Tuesday, December 19, 2017

War Is Sweet



War Is Sweet for Those Who Have Not Tried It
and other timely proverbs.

Larry Struck



Sometimes a pithy saying tells you everything you need to know. Instead of detailed analyses or extensive debate of an issue, a well-placed proverb can cut to the core. So it is with the Adages of Erasmus, a collection assembled by the Renaissance scholar that gathers the wisdom of ancient Greece and Rome. In its day, the early 1500s, the Adages was a best seller and much better known than the work he is today best remembered for, In Praise of Folly, also worth a look.

War is sweet for those who have not tried it can be traced back over 2500 years when warfare was mainly a brutal hand to hand business. By comparison, modern cyber-based war may seem clean and thrilling to spectators who don’t have flesh in the game. It was apparently as easy then as now for an inexperienced leader to unleash the dogs of war with a terrible order leading to distant human destruction. Erasmus comments, “By his will the world is to be thrown into an uproar with wars and slaughter, all things sacred and profane are to be turned upside down.”

The bad behavior of an unfit leader, and the example it sets, can leave us wondering whether this is some kind of Machiavellian design worked out by grown naughty boys. Or are we dealing with a different beast altogether whose dark nature is more frightening? Good question. Not mutually exclusive views, but our contemporary tendency to psychologize disorders and then prescribe therapy or meds contrasts with earlier ages that would agree with the saying, A crooked branch, never straight. This older fatalistic attitude holds that a twisted or warped character can’t be expected to bear good fruit, allowing that even a broken clock is right twice a day. Erasmus believes that “the evil prince…either knows nothing, or what he knows is how to bring about public disaster.” Such a leader would be clouded in mind and far removed from conventional notions of honesty or honor. Citizens should ask if clinical deviance spares him from the penalties for treasonous conduct in a nation of laws.

How would such an impetuous leader gain the support of his people? If not through forced submission to a tyrant, then more democratically by guile or public persuasion aided by the contortions of sympathetic media. A ruler’s subjects would be led by the nose to do or think as they’re told, even if believing it was their own free choice. The image comes from oxen, cattle or horses that are led by a ring through the nostril. A manipulative leader skilled in oratory or just plain fakery to get his way can be said to sell smoke. Our more modern smoke and mirrors also points to empty promises, illusions or flattery, whatever helps make the sale.

Consensus makes it easier to govern, but finding common ground with others who look too extreme or delusional is tricky. Dialogue is usually recommended as the key to communication and resolving differences. But suppose either party to the conversation can’t understand or just isn’t interested in working toward solutions. They may seem to be paying attention, nod and even make an occasional comment. Maybe they’re acting a part to show cooperation while in fact not caring at all about what’s said since their own agenda is already set in motion. Or they could just be clueless and out of their depth. An ass (listening) to the lyre captures some truth here: a donkey will twitch its ears as if appreciating music or understanding speech. Point being that donkeys are always twitching their ears so it doesn’t mean they understand a thing. Pearls before swine is a similar biblical example. A more recent variation comes from George Bernard Shaw: The single biggest problem in communication is the illusion that it has taken place.   


It’s not surprising that so many dysfunctional traits would have dire implications for an organization or country led by toxic individuals. An old expression that vividly depicts the result, A fish rots from the head down, has become a favorite with management experts. While the description may not be biologically accurate--innards and heart may go first—it still rings true. The person(s) at the top of an organization will be responsible for deteriorating standards and performance throughout.  It’s a situation that stinks.

Erasmus offers a few thoughts in a more constructive vein. “The first requisite [of good leadership] is to judge rightly about each matter, because opinions are like springs from which all the actions of life flow, and when they are contaminated everything must needs be mismanaged.” To do this, “the mind of the prince must be freed from all false ideas so that he can see what is truly good.” No doubt it’s an uphill battle for the rare individual who can follow this advice while fighting the everyday stormy sea of troubles, not to mention those slings and arrows of outrageous fortune.

If a leader--whether of a state, project, or family--can withstand the daily onslaught of media overload, innovative disruption, and enemies’ dirty tricks, then there’s a chance for a fresh start. Well begun is half done. Sometimes just tackling an unappealing job is the hardest part; made worse if you have to play defense at the same time. However if instead of making a good beginning a leader rushes off in the wrong direction then others are left with a needless mess to clean up later.  As Kurt Vonnegut would add: And so it goes…

The advice and wisdom we take from proverbs cover every corner of life, from shameful depravity and comic weakness to heroic triumph. An entire society looking for guidance could do worse than heeding: Between friends all is common. Although this maxim can
be taken as justification for sharing everything, private property and all, it really suggests the basis for social responsibility and general welfare: for all citizens to be able to meet basic needs and have a chance for a happy life with a little help from their friends, us. But what’s the plan to get that done? Ay, there’s the rub!

Sunday, February 12, 2017

Our New Era of Clowns and Creepiness

Originally published 12/08/2016. MinnPost.com


What do clowns and politics have in common? In these brave new times we may well ask. Lately there has been a peculiar craze about “evil clowns.” I’m not referring directly to the recent presidential election. Instead there are apparently grinning, menacing clown characters wandering among us that make people nervous. OK, maybe we are into the political arena just a bit.

The recent presidential contest has left many citizens struggling to understand the grim outcome. It may not be possible to predict the erratic behavior of a uniquely unqualified leader and his fawning followers, but we can make out an emerging zeitgeist that is becoming the new normal. Let’s go deep for a moment with creepiness.

Some witnesses to an evil clown sighting report a feeling of creepiness, uneasiness bordering on danger. While ordinary clown behavior would seldom be seen as threatening, the bad variety can apparently give us the chills by going against type, seemingly happy and entertaining but with a dark, sinister side (think The Joker). Now suppose there’s more to this creepiness meme than just a passing pop culture fad.

Related image


According to recent psychology research [New Ideas in Psychology 43 (2016) 10-15, and others] a thing or person will seem creepy if we think they could pose a threat, but we’re not sure. That uncertainty sets off our personal alarm bells or makes our “skin crawl.” Unlike a clear and present danger that we would turn and run from, the creepy presence can remain nearby and be part of our everyday world. So the weird neighbor with a taxidermy hobby may be amiable, though creepy, but a drunken knife-wielding attacker is nothing but hostile, bad for us in every way, and we flee.

Both alien and familiar

In his work on the related concept of the “uncanny” (unheimlich), Sigmund Freud suggests that we experience an eerie recognition of something both alien and familiar. We relate to what is creepy because it’s part of us, yet somehow distorted or unnatural. Key to Freud’s general theory of the unconscious, the uncanny represents part of ourselves that we’ve repressed but has come back in an unpleasant form to haunt or torment us.

Something else that gives us the creeps has to do with things that violate natural boundaries or disturb our settled categories [David Livingstone Smith, Aeon, Sept. 19]. A mannequin can look quite human but is clearly not alive. Horror movies are filled with unsettling images like a dog with a talking human head or trees that come alive with limbs that reach and grab. Clowns or other figures that wear masks seem spooky because we can’t tell who they really are or what they mean to do.

When we think of creepiness it’s these kinds of things that stand out: odd personal encounters or bizarre fictional images. Social media, trolls and all, also provide ample opportunity for creepy behavior thanks to the false personae that users are free to hide behind. Now consider the emerging U.S. political climate and cultural milieu, not forgetting that we ourselves contain potential for creepiness.

There’s something about the recent turn of electoral events that has many of us on edge, disgusted or creeped out. At the same time we might see ourselves and fellow citizens, through complacency or elitist negligence, partially to blame for this unprecedented dismal state of affairs. More could have been done for those economically left behind who now cheer for the new mandate. We and our representatives should have taken a more generous worldview, and now must bear partial responsibility for this surreal, yet preventable, outcome. As the old comic strip character, Pogo, summed it up: We have met the enemy, and he is us.

So are we dealing with a psychoanalytic syndrome writ large, a mass unconscious breakout producing high anxiety? Or is it a social dynamic that could have been reasonably predicted given better humility and inclusiveness? Once we move past our current stunned depression over the new status quo, a thorough debate about these issues would be therapeutic, leading from denial through bargaining and acceptance to action (apologies to Kubler-Ross).

Mood of dread will likely recede

In the near future we would expect that everyday transactions in business, education, relationships and community will mostly continue as usual. The world won’t stop revolving even though an ominous new weight has been added. The ship of state, barely manageable in the best of times, now has the added drag of mean-spirited leadership, inept at administration and driven by crass impulse.  But a widely shared initial mood of dread and paranoia, so well captured by David Remnick ["An American Tragedy," The New Yorker, Nov. 9], will likely recede with the ebb and flow of daily affairs. 

On the other hand, American normality could change to match those dire expectations and morph into crisis conditions. The contemptuous mentality taking control of government is capable of all manner of destruction, which looks to be the goal: dismantling health care for millions, undermining educational quality, depriving citizens of civil rights, starting trade (or shooting) wars abroad, and driving the economy into a ditch for all but the 1 percent.

Grandiose claims to the contrary, loss of jobs and opportunity should not be surprising, particularly among the new regime’s true believers. Presidential appointment of horribles to top government positions can further ensure dysfunction and ongoing damage. Add in a coarsening of public dialogue seasoned with a loose regard for protocol, truth or the law and we see that creepiness, along with fear, dread and disgust fairly define our new political and social reality. A bleak but blunt forecast to produce shame for our country.

In a recent interview [Brian Lehrer, WNYC, Nov. 23], a veteran Italian journalist wanted us to know that, based on his knowledge of Italy’s history and despite our own troubles, America will never succumb to fascism. We appreciate the reassurance and hope his European vantage is prescient. But any observer has to reckon with the vigorous strain of anti-intellectualism (see Richard Hofstadter) in the U.S. where a motto could well be: My ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.  Maybe as appropriate would be Benjamin Franklin’s quip: “We are all born ignorant, but one must work hard to remain stupid.”

There may be clowns among us, but the next several years promise to be no laughing matter.