Prime Time Replay:
Joel Kramer and Diana Alstad
on Hidden Authoritarianism
MsgId: *brainstorms(6)
Date: Fri Oct 11 21:48:28 EDT 1996
From: Keith_Harary_with_Joel_Kramer_and_Diana_Alstad At: 206.80.181.193
Good evening and welcome to Brainstorms. Our guests tonight in our San Francisco studio are Joel Kramer and Diana Alstad, authors of THE GURU PAPERS.Diana Alstad, a Woodrow Wilson Fellow, received a doctorate from Yale University in 1971. She taught in the humanities and initiated and taught the first Women's Studies courses at Yale and Duke. Joel Kramer did post-graduate study in philosophy and psychology and was a resident teacher at Esalen Institute (1968-70). The author of THE PASSIONATE MIND, he is also an internationally acknowledged adept of physical and mental yoga. They have written and led seminars together since 1974.
For simplicity, we'll use our initials to signify who is speaking at any given time: KH for Keith Harary, DA for Diana Alstad, and JK for Joel Kramer.
Our topic tonight is Hidden Authoritarianism. Hello Joel and Diana! MsgId: *brainstorms(10)
Date: Fri Oct 11 22:01:05 EDT 1996
From: Keith_Harary_with_Joel_Kramer_and_Diana_Alstad At: 206.80.181.193
DA & JK: Hello Keith! Glad to be here.
MsgId: *brainstorms(10)
Date: Fri Oct 11 22:01:05 EDT 1996
From: Keith_Harary_with_Joel_Kramer_and_Diana_Alstad At: 206.80.181.193
KH: I'd like to start out by asking you to define Hidden Authoritarianism. What is it? Why is it a problem?
MsgId: *brainstorms(11)
Date: Fri Oct 11 22:02:30 EDT 1996
From: Keith_Harary_with_Joel_Kramer_and_Diana_Alstad At: 206.80.181.193
JK: By authoritarian, we mean any person, group or ideology that is not changeable through feedback. We also mean any group, person or ideology that positions itself as knowing what's best for others. Of course these two are embedded. The extreme extensions of this, of course, are dictatorships -- miltary groups that force their way through might. However, this is not what we are examining. We feel this has been adequately examined by others. What we are examining is hidden authoritarianism.The question, of course, is where is it hidden? We find it hidden in many different aspects of culture, social orders and society. It's in personal relationships, in ideologies that contain morality, and often in our highest ideals.
MsgId: *brainstorms(14)
Date: Fri Oct 11 22:06:12 EDT 1996
From: Keith_Harary_with_Joel_Kramer_and_Diana_Alstad At: 206.80.181.193
DA: It's like a social virus that needs to be decoded and unmasked for people to become aware of it. Awareness often helps free you from its influence.
MsgId: *brainstorms(15)
Date: Fri Oct 11 22:06:55 EDT 1996
From: Keith_Harary_with_Joel_Kramer_and_Diana_Alstad At: 206.80.181.193
KH: Can you give us an example of hidden authoritarianism and why it is harmful?
MsgId: *brainstorms(16)
Date: Fri Oct 11 22:09:08 EDT 1996
From: Keith_Harary_with_Joel_Kramer_and_Diana_Alstad At: 206.80.181.193
JK: Let me answer the second part of the question first. We believe it is harmful and needs to be unmasked because from one perspective hidden authoritarianism is a major factor in keeping the species -- human beings -- from doing necessary problem solving with regard to world-wide crises. We are in a period of accelerated change. Authoritarianism is a filter that keeps people from seeing solutions, trying new things, and it weighs down human possibility.
MsgId: *brainstorms(17)
Date: Fri Oct 11 22:11:30 EDT 1996
From: Keith_Harary_with_Joel_Kramer_and_Diana_Alstad At: 206.80.181.193
DA: We find hidden authoritarianism in addictions, in the ideal of unconditional love, in all the major religions -- Eastern and Western -- and in the way information is transmitted in educational systems. Basically what we're interested in is how information is put out and received. Specifically, for example, the ideal that I should love you no matter what you do is an ideal that is feedback proof in the sense that people who hold this ideal are not amenable to change and the ideal itself has the seeds of abuse in it. It means that people can treat each other badly and still hold up the ideal of unconditional love and forgiveness -- that one should forgive abuse. In reality what is needed is a way of working through problems that is realistic and doesn't promote abuse. But if I am always supposed to put you first and not take my own needs into account, then I can't give you feedback when you are being inappropriate.
MsgId: *brainstorms(19)
Date: Fri Oct 11 22:14:53 EDT 1996
From: Keith_Harary_with_Joel_Kramer_and_Diana_Alstad At: 206.80.181.193
KH: But how can we live without ideals? Don't we need some sense of morality to hold society together?
MsgId: *brainstorms(20)
Date: Fri Oct 11 22:17:18 EDT 1996
From: Keith_Harary_with_Joel_Kramer_and_Diana_Alstad At: 206.80.181.193
JK: Morality is the glue that holds all social orders together. We believe that the historic prelude to great change comes when the old glue no longer holds and the old moral order unravels. We believe that we are in such a time. The old morality was based on authoritarian pronouncements. These pronouncements were essentially unchallengeable because they originated at a supposed higher level of authority -- God, the Church, Tradition, -- and the old morality was a set of static rules of how people are supposed to act toward each other, what's right, wrong, good, bad, and how the individual is supposed to either sacrifice to or put the group first -- rules. The problem is that static rules only work in static times. In times of accelerated change, what we need is a more process-oriented morality, a morality that can change with feedback and with human beings jockeying with each other about these essential issues. Basically, the essential issues of any morality revolve around considerations of altruism or egoism -- self-centerdness vs. selflessness. Who do you put first -- me or you, the individual or the group -- this is the essential question of morality.
MsgId: *brainstorms(22)
Date: Fri Oct 11 22:21:33 EDT 1996
From: Keith_Harary_with_Joel_Kramer_and_Diana_Alstad At: 206.80.181.193
KH: Specifically, how does your concept of non-authoritarian morality differ from the authoritarianism of the past?
MsgId: *brainstorms(23)
Date: Fri Oct 11 22:23:57 EDT 1996
From: Keith_Harary_with_Joel_Kramer_and_Diana_Alstad At: 206.80.181.193
DA: Basically, we are saying that the reason hidden authoritarianism is so pervasive in the world and in most people in varying degrees is that it is like a virus in our morality. Specifically, in the way self-centerdness is dealt with and viewed. We see self-centeredness, that is self-gratification, self-enhancement, self-realization, self-interest, as being a core part of what it is to be human -- as is altruism! Self-centeredness has two aspects. On the one hand, it is the source of the world's problems from war and greed to rape, and on and on. On the other hand, appropriate self-concerns are essential to survival, happiness, balanced and healthy relationships, creativity, etc. So -- the way that traditional morality and world religions try to solve the problem of self-centeredness, seeing that it is indeed a problem, is by villianizing it and telling people they shouldn't have it and making them feel guilty -- trying to do away with it altogether, which is, of course, impossible.The resulting guilt, and threats of punishment after death -- or in the East in the next lifetime -- have been powerful authoritarian control mechanisms. Fear and guilt.
MsgId: *brainstorms(26)
Date: Fri Oct 11 22:31:06 EDT 1996
From: Keith_Harary_with_Joel_Kramer_and_Diana_Alstad At: 206.80.181.193
JK: The traditional authoritarian moralities have selflessness and self-sacrifice on one side of a polarity and egotism and selfishness on the other. They separate the two as if they were opposites so that the more selfless you are the better, and therefore the less self-centered. It is here that the core of authoritarianism lies, because once one is convinced of being guilty of being self-centered, there are endless authorities only too glad to tell you how you can be better. Of course, that's how they control you. Our view is different.
MsgId: *brainstorms(27)
Date: Fri Oct 11 22:32:09 EDT 1996
From: Keith_Harary_with_Joel_Kramer_and_Diana_Alstad At: 206.80.181.193
KH: How would you describe that different view of morality, and why is it not authoritarian?
MsgId: *brainstorms(29)
Date: Fri Oct 11 22:34:20 EDT 1996
From: Keith_Harary_with_Joel_Kramer_and_Diana_Alstad At: 206.80.181.193
DA: We see altruism and egotism as being embedded in each other as are day and night. For instance, if I help someone who is suffering, that can make me feel good and give me gratification. These are not mutually exclusive. In fact, if it didn't make people feel good to give, there would be much less giving in the world. Another example is with love. Do I love you because you're so wonderful, or because you make me feel so wonderful? Again, these are not mutually exclusive. Hopefully both are true! Making sure they are both true is what can lead to a balanced relationship instead of an abusive one.
MsgId: *brainstorms(31)
Date: Fri Oct 11 22:38:58 EDT 1996
From: Keith_Harary_with_Joel_Kramer_and_Diana_Alstad At: 206.80.181.193
JK: We see the traditional oppositions of morality -- egotism/altruism, competition/cooperation, the group vs. the individual, as defining each other and essential for the very existence of the other. Therefore, from our perspective, the problem is not how to be more altruistic and less egotistic, more cooperative and less competitive. Rather, the problem is how can we be more appropriately competitive and more appropriately cooperative, more appropriately altruistic and egotistic. A morality that sees how these so-called dualities are actually the two faces of being human has a very different relationship to authoritarianism because there is no external authority that can tell a human being or social order in any situational aspect of their lives or history exactly what the appropriate positioning is. The question -- should I put you or me first, should I put the group or the individual first, can only be situationally determined through intelligence and awareness, which -- incidentally, is counter-authoritarian.
MsgId: *brainstorms(33)
Date: Fri Oct 11 22:41:55 EDT 1996
From: Keith_Harary_with_Joel_Kramer_and_Diana_Alstad At: 206.80.181.193
KH: But who makes those decisions for the individual and, especially, for the group? Don't you need some authority, ultimately, to decide the hard questions?
MsgId: *brainstorms(34)
Date: Fri Oct 11 22:46:43 EDT 1996
From: Keith_Harary_with_Joel_Kramer_and_Diana_Alstad At: 206.80.181.193
JK: Keith, you have just with wonderful articulation expressed the paradigm of the old order. What the old order says is that the good of the group comes before the good of the individual. Historically, it has always been a few individuals that have decided what the good of the group is with a bias toward themselves. Through the maintenance of their power, the yhave molded social orders, ensuring the continuance of their power. This is the old paradigm and this is why the world is in the trouble it is in today. In our opinion, the question that you asked -- who decides -- in the paradigm we are offering, entails and understanding that no individual or group, or ideology or tradition has the last word about this -- the answers can only be found in the living process of interaction between people engaged in that endless existential moment of interrelationship that lives in the space between me and you. Who do I take into account? How broad a spectrum of care do we spread out. When people talk about putting the group first, we have to ask what group? Class? Religion? Country? Family? Race? Sex? Historically, there has been a morality for the in-group, my tribe, my family, and everybody outside of that was fair game.
MsgId: *brainstorms(37)
Date: Fri Oct 11 22:51:21 EDT 1996
From: Keith_Harary_with_Joel_Kramer_and_Diana_Alstad At: 206.80.181.193
DA: The world is too small now for an in-group, out-group morality that treats some good at the expense of others. Also, we need an evolutionary model that is open to change and feedback. The old model of rules for insiders is static and doesn't foster learning but, rather, guilt. We need to have a new, intelligent approach to dealing with self-centeredness that doesn't just put self-sacrifice on a pedestal.
MsgId: *brainstorms(39)
Date: Fri Oct 11 22:55:06 EDT 1996
From: Keith_Harary_with_Joel_Kramer_and_Diana_Alstad At: 206.80.181.193
KH: Still, at a certain point, society and individuals have to make some hard choices. And those choices would sometimes seem to be in opposition to the interests of some members of society. What practical advice would you offer when it comes to making such choices. How can we avoid just ending up in the same old human conflicts?
MsgId: *brainstorms(40)
Date: Fri Oct 11 22:59:01 EDT 1996
From: Keith_Harary_with_Joel_Kramer_and_Diana_Alstad At: 206.80.181.193
JK: Of course, there are always hard choices. What hard choices, by definition, mean is that not everyone is going to profit equally from such a choice. But, you see, the real question is, "what is the basis for these hard choices?" Many human beings have talked about there being a moral vacuum in society today. For me, what a moral vacuum means is that choices are not made out of consideration of what is truly rights and appropriate for the individual and the social order. Conservatives and fundamentalists say we must go back to the old morality to act as a foundation for these hard choices. For them, this means taking away women's rights to their bodies, to abortion, promoting an old-time nationalism, having the old "family values" with the male in charge. These are the old foundation for hard choices. The real question today is, "who or what has the right to say what is right, and what gives them the right to do so?" This is the essential moral question that stands behind how we make hard choices. From our perspective, the real hard choice today is how we can move what is appearing to be a non-viable species into viabilitiy. From our perspective, we need a morality that is standing behind the hard choices that involve species survival and bringing forth a new glue where human beings, men and women, can be -- if they so choose -- active participants in how these hard choices are to be made.
MsgId: *brainstorms(43)
Date: Fri Oct 11 23:05:19 EDT 1996
From: Keith_Harary_with_Joel_Kramer_and_Diana_Alstad At: 206.80.181.193
DA: The good news is that we feel the problem is not human beings, but the operating system, the morality, which is guidelines for behavior that are authoritarian, and dysfunctional in a technological world that brings fast change. So, in other words, we need to create a new, functional, operating system. The problem is not in our hard-wiring, but in our software -- our morality -- which is much more possible to change.
MsgId: *brainstorms(44)
Date: Fri Oct 11 23:07:21 EDT 1996
From: Keith_Harary_with_Joel_Kramer_and_Diana_Alstad At: 206.80.181.193
KH: Well, we're out of time for this week's Brainstorms. I'd like to thank our guests, Joel Kramer and Diana Alstad, authors of THE GURU PAPERS: MASKS OF AUTHORITARIAN POWER (published by Frog Ltd./North Atlantic Books) for a fascinating evening. We carry your book in our on-line bookstore, for those who are interested. Thank you again for coming!
MsgId: *brainstorms(45)
Date: Fri Oct 11 23:08:29 EDT 1996
From: Keith_Harary_with_Joel_Kramer_and_Diana_Alstad At: 206.80.181.193
DA & JK: Thanks for the wonderful opportunity of appearing here in Omni Internet! It's been a pleasure.
MsgId: *brainstorms(46)
Date: Fri Oct 11 23:10:38 EDT 1996
From: Keith_Harary_with_Joel_Kramer_and_Diana_Alstad At: 206.80.181.193
KH: I'm Dr. Keith Harary. Good night for Omni Internet!
Home || Prime Time || Live Science || Machine Dreams || Project Open Book || SF-Fantasy-Horror
Continuum || Antimatter || Mind-Brain Lab || Interactive IQ || Gallery || OMNI ToonsQuestions, comments and suggestions can be mailed to the webmaster.
Copyright (C) 1997 by Omni Publications International, Ltd. All Rights Reserved.