Bunker Mulligan "Let us endeavor so to live that when we come to die even the undertaker will be sorry." ~Mark Twain

November 11, 2004

Maslow and Progressives

Filed under: International,Society-Culture — Bunker @ 5:44 pm

Now that the election is over and we simply await the final decision from the Electoral College, we have a group of people in this country who really don’t know what to do with themselves. Some are advocating secession, some want a group suicide, others want to move to Canada, and still others are posting their photographs on the internet with notes of apology to the rest of the world. And all of the above.

I think it all simply confirms my thoughts of last January where I talked about Maslow’s Heirarchy of Needs in relation to our national psyche. Rather than link back to that post, I wanted to bring it up to date and share it here once more.

Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs is a basic building block for any elementary study of psychology. Maslow identified five stages in the psychological growth of any human being, Physiological Needs, Safety Needs, Love Needs, Esteem Needs, and Self-Actualization, which represent the full range from essentials to indulgence. Each state melds with the one above and below it so that there are variations with elements of another within each state.

Change from one state to a higher one is considered to be “success.” Change in the downward direction is bad because it requires a re-focus on survival skills rather than indulgence. So, change can be good, but change can also be bad.

Homeostasis is the nature of ecological, biological, and social systems to oppose change with every means at their disposal. According to the Principia Cybernetica Web:

Homeostasis is one of the most remarkable and most typical properties of highly complex open systems. A homeostatic system (an industrial firm, a large organization, a cell) is an open system that maintains its structure and functions by means of a multiplicity of dynamic equilibriums rigorously controlled by interdependent regulation mechanisms. Such a system reacts to every change in the environment, or to every random disturbance, through a series of modifications of equal size and opposite direction to those that created the disturbance. The goal of these modifications is to maintain the internal balances.

So, change is not good. Change is bad.

Maslow was interested in individuals, and his concepts are meant to apply to individuals. The concept of homeostasis developed by physiologist Walter Cannon was also intended, originally, to apply to individual organisms. Both do have value in looking at group activity on both the micro (individual) and macro (group) level.

According to Maslow, the base state is the need to satisfy physiological needs:food, air, water, sleep. These are all requirements for survival of the individual, and other needs will not even be in consideration unless these are met. In the US, these needs are met for all who want them. Nobody goes unfed or unsheltered unless they so choose. Children in this country are not hungry unless their parents decide they need to be. The safety net is in place and functional.

The second level in Maslow’s structure is safety. One cannot progress without a sense of security. In day-to-day living, the vast majority of Americans give no thought to this. Some in this country cannot progress beyond this state, in spite of having achieved some elements of the higher states. They are tied to it pychologically or live in an environment where they must constantly check six.

The third level is love, or bonding, or belonging. It includes personal one-on-one relationships as well as group identity. This and the next level are where the majority of Americans stay, and want to be. It is the level socialism seeks for us all.

That next level is esteem. This includes self-esteem, which is where, we are told, society wants us all to be. It is the desire for adulation at one extreme, and the sense of being respected by another.

Finally, the highest state of being in Maslow’s world is self-actualization. At this level, all your baser needs are met, and you are free to indulge yourself. You can become everything you ever wanted to be. You can do anything you ever wanted to do. It is the essence of capitalism.

In the United States, we have collectively lived in the level 3 (Love Needs) to level 4 (Esteem Needs) range (let’s call it Level 3.5) for the last forty years. Individually, we would all like to achieve self-actualization. Yet we know that stage is nearly impossible to reach as a group because there are always those content to stay at the lower levels. So we content ourselves with being at the “belonging” stage culturally. It is comfortable. It is why we have interest groups, and the hated “special-interest groups.” The only difference being that any group we belong to isn’t one of those. Every disease or human failing has a support group we can join. We certainly desire adulation, and bestow it on some in substitution for respect. We certainly want respect ourselves. Culturally, though, adulation is more important.

These statics became dynamics on September 11, 2001. As a nation, we fell from Level 3.5 to Level 2. Homeostasis was strong, and now we are trying to regain our balance.

There is a very angry group which wants a quick return to “belonging.” Getting to “esteem” isn’t even in their viewfinder. They want to belong to the world, belong to the UN, belong to one another. They just want to belong, and don’t really care whom they belong with. This drove the Kerry campaign.

There are those who want to again reach the esteem level and higher. They aren’t interested in adulation, but do want respect. The rest of the world had lost its respect for the US. They are now beginning to understand that is a bad thing.

Honoring someone with respect is not the same as demeaning oneself. Equals respect one another. But if you live in the world of “belonging,” respect is higher. From your perspective, you are ceding status. Those who live in the levels below this don’t want to offer respect because they view it as adulation.

This is the crux of the far left’s hatred of George Bush. They know what our country has accomplished in the last three years. They know we have once again climbed up from the security level. They know they would be happy reaching a state of belonging. But they know he wants us to go to the level of respect–respect from the outside, and self-respect. I believe some actually respect him, but can’t express it for fear of being accused by their group of adoring him.

With a choice of showing some kind of respect–which could be interpreted by their peers as adulation–and regarding him (and those of us who supported him) as an imbecile, they find it much easier to select the latter. It keeps them cozy with their group who have the same feelings.

This election was one of the most important in years. The choice was between adopting the world community’s socialistic culture completely, or insisting on achiving the higher state of respect and preventing another decline into the security level.

The “Progressives” who supported Kerry and are now totally distraught live in the world of Maslow’s Love Needs. Progress is nowhere in their plan. Now that they feel we have the Safety Needs taken care of, they want to live in a country which is loved by all the others, and is presided over by a man loved by all the foreign leaders and folks like Kofi Annan. They have no desire to go beyond that level, and their personal homeostasis wants everyone else to quit trying to get there. In their minds, anything above Love Needs on a national level is what caused the attacks on 9/11 in the first place.

In some ways, they are right about that. The people who attacked us have the same mentality as our friends who are depressed: Honoring someone with respect is the same as demeaning oneself. Respecting the US is not allowed.

Folks who voted for Bush recognize we need to get through the Esteem/Respect Needs phase for us to achieve self-actualization. And it can be a painful ride. But it is the only route for us to achieve all those wonderful social changes the progressives say they want. Fake or forced love just don’t cut it.

So, chill. And join us. Don’t leave, and don’t even think about suicide. Together the people of this country have the knowledge, talent, and drive not seen anywhere else. We can get there.

November 10, 2004

Philanthropy

Filed under: Society-Culture — Bunker @ 10:22 am

Who were the disgruntled Democrats who were talking about which states were giving versus taking? I think it was something about all the blue states paying welfare for the red states.

You want to talk morals?

(Hat tip to PowerLine)

Jerry Falwell

Filed under: Society-Culture — Bunker @ 6:48 am

Falwell is a white Jesse Jackson.

Seeking to take advantage of the momentum from an election where moral values proved important to voters, Rev. Jerry Falwell announced yesterday he has formed a new coalition to guide an “evangelical revolution.”

He has been marginalized for years, but now sees an opportunity for celebrity and money once again.

Go away, Jerry, and don’t darken my door with your visage.

November 8, 2004

Trust the people

Filed under: Society-Culture — Bunker @ 5:34 pm

Gene at Harry’s Place has a quote by Adlai Stevenson after his loss to Eisenhower. Gene adds his own quote:

And if leftists are in fact unwilling to trust the people, are they entitled to call themselves leftists?

Homophobia

Filed under: Society-Culture — Bunker @ 5:24 pm

John Adams asks whether he is, in fact, homophobic. He really assesses the topic much as I would, and concludes that maybe he is.

While I have pondered this question, and would like to believe that I am not, I have come to the realization that the answer, to some extent, is probably yes. I don’t hate homosexuals, and one of my best friends in the world is gay. I do not believe people should discriminate against homosexuals, although I see no need to elevate them to a consitutionally protected class.

I don’t quite agree. A phobia is an unreasonable fear. I personally don’t fear homosexuals. Like Adams, I’ve had several friends who were. And enjoyed their company as much as I did the company of others. But the term has been hijacked to describe anyone who does not completely concur with the lifestyle. In that light, I am homophobic as well.

So what? I believe in individuality. If they desire to live their lives in that fashion, who am I to complain that it doesn’t fit my own lifestyle?

Several years ago the big issue was gays in the military and “Don’t ask, don’t tell.” To me, that was really stupid. It had always been “don’t ask, don’t tell” during my time in the military. And there were several men, and women, I suspected of being homosexual. But it was irrelevant. What the military doesn’t need, on the other hand, is open sexuality, whether it be homosexual or heterosexual. Madonna would not be an asset, either.

As a final thought, Adams speaks of a charity request from the cast at the end of a Broadway show he’d seen:

Apparently, the group raises money to buy daily necessities for AIDS patients, such as food, medicine, and rent money. (Wouldn’t it be nice if the Susan Sarandons and Barbra Streisands of the entertainment industry would lend their star power to such worthy endeavors?)

Once again, how can you argue with that?

Educated idiots

Filed under: Education,Society-Culture — Bunker @ 12:33 pm

Yes, I’ve known a few. I’ve also known quite a few people with tremendous mental power who didn’t even finish high school. Smarts, intelligence, and formal education aren’t necessarily linked. One of my earliest posts was one which compared Howard Dean to Pat Buchanan, and also explored the “smart vs. intelligent” conflict. I think it may be time to revisit it.

It is only natural for a college student to feel intellectually superior to someone who hasn’t been to college. The experience is such that new ideas and information fill that student’s mind. And there is reason to celebrate that newly acquired knowledge. The disconnect comes when that same college student believes that the things he has learned are things others have never before considered. And many are ideas others have considered, then rejected as wrong after learning from experience. To him, it is new knowledge and unimpeachable.

Unfortunately, many of these college students never leave academia, and continue their formal education to become professorial without ever having left the academic environment. They never get the chance to take that intellect and turn it into smarts.

Smart is not the same as intelligent. Education confers neither. Education can instill some level of smart, but it is still just a mental exercise. Smart comes from experience seasoned with education, formal or informal, and native intelligence. You don’t really get smart without all three. And there are many self-educated folks, with much in the way of life experience to put that education in perspective. A pure intellectual can never be smart because there is no practical experience to test the knowledge acquired. And without that test, there is only simple faith that what they’ve learned is valid. All they have to lean on is surveys and study of those with experience.

The whole “Bush is dumb and so are the people who voted for him” mentality is exhibited by people from the media and academia in particular. Which makes me consider, “Those who live in glass houses…”

Specter

Filed under: Government,Society-Culture — Bunker @ 7:49 am

We now have the first issue I will take with Republicans regarding the Bush Mandate: Senator Arlen Specter.

I’ll tell you right now that I have already written to my Senators and asked them to not support his ascension to the chair of the Senate Judicial Committee. But my opposition to him is not based in the same reasoning as those who promote this petition.

I have written several times, most recently here, that I don’t want any kind of “litmus test” applied to nominees for judicial appointments. (Does anyone younger than me even know what limus paper is?) We need Sumpreme Court Justices without agendas. In either direction. The Court is there to be sure our laws do not conflict with the Constitution. For that, they need to be better versed in the Constitution than in law. And no, the Constitution is not the Supreme Law of the Land. It is not law at all, but a mandate for operation of the Federal Government.

Senator Specter has already violated that mandate. For that reason, I don’t want to see him in charge of the deliberations of the committee which conducts interviews of potential justices.

« Newer PostsOlder Posts »

Powered by WordPress