The first person to ever dwell upon this topic was Sigmund Freud, father of psychoanalysis. He is rather the first one perhaps to add a rational aspect to the subject through his work on the field of psychoanalysis. Freud’s study on various aspects of human psychology is challenged these days as it was based on case study methodology. Since all his subjects were patients suffering from some or other mental disorder, it is often contested that his derivation cannot be implied as general human behavior trends. Especially his controversial thesis on Oedipus and Electra syndromes, what cannot be contested however is his general observation that in a society/ civilization there is always certain amount of discontent. In a society not all individual can get what they desire, there are always conflict of interests among the members of a group and discontents arising thereof.
His studies were predominantly based on sexual frustrations which as per his studies certain people known as neurotics cannot tolerate and thus leading to various behavioral abnormalities. Later as psychology evolved into its present form of cognitive psychology, human needs and development of consciousness were studied with respect to not some quantifiable needs and desires but as a result of continuous interaction of the mind with its surrounding environment and experiences it gathers from it. What changed basically is that the process of human psychological development became very dynamic and role society and environment per say increased multi folds.
To out the subject in perspective, human beings have tangible needs but intangible desires. There may be a society which has all the resources in plenty, but there will be still discontent within the society. Many of the readers would be prompted to attribute all the evils and problems that we face to these desires. There is nothing wrong for it is what most of us have been conditioned to think from our very childhood. Truth is we are very instinctively like that, nature has designed us thus to struggle and thrive and leave no stone unturned to get better off than our peers. In the process improve upon our self, each generation as a great iteration filtering out the undeserving and promoting the deserving to inherit the earth. We have evolved this far only due to the presence of this desire. More so all our inventions and discoveries, progress of human kind can be attributed to this one intrinsic nature of man. To be never satisfied with what he has, to continuously struggle and compete, if he has gone past every one, then against himself, but never stop.
This incredible and unquantifiable energy, has however been seen as an evil, a problem by the societies and civilization across the world. Attempt was always been to somehow subdue these desire so that they fit into the social models better. Across the world many control mechanisms evolved to reign in this so called evil within the man. Almost every law structure we see, studies of ethics, more importantly religions are mechanism designed to regulate this intrinsic aggressiveness and reign of desires within a man. You would have invariably all religious doctrine dictating men what to do and what not to, invoking strong sense of fear and sense of guilt with in an individual. Everything that you hear about taboos, sins are more or less based on this concept. Idea is simple man is born an animal, a sinner (the original sin) but he can be trained to become a man.
There are even political systems that have derived some of its thinking from such control mechanism. Communism being the most coercive of them needs a special mention. The attitude of communism in fact finds reference in Freud’s thesis on this subject.
The communist believe that they have found the path to deliverance from our evils. According to them man is wholly good and well disposed to his neighbor; but the institution of private property has corrupted his nature. The owner ship of private wealth gives individual power and with it temptations to ill treat his neighbor; while the man who is excluded from the possession is bound to rebel in hostility against his oppressor. If private property were abolished, all wealth is held in common and everyone is allowed to share in the enjoyment of it.
He being a doctor adds at the end rather benignly that he has no concern with any economic criticisms of the communist system, but he is unable to recognize that the psychological premise on which the system is based is untenable. We however today know not only through theory but by practical experience that nothing can be more absurd. There theory of removing the bone of contention to solve the problem is akin of the story we all would have come across in our childhood. There are two cats that are fighting for a piece of cake, a monkey comes and volunteers to mediate. He divides the cake into two halves and then keeps hogging on the bigger piece to make them equal and slowly gobbles away the entire cake. It’s true that monkey has left cats with nothing to fight for, but also hungry and deprived of what legitimately belonged to them. I am sure most would agree that communist monkey business is not the solution to the problem in hand.
If so what is solution to the problem in hand, can this problem be resolved in a legitimate rational way, or is it that we have to resort to mysticism or cynical or rather sinister ploys to resolve this issue? Do we have an option at all, or is it some chronic disease that we have to live with? Well I have had earlier in the article brought forth two important issues, firstly that it is intrinsic to human beings and thus cannot be dispensed with, secondly that almost all (or rather each and every) achievement of our society has come through individuals. They are results of the constructive and channelized venting of the same energy that tend to create this discontent. If we develop a society with higher level of freedom more sources of enterprise, more options for men to constructively compete and vent out this energy in a more productive way, wont our society be better? Will it not bring down the level of this discontentment drastically down?
It means that more freedom can indeed lead to a society with lesser crimes, swifter progress and growth and happier individuals. While most other political philosophies are centered on egalitarian ethics, Libertarianism is perhaps the only political philosophy which assumes this very much required freedom as the most indispensable requirement for building a stable and happy society. We have got so used to living in the controlled conditioned environment that the moment we hear of freedom, we tend to imagine some jungle with no law, with no control and no security. It is a widespread misconception that has been carefully doctored and fed into our mind from our very childhood. Truth is that all the laws and regulation that we are subjected to are unwarranted. Most can be dispensed with, and if we ever want human societies to evolve into more stable, progressive and happy entity, this is what we finally need to do. I believe that the world that we live in is far better than the one our ancestors lived in, it is the same responsibility that we owe to our next generation. We need to look into our world rather critically and change what we can. It is said that changes comes in quantum in civilizations, for centuries there is stagnation and then a revolution that changes the course of the history. We may or may not be on the brink of one, but we need continuously prepare for one, endeavor to change what is wrong with our present even if we are not there to see that future dawn.
9 Responses to “Civilization and its Discontents”
Leave a Reply
Avionic Spanker Says:
January 21st, 2009 at 12:07 pmVery well-written. I suppose the only counter to logic of Libertarianism, for lack of a better word, is the unfettered greed that can lead to the downfall of people and others who are directly or indirectly linked to them. Case in point, the collapse of the US banking giants.
Having said that, I want to reiterate that I agree with most of what Rand said. I also believe in mulling it over and seeing how much of it is relevant and can be practiced in today’s world. Rand’s principles and communism probably represent two extremes of thought.
I am glad I discovered your post and will go through the rest soon.
Unpretentious Diva Says:
January 21st, 2009 at 12:10 pmJhanvi,
First of all, let me congratulate you for this excellent write up.
The first person to ever dwell upon this topic was Sigmund Freud
Well, you are a little wrong there.
Marquis De Sade was the first person to dwell upon it. He was murdered by the then society.
Liberty Speaks Says:
January 21st, 2009 at 2:15 pm@ Diva
yeah you are right…but I kept philosophers out of the count because I wanted to keep the article a scientific perspective. Anyways I hope the idea gets conveyed better this time around.
GP Says:
January 22nd, 2009 at 8:23 pmHi Libertyspeaks
Sorry for extended comments but I just thought may be its worth posting..of course everybody do not think same
Truth is we are very instinctively like that, nature has designed us thus to struggle and thrive and leave no stone unturned to get better off than our peers.
<<<<Such behaviour can be attributed to your conditioning right from your childhood. I have seen lot of people who are just content with what they have and they always
attributed everything they have as grace of god. My point is – whether your ambitious or content in your life based upon your upbringing and maturity of your EQ.
Note : here I am only refering to person’s materilistic needs/desires and not about hunger of seeking knowledge and ultimate truth about origin of human race.
>>>
You would have invariably all religious doctrine dictating men what to do and what not to, invoking strong sense of fear and sense of guilt with in an individual.
<<<<Yup and thats why we have issues like “Jihaad” and all. I think person shud be spiritual and not religious as mostly religious things are full of antagonistic rituals and processions. But that doesn’t mean all teachings in religious scriptures don’t have any scientific basis associated with it. e.g. Hindu scriptures – they have the ancient wisdom which is applicable to modern era as well to resolve your scientific/political/soci-economic doubts,etc. But sadly- we lack authentic Sanskrit scholars who can decrypt that knowledge in laymen’s terms and this is being misused by some vested interests/self-proclaimed
)
religious scholars to misguide/brainwash people to pursue their own interests.>>>>>
If we develop a society with higher level of freedom more sources of enterprise, more options for men to constructively compete and vent out this energy in a more productive way, wont our society be better? Will it not bring down the level of this discontentment drastically down?
<<<<<Yup it will. Definately! but the problem is – ppl are not innocent like child Not in kaliyuga ( if u do believe in Yugas) as they used to be in SatyaYuga. So the – Share and Care factor almost limited to individual him/herself perhaps, extended to his/her immediate family but when u think about society as a whole then Nope. reasons?– No social bonds ..no affection for fellow human beings ..certainly not! especially when U are brainwahsed with extreme inidividualism whoes funda is – “survival of fittest” ( I am not saying its entirely wrong – exceptions cud be competitions and wild animals’ world (where they are totally dependent on other animal’s meat for their survival except the vegetarian’s (elephants,Jiraffe ..I really forgot wht scientist call them scientifically
The point is – “live and let live” habbit is been vanished(with few exceptions) coz they forgot “Jatasya hee Druvo Mrityu” and not realising they are not taking anything back with them after their death.>>>>>>
Truth is that all the laws and regulation that we are subjected to are unwarranted. Most can be dispensed with, and if we ever want human societies to evolve into more stable, progressive and happy entity, this is what we finally need to do.
<<<<<Give me one good reason – that ppl will behave if there are no laws/rules and regulations? I mean cmmmmmon – just imagine you are in 4th standard and your teacher asked you to do the sums and she will not be coming back whole day and other teachers are also quite buzy in their work ( basically noone to monitor wht children are doing) then what will you do? in case your all classmates come up with this brilliant idea of going out and playing football on playground ( I know they are rare nowaday’s but in our imaginary example its present)
..I mean certainly you will say – “No” unless you are being sensitive about being “standing out different among your peers or taunted as most studious and obedient student in a bad way by ur classmates “ . and I think u wud agree that – how today’s childrens and teenagers sensitive about their image among their peers.
My point is – very few ppl try to be responsible while enjoying there freedom( Reasons cud be anything) and hence, we need rules and regulations to keep in check that irresponsible behavioural pattern.
Liberty Speaks Says:
January 23rd, 2009 at 12:39 am@ GP
I guess you have given me a lead to my next topic…but anyways dont you think that if child wants to play we must allow them to. We make rules and then expect other not to break them. Was the teachers decision to make all children do maths for that day justified!…
Till the time you don’t thnk out of the box you will never get me, education system, well I have written already and so has diva, especially on Montessori education system.
Its easy to make rules yaar, How many times do we question the need and authenticity of these rules. How much of regulation is needed and what can be done away with.
well about the people who are content with what they have, yes there are such ppl…but I am sorry the world you live in every invention every discovery, every thing that has manifested into achievement of this great human civilization is attributed to people who are not contented.
I cant help you with your biases, I deliberately avoided philosophical data in the article and added reference of Sigmund Freud only to give a scientific backing to facts quoted. Yes you can deny it, and say that people are contended, but scientific studies into social psychology denies so.
If you were to be transported from here to some war ridden military ruled country in Africa, you would immediately protest that your cilil rights are at jeopardy and you are not free. If you ask ppl who are born and brought up there, there reaction would be mixed most wont know what rights and what breach of liberty you are talking about.
anyways thanks for the read…the fact that you regularly read, gives me the assurance that at least you have a open mind and are willing to go through thoughts that contradicts with your presently held ideas. This I guess is your strength, I am sure that you would see your ideas refining (I am not saying changing, you may get better with your own ideas perhaps) with time.
GP Says:
January 23rd, 2009 at 8:56 pm@LibertySpeaks
I guess you have given me a lead to my next topic…but anyways
dont you think that if child wants to play we must allow them to. We make rules and then expect other not to break them. Was the teachers decision to make all children do maths for that day justified!…
<<<<<Yup I do agree but that also doesn’t mean children shouldn’t study at all right?..I mean you have to have some sort of restrictions for overall growth of children ..right?>>>
Till the time you don’t thnk out of the box you will never get me, education system, well I have written already and so has diva, especially on Montessori education system.
<<<Sorry I may not have read that article but as far as I remember I only read in which “writers condenmed govt. stance of “free education to all”>>>>
Its easy to make rules yaar, How many times do we question the need and authenticity of these rules. How much of regulation is needed and what can be done away with.
<<<<Is it question or comments on existing regulations?..let me clarify again — We can always question the need of rules on logical premises and I think if they are outdated then we can always refine them to suit to our current needs. But I think you will also agree to the fact that – No rules , no regulations and unrestricted freedom can always be dangerous. So they are must to bring sense of responsibility and accountability among individuals.>>>
well about the people who are content with what they have, yes there are such ppl…but I am sorry the world you live in every invention every discovery, every thing that has manifested into achievement of this great human civilization is attributed to people who are not contented.
..I am not sure exactly what kind of leads my comments provided you to write about but I hope to see your post soon.
<<<<<And I already agreed to it. In fact I mentioned them in my exception category plz refer my earlier statement i.e. “Note : here I am only refering to person’s materilistic needs/desires and <U> not about hunger of seeking knowledge and ultimate truth about origin of human race.”</U>>>>>>>>
I cant help you with your biases, I deliberately avoided philosophical data in the article and added reference of Sigmund Freud only to give a scientific backing to facts quoted. Yes you can deny it, and say that people are contended, but scientific studies into social psychology denies so.
<<<<Well, personally I don’t have very good opinion about Mr. Sigmung Freud who proposed theories like – “Childrens especially boys are sexually attracted towards their mothers’ by birth which starts from breastfeeding activity while teenage girls are sexually attracted towards their fathers” also, I think you will also accept that most of the well-known psychoanalyst and experts criticized Mr. Freud for generalising his psychoanalytical results based on few of his cases studies.My point is — Discontentment in Social psychology cannot be concluded and defintely can’t be generalised based on Mr. Freud’s analysis. In fact, the whole world is full of exceptions and as long as there are exceptions you can generalised your findings/results unless they limited the scope to their findings to specific dataset.
>>>>>>
If you were to be transported from here to some war ridden military ruled country in Africa, you would immediately protest that your cilil rights are at jeopardy and you are not free. If you ask ppl who are born and brought up there, there reaction would be mixed most wont know what rights and what breach of liberty you are talking about.
<<<<This is about awareness of your rights. which I think could be a complete new topic for disucussion and really – I am not biased against individual liberty , My only point is liberty/freedom shudn’t be unrestricted>>>>>
anyways thanks for the read…the fact that you regularly read, gives me the assurance that at least you have a open mind and are willing to go through thoughts that contradicts with your presently held ideas. This I guess is your strength, I am sure that you would see your ideas refining (I am not saying changing, you may get better with your own ideas perhaps) with time.
<<<<<<<I am glad to read that and thanks a lot of for reading my comments and spending your precious time to express your feedback
By the way I will suggest you to read – “Roadless Travelled” by Dr. M Scott Peck in case you are planning to write about human psychology/spirituality in near future.
>>>>>>>
Liberty Speaks Says:
January 23rd, 2009 at 11:13 pm@ GP
well Road less travelled is the first book I ever read on psychology, it was 7 years back and I am thankful for having come accross that book. As far freud is considerd in the begining only I addressed the controversies linked to his studies and backed my article on results of present day studies on cognitive psyshology and social psychology. I had to mention Freud because the title Civilization and its discontents is a direct take from his title. I had to give him the credit of that. I have not got back to freud on any other aspect that that smaal para on communism.
I am in awe with ur dedication and energy, I guess you are my first and probably the only serious reader. Please keep questioning I will try and answer the issue of child education in the next post. Please wait thanks
Gaurav Says:
January 25th, 2009 at 8:27 pmA well-compiled write-up but then the fragmentation of society between few liberals and masses of colletivist will continue for centuries, one of the reason is the coincidence or the truth of religion finding its foot earlier than science and yes it could have been other way around, but the homosapiens evolved in such a way where they accepted first and revolted later,whereas they could have procured,established and then challenged facts in objective way, anyways the reminiscences of all those ethics will need more than few liberals to eradicate, and As they say every collective aproach gives breathing space to the meeks, it is also going to exist because as social condition goes by,”we are all a help-less creature in the hands of god”, these are the first words that goes by,where god is just a subjective analogy for human escapades through varios fallacies, and talkin about sin it’s not effect of aspiration but Inefficiency, incompetency, greed and mysticism.But then one of the reasons for civilization and its discontent is also a failure of the rationalist to deliver to the world what they see,all those who claim to be objectivist because they believe in Ayn rand are nothin but those increasing the followers of mysticism,As I say objectivism can never be taught,prophesing objectivism makes it subjectives,it takes its basic meaning,also liberty is not something which can be made accessible to people but liberty is something to aspire for according to one’s own desire,also the truth is that without any doubt most of the people will be found as satisfied with the liberty they are enjoying but then again social-conditioning is all which cares for most of our behavioral aspects, without any doubt more freedom will lead to a more rational and safer society but then none of the country in the world can delve into such laws because of the reason of not society is fearful of individuals but society is fearful of society itself, It reasons that will lose its worth if liberty gains dominance,
GP Says:
January 27th, 2009 at 6:33 pm@Liberty Speaks
Fair enough. All the best for next write-up and plzzzzzzz try to use less graphics in your next write-up coz I think they seem to be distractors and its quite likely that readers might loose
essence of your writeup by focussing more on graphics rather than actual statements