Gordon Pine's Blog, page 8

Progression: The Progressive Social Improvement Process

The unending large-scale social improvement process of newthinkers is progression.

progression adj : 1 the progressive social improvement process 2 progressive do-goodery

progress vb : to improve society through large-scale change

One form of progression is youth indoctrination into newthink through public school instruction. One shouldn’t judge newthinkers too harshly for indoctrinating their youth; all cultures do that. But one also shouldn’t pretend that indoctrination isn’t happening. The difference between newthink and traditional American cultural indoctrination is in the content.

John Bach McMaster (1852-1932), Litt. D. (hon.) 1894 (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

If you want to know what a culture truly believes, look at what it is teaching its children. For instance, children’s history books’ descriptions of native Americans have changed dramatically over the last century. A Primary History of the United States (1901) by John Bach McMaster describes the Indian resistance toward European settlement in the Great Lakes area like this:

The British held the forts along the Great Lakes, traded with the savages, and sold them guns and powder. With guns and powder so obtained, the Indians tried to drive out the people who were settling north of the Ohio. Concealed in the woods along the banks, the redskins attacked the boats as they floated by; they even put out in canoes and climbed on board to massacre the immigrants. Sometimes when a boat was seen coming down the Ohio, the Indians would force a white prisoner to stand by the water’s edge and beg piteously to be taken on board; and when the immigrants stopped to help him, the savages would kill every man, woman and child on the boat. When the whites in return attacked the Indians and burned their towns, a war broke out and raged for six years.*

Notice that the native Americans were called, among other things, “savages.” This was not accidental, nor was it gratuitous derogation. As we will see later when discussing the society metaphor, traditional Americans did see the natives as uncivilized and savage. Also notice that the Indians and the European immigrants are frankly described as being at war, and that the traditional American teachers’ focus was on the violent savagery of the native Americans. Male native Americans were described like this:

The duty of the Indian man, or ‘brave,’ was to hunt, fish, and fight. He would make arrows, bows, canoes, and stone tools, but he thought any other kind of work was beneath him. No young Indian was of any importance till he had killed an enemy and brought home the scalp; and the more scalps he brought home, the greater ‘brave’ he was thought to be. As the scalp was the proof of victory, each warrior wore a scalp lock as a challenge to his enemies, and defended it with his life. The lock was made by shaving the hair close except on the crown of the head, where it was allowed to grow long, and was ornamented with feathers. The Indian’s way of fighting was to the white man dishonorable. The fair and open fight had no charm for the redskins. To their minds it was the height of folly to kill an enemy at the risk of their own lives, when they might shoot the foe from behind a tree, or waylay him in ambush as he hurried along a forest trail, or at the dead of night rouse their sleeping victims with the hideous war whoop and kill them in cold blood. The Indians were very skillful in laying an ambush, that is, in hiding themselves so that they could attack the enemy when he did not expect it.**

In contrast, newthinkers tend to focus on what they see as the genocide of American Indians by European immigrants and the dishonorable treatment the Indians received from them. Howard Zinn in his book A Young People’s History of the United States (2007) describes how white America repeatedly swindled and mistreated the Indians.*** Newthinkers, from a more removed distance in time, paint for their children a more progressively enlightened picture of native Americans than did traditional Americans. In the same book, native American culture is described as communal, with shared property and power.****

Traditional Americans acknowledged their own immigration into Indian lands and the war between their cultures; further, they, by their own accounts, often viewed native Americans as uncivilized, dishonorable and savage. Newthinkers have a completely different view of Indians: their societies sound like idyllic communes, with land, work, food and power shared equally among everyone. In progressive accounts, the dishonorable behavior seems to come almost solely from the European immigrants. Whatever the truth of the matter, the point here is that each culture indoctrinates its youth in its core beliefs and values in a very revealing way. From the excerpts of adults of each worldview educating their children, we see clearly into the hearts and minds of the teachers.

Education is, to newthinkers, a primary avenue for progression. Since all cultures teach their children their beliefs, that should be no surprise. With a new worldview comes a new culture; with a new culture comes new types of indoctrination. What do you expect progressives to do? Walkers walk. Talkers talk. Progressives progress.

* John Bach McMaster, A Primary History of the United States, (American Book Company, 1901), pp. 162-163.

** Ibid., p.20.

*** Howard Zinn, A Young People’s History of the United States, Vol. 1, (New York: Seven Stories Press, 2007) pp. 73-75.

****Ibid., pp. 16-17.

Progressive Missionaries

The social dynamics of a worldview create character archetypes. Each society rewards certain behaviors that coagulate into personality profiles. As people grow up and find their place in society, their characters are shaped by their worldview. Certain character traits are adaptive and – consciously and unconsciously – encouraged. Others are not. The social dynamics of the “to change the world for the better, change society, not individuals” belief and its entailments create the Progressive Missionary character archetype.

Progressive Missionaries:

Newthinkers who spread progressivism through education, media, politics and the takeover of public institutions.

Whereas traditional do-gooders tended to focus on individuals, Progressive Missionaries focus on social change. They often don’t see the trees for the forest. Progressive Missionaries are well-intentioned, passionate, energetic, intelligent, farseeing, confident, perhaps a little arrogant. They are the best of the progressives and their intentions are virtuous. But they often do more harm than good to the chosen recipients of their virtue. Once in positions of influence, they use their institutions for progressive social improvement.

Newthink Belief: To change the world for the better, change society, not individuals.

Traditional Americans believed every individual had a responsibility to society to work at being a good person. In contrast, progressives believe that individuals are inherently noble and it is our flawed society, not flawed individuals, that needs improvement.

The unconscious logic goes like this, starting from the “Human beings are inherently and transcendentally noble” branch of the newthink worldview tree:

• Human beings are inherently and transcendentally noble.

• Our bad behavior is caused by society damaging our nobility.

• To change the world for the better, change society, not individuals.

[image error]

Newthinkers believe that, in terms of social power, macro is more important than micro. The progressive way is to mass people together toward a single purpose. Progressive group identity is strong, and because of that, true individuality among progressives is rare. For example, the hippies of the 1960s had a strong group identity. They were easily identified by their hair, their clothes, their language, their attitude. One of their credos was “do your own thing.” But their “thing” – their appearance, their political views, their cultural norms – was strikingly uniform. Their individuality tended to be fake. On the other hand, true individuality – people pursuing their own ends, but with shared values – was the traditional American way.

Several entailments branch out of this belief. The unconscious logic is: to change the world for the better, change society, not individuals. Out of that belief springs:

• We need to gain social power for the purpose of social change.

• We need to organize politically for the purpose of social change.

• We need to control large institutions for the purpose of social change.

• We need to teach the youth our view of the world for the purpose of social change.

Under the influence of these beliefs, newthinkers seek social power to improve the world. (Keep in mind that their definition of social improvement is different from that of traditional Americans.) As part of their purpose of social improvement, they organize to achieve their goals; they join and eventually control most social institutions: schools, universities, libraries, government bureaucracies, foundations, nonprofit organizations, think tanks and political parties. As an example, our public schools and universities are now largely controlled by progressives, powered by the unconscious belief that “we need to teach the youth our view of the world for the purpose of social change.” A study of college professors found that 72% of them were self-described left/liberal while only 15% described themselves as right/conservative. The U.S. public at the same time described themselves as 18% left/liberal and 37% right/conservative.* Similarly, the history of the Democrat party since the 1960s is the account of its takeover by progressives, starting with the riots at the Democratic convention in Chicago in 1968.

* Stanley Rothman, Robert S. Lichter and Neil Nevitte, “Politics and Professional Advancement among College Faculty,” The Forum, Vol. 3, Issue 1, 2005.

Related articles

A Sleepy Compliance with Tyranny

Newthink Belief: Our bad behavior is caused by society damaging our nobility.

Unlike traditional Americans, who believed that people had the potential for good or evil and were responsible for the path they chose, newthinkers believe humans are inherently virtuous: to them, society is the culprit which perverts our true nature.

The unconscious logic goes like this, starting from the “Human beings are inherently and transcendentally noble” branch of the newthink worldview tree:

• Human beings are inherently and transcendentally noble.

• Our bad behavior is caused by society damaging our nobility.

Several important entailments branch out of this belief. The unconscious logic is: our bad behavior is caused by society damaging our nobility. Additionally:

• To change the world for the better, change society, not individuals.

• If someone’s behavior seems wrong to us, it may seem that way because of our ignorance or prejudice.

• Demanding standards of behavior are damaging because they hurt the feelings of those who can’t meet them.

• Most antisocial behavior is caused by society, which corrupts or damages the inherently noble wrongdoers until they break.

This belief and its entailments create among newthinkers an increasing unwillingness to judge other people’s behavior. Judgement, which used to have positive connotations among traditional Americans, is a negative attribute to newthinkers. If someone is “judgmental,” they are thought to be unfairly evaluating the behavior of others, often through a filter of ignorance or prejudice. A virtuous newthinker must not judge others lest he display either his lack of understanding of their situation or his bias.

More on the Newthink Belief in Human Nobility

As my previous post noted, newthinkers believe that people are inherently and transcendentally noble. (Please note that when I say something like, “newthinkers believe so-and-so,” I mean that some believe it consciously, some believe it only partly consciously and some – probably most – believe it unconsciously. And, of course, some don’t believe it at all, because I am speaking in generalities, not in things that apply to every single person.) Several factors support this belief. First, humans have an inherent religious utopian urge which is necessarily sublimated in a worldview where God is absent. This urge transforms into an impulse to see paradise on earth rather than in heaven, influencing newthinkers to perceive nearly all people as virtuous regardless of evidence to the contrary. Second, this belief allows people to belong to the local chapter of the Easy Virtue Club: you admire my goodness and I’ll admire your goodness and we’ll all feel so good about ourselves. Third, people who haven’t suffered don’t know evil. Like the three monkeys who see no evil, hear no evil and speak no evil, it’s just easier not to acknowledge human iniquity. Newthink inculcates naivete in its members and is often embraced by the naive or those psychologically hiding from evil.

In contrast, traditional Americans generally believed that humans had the potential for good or evil. To them, man had a primitive nature and barbarism was an eternal threat. Civilization was a veneer over that nature. But man had free will and the ability to act either toward good or evil.  Civilization helped man suppress his primitive nature, express his higher nature, and become good.

Out of the unconscious newthink belief that human beings are inherently and transcendentally noble comes a number of entailments. These entailments are further unconscious beliefs that grow out of the original belief. Think of them as branches forking off of the main “Human beings are inherently and transcendentally noble” branch of newthink’s worldview tree. They are:

• Our bad behavior is caused by society damaging our nobility.

• We need to strip away society and return to a natural state to uncover our inherent and transcendent nobility.

• All cultures are equally virtuous because they are composed of equally, inherently noble human beings.

• We should celebrate human beings, not God.

• Our feelings are inherently noble.

• Our motives are inherently noble.

• Our struggle is not internal.

• Great social evil is improbable.

Because they are so fundamental and widespread, a worldview’s unconscious beliefs shape society. As I analyze each major unconscious belief of newthink, I’ll discuss the social dynamics they’ve created.

Newthink Belief: Human beings are inherently and transcendentally noble.

Newthink’s worldview tree grows out of its three main branches. One of the three is the Godless Universe metaphor, which begins with the unconscious belief that human beings are inherently and transcendentally noble.

This is the primary unconscious belief derived from the Godless Universe metaphor. It’s the result of cognitive dissonance between two fundamental beliefs: that God is not present, and that transcendental goodness does exist. The unconscious logic branches upward like this:

• The Universe is a Home.

• God is the Absent Father.

• Transcendental goodness does exist.

• Transcendental goodness exists within us, not outside of us.

• Human beings are inherently and transcendentally noble.

[image error]

Newthinkers’ conviction that God is absent, derived from the Godless Universe metaphor, encounters their coexistent conviction that transcendental goodness does however exist. The cognitive result of these seemingly contrary positions is the belief that transcendental goodness does exist, but within us, not outside of us. It is therefore, newthinkers believe, humans who are inherently and transcendentally noble, not an absent God.

Where does the foundational belief that God is not present in our universe originate? From various factors: First, science’s ability to explain the world has led to the belief that the universe is knowable, and that the idea of God the unknowable mystery is simply mysticism. As the New York Times headline said, “God Is Dead.”(Notice the headline said God Is dead, not God Doesn’t Exist. The former implies that he once was alive and now is gone.) Second, science’s ability to manipulate the world has led, in many minds, to its replacement of God as the great manipulator. Third, disbelief in God may seem like freedom; freedom attracts. And, fourth, on an individual level, repressed anger toward a missing or failed father in one’s personal life creates anger which may be sublimated toward God the Father.

Where does the foundational belief that transcendental goodness actually exists come from? I believe it originates in an inherent human recognition of and attraction to transcendental goodness. Virtue is essential to human life – who would want to live in a universe where goodness did not exist? Only the bleakest among us deny the existence of goodness completely. Nearly all people have an internalized virtue system. (And I’m willing to bet that nearly everyone rates themselves above average on their virtue scale.) But, as we’ll see, people with different worldviews define virtue differently.

The Elements of a Worldview

I continue laying the foundation for assertions to come.

The shared structure of beliefs comprising the newthink worldview tree produces, like fruit from a tree, all the elements of a worldview: morality, values, conventions, attitudes, social dynamics, character archetypes, self-concept, world-concept and cosmology.

–Morality: a set of rules about what is and isn’t ethical.

–Values: the things a society esteems.

–Conventions: social customs, unwritten rules regarding behavior.

–Attitudes: emotion-laden outlooks. All humans have emotions, but belief creates and guides those emotions; thus, different belief systems create different attitudes. Distinct worldviews cultivate dissimilar emotional outlooks on the world.

–Social Dynamics: Underlying social processes based on a worldview’s unconscious beliefs.

–Character Archetypes: Social dynamics create character archetypes.

character archetype n : a paradigmatic personality type which is shaped by the positive and negative rewards of a society

Positive rewards that shape character archetypes can include praise, fashionableness, money, power, and the mantle of virtue. Negative rewards can include ridicule, unfashionableness, financial hardship, powerlessness, and the reputation of vice. These forces work together to create character patterns that real people tend to unconsciously emulate.

–Self-Concept: what we consciously or unconsciously believe to be true about ourselves.

–World-Concept: what we consciously or unconsciously believe to be true about our world.

–Cosmology: a society’s ideas about the structure of the metaphysical universe.

The Worldview Tree

The three primary metaphors of a worldview form a sort of trunk, out of which grow its shared beliefs. These beliefs branch out in logical increments to create a mostly unconscious group cognition I call a worldview tree.

[image error]

Here’s my definition:

worldview tree n : the shared and mostly unconscious cognitive structure of a culture which grows out of its primary cognitive metaphors, and branches out into logical off-shoots of belief

Newthink’s Government Metaphor

Newthink’s government metaphor is the Big Mother Government metaphor:

Big Mother Government Metaphor

• A Country is a Family.

• Government is the Mother.

• People are the Children.

While traditional Americans viewed government as if it were fire, newthink sees the country as a family and government as the mother. From the Big Mother Government metaphor grows unconscious beliefs like “the government should be compassionate to the people” and “the people should live equitably.”

Related articles

Thomas Fisher: Our Political Metaphor Problem

Newthink’s Society Metaphor

Newthink’s society metaphor is the Society Is a Battlefield metaphor:

Society Is a Battlefield Metaphor

• Society is a battlefield.

• Social interaction is war between groups.

• Warring groups either dominate or are dominated.

Newthink envisions society as a battleground, not a wilderness. The main social impetus under newthink changes from civilizing barbarism to battling oppressive groups. This metaphor creates unconscious entailments like “the dominant group ruthlessly oppresses and exploits the weaker group” and “the oppressors’ social system is unvirtuous.”