News International and the myth of power

Lord Acton famously said that power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. The English anthropologist and social scientist Gregory Bateson argued that power does not exist in relationship and that, in fact, it is a myth. He said, in Steps to an ecology of mind (1978) that

‘…the myth of power is, of course, a very powerful myth, and probably most people in this world more or less believe in it. It is a myth, which, if everybody believes in it, becomes to that extent self-validating. But it is still epistemological lunacy and leads inevitably to various sorts of disaster’.

Bateson’s view on power was critiqued at the time, particularly by other social scientists and therapists who felt that to deny power was to deny the experiences of abused people, particularly women. On the surface, this seemed a reasonable critique; what reasonable person could deny that an abuser has power over the abused? However, this critique misses the wider point of Bateson’s argument, which is that the conventional (erroneous) use of the term power is that of a metaphor drawn from the language of physics (along with terms like energy, force, impact and so on), which have no place in a biological, social world of information, context and meaning. Instead of thinking of power in human relationships, we would be better served by reflexive dialogue about the metaphor of power, and see ourselves as simply parts of a larger situation. For this to be necessary, both sides in a conflict would need to be proud and humble rather than arrogant.

The sort of disaster that Bateson alluded to, and that humanity is facing is, in part, linked to the self perpetuating pursuit of the myth of power. Hand in hand with the myth of power is the concept of profit. To be rich, in the conventional epistemology, is to be powerful, and therefore, to control resources is seen as an imperative by states that wish to maintain and increase power.

Noam Chomsky recently wrote (available here) ‘there is every reason to suppose that today's policy-makers basically adhere to the judgment of President Franklin Delano Roosevelt’s influential advisor A.A. Berle that control of the incomparable energy reserves of the Middle East would yield "substantial control of the world." And correspondingly, that loss of control would threaten the project of global dominance that was clearly articulated during World War II, and that has been sustained in the face of major changes in world order since that day’.


Later in this article Chomsky writes:

‘Systemic risk in the financial system can be remedied by the taxpayer, but no one will come to the rescue if the environment is destroyed. That it must be destroyed is close to an institutional imperative. Business leaders who are conducting propaganda campaigns to convince the population that anthropogenic global warming is a liberal hoax understand full well how grave is the threat, but they must maximize short-term profit and market share. If they don't, someone else will.

This vicious cycle could well turn out to be lethal. To see how grave the danger is, simply have a look at the new Congress in the U.S., propelled into power by business funding and propaganda. Almost all are climate deniers. They have already begun to cut funding for measures that might mitigate environmental catastrophe. Worse, some are true believers; for example, the new head of a subcommittee on the environment who explained that global warming cannot be a problem because God promised Noah that there will not be another flood’.

 In short, the pursuit of the myth of power with its attendant need to maintain profits and control resources has led to the loss of countless lives in the Middle East, active denial of the reality of global warming, and as I have indicated elsewhere, the abuse and misuse of ‘evidence’ in rushing through incompletely trialled medicines for the sake of short-term gain.

Relevant to the current situation with News International, Bateson (1978) also wrote

‘What is true is that the idea of power corrupts. Power corrupts most rapidly those who believe in it, and it is they who will want it most. Obviously, our democratic system tends to give power to those who hunger for it and gives every opportunity to those who don’t want power to avoid getting it. Not a very satisfactory arrangement if power corrupts those who believe in it and want it…Perhaps there is no such thing as unilateral power. After all, the man ‘in power’ depends on receiving information all the time from outside. He responds to that information just as much as he ’causes’ things to happen… it is an interaction, and not a lineal situation’.

 Clearly the Murdoch entertainment/propaganda machine has been intimately linked with, and and has been a mouthpiece for, the political/corporate elite who routinely have been committing crimes against humanity. The stone that has been lifted by the telephone hacking scandal has shed light on some worrying relationships between the elite and the media and sent all sorts of people scurrying for cover. Perhaps now is the time to challenge the world order typified by the pursuit of power by the elites.


Bateson discussed how Goebbels, the Nazi Minister for Propaganda, believed he was powerful and in control of the Nazi propaganda machine when in reality he was guided by informants (effectively Goebbels was dependent on feedback) and ultimately his belief in his control of the system ultimately led to its destruction. The arrogance and confidence of a mileau where the hacking of telephones and bribery of police was condoned (or even encouraged) would indicate that News International, like Goebbels, was lured into believing in its own 'power'.

Let us not fall into the same fallacious trap that power can be overcome with more power, but instead through humility, dialogue, persistence and by recognising our own part in this very dangerous situation.

References:

Bateson, G. (1978) Steps to an ecology of mind. London: Paladin.
Chomsky, N. (2011) Is the world too big to fail? The contours of global order. http://www.chomsky.info/articles/20110421.htm accessed 18th July 2011.

The context of crime, neglect and ill health

In the news recently has been coverage of the story of the sad death of seven year old Khyra Ishaq, who may have died of starvation. Her mother and stepfather will be charged with neglect, a criminal offence.

Several sources recognise that poverty and neglect are linked, and it can be argued that poverty is not a matter of choice, but neglect is. Also linked to poverty are issues of crime, drug and alcohol use and obesity, all of which are considered major topical social issues, and all of which have an element of choice to them. But is it that simple?

I have often considered that crime and ill-health are linked by wider contexts, yet politically, both are treated as very different issues.

In the UK our jails are full; the population bulletin for May 16th 2008 states the population in prisons in England and Wales stands at 82,682. This represents around 148 per 100,000 of the national population. In contrast, the United States has the highest prison population rate in the world, some 738 per 100,000.

Some people argue that we should be increasing our capacity to incarcerate criminals, for example Stephen Pollard writing in the Spectator suggests: “Britain certainly imprisons a higher percentage of its population. But this is a meaningless measure, since it takes no account of the proportion of the population who commit crimes. Allow for the extraordinary proportion of the UK population which commits crimes, and Britain has a low imprisonment rate. Whereas Britain imprisons 12 people per 1,000 crimes, Spain imprisons 48 and Ireland 33”

Taking Pollard’s argument further, we would need to quadruple the amount of incarceration, having spaces for a third of a million inmates, representing around 590 prisoners per 100,000 of the national population.

This raises a question for me. If it is true that such a large proportion of the British population commits crimes, why is this so?

Our understanding of crime itself may lead to problems. Crime is not the name for an action – it is the name given to a class of actions performed in a particular context. Some of these actions are directed at the authorities who forbid them. The punishment of the actions will not remove the context that characterise those actions. You can’t stop someone from being a criminal by punishing what he or she does. If that was the case, we wouldn’t need larger prisons. If punishment was a viable solution, crime would have ceased thousands of years ago. In the film KPAX, when the character Prot is asked by his psychiatrist why they don’t have laws on his planet, he replied ‘Because every sentient being in the universe knows the difference between right and wrong’.

Most humans know the difference between what is right and what is wrong, so why do so many choose to do what is wrong? More importantly, what is the context that these actions take place in? I would argue that it is the same context that gives rise to drug and alcohol problems, obesity and neglect. Nacro’s 2006 briefing paper suggests crime impacts upon health, which may be true, but they miss the point that crime is a symptom, as is poor health, of a wider contextual problem. And the context isn’t simply inequalities, social exclusion or poverty; in fact, these are as much symptoms as crime or illness.

What then, is context is it that gives rise to the symptoms I have described? Part of the context is our way of thinking, characterised by ideas that ‘more is better’ in terms of money, material possessions and power. To begin to challenge the global high rates of crime and illness we urgently need to think differently about ourselves and the worlds we inhabit, and, as Bateson put it, make steps towards an ecology of mind.

In the United States at the end of 2001, 10% of the population owned 71% of the wealth, and the top 1% controlled 38%. On the other hand, the bottom 40% owned less than 1% of the nation's wealth. Similar distribution patterns are found in other countries. Those people that control the wealth also control the media, at the very least have a major influence upon governments, and they control the prices we pay for everything, from food to petrol.

Unfortunately, those with power tend to want to retain it. They have absolutely no reason to change the way they think; after all the current mind-set works for them. This is western democratic society and it is the context that inculcates crime and preventable illness; a combination of our epistemology, one that values power, and a society that manifests power through wealth.

Putting myself in opposition with Gregory Bateson who was an atheist (I would call myself agnostic), I also believe that as spiritual beings (even atheists might appreciate the sacred), we may be able to challenge this context through a quiet revolution, a revolution of showing love, kindness and forgiveness. The wealthy cannot take their money or their power with them on the next stage of their journey, and I doubt that any of them will be much happier; that is assuming that they are happy at all.

Dialogue and the war on terror

The Danish Premier called for dialogue in resolving the conflict between Islamic extremists and Western countries.

The trouble is, the potential for dialogue started some time ago, and no-one seemed to want to listen.

On February 26, 1993, a bomb exploded beneath the World Trade Center in New York, killing six people and injuring over a thousand. Five years later, a jury in New York City found Ramzi Ahmed Yousef guilty of the bombing. Yousef was asked if he wanted to make a statement before being sentenced. This is usually a situation where the person who has been convicted has an opportunity to express remorse for the crime. However, Yousef defiantly explained that in his worldview, he had acted honorably. He said:

You keep talking also about collective punishment
and killing innocent people to force
governments to change their policies; you call
this terrorism when someone would kill innocent
people or civilians in order to force the
government to change its policies. Well, you
were the first one who invented this terrorism.

You were the first one who killed
innocent people, and you are the first one
who introduced this type of terrorism to the
history of mankind when you dropped an
atomic bomb which killed tens of thousands
of women and children in Japan and when
you killed over a hundred thousand people,
most of them civilians, in Tokyo with
fire bombings. You killed them by burning
them to death. And you killed civilians in
Vietnam with chemicals as with the socalled
Orange agent. You killed civilians
and innocent people, not soldiers, innocent
people every single war you went. You went
to wars more than any other country in this
century, and then you have the nerve to talk
about killing innocent people.
And now you have invented new ways
to kill innocent people. You have so-called
economic embargo which kills nobody
other than children and elderly people, and
which other than Iraq you have been placing
the economic embargo on Cuba and other
countries for over 35 years. . .

The government in its summations and
opening said that I was a terrorist. Yes, I am
a terrorist and I am proud of it. And I support
terrorism so long as it was against the
United States Government and against
Israel, because you are more than terrorists;
you are the one who invented terrorism and
using it every day. You are butchers, liars
and hypocrites.

Immediately after this statement, Judge Kevin Duffy sentenced Yousef to 240 years in prison. He went beyond the requirements of his role by recommending that the sentence be served in solitary confinement, imposing a fine of $4.5 million, and ordering Yousef to provide $250 million in restitution.

Whilst many people might vehemently agree with Yousef, his statement outlined a position that is taken by some people.

Without dialogue we cannot learn about why people take the positions they do, nor will they understand the positions we take. When people take opposing positions, without dialogue, there will be conflict.

Dialogue requires that we do four things:

Suspend our judgment
When we learn to suspend judgment, to "hold our positions more lightly", we open the door to see others' points of view. It is not that we do away with our judgments and opinions - this would be impossible. We simply create a space between our judgment and our reaction, and thus open a door for listening.

Identify our assumptions
It is probably obvious to most of us that our assumptions play a large role in how we evaluate our environment, the decisions we make and how we behave. Yet, it is just this aspect of our thinking that we consistently overlook when we seek to solve problems, resolve conflicts, or create synergy among diverse people. Our prejudices are 'pre-judgments', and sometimes we need to reflect on these ideas we hold. By learning how to identify our assumptions, we can also explore differences with others, work to build common ground and consensus, and get to the bottom of core misunderstandings and differences.

Listening: Key to Perception
The way we listen has a lot to do with our capacity to learn and build quality relationships with others. When we are able to suspend judgment and listen to diverse perspectives we expand and deepen our world view. It is the act of listening that allows for integration and synthesis of new insights and possibilities. When we listen deeply we are willing to be influenced by and learn from others.

Inquiry and Reflection
Inquiry elicits information. Reflection permits the inspection of information and the perception of relationships. The combination of reflection and inquiry enables us to learn, to think creatively, and to build on past experience (versus simply repeating the same patterns over and over again). By creating pauses to reflect, we learn to work with silence and slow down the rate of conversation. We become able to identify assumptions and reactive patterns and open the door for new ideas and possibilities.

Perhaps by encouraging and modelling dialogic approaches to dealing with conflict, the world might be a more  peaceful place. That means the West being prepared to shift it's position from rapacious involvement in the Middle East as well as terrorists being prepared to stop killing.