Blog:
This blog discusses ideas, drafts and papers about the whole spectrum of systems theory and anything else that concerns the WissTec R&D Services UG.19.4.2020 - Social Systems Security 1:
The past and future consequences of Germany's failed enlightenment movement.
(by Eike Scholz) There has been a long debate, on how the atrocities of the Nazis and later the Orwellian system of the SED had been possible with the well educated German population. From a systemic perspective this translates to the question of what social norms are responsible for being unable to resist the slide into "barbarism". Leaving aside, that that wording might be insulting to the historical barbarians. I will propose the following hypothesis: The main cause for this is a failure of the German enlightenment movement. In particular, the inability to read Kant fully and evaluate, what he probably would have written, if he lived in a free society. The key text is Kant's answer to the question "What is Enlightenment?" , where it is insightful to start with the usual quote, but cut a lot of the usually cited in the middle:
Enlightenment is man's emergence from his self imposed immaturity. [...] But I hear calling from all sides: Do not argue!" [...] (Only one ruler in the world says: Argue all you want and what you want, but obey.) [...]The bold emphasis is added by the author, because that rule, if followed, has the systemic consequence, that those who strife for and later are in power will not be opposed by enlightenment forces. Once power is captured, obedience is the social German norm - not the French style guillotine or an American style civil war. From my experience not much has changed. I met a lot of German state servants, who are well educated and theoretically subscribe to the values of the enlightenment, but see opposing those abusing power as avoidable conflict. That kind of behavior is of course enabling narcissists, psychopaths and sociopaths to seize power. Be not mistaken and do not rationalize cowardice as scientific value-freeness or noble pacifism. While narcissism, psychopathy and sociopathy are scientific terms, these categories describe, to an astounding precision - for psychological phenomena - people who willfully harm others. The associated group of cluster B personality disorders, is quite precisely a group people, that myths describe as forms of evil - evil at least relative to the intrinsic instincts of fairness and justice innate to the majority of humans. With respect to long term social system behavior, these social norms of conflict avoidance and obedience ensure, that the society can not maintain an open society. What can happen will happen eventually and a tyrant will seize power. One may be able to defeat the English with Gandhi's methods, but not the Nazis, the Stalinists, or any other variation of obedience based barbaric societies. Only a society, that clearly ceases to exist it its prior form, if taken over by tyrants, covertly or not, will be resilient. Like any beings, it might cease to exist eventually, but not get corrupted. It is however not necessary, that what comes afterwards is a tyranny. Just like any biological species will cease to exist eventually, it does not mean that life it self will cease to exist. It might just have evolved so much that the old definitions do not capture what has emerged. Anyway, the above barbaric groups, once in power, will execute opposition on the spot, if the opposition is not backed by the raw power to retaliate significantly. Consequently, a vigilant attitude is required by those who want to live in accordance with enlightened values. I once tried to "install" a kind of secular initiation rite called emancipation, as a ritualized, open form of oath, to not only signify the emergence of an individual from immaturity, but also, that it will act according to its insights. The individual will from now on be its own master. Hence the name: Emancipare is verb the Romans used for making a son his own master. It also was applied to freeing slaves - iirc. This secular rite should signal, not to obey unconditionally and being a trustworthy, predictable and rational member of the community. In the tradition of the enlightenment - Kant's understanding of it in particular - the emancipation is self initiated and not up to a third person. It is rather interesting, that the old virtue ethics codex of the Japanese samurai (bushido) which I adapted as not yet a young man, does contain corresponding rules. However, the longer I live in Germany, the more and more, it occurs to me, that these values are alien the German society. The emancipated individual is by design the horror of tyrants. It is bound to rationality, discourse and truth, and will follow only those who can support their directives and orders with sound arguments. In conclusion, I thus will propose the following social systems hypothesis: The social norms of unconditioned "obedience" and "idealistic conflict avoidance" in conjunction, with with the scientific fact, that malignant personalities exists, has enough explanatory power to understand why the historical atrocities in Germany where possible. There simply did not, apparently, still does not exist, a social agreement, that it is honorable to oppose the beginnings of the wrong persons seizing power. Quite the opposite, the social norm is respecting the feeling of the narcissist seizing power, who feels that even rational disobedience is dishonorable. It clearly seems to be the failure of the German enlightenment movement, that this norm of obedience has not been ostracized. Its been used by the Nazis and SED, that is by the extreme political right and left to get Germans to execute their atrocious plans and rules. As scholarly note it should be added, that instead of fixing this enlightenment failure, the Germans got texts like "Dialectic of enlightenment" from Max Horkheimer and Theodor W. Adorno. To quote the start of the essay:
The enlightenment, in its general meaning of advancing thought, has, since its inception, the objective to free man from fear and instill him as his own master. But the completely enlightened world shines from the triumph of evil.To my surprise, the above text seems to be well respected - at least in leftist circles. It is an obvious scholarly error to describe the past and current state of any of the worlds societies, or the German society in particular, as completely enlightened. It is a rhetoric device and fallacy. It is viable for starting a dialectic discussion, though. On the other hand it is a grotesque falsehood and burning down straw men is not impressive. That quote neatly transports the common German social preference for obedience, denial of responsibility as well as lack of emancipation in the above sense. Ardono's and Horkheimer's statement, if true, implies that, to avoid evil we ought be slaves executing the masters plans, without insight or understanding - at least a bit. That follows from the fact, that the systematic project of the enlightenment is to free "salves" from the kind of "masters" who rule by exploiting intellectual immaturity. The atrocities are not the masters fault, one might add. But surprisingly, or maybe not at all, the authors had respected academic careers in post-Nazi Germany. Well, in a way, they are following Kant's example above and they have other good work as far as I am informed (e.g.: The authoritarian personality). Always read sources relative to the historical context they where written in, but the immediate questions an enlightened, emancipated and psychologically educated reader of such a text passage should ask him self, is: "How do the authors see them self? As slaves or masters? How should the transported sentiment regarding enlightenment values be judged? Especially, when knowing about the typical traits and behaviors of cluster B personality disorders?