Postcards from Ulysses

 

    In Part II, I would like to consider the future of the Technique and the role it might play in the future of humanity by looking at how our current conditions compare to those that created “the crisis of 1914.”   If the essence of Alexander’s analysis of those conditions is valid, then we are on the verge of a crisis of the same proportion.  “Of the same proportion” has to be understood clearly: proportionate to our ability to destroy ourselves.  The humans of 1914 had not developed massive nuclear arsenals, and they had not affected the planet to the point of imminent catastrophe.  The degree of damage and suffering we can create is unprecedented to such a degree that Alexander and his contemporaries could not have conjured it in any nightmare.
    “The crisis of 1914” is discussed in Chapter Eight of Man’s Supreme Inheritance (MSI).  Chapter Seven argued that progress from childhood to adulthood, and one’s continued growth as a human being, depends on the process adopted as the foundation for one’s development.  If we want to know how effective that process is, says Alexander, all we have to do is take a look at the level of progress the individual has achieved.  In Chapter Eight he tells us that the same holds for nations.  If a nation displays alarming behavior, we can firmly deduce that the people of that nation suffer from one or many maladies of misuse.(1)
    When one reads the first few pages of this chapter, especially if one reads them side-by-side with the work of Noam Chomsky or articles from FAIR (the organization for Fairness and Accuracy In Reporting), one finds startling parallels.  For instance, Alexander speaks of the “suppression of the individual and the obliteration of his reason in the supposed interests of the State.”  Compare that with what happened when we went to war in Iraq.  Even if you think the war was a good idea, governments should still act in accord with the reasoned will of the people.  However, Chomsky points out that polls done by Gallup International and by local sources in Europe indicate that international support for a U.S.-led invasion never rose over 11% in almost any country.(2)  Consider the extremes of political action given these numbers.  In Spain where opposition to the war was 98%, President Aznar decided to go to war anyway.  We in turn decided to award him a Congressional Medal of Honor (obviously for his exemplary support of the ideals of democracy).  On the other hand, in Turkey, where opposition to the war was almost as high, the Turkish parliament actually decided to act in accord with the will of the people (i.e. they voted NOT to go to war).  In response–prepare yourself for this–Paul Wolfowitz, then Deputy Secretary of Defense, had the gall to criticize the Turkish military for not overturning the decision!(3)
    Alexander laments that “civilised nations have failed to come through the ordeal of adaptation . . . with satisfactory results.”  He says that even the “spheres of courage are still more or less limited.”  He refers to the startle response as an indication of this, pointing out that “when brought suddenly face to face with the unusual or unexpected people still exhibit a tendency to panic and loss of control.”  While many people responded heroically to the events of 9/11, it could be argued that the Patriot Act and some of its fallout do not bespeak of great courage.  Again, for certain readers this might be arguable.  However, one could certainly look elsewhere to find reasonable examples.
    The most interesting (or distressing) parallel between Alexander’s discussion and our current situation runs over the next few pages.  He engages in a diagnosis of the poor use evidenced by the German state before and during the first World War.  He notes a harmful “national decision to stifle the individual, body and soul, if it seemed to be for the welfare of the State,” a decision which “constituted the most powerful force in the prevention of progress on the evolutionary plane.”  In our times, we know all too well that “the State” can be translated fairly accurately as “the Multinational Corporations and the Socio-economic Elite.”
    A good historical example of this is the case of Ford v. Dodge.  The Dodge brothers were upset with Ford because he wanted to make safer, less expensive cars while simultaneously creating more jobs.  According to Ford, he was attempting “to employ still more men, to spread the benefits of this industrial system to the greatest possible number, to help them build up their lives and their homes."(4)  The Michigan Supreme Court ruled in 1919 in favor of the Dodge brothers, dictating that the primary concern of a corporation is profit.  
    The case is nuanced, with interesting points made on both sides.  Certainly Ford himself was making huge sums of money, and he was no angel.  Nevertheless, the court expressed the view that, “His [Ford’s] testimony creates the impression, also, that he thinks the Ford Motor Company has made too much money, has had too large profits, and that, although large profits might be still earned, a sharing of them with the public, by reducing the price of the output of the company, ought to be undertaken.”  Ford basically argued that he had taken care of his shareholders in spades.  They had already made more than they invested, and he would continue to pay a dividend.  That money was a small amount compared to what the corporation was making, but he had a desire to spread benefits to the general populace, those who had no control over the kind of capital Ford and his shareholders did.  The court ruled that the powers of the directors of a company are to be dedicated to a single principle end: profit.  While they may exercise their discretion as to the means of attaining that end, directors cannot substitute humanitarian concerns for profits.  The court recognized that they were making this decision in the context of other court rulings that said courts have no business telling directors what to do with a corporation’s money.  These rulings found that the power of the directors is absolute (i.e. it is a tyrannical structure) except in extreme cases of fraud.      This State Supreme Court ruling basically found that too much humanitarian concern constitutes fraud.  The court supported the notion that the principle of exchange should be price, not beauty, social good, intrinsic value, the welfare of workers, or the best course of action for humanity.  One has a duty to sell a thing for as high a price as the market will tolerate, no matter how much money one has already made, no matter how many times over investors have made back their investment, and no matter how much good one might be able to do if the focus on profit were shifted to other things.
    It is important to understand the implications of this judgement and the kind of culture it sustains.  To give a recent example, The Wall Street Journal featured an article on April 5, 2005 which described how pharmaceutical corporations can “advance their commercial interests by stifling potential medical advances.”  That should sound patently absurd, unethical, and unacceptable.  Such practices could result in unnecessary suffering and even death.  Would drug companies actually pursue a policy of stifling individuals, body and soul?  Indeed.  The article points out that we have a “long court record” that “provides a window into the vigor with which big companies can fight to stop a potential breakthrough.”      Let me take a moment to note this curious fact: that we “civilized” people live in a society in which corporations spend time and resources FIGHTING TO STOP BREAKTHROUGHS.  The particular battle reported in The Journal, which had to do with a drug to treat allergic reaction to peanuts, “spanned five years and consumed well over $100 million in legal fees.”  One might imagine that all the famine in Africa could have been stopped by now if the resources directed at halting progress had instead gone toward humanitarian aid.  We would have enjoyed a two-fold benefit: the humanitarian aid, and a lot of helpful medicines and technologies set free to accompany it.  All the more so if capable human minds, rather than being directed at thwarting breakthroughs, were instead directed at fostering them.  This is bad use at its worst.
    In the case of this peanut allergy drug, our attention is directed to the efforts of Genentech and Novartis, two powerful pharmaceutical concerns, to squash the development of a promising treatment developed by a tiny rival.  The article points out that over “1.5 million Americans have an allergy to peanuts, and some can die in minutes if accidentally exposed.”  Accidental exposure is no trivial matter if you take a look at the labels of food products and note just how many of them are processed at facilities that also process peanuts.  Even trace amounts can trigger an attack, and the almost ubiquitous presence of peanuts puts these 1.5 million people in an awkward and dangerous situation.  And at the time these pharmaceutical Goliaths launched their attack against a treatment breakthrough, there was nothing at all available for these people.  This new drug, which in trials had proven quite powerful and potentially life saving, was their only hope.  But that doesn’t matter in our system, fraught as it is with so many maladies of misuse.
    Considering the relative importance of human life and flourishing in the corporate framework, it is hardly surprising to note the wanton disregard and even disdain corporations exhibit with respect to the more-than-human world.  Corporations place concerns about profit over concerns about plundering.  They will put whole species out of existence without batting an eye, and they will lay waste to entire ecosystems, “all in a day’s work.”  They are disinclined to recognize the crucial connection between human flourishing and the health of the environment, harboring not the slightest concern for correlations between human and animal suffering.  Moreover, even if their actions are shown definitively to harm human beings, this tends to provoke as compassionate a reaction as they demonstrate in cases like the peanut drug.
     How does this stultification of humanity manage to prosper?  Alexander argues that such stultification is founded on “manufactured premises.”  He says these manufactured premises “are the forerunners of . . . a stultification of reason” and he says they “demand the cultivation of a form of self-hypnosis which is fatal to national or individual progress.”  This demand is served by a process Chomsky calls “manufacturing consent.”(5)  In this process the media and the public relations industry nurture the self-hypnosis and stultification of reason so fatal to human well being.  
    This manufacture of consent takes place on a wide scale.  One painfully familiar example of how it works is found in the so-called “democratic elections” that take place here in America.  Using the 2004 presidential elections as an example, Chomsky points out that “as usual, the electoral campaigns were run by the PR industry, which in its regular vocation sells toothpaste, life-style drugs, automobiles, and other commodities.”  The PR industry is a principle agent of self-hypnosis.  It doesn’t give us genuine information about commodities, so how well could it possibly fair with political candidates?  Let’s consider the people who voted for Kerry in 2004.  Chomsky asks, “Do you think those people could tell you what Kerry’s health program was or what he was going to do for the economy?  I mean, I couldn’t tell you.  You have to do a research project to figure out what the program was.”(6)  That last little jab refers NOT to the complexity of the program.  What he means is that the program just wasn’t laid out, and it wasn’t laid out for a double-edged reason: the majority of the population support national healthcare, but the concentrations of power in this country oppose it.(7)
    The manufacture of consent and the self-hypnosis and suffocation of reason it engenders lead us into very dangerous circumstances.  One finds a remarkable resonance between Alexander’s next few paragraphs and the analysis given by Chomsky in his most recent books.  Alexander notes “the stupendous failure of German judgement in all matters of national and international importance,” and he further notes that, quite expectedly, such a misguided nation is “ready enough with a more or less humane reason for its madness,” including such high sounding principles as “self-protection, an altruistic regard for the rights of smaller nations, [and/or] a sense of high duty towards mankind at large.”  To provide additional clarity to the picture, Alexander contrasts the savagery of Germany with the behavior of more civilized nations which “have long since reached a stage in their evolution which made the methods of Attila unthinkable.”  For instance, once they found themselves “forced into war” (one wonders if “preemptive aggression” would strike Alexander as a contradiction) those opposing Germany conducted that war “on the evolved plane of the human . . .  They treated their captives as honorable men and extended to them every conceivable consideration within their power.”  This cuts pretty deep if one thinks of Guantanamo and Abu Ghraib.  To rub salt in the wound, Alexander says that, of course, before the war civilized nations “aimed at the reduction of armaments, and gave practical proof of their aims.”  In other words, by Alexander’s measure, we are a nation of Attilas.
    In fact, the sketch Alexander provides here could very well be the start of an unflattering portrait of a “failed state.”  Failed States is the title of Chomsky’s most recent book.  He acknowledges that the concept of a failed state can at times be vague, but he points out that “some of the primary characteristics of failed states can be identified.”  These include “their inability or unwillingness to protect their citizens from violence . . . their tendency to regard themselves as beyond the reach of domestic or international law . . . And if they have democratic forms, they suffer from a serious ‘democratic deficit’ that deprives their formal democratic institutions of real substance.”
    The book carefully examines a broad range of evidence supporting Chomsky’s argument that the United States can be characterized as a failed state.  The two main dangers from which our government demonstrate inability or unwillingness to protect us are nuclear disaster and the climate crisis.  With respect to that latter, Hurricane Katrina provided crystal clear evidence of inability and unwillingness to provide effective remedies for problems related to the climate, whether preventative or curative.  Documentaries like An Inconvenient Truth and Who Killed the Electric Car have also raised awareness in this regard.  
    However, many citizens realize that the climate crisis remains marginalized and muddled.  The Bush administration’s inability and unwillingness to protect American and world citizens with respect to climate change has taken on sinister proportions.  Chomsky notes that, “Dismissal of scientific evidence on matters of survival, in keeping with Bush’s scientific judgement is routine.”(8)    He provides two excellent examples.  The first reveals that, “In preparation for the July 2005 Group of Eight summit . . . the scientific academies of all G8 nations, including the US National Academy of Sciences, joined those of China, India, and Brazil to call on the leaders of the rich countries to take urgent action to head off this potential disaster.”  Chomsky quotes a statement from these G8 scientists which said that it is “vital” for all nations to take action.  He then describes the response to this given in the lead editorial in the Financial Times.  The editors “endorsed this ‘clarion call,’ while deploring” the reaction of the US government in the face of genuine scientific judgement.  The editors wrote that “in spite of the unprecedented statement by the G8 scientists . . . George W. Bush . . . insists we still do not know enough about this literally world-changing phenomenon.”  Unfortunately, Washington “succeeded in removing language calling for prompt action to control global warming.”
    Chomsky next quotes a source commenting on the 2005 meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, at which “leading US climate researchers . . . released ‘the most compelling evidence yet’ that human activities are responsible for global warming.”  The scientists predicted dire consequences if we do not act quickly, but Chomsky notes that the release of this compelling evidence, “like the G8 warnings, received scant notice in the United States, despite the attention given in the same days to the implementation of the Kyoto protocols regulating greenhouse emissions, with the most important government [ours] refusing to take part.”  Chomsky goes on to insist that “It is important to stress government.”  He wants us to make a clear distinction and take note of a key characteristic of failed states.  He tells us that, “The standard observation that the United States stood almost alone in rejecting the Kyoto protocols is correct only if the phrase ‘United States’ excludes its population, which strongly favors the Kyoto pact.”  So there is a democratic deficit here.  Particularly striking is the fact that, “A majority of Bush backers not only support the protocol, but mistakenly believe that the president does so as well.”  How can that possibly be?  Chomsky answers that, “In general, voters in the 2004 election were seriously deluded about the positions of the political parties, not because of lack of interest or mental capacity, but because elections are carefully designed to yield that result . . .”
    We return here to the theme of self-hypnosis and the manufacture of consent.  The above discussion contains plenty of evidence of it, but we can expand the story just a bit to provide even more.  On June 8, 2005 The New York Times reported that, “A White House official [Philip A. Cooney] who once led the oil industry's fight against limits on greenhouse gases has repeatedly edited government climate reports in ways that play down links between such emissions and global warming, according to internal documents.”(9)  What is a bureaucrat doing editing scientific analysis?!  He was not just checking punctuation.  Rather he was out to water down the claims and keep the expressed opinion of the scientists in check with his unscientific opinion of what counts as science.
    On the very same day, The Guardian reported that “President George Bush's decision not to sign the United States up to the Kyoto global warming treaty was partly a result of pressure from ExxonMobil, the world's most powerful oil company, and other industries, according to US State Department papers seen by the Guardian.”  The article explains that “The documents, which emerged as Tony Blair visited the White House for discussions on climate change before next month's G8 meeting, reinforce widely-held suspicions of how close the company is to the administration and its role in helping to formulate US policy.”(10)
    This is nothing short of collusion to destroy the human species, or at the very least to create unnecessary suffering on a massive scale.  Compare the attention this got with that of the Monica Lewinsky scandal and one concludes we should hang our heads in shame.  And because we have so far failed to pay enough attention to this kind of rogue behavior, it simply continues.  A February 2006 article in the Washington Post(11) centered on James E. Hansen, “the NASA climate scientist who sparked an uproar last month by accusing the Bush administration of keeping scientific information from reaching the public.”  Hansen was giving a talk at The New School in which he added to his previous accusations by saying, in the reporter’s words, that “officials at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration are also muzzling researchers who study global warming.”  The article quotes Hansen as saying, "It seems more like Nazi Germany or the Soviet Union than the United States."  In other words, it seems more like a failed state, one in which, in Alexander’s words, the harmful “national decision to stifle the individual, body and soul, if it seemed to be for the welfare of the State [especially its corporations]” is hard at work.
    “Stifling” is a word that appeared in The Journal’s discussion of the peanut drug case.  It appears in this context as well.  The article in the Post said that New School President Bob Kerrey “invited Hansen to speak because he was ‘very concerned’ about what he called the administration's efforts to steer the debate over global warming: ‘It's not only inappropriate; it stifles the very debate we're trying to have today, and that we need to have on this issue.’” The article goes on to quote Kerry as saying, with reference to Hansen, “He's not a radical; he's a scientist who's studied the issue. Let the disagreement occur without stifling one side of the argument.”   
    The government’s inability and unwillingness to deal productively with global warming threatens the well being of every creature on the planet, including humans.  But, as bad as that problem is, the failures connected to the threat of nuclear disaster rank as even more menacing.  Chomsky has warned in many of his interviews, books, and talks that concerns for nuclear dangers do not receive the urgent attention they require.  He quotes the assessment of Robert McNamara (President Kennedy’s Secretary of Defense) who warns of “apocalypse soon.”  McNamara characterizes the current nuclear weapons policy of our country as “immoral, illegal, militarily unnecessary, and dreadfully dangerous.”  McNamara argues that the policy creates “unacceptable risks to other nations and to our own.”  Chomsky points out that “McNamara endorsed the judgement of Clinton’s defense secretary William Perry that ‘there is a greater than 50% probability of a nuclear strike on US targets within a decade.’”
    Certain kinds of terrorist activity would fall under the umbrella of nuclear threats.  And terrorism in general is yet another measure of the inability or unwillingness of the government to protect its people.  Chomsky points out that, since the invasion of Iraq, the threat of terror has only grown, and the invasion itself has been declared a “fiasco” by many.  The rogue behavior of the government with respect to nuclear and terrorist threats is pretty much the same as its behavior with respect to the climate crisis.  I leave it to the reader to explore interesting case studies for him- or herself.  Chomsky’s books are a good place to start.  Online content and DVD’s are also available.  In fact, there are lots of great scholarly and independent media resources to help us repair our debauched awareness.  It might be worthwhile to add some of this material to the required or recommended reading lists in some of our schools.  See this endnote for more info.
    We can admit that some of the details of Alexander’s analysis are certainly flawed.  For instance, Alexander was either ignorant of or chose not to report some of the behaviors of the “civilised nations” that put them on the same level as Attila.  A quick foray into the history of colonialism is sufficient to indict the nations he contrasts with Germany.  And, of course, one might not agree with everything Noam Chomsky has to say.  Yet we could expect almost universal agreement with the essence of what both men have to say: something is gravely wrong, and we face great danger if we cannot put it right.

 

 

NOTES

1.  It is perhaps necessary to mention that some of the concepts and rhetoric presented by Alexander in these two chapters (and elsewhere) are humorous and unfortunate–to the point of being embarrassing.  Such material must simply be acknowledged, understood, and rejected so that one can engage the valid and important arguments one finds in much of Alexander’s work.

2.  See Chomsky, “The Iraq War and Contempt for Democracy,” October 31, 2003, available at www.chomsky.info/articles/20031031.htm

3.  See Chomsky, “Selective Memory and False Doctrine,” December 21, 2003 available at www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?ItemID=4736

4.  See Dodge v. Ford Motor Co.
available at www.businessentitiesonline.com/Dodge%20v.%2 0Ford%20Motor%20Co.pdf

5.  Manufacturing Consent is the title of a book by Edward S. Herman and Noam Chomsky.  It is also the title of a Canadian documentary film (available on DVD) that examines the arguments of the book along with some of Chomsky’s other criticisms of those in power.  The resonance between “manufactured premises” and “manufacturing consent” is certainly interesting. 
    I should make it clear that “manufacture of consent” is s term coined by Walter Lippman, the newspaper Don of the elite.  He was an architect of the modern use of the press as an instrument of propaganda.  Furthermore, Chomsky insists that most of work of reporting how manufacture of consent functions was done by his co-author, and this is why Chomsky made sure Herman’s name was listed first in the book’s authorship.

6.  See Chomsky, “Elections Run by Same Guys Who Sell Toothpaste,” talk delivered at the International Relations Center, January 25, 2005, available at www.chomsky.info/talks/2005012502.htm

7.  See Failed States for a discussion of the polling data that shows 80% of Americans want guaranteed health care, even if it means higher taxes.

8.  The reader will note that “Bush’s scientific judgement” is an oxymoron–in this case a sarcastic one.  Not only does Bush lack the qualification to make scientific judgements, but, given the seriousness of the situation, his bias should have sparked a democratic revolt by now.

9.  Andrew C. Revkin, “Bush Aide Softened Greenhouse Gas Links to Global Warming,” The New York Times, Wednesday 08 June 2005.

10.  John Vidal, “Revealed: How Oil Giant Influenced Bush,” The Guardian, Wednesday 08 June 2005

11.  Juliet Eilperin, “Censorship Is Alleged at NOAA: Scientists Afraid to Speak Out, NASA Climate Expert Reports,” Washington Post, Saturday, February 11, 2006

12.  See for instance the July 2006 release, Fiasco: The American Military Adventure in Iraq the book by Thomas Ricks, Pentagon correspondent for the Washington Post.

13.  Chomsky DVD’s are available at netflix.com, blockbuster.com, and amazon.com.  They include Rebel Without a Pause, Power and Terror, Imperial Grand Strategy, Manufacturing Consent, and Distorted Morality: America’s War on Terror.  The website www.chomsky.info/ contains audio and video links, articles, and transcripts of talks.  Books are available at Amazon with their usual discounts on many titles.

It is also very worthwhile to check out alternative media like FAIR and Democracy Now. 

 

 

Nickolas Knightly is a certified teacher of the Alexander Technique offering private and group lessons, workshops, and lectures on the Technique.  He specializes in working with artists, dancers, spiritual practitioners, NGO's, and sustainable businesses.  He is based in the San Francisco Bay Area.  Click HERE to go to the main website for more information.