Power - Bertrand Russell

This was one of Bertrand Russell’s final books, in which he tried to summerise his grand theory. Marx explained human behaviour as a economic, ot was the will to money that directed human behaviour, Freud saw it as sex being the motive, for Russell he saw it in Power. It was the manipulation and management of power that he saw guiding human behaviour, and in this work he seeks to understand and explain the various interactions of power in the world. He argues that every man would like to be a God and that of the infinite desires that mankind has its power that is the chief of all of them.

Power Russell claims is like energy to physics. The Laws of social dynamics are capable of being explained with reference to it. Inorder to do so it must be stated in terms of various forms and manifestations of power. For me what is interesting about it, is that his arguements for a power matrix can also be applied to my theory of the history and ideological power of ideas. Russell states that there are two forms implicit and explicit. The leaders and the followers. Leaders have explicit power, and followers imlicit. People follow a leader with the aim of gaining or asurping some of the power that his help by the leader of the group. Likewise, an idea is accepted to assocate oneslef with others who hold the idea and the figure head of the intellectual movement. I then as I read the book will see if I can relate his anthropological theories of power to abstract conceptual notions of ideas, yet, it will not be so simple as ideas are connected to those who hold them, and do not occupy some ahistocal deconetxtualised space, but are tied both to the time and person who holds them for their ideological potency. (p.8-9)

Submission is the result of fear for ‘the members of a group hang together for fear of hanging seperately. It is vital to group together to produce homogenity and the illusion of strength in numbers. This is the same with ideas. If one person has an idea, then he is tied to the idea, if the idea is wrong then so is he. Yet, if many people hold it, then the idea is diffused amongst the group so the attachment is not as strong as the common sense of being together ties them all to an idea. This leads to Russells discussion of group mentality (p14-18), in which he looks at the intoxicating effect of the collective in which they reinforce each others believes and opinions, they serve to validate each other. He says that it is so powerfull that the aftermouth leds them to apathy and seeking stronger sources for the collective surge. In this collective he says there are two layers a superficial one, which is maintained against a common enemy who is magnified against which they establish themself. In the ideological matrix this would be the competing idea, the false, unreasonable, mad, unlogical idea that must be defeated. The second is the deeper conviction that the believe that they hold is correct, It is this deep loyalty confiction that leads people to fight for their believes, they gain a confidence that they are right in so much that they are convinced that the idea, or group can defeat anything that is posed against it. This if replicated through enough people becomes a conviction and confidence that is contagious and gives the appearance of a greater dominance and strength then they really have. He also brings up the point that they who are able to control matter can use this technology to control people (p. 20).

In chapter three Russell looks at the forms of power. He sees this as traditional, revolutionary, and naked power. Traditional power has the power and force of habit and the past. It does not have to prove its case, but has a wealth of history to support its posistion. It needs no justification at every moment, nor does it need to constantly try and erode the power of its compition as it is teh dominant power. Naked power for me is the intrinsic power that it has. Revolutionary power, depends upon a large group of people united by an emerging idea, sentiment, programme or creed. It is the result of power loving individuals grouping together. In this the group has a relationship between the individuals and the organisarion. It is a mutual relationship between them both. THe form of organisation will alter the way in which power is distributed amongst it. There is also layers of power in the organisation that behind the scenes supports that which is seen on the surface.

Revolutionary power. Russell sees the formation of this in the break up of traditional power. This happens when creeds and mental habits give way to scepticism, and a new creed arises to replace it and gains a new hold over men. If they are successfull in this then it becomes the new traditional power or dominant idea. After any revlution there is a post-justification. It must established that what it was doing was right and good, and that the previous tradition was wicked and all future revlutions are also wicked. It thus has to reconfigure the history and meaning of the past, to valourise the plight of the revolutionaries. A great example of this is the revolution f the English Reformation, this shows how they transformed the meaning by creating new icons and narratives of the past.

Power over opinion. At first a new idea has no power other then that of persuassion, this leads to a minority with the idea, this gives it greater powr which increases the force it can have over the minds over other people, who adopt it and become propoganda, who they are sells the idea. this then becomes through popularoty genuine belief in the majority. Russel said that ‘Reason prevailed over prejudice because it provided a means of realising existing purposes, and because the proof that it did was so convincing.’ (p.111) The appeal of reason is that it gives an objective location from which to judge the claims of someone. It was evidence which would be convincing to every sane man who takes the trouble to examine it, if then it can appeal to reason then it can invoke confidence that people can and will believe in it. Rational evidence provides things that can be conclusive and then iterated to others. The potency of iteration is that as holders of ideas aquire power they have a capacityof influencing believe. He sees that power over opinion like all power tends to coalescence and concntration. This happens because ideas tend to gather together to increase the power over opinions. This organises the ideas and opinions, this can be seen in the case of Newtonian physics. Initially the idea was weak, but as it gained power and popularity it was organised and refined into more potent and simplified forms that would be more potent. If this new conecntrate dcreed is held as orthodixy by all members of the collective then they an increase in power. Adherence to the doctrine is vital. The uniformity of the doctrine in the group impacts upon its strength as a creed.

It's not how good you are, it's how good you want to be

It has always stuck out to me the way that creativity involves thinking in a dynamic way that is unconventional. Paul Arden in It’s Not How Good You Are, It’s How Good You Want to be gives an insight into the creative mind of a director of one of the leading advertising companies. In this work he inspires and writes to encourage people to think outside of the box, to use their imagination and to reject the same old solutions to new problems and situations. A lot of what he says is common-sense yet its something that we fail to apply to our own lives a lot of the time. It has inspired me and made me want to improve my life. It’s difficult to summerise the book, mostly because it has no real structure but a series of inspirational quote and thrown together. Each sentence feels like it should be on a poster complete with a photo of a landscape and placed in an office.

In some ways that is his weakness is that there are so many ideas thrown together that none of them are ever developed fully. For instance he makes a great point about the fact that ‘all creative people need something to rebel against, it’s what gives their lives excitement’ (p11) and that it is precisely because of this opposition that allows creativity. He points out that the concept of the impossible is something to inspire not cause despair for ‘when it can’t be done, do it. If you don’t do it it doesn’t exist’ (p.46) He uses the example of Citizen Kane and Benjamin Frankin to show that failure and mistakes are the preconditions for success, it is the learning and development out of error and mistakes that allows for dynamic thinking. He also brings this need for opposition when he talks about being fashionable. Arden says that ‘originality can’t be fashionable, because it hasn’t had the approval of the committee yet.’ Fashions are what hinder creativity and originality because they are based on past success they aren’t forward looking but are safe and proven. It is in working against fashion and popularity that artistic freedom and development is fostered.

The limitations are often what we impose upon ourselves. Hence is title, often it is self believe and the desire to be great, the ambition that drives us, very rarely is it down to our actually competence, most of the time it is our passion for success that creates greatness. Arden says that ‘you need to aim beyond what you are capable of.’ This myth of what we think we can do is the opposition we must fight and rebel against. We must rebel against our own self doubt and fear of failure and the unknown. Rebel against knowledge, for knowledge is based only upon the past it is provable we must embrace uncertainty and be happy with being wrong, for when we are in the wrong we are in the unknown and it is at moments when we are in the unknown that we are forced to look for new answers and think outside of the box. The Comfort zone is not so much as a refuge but a prison that can shackle the soul into mediocrity and uncreativity. When we fight against this then we will have the amibtion. I love his phrase ‘Everybody wants to be good, but not many are prepared to make the sacrifices it takes to be great,’ (p.14)

The other theme that is mentioned in a few places is the source of creative and novel ideas and influences. He first brings this up when he talks about intellectual hoarding. When we have a good idea we are tempted sometimes to keep it to ourselves. We see them as our own intellectual property something that we should keep and use just for our own benefit. Yet, in doing so we live of only our own reserves of idea which are limited and only from our own narrow perspective of life, further, they are not seen critically from the eyes of others. Something that we might think is great in the eyes of another is deeply flawed and not as fresh as we first thought. By keeping the idea to ourselves we never analyise the idea and subject it to critical scrutiny which will only improve the idea. When we share we contribute to a greater pool of knowledge and ideas, which can help us to draw greater links and perspectives to improve it. When we develop this attitude of sharing all our ideas it also causes us to look for ideas. If we give all our ideas away we then have to look for new solutions and ideas from which to draw upon.

In looking for new ideas it is important that we look to the right source. In most areas 90% of inspiration is internal. In advertising they draw upon other adverts for ideas, historians look at historians, and so forth. Yet the problem with this is that an error can be perpetuated with in the group and never knowledge it is just repeated over and over again. It also makes the inspiration boring and repetitive. In the social sciences everything seems to be drawn upon from Foucault this tends then to make everything else all blend together. It is in the melting pot and synthesis of ideas from differant cultures, disciplines and sectors of society that vitality is injected into our ideas. There is something for us to learn from everyone in every position and if we look we can find from it something to develop our own position. If we all had this attitude to life, to search for truth and ideas from the dustbin man through to the sultan of India we would all learn much in life. ‘To be original, seek inspiration from unexpected sources.’ (p. 88) This cross-disciplinary approach to creative thinking applies to our methodology. It is very easy to stick to the accepted and fashionable way of writing an essay or study or any product or text. The historian has their way, the social scientist approaches it in a standardised way, and in the sciences it is even more rigid, the myth of the universal scientific method is the dogma which all would-be scientists must adhere to. Yet. we then limit our way of solving problems and finding solutions and answers to the set limited way. If we were to look across outside of the blinkered view of our discipline we would see that every intellectual and creative pursuit has something to offer and help us in our pursuit. ‘Change your tools, it may set free your thinking.’ (p. 82) If we set down the academic tools and try and look at a problem using a different manner and set of tools we will think differently and thus see new vistas of ideas. We can even go back to play from when we were a child, and try and use those fun filled creative games we used to do to think about an idea.

In this review and synopsis of the book. I have tried to embellish upon the germs of ideas that were presented in the book. It was good in that it cause me to think and expand upon what he presented.

Bertrand Russell - Power

I have started to read this so far it has been interesting.

Power, Control, and Manipulation

The other day I read Brave New World Revisited by Aldous Huxley. This was a collection of essays that he wrote 20 years after he wrote Brave New World. I loved that book so I was expecting some wonderful insights as he reflected on developments in the world since he wrote it. I was not disappointed by it. Whilst I may not agree with his views on birth control, which verged on eugenics (Huxley saw overpopulation as a threat to Democracy) he had a lot of important points to make about the, what he perceived as, threats to democracy.

One of the interesting points he makes is that large populations requires large governments to control them. He thus sees overpopulation as a danger to society as it requires punishment to control the people. This was the vision of the future presented by Orwell in 1984. Huxley in contrast saw reinforcement as the best way to control behaviour. Punishment only stopped behaviour and didn't rectify and stop the motives that drive the behaviour, along with this punishment as negative byproducts the system of discipline as Zimbardo has shown with the Stanford Prison experiment corrupts those that manage it. Huxley then looked at the extreme form of positive reinforcement to manipulate society.

Something that I reflected on as I read it was that large society and large numbers reduce the individual to a number a statistic. Large scale markets cause monopolisation and concentrate power in the few. The economy of a nation is then dependant on a handful of large businesses then if a problem develops it requires intervention by the government which increases the influence and size of the government. As power becomes concentrated the numbers and economies of scale make it impossible for a local or independant producer to enter the market for they lack both the funding, influence, and scale needed to compete with the large ogliarchies that dominant the market. Huxley elaborated on this view in an excellent chapter called 'over-organisation' in which he looked at the role of increasing technology. In this he takes a Marxist stance seeing technology as a tool for the capitalist bourgeoisie. Technology reduced labor making people unemployed giving more money to the capitalist. Further, technology is complex and expensive and only the large-scale capitalist can afford it eliminating the prospective enterpriser from entering the market.

A quote from Huxley that I liked was 'Permanent crisis justifies permanent control of everybody and everything by the agencies of the central government.' This made me think of Naomi Klein's Shock Doctrine, in which she argues that in the wake of war and catastrophe it gives governments a force to legitimize social control and intervention. In the aftermath of 9/11 numerous policies and laws were passed that allowed greater surveillance and monitoring of society in the name of protection and defence. Crisis was the doorway into the erosion of civil liberty.

However, the best chapter for me was the section when he talks about the 'Will to Order' and conformity. He starts by stating that Western society despite its economic, political, and intellectual progress has damaged humanity in other ways. It turns man into an Automaton unable to develop security, happiness, reason, and the capacity to love, as a result he pays for this failure with mental sickness, which is masked by a frantic drive for work and pleasure. This concept of a social mental sickness is what I find fascinating. I tend to agree with Huxley and since 1958 since this was published it has only got worse, we have a work culture that drives society, along with a never satisfied thirst for pleasure. This brings him to an interesting point. Neurotic symptoms are not necessarily bad, they show that there is a conflict between the forces of life. The hopeless are those that seem most normal for the are so well adjusted to a abnormal and distorted form of existence, their human voice silenced that they never develop symptoms of the neurotic he concludes that 'they are normal only for the profoundly abnormal society' this brings up many questions about what is normality and how does one define normality. In a abnormal society the perfect adjustment to its values and roles is a measure of their mental sickness for uniformity and freedom are incompatible. If man is made to conform and replicate the lifes of every other person then freedom is gone, along with mental health. The standardisation of the human individual is a crime against our biological and spiritual nature. It ignores the diversity of life. It concentrates on the common denominator, and abstracts from ths perceived universailty into an abstract law. Underlying this is the wish to impose order upon confusion. To bring harmony out of dissonance. This desire to reduce the chaos into simplified systems Huxley calls 'Will to Order.' This quest for neat explainations and tidy answers jsutifies despotism and dogmatism. 'In order to fit into these orginisations, individuals have had to de-individualise themselves, have had to deny their native diversity and conform to a standard pattern.' (p31) In this incorporation into a social ideal the ideal man is one then who has dynamic conformity, who meets the requirements to a remarkable degree and plays by all the rules of the Power Elite.

I shall conclude now by bringing up in passing some of the other pertinant points Huxley makes. That is the power of distraction. If the mind is distracted then it is unable to concentrate on the most important thing, this was something he showed in Brave New World the people were so busy having pleasure they never had time to think. Chomsky in his book on propaganda echoed Huxley when he said that keep the people distracted and you control them. He looks at brainwashing, and propaganda, a great quote about symbols was 'irrational propaganda depends for its effectiveness upon a failure to understand the nature of symbols' and that misleading symbols which link to Jungian archetypes and unconscious myths of society such as feminine desire to be attractive to males is a skillful method of marketing. The solution Huxley concludes is through eduction to teach children how to judge between proper and improper use of symbols. He seems then to justify media studies, which I think is no bad thing. Children should study philosophy in order to learn how to think systematically and to distinguish from true and false, meaningful and meaningless statements. This then would be a secure foundation for freedom, democracy and a life worth living.

Solomon's Houses

Today I have been working on my essay and doing some research on it. This has focused on the mid-seventeenth century obsession with recreating Francis Bacon's Solomon's House as contained in the New Atlantis. As part of this I read the Chapter 'The Spiritual Brotherhood' from Charles Webster's The Great Instauration. I have been quite surprise by how much I have enjoyed reading it, I was expecting a lot more puritanism and an obsession with millenialism, which I had expected from the synopsis of it by a group in a seminar (I guess this shows that nothing can compensate for reading a book firsthand). What stuck out to me most is that science in this period is more multi-dimensional then is portrayed in the course. The course tends to be Royal Society centric, yet the College of Physicians, and other local centres of learning had relevant things to contribute. It seems that there was a polyphony of competing designs for a society or new seat of learning that would be the nations Solomon's House. I haven't quite worked out what was the prime motive for the desire to create Solomon's House but I hope one day to uncover it.

From this it lead me to some primary sources. The first was a book published by Thomas Bushell called An Extract by Mr Bushell to his late abridgement of the Lord Chancellor Bacon's philosophical theory in mineral prosecutions, (1660) This is an interesting book partly because Thomas Bushell is a neglected figure he was very popular and cited in his time, he had a rock which the King had ordered him to preserve and his mining endeavours were very famous throughout the nation. He attempts many mines, and aims to get parlimentary funding to develop them, and over the years uses Bacon as a legitimizing force. This work seems to be the pinnicle of his prostetution of Bacon's name when he invokes Solomon's House as a model to which he is working towards. He aims to recruit convicts to help him build Solomon's House and develop mining industry as part of this process as he says 'I intend to begin the foundation of that philosophical fabrick (modell'd in my New Atlantis) by placing a select society of aforesaid philosophers in the city of Wells.' A further point to be noted from this work is the way he sells it to the prisoners, by building Solomon's House they would enter the school of Christ and help to become part of the New Jerusalem in the millenium. I think this point brings me back to my ideas on the prevelance of the millennium and need to read Webster's section on it in the above.

The second book I read today was a book called The Immortality of the Human Soul by the light of nature in two dialogues by Walter Charleton (1657). This book is of interest to me in two ways. The primary way was my purpose and that is it describes the College of Physicians what is notable about this is that he says that it 'in the colledge of Physicians... you may behold Solomon's House in reality.' It is this depiction of it as Solomon's House that interests me, however, as I continued to read his description I was intrigued by his mention of Tycho Brahe and astronomy, who he called Hercules the second and one of the three key figures that supports the heavens. This ties into my work on symbolic figures of traditions and how ideological change causes a shift in what they represent. It is also interesting that he refers to them as heros. This is a bit whiggish but I think it may be significant later.

Genesis and purpose

So the idea of this blog is to keep track of the books I read and the ideas that they generate. I guess its like an online workbook. I feel that I can type faster then I can write by hand so it gives me a quick way of jotting down my ideas and a few views on the books that I have been reading. Hopefully by keeping track like this it will make it easier to keep track of it all. It will also allow me to see how my interests fluctuate and develop over time and space. So here goes.