Social Thuggery
"Rudeness is the weak man's imitation of strength." --Eric Hoffer
Hoffer wrote the classic book, The True Believer: Thoughts on the Nature of Mass Movements, a book a friend recommended as one of the best ways to understand terrorism. I haven't read it yet, but I was reminded of it when I found the above quote on rudeness by Hoffer.
Here's a review by Jonathan L. Widger on Amazon:
"The less justified a man is in claiming excellence for his own self, the more ready is he to claim excellence for his nation, his religion, his race or his holy cause."--Eric Hoffer, The true BelieverNone of the terrorists of September 11 were destitute. Some even had wives and children. Nevertheless, they committed suicide for their cause. Anyone wanting to understand this horrible irony would do well to read Eric Hoffer's 1951 classic, The True Believer: Thoughts on the Nature of Mass Movements.
Eric Hoffer (1902-1983) was a self-educated US author and philosopher who was a migratory worker and longshoreman until 1967. He achieved immediate acclaim with his first book, The true Believer.
According to Hoffer, the early converts to any mass movement come from the ranks of the "frustrated," that is, "people who..feel that their lives are spoiled or wasted." The true believers' "Faith in [their] holy cause is to a considerable extent a subsitute for [their] lost faith in [themselves]." He says that we are prone to throw ourselves into a mass movement to "supplant and efface the self we want to forget." He then adds, "We cannot be sure that we have something worth living for unless we are ready to die for it."
Hoffer offers a general insight about mass movements, which seems to prophetically explain why there is currently widespread anti-Western sentiment within Islamic countries:
"The discontent generated in backward countries by their contact with Western civilization is not primarily resentment against exploitation by domineering foriegners. It is rather the result of a crumbling or weakening of tribal solidarity and communal life.
"The ideal of self-advancement which the civilizing West offers to the backward populations brings with it the plague of individual frustration. All the advantages brought by the West are ineffectual substitutes for the sheltering and soothing anonymity of a communal existence. Even when the Westernized native attains personal success--becomes rich, or masters a respected profession--he is not happy."
Further along, Hoffer mentions those who "want to eliminate free competition and the ruthless testing to which the individual is continually subjected in a free society."
Why should individualism, freedom, and self-advancement be hated? Again, I can do no better than quote Hoffer:
"Freedom aggravates as much as it alleviates frustration. Freedom of choice places the whole blame of failure on the shoulders of the individual. And as freedom encourages a multiplicity of attempts, it unavoidably muliplies failure and frustration...Unless a man has talents to make something of himself, freedom is an irksome burden...We join mass movements to escape individual responsibility...."
In light of the above quotes, there is little wonder that the terrorists chose to destroy the Twin Towers. These were architectural symboles of individualism and self-advancement.
But Hoffer's book does more than give us insight into the psychology of the fanatic. It causes us to soberly contemplate ourselves. For who has not experienced failure, frustration, and a sense of futility at one time or another? The true Believer is one of those few books I consider to contain ideas approximating to true "wisdom."
Widger writes: According to Hoffer, the early converts to any mass movement come from the ranks of the "frustrated," that is, "people who..feel that their lives are spoiled or wasted." The true believers' "Faith in [their] holy cause is to a considerable extent a subsitute for [their] lost faith in [themselves]." He says that we are prone to throw ourselves into a mass movement to "supplant and efface the self we want to forget." He then adds, "We cannot be sure that we have something worth living for unless we are ready to die for it."
Is that necessarily a bad thing? Can those who feel they lost their purpose find new purpose by throwing themselves into a new cause?
Can't a sense of frustration inspire movements to good purposes? I'd like to think so. We now have the 19th Amendment.
Patrick at November 2, 2010 6:38 AM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2010/11/02/hoffer_on_ruden.html#comment-1775374">comment from Patrick"We cannot be sure that we have something worth living for unless we are ready to die for it." Is that necessarily a bad thing?
"Ready to die for it" and "ready to murder other people for it" are two different things.
Amy Alkon at November 2, 2010 6:48 AM
I don't remember who said it, but I remember reading something along the lines of how it was nobler, and probably more useful, to live for a cause rather than die for one.
Dying's easy, but as Saint Josey said, "Dyin' ain't much of a livin'!"
By the way, how many posts until somebody brings up the Tea Partiers?
Old RPM Daddy at November 2, 2010 7:25 AM
Hoffer's thesis doesn't stand the test of war. Both sides can't be worth dying for.
MarkD at November 2, 2010 7:43 AM
Old RMP Dadddy,
3. You brought them up.
Steve at November 2, 2010 9:04 AM
Hoffer greatly simplifies.
1) Not all mass movements subsume individual choice or freedom. Yes, I'd count the Tea Party as a true grass-roots mass movement that is not undercutting individual responsibilty - but promoting it.
Although I'm sure the snickering classes who post here would disagree with me - I'd say the same about Judaism, which replaced a pagan notion of human powerlessness with a worldview that focuses on human choice and moral responsibility.
2) Then there's this:
Freedom of choice places the whole blame of failure on the shoulders of the individual.... We join mass movements to escape individual responsibility.
- - - - - - - - - -
Or to lessen the social and psychological fallout/risk of failure. Which are not the same thing as abdicating responsibilty.
3) Hoffer's analysis - or at least these rather cerebral excerpts - gives very little weight to peer pressure and the human desire for community.
Like certain economic theories, it assumes that humans are rational actors - which they are not.
Ben David at November 2, 2010 2:35 PM
Not by the same people. But each side may feel their own cause to be worth dying for.
That my cause confusion for the soldier who wonders why, if he's fighting against evil, the other guy is fighting so hard for it.
Conan the Grammarian at November 2, 2010 3:56 PM
I have always believed that Ruby Ridge was a fiasco -- the government was completely in the wrong. Waco -- most likely the government was in the wrong. But I have never gone that far to the right -- as long as you leave me alone.
I can quite easily see how some of the terrorists can fall into the situation -- with no better options -- jobs awarded by who you blow, not what you know. The odds of getting a wife are slim, and at the whim of your "betters". Questioning authority nets you little but trouble.
These sound like disjointed thoughts -- but hang on and you can see them come together. Randy Weaver (Ruby Ridge) found a way to fight back through the system and was given a sense of justice. Timothy McVeigh took up the Branch Davidian cause -- but never felt there was justice done (not excuse but perception).
I'm not saying any of it justifies the follow on.
The problem is that if you are a reasonably smart person in a horrible situation:
You are left with going along to get along -- that leaves you to trying to escape but doing the bidding of your "masters".
Adapting your thought process to the "mainstream" you are surrounded by. If the "mainstream" says kill "the infidel" that becomes the norm.
While some people have the strength of character to become leaders -- they are rare -- especially in the face of other leader(s). Would you have the balls to stand up to Yasser Arafat in the early '70's & '80's as a thirty year old? Twenty year old?
I'm mid-forties. I could do a personnel management job if I need to but I have no desire. I'm a techie -- I can do the programming, run the servers, tune a db. Humans are messy.
If I were to have the police show up at my door every time a gun went off in my neighborhood because I'm a sixty-five that shot a local stray dog -- would I feel persecuted? What about the twenty-year old sexter (17.5 at the time) getting a visit every-time a seven year old is missing an hour?
There is a difference reasonable and unreasonable. When the government (or TPTB) gets to unreasonable -- you get an unreasonable response. It is where it is directed that makes the difference. If the unreasonable is directed against the "Christians" as directed by your society -- it is feted.
I have always been reasonable to society's reasonable requests. The issue these days is that one side is steadily expecting the other side to cede to reasonable "mandates" -- for example low-flow toilets, fucking buzzing CFL's (one in my ear now), registering every legally owned firearm with no criminal record, state added taxes for stuff that is not listed in the constitution, mandated health insurance.
I know this has gotten long -- thank you for taking the time to read it. I just want a small "r" republican government. I know longer have a sacred cow.
Jim P. at November 2, 2010 8:36 PM
I'd say the same about Judaism, which replaced a pagan notion of human powerlessness with a worldview that focuses on human choice and moral responsibility.
- Ben David
Really? I thought Judaism was about an all powerful daddy figure who rewarded his followers slightest infraction(and occcasionally their enyeilding devotion) with death, disease, torment, and despair. That and the myriad of laws which you have said on many occasions must never be questioned.
Tell me Ben how are "blind, unquestioning obediance" and "choice" eve compatible?
lujlp at November 3, 2010 7:07 AM
There's a saying "You shall know them by their fruits." In other words, if a tree produces bad fruit, maybe it's not a very good tree.
So let's see, lujlp, how many suicide bombers has Judaism produced? Ummm, zero? And do you think the USA would be any nicer to Palestinians if they were our neighbors sand kept attacking us?
KrisL at November 3, 2010 9:05 PM
I'm not sure what, if anything, the propensity of jewish suicide bombers in relation to muslim suicide bombers (that is where you were going, right?) has to do with Ben David's glaringly obvious mischaracterizations of his particular brand of monotheism.
Or what his flavor of 'All Father' has to do with current Israeli / Palestinian relations vs. hypothetical US / Palestinian relations in an alternate universe where we might share a border.
Could you please explain the thread of thought that lead you past the cliffs of hyperbole, over the bottomless canyon of infinite irrelevances, and deep into the darkest part of the swamp of 'Where the fuck did THAT come from'?
lujlp at November 3, 2010 9:36 PM
A moment of nostalgia. I first read this book soon after it first came out in the public library while avoiding confrontation with some particularly nasty classmates. I was quite impressed. His insights gave me courage in dealing with such classmates. He started me thinking about ethics as independent of religion.
More than anything his book impressed me at a very young age with the idea that education is the individual's responsibility and not just blindly accepting what is taught as truth. When it came out in paperback I bought it with my own money.(50 cents) Still have it. Easy reading. Much food for thought.
Northcountry at November 3, 2010 9:46 PM
Leave a comment