of metaphysical naturalism. He probably thinks that cooperating with his opponents in a democracy is the best way to achieve his goals. The tyrannical exercise of the will to power is not really that efficient, or effective. One would think the shattered remains of the legacy of Shrub, Stalin, or Hitler would have made that abundantly clear, already. Hmmmmm, maybe, but I'm not convinced. I think he is significantly Christian.

[Blueskyboris]

Jobar is talking to the text

No I'm not! I don't talk while typing.
;) You do realize that I am going to use talk all the time from now on, right?

[Blueskyboris]

The article you quoted is incomplete. It neglects a perfectly rational reason for obeying the law: because it's a good idea. Because human beings are evolved to live in social groups. This activity requires fairness, and laws are pretty good tools for achieving fairness. It is not incomplete. Instead, it is looking at the problem from a different perspective: from cause-and-effect. "Because it's a good idea" assumes free will and is thus a different way at looking at the same phenomena.

[Alex]

I don't think a propensity towards obedience is necessarily hard-wired into human beings. On the contrary, disobedience seems to be the default tendency. The authority of parents, teachers, bishops, and the police tends to be resisted - at least on the psychic level at which an "internal emigrant" operates. The most powerful propensity is to go your own way.

The archetype of mankind's disobedience is original sin, which, according to Milton:

..... Mans First Disobedience, and the Fruit
Of that Forbidden Tree, whose mortal taste
Brought Death into the World, and all our woe.......

[DMB]

Some respect for authority is necessary for the growing child. We are born very immature and have a hell of a lot to learn. So paying attention to "Don't do that: it's dangerous!" may save our young lives. To this degree it is almost certainly built in by evolution. We are also social animals and we have to learn the dynamics of our society and how to get along in it. Hierarchies seem to be a normal part of social groups.

But in our most recent evolution as homo sapiens, it s clear that we have also benefited from willingness to think outside the box, to try something new. In many cases this no doubt resulted in disaster, but it paid off enough to be a strong trend.

I would therefore say that we all have both tendencies, and the mix is different in each of us. Some people crave authority and the "smack of firm government". They are probably the ones who are most enthusiastic believers in an authoritarian god, whom it is sinful to disobey. If you believe this, you are going to feel guilty a lot of the time.

People who hate authoritarianism are much less likely to feel guilty and many of them simply don't give a monkey's if someone else accuses them of sin.

But I think there can be an interesting intermediate position. Someone can be brought up to kowtow to authority and then subsequently reject it intellectually. But the poisonous effect of the upbringing still produces feelings of guilt. I think this sometimes happens in formerly religious people who become atheists. It is a truism that those brought up without religion have an easier time being atheist than those who deconverted.

[Alex]

The primary impulse seems to be "to want your own way". This disobedience is curtailed or inhibited in the young by parents, teachers and others who must anticipate danger and prevent children from putting themselves in harm's way.

I believe a child's obedience is given reluctantly - usually under emotional duress and is perhaps provisional. When he gets the chance to assert himself only the apparent power of adults impedes successful rebellion, for the time being. Social authority, of whatever kind, is often obeyed with inner reservations at all times (by rational adults). In other words, the appearance of obedience should not be confused with true consent.

[Ada]

I love this essay Erich Fromm - "On Disobedience" (http://eqi.org/fromm.htm#On Disobedience).
I would sum it up like this: We start obeying others and then we grow towards obeying ourselves.

As a side treat it also contains fascinating interpretation of Garden of Eden, Original Sin and Second Coming.

:-) Ada

[David B]

A few pretty random observations, based on reading Ada's link to more of Fromm's text than was quoted by bsb.

For centuries kings, priests, feudal lords, industrial bosses and parents have insisted that obedience is a virtue and that disobedience is a vice. In order to introduce another point of view, let us set against this position the following statement: human history began with an act of disobedience, and it is not unlikely that it will be, terminated by an act of obedience.

(1) With the exception of parents, kings etc seem to arise fairly late in the story of human development - perhaps 5% of the history - or if one defines prehistory as that which predates written records, then the prehistory - of homo sapiens, and something of the order of .1% of the prehistory of the primate precursers of homo sapiens from which we have evolved.

Enough to make generalised statements like Fromm's on the nature of humanity? I think not.

Study of the remaining small hunter gatherer tribes strikes me as being one of the ways to study human nature, and a more fruitful one at that.

(2) One group Fromm leaves out of his list of influential people above is peers. Child development is, I'd have thought, another useful way to study human nature, and the work of Judith Rich Harris and others strongly suggests that peers -who children will gain mates from, or compete against for mates - have more influence on people than parents.

Fromm seems to imply a sort of top down idea of how humans develop, but is there not something to be said for a more bottom up approach?

(3) Fromm died before a lot of modern neurological work was done, and the way the evolved brain works seems to me to have something to do with the sort of thing he discusses at a lower level of reduction.

This sort of neurology is still in its infancy, of course, and hence much of it is contentious. But for a flavour http://lippard.blogspot.com/2009/08/marco-iacoboni-on-imitation-and.html

We are "wired for empathy,"

Right or wrong, neurology strikes me as a way of looking at the human condition in a way that was inaccessible to Fromm.

David

[munnki]

This is thorny... if we are discussing authority by mutual agreement which has the sheen of an acceptable way of talking about it. Namely, that authority which we have as a society agreed to submit to (which can, or can not, include 'the Law' depending on the society)... then Mill's old problem of the tyranny of the majority arises... societal relationships with power and authority are complex and intricate ones.

Fromm's article emphasises guilt and fear - i.e. the psyche of the individual - as the driving factors between ever-reinforcing (of obedience) relationships with the law. But I disagree that these are the primary motivators for obedience. Not only does he assume a rational psyche in the other (i.e. that the criminal is motivated by a rational response to guilt and fear) but he also assumes that 'the law' is something which produces a feeling of guilt in us when we break it. By extension that implies he means a legal code under which we are prepared to live or to which we are prepared to submit.

As I said above... I think our relationship with authority and 'the law' is a complex one. I also think that any system of law which has not been mutually agreed to (with all of the complexities that might entail) is one which will ultimately be temporary or, if eternal, will produce an unending cycle of disobedience.

[Jobar]

societal relationships with power and authority are complex and intricate ones.

Damn well told, they are.

Going back to Boris' title, I want to say (well, write ;)) that guilt may be a sign that authority is being wielded badly, inappropriately, for the benefit of the ruler to the detriment of the ruled.

If authority is to be fair, its use has to result in positive benefits to all of the society, the rulers and the ruled.

That means that the *reasons* for the directives of the rulers, which can be understood by the ruled, should make it clear that the entire society benefits- or at least, a significant majority. IOW, there should be sensible explanations for the rules laid down, not just "do it because I say so, and I'm the ruler!"

Granted that for children, and for adults who are incapable of understanding for whatever reason, it may be that trying to instill the feeling of guilt is a useful tool to extract obedience. But it has to be used very carefully, and there should be great effort made by the authorities (parents or state) to make sure that there *are* rational explanations which could be given to those with sufficient understanding.

Humans being what we are, we won't ever get it exactly right; there will be improper uses of guilt, and some rules which have no good rational backing. We all can give examples of both.

[Bane]

Jobar, I agree.

[Yahzi]

Hmmmmm, maybe, but I'm not convinced. I think he is significantly Christian.
Well, he's tried real hard to make people think that. And he's a pretty smooth talker. But if you watch his speech closely enough, I think you can see the metaphysical naturalist framework that underpins all of his actions.

I really just wrote that so I could say "watch his speech." :D

Obedience is pure, unadulterated evil. Self-restraint (the opposite of obedience) is the source of morality and reason.

Except in dogs. Then obedience is good. But that's only because they don't have self-restraint.

[Blueskyboris]

You have to learn that we are in the middle of a shift from face-to-face communication only to face-to-face communication and computer-to-computer communication. During this transition many people will continue to say things they used to say; that is, until a new language develops that is accepted by the mainstream, LOL.

[Blueskyboris]

I don't think a propensity towards obedience is necessarily hard-wired into human beings. On the contrary, disobedience seems to be the default tendency. The authority of parents, teachers, bishops, and the police tends to be resisted - at least on the psychic level at which an "internal emigrant" operates. The most powerful propensity is to go your own way.

The archetype of mankind's disobedience is original sin, which, according to Milton:

..... Mans First Disobedience, and the Fruit
Of that Forbidden Tree, whose mortal taste
Brought Death into the World, and all our woe....... Just to keep things clear: Fromm didn't think that obedience is hard-wired. He thought that individual people and ultimately cultures choose between the having way of life and the being way of life. He argued that the having way of life leads to obedience to authority.

[Jobar]

You have to learn that we are in the middle of a shift from face-to-face communication only to face-to-face communication and computer-to-computer communication. During this transition many people will continue to say things they used to say; that is, until a new language develops that is accepted by the mainstream, LOL.

Boris, communication by visual symbols- reading and writing- is thousands of years old. Yes, computers give us greater speed and nuance and subtlety, but I don't think they are in essence any different from the exchange of letters and drawings as done at the height of the Roman empire, or even earlier.

Now, if we can perfect ways of directly tapping into thoughts, translating them to some communicable code, and zapping them straight into others' brains in the form of words and images, *that* would be a true revolution in communication, IMO. But I don't expect to live long enough to see that. (Pity.)
............................
Obedience... I would say that for children just learning words, obedience is an inborn trait. Not absolutely so; some are more obedient than others. And some stay that way longer into their lifetimes than others, and it isn't totally hardwired; children whose parents are incompetent to raise kids tend to lose trust and obedience earlier, because being obedient has more negative consequences. As we get older, our tendency to be unquestioningly obedient lessens in accordance with many factors.

[dancer_rnb]

The article you quoted is incomplete. It neglects a perfectly rational reason for obeying the law: because it's a good idea. Because human beings are evolved to live in social groups. This activity requires fairness, and laws are pretty good tools for achieving fairness.

No need to posit cowardice or inadequacy to explain why people follow the rules. Nor do we need to extol rule-breakers as mythic heroes: we can recognize them for the selfish simpletons they really are.


If laws are pretty good tools for achieving fairness, it is because people have been busy resisting and removing those laws that aren't.

I have a lot more respect for the laws of physics than the laws of man.

[Alex]

Fairness: just or appropriate in the circumstances.

In a court of law, what objective test could establish what's fair and what isn't? What's the difference between fairness and justice?

[Yahzi]

In a court of law, what objective test could establish what's fair and what isn't?
An impartial jury. 12 people who have no personal stake in the conflict, who can each imagine being a) the defendant and b) the accused.

If 12 reasonable people agree that what you did was reasonable, then it was - as best as we can tell - reasonable. If not, then it wasn't. It's not perfect, but it's a lot better than all the alternatives.

What's the difference between fairness and justice?
I think John Rawls wrote a very long book to argue that the answer is: nothing.


If laws are pretty good tools for achieving fairness, it is because people have been busy resisting and removing those laws that aren't.

I have a lot more respect for the laws of physics than the laws of man.
Well, the laws of physics are only good for predicting things because people have been busy changing and improving them (remember philogeston and the ether? :D )

Uncovering the laws that produce the most justice in a society is a lot like uncovering the laws of gravity, only vastly harder, more expensive, and personally taxing.

[Blueskyboris]

You have to learn that we are in the middle of a shift from face-to-face communication only to face-to-face communication and computer-to-computer communication. During this transition many people will continue to say things they used to say; that is, until a new language develops that is accepted by the mainstream, LOL.

Boris, communication by visual symbols- reading and writing- is thousands of years old. Yes, computers give us greater speed and nuance and subtlety, but I don't think they are in essence any different from the exchange of letters and drawings as done at the height of the Roman empire, or even earlier.

Now, if we can perfect ways of directly tapping into thoughts, translating them to some communicable code, and zapping them straight into others' brains in the form of words and images, *that* would be a true revolution in communication, IMO. But I don't expect to live long enough to see that. (Pity.)
............................
Obedience... I would say that for children just learning words, obedience is an inborn trait. Not absolutely so; some are more obedient than others. And some stay that way longer into their lifetimes than others, and it isn't totally hardwired; children whose parents are incompetent to raise kids tend to lose trust and obedience earlier, because being obedient has more negative consequences. As we get older, our tendency to be unquestioningly obedient lessens in accordance with many factors. How should I communicate it, Jobar: Am I talking to you, writing to you, or talking to you when I write to you on a forum?


eta: this topic would be a good split.

[Yahzi]

/QUOTE] How should I communicate it, Jobar: Am I talking to you, writing to you, or talking to you when I write to you on a forum?
They're all acceptable. Language is very plastic. You use "talking" when you want to make your comments more informal, and "writing" when you want to sound more formal.