Ostrich Headstand
I need to stop reading.
My most recent "pleasure reading" book was titled Evolution. It's a fictional account of the line of evolution from say 230 million years ago to some number of million years in the future. The book is episodic, each piece following the life of a pre-human (or post-human) primate ancestor and the spark of difference that caused a turning in the line that eventually led to humans. Perhaps it was a particular bit of insight about toolmaking, or simply a chance survival of an asteroid strike. But the key premise of the book is of course evolution.
The book is the work of a British scientist turned author. The accounts are fictional, but I think most Brits (especially the scientists, and probably most Europeans as well) take evolution as a given. In this country, we're not sure what we believe. Or at least there is no clear consensus throughout the nation.
That leads me to the next book. It was "pleasure reading" in the sense that it wasn't work-related, but it wasn't a work of fiction. The book is called Conservatives Without Conscience. It's written by John Dean, former White House consel to Richard Nixon. Dean, a man who considers himself a "Goldwater conservative" had left the world of politics shortly after the Watergate scandal and Nixon's resignation. However, recent attempts at revisionist history prompted him to reexamine the people who call themselves "conservative."
The book makes frequent reference to a set of studies around the personality types that make up the "conservative" mentality. The surprising finding is that by and large, these people frequently exhibit traits labeled as "authoritarian." That is, they place great stock in authority, often overriding their own conscience when directed by an authority figure, such as in the famous experiment where the person being tested is prompted by a lab-coated individual to administer electric shocks to a subject. Ostensibly, the subject is using the shocks as a means of improving memorization, and the person pushing the button (testee) is administering the shocks at the direction of the "authority" to try to help the subject. Meanwhile, the shockee is protesting and crying out in pain from the (fictional) shocks. Under the guidance of the lab-coated individual, the shocker keeps pushing the button. (This is a poor paraphrase of the study; for more, I refer you to Dean's book, and its extensive body of references.)
The other bit that I found to be the most disturbing was the part of the book which deals with the leaders of this authoritarian movement. Again, it cites academic research around the nature of these authoritarian individuals, and those individuals with a "social dominance orientation." These individuals are characterized by a teflon-coated resistance to the truth. They do what it takes to advance their own causes, no matter what the consequences to others. Additionally, these inviduals are most often male, and are further characterized by a sort of 50's "the woman should stay home, cook, and raise children" brand of misogyny.
The last section of the book cites examples of this sort of behavior in some individuals prominent in the public life over the past few years. Nixon, it should be pointed out, had enough of a conscience to resign the Presidency (in the view of Dean). These modern leaders, such as Cheney, De Lay and Frist aren't in possession of such a limitation.
Perhaps what was most astonishing (read: alarming) about the book was the sociological studies upon which the conclusions were based--this data is not just one guy sitting at the cafe; it's compiled from studies about the nature of obedience to authority, to the nature of authoritarianism. These people with the "authoritative" personality (let's call them "sheep" for lack of a better term--they respond to fear and view authority as the great protector to "keep me safe") tend to pass such traits onto their offspring; as they continue to galvanize the community with grass-roots movements empowering these individuals (to be clear, I'm not against political activism), their leaders (the social dominance oriented types) are cementing their power with ruthless efficiency, like the distric gerrymandering of Tom DeLay. I just wonder what the long-term implications for the nation as a whole will be....
Feels like time to stick my head in the sand.
My most recent "pleasure reading" book was titled Evolution. It's a fictional account of the line of evolution from say 230 million years ago to some number of million years in the future. The book is episodic, each piece following the life of a pre-human (or post-human) primate ancestor and the spark of difference that caused a turning in the line that eventually led to humans. Perhaps it was a particular bit of insight about toolmaking, or simply a chance survival of an asteroid strike. But the key premise of the book is of course evolution.
The book is the work of a British scientist turned author. The accounts are fictional, but I think most Brits (especially the scientists, and probably most Europeans as well) take evolution as a given. In this country, we're not sure what we believe. Or at least there is no clear consensus throughout the nation.
That leads me to the next book. It was "pleasure reading" in the sense that it wasn't work-related, but it wasn't a work of fiction. The book is called Conservatives Without Conscience. It's written by John Dean, former White House consel to Richard Nixon. Dean, a man who considers himself a "Goldwater conservative" had left the world of politics shortly after the Watergate scandal and Nixon's resignation. However, recent attempts at revisionist history prompted him to reexamine the people who call themselves "conservative."
The book makes frequent reference to a set of studies around the personality types that make up the "conservative" mentality. The surprising finding is that by and large, these people frequently exhibit traits labeled as "authoritarian." That is, they place great stock in authority, often overriding their own conscience when directed by an authority figure, such as in the famous experiment where the person being tested is prompted by a lab-coated individual to administer electric shocks to a subject. Ostensibly, the subject is using the shocks as a means of improving memorization, and the person pushing the button (testee) is administering the shocks at the direction of the "authority" to try to help the subject. Meanwhile, the shockee is protesting and crying out in pain from the (fictional) shocks. Under the guidance of the lab-coated individual, the shocker keeps pushing the button. (This is a poor paraphrase of the study; for more, I refer you to Dean's book, and its extensive body of references.)
The other bit that I found to be the most disturbing was the part of the book which deals with the leaders of this authoritarian movement. Again, it cites academic research around the nature of these authoritarian individuals, and those individuals with a "social dominance orientation." These individuals are characterized by a teflon-coated resistance to the truth. They do what it takes to advance their own causes, no matter what the consequences to others. Additionally, these inviduals are most often male, and are further characterized by a sort of 50's "the woman should stay home, cook, and raise children" brand of misogyny.
The last section of the book cites examples of this sort of behavior in some individuals prominent in the public life over the past few years. Nixon, it should be pointed out, had enough of a conscience to resign the Presidency (in the view of Dean). These modern leaders, such as Cheney, De Lay and Frist aren't in possession of such a limitation.
Perhaps what was most astonishing (read: alarming) about the book was the sociological studies upon which the conclusions were based--this data is not just one guy sitting at the cafe; it's compiled from studies about the nature of obedience to authority, to the nature of authoritarianism. These people with the "authoritative" personality (let's call them "sheep" for lack of a better term--they respond to fear and view authority as the great protector to "keep me safe") tend to pass such traits onto their offspring; as they continue to galvanize the community with grass-roots movements empowering these individuals (to be clear, I'm not against political activism), their leaders (the social dominance oriented types) are cementing their power with ruthless efficiency, like the distric gerrymandering of Tom DeLay. I just wonder what the long-term implications for the nation as a whole will be....
Feels like time to stick my head in the sand.
posted by Sanford Owings at 11:14 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home