In a day in which the knight in shining armor is seen for who he is beyond his glamour, the masses are left to wonder what it truly is that we live or fight for. Was it really necessary for the founding fathers to declare independence and give their lives? Are the Iraqis and Afghanis really going to be any better off with democracy than before? Why would anyone resort to terrorism and is it our fault? We are led to ask what freedom truly is and if it is worth fighting for.
After examining society closely, Max Weber’s concerns regarding bureaucracy show themselves vividly. You can see both a deep conflict and a dependency between the system and the individual. The Charismatic Leader seeks ever to break the routinization of bureaucracy and bureaucracy seeks to solidify and implement the innovation of the Charismatic Leader while stabilizing itself against revolution.
Victor Hugo examined the three human dependencies of society, religion and nature in his literature. Les Miserables is his essay on man’s dependency on society whilst being negatively affected by it as well. Society can be summed up in communication. Numerous psychological theories exist in which man could never attain his potential to thought and personality without interaction with his environment. Humanity is innately driven to be social by our mannerisms of learning.
As a result of all this we can see clearly that there are two overarching themes in the human struggle:
1.) Security Through Order
2.) Freedom as an Individual
The first is the cause of Weber’s bureaucracy and the second is that of his Charismatic Leader. Recently I was watching the movie Equilibrium, which describes a hypothetical society wherein in order to prevent further calamity among humanity the government seeks to take away the human capacity to feel. In the movie we are shown how a cleric (a senses enforcer) who no longer takes the non-feeling drug looks at the lights in the office and sees the beauty of their order and yet wishes to express individuality via having a different layout on the desk than those of his neighbors.
While pondering the hypothetical system presented in the movie it seems that without feeling there would only be chaos and entropy. The innate curiosity to beauty that mankind is endowed with allows him to feel a drive to create, to make better. The world of technology in which they live in the movie does not appear to be feasible due to lack of purpose in creation.
Perhaps such progress and order might be possible through ethics. But it seems doubtful, and that it would be forced and not organic by any means. Order and feeling seem to be congruent. OCD is brought on by chemical imbalances and is similar in nature to the feelings one feels when in love. (Slater 2006) Order naturally brings feelings of peace and calm, of security and the ability to move forward. It is natural that positive feelings of motivation would bring us to order, especially if we avoid the feelings of self disgust that come from over-self-gratification.
As an example, the pleasures of sex and love are meant to be derived from promoting the other’s happiness mutually, creating harmony. If the pleasures associated are polluted to be self-gratifying, harmony cannot exist and the subject will fall back to a system wherein harmony exists. This is retrogression of *order.
By cultivating the social aspects of positive motivation via self-discipline our lives naturally fall into harmony, and order the resulting from positive feelings is synthesized. Ethics is capable of such synthesis, but the subject’s appreciation of the feelings of security associated with order will come at a much slower rate than by the harmony of self-actualization. Under the ethics model there may commonly be a fallout period in which the subject will explore chaos, perhaps come to appreciate it and come back to the ethical full order or at least a semblance thereof. If there is an incorporation of what was learned in the chaotic state, there may be additions to profit or not profit the ordered sphere.
Both by feelings and by ethics order is possible. Order already exists in the universe and entropy may be countered by the feelings of the subject who, if by choice of restraint from over-self-gratification and by means of altruism, may create order from chaos in the very process of self actualization. It appears that entropy comes from the desire to draw backward to a previous state of order instead of creating a new order that is more efficient, or that may yet introduce us to a higher form of feeling which in turn would eventually lead us to a new level of achievement for order.
What connects the individual drives of humans in society is identity. What defines cultures and identities around the world are common **morals and values. One of the key issues that defines our generation is lack of identity by loss of principle and morals. If entertainment and education forsake moral standards and teach ***secularism, we are producing highly reactive, unpredictable paradigmatic mutts.
As a result, patriotism, respect for law, altruism, etc. will disappear. Instead of having intrinsic respect for colleagues in work, school and other social settings, as a society we are compelled to refrain from disrespectful conduct to avoid reprimand for sexual harassment.
Order is not achieved by coercion, but by the altruism and peace of mind of the individual. A government can hold some control to promote order via the coercion of ethics but the harder, yet more effective way will be through teaching and emphasizing proper morals which will define the subject, leading to altruistic action and not extrinsically motivated action. As loss of identity abounds through a lack of common morals, order also deteriorates as a result of over-indulgence in Freedom as an Individual.
Now we come to the equal yet opposite side of Security Through Order. Freedom as an Individual is characterized by the revolutionary Charismatic Leader in Weber’s essays. The ability to break from routine and achieve self-actualization is what every sane man or woman desires. The ability to express oneself uniquely in the midst of the order of bureaucracy is always a challenge but is perpetually yearned for. Why is it important?
To our generation it is a perplexing question. After all, what is freedom? What is it that leads states to declare independence and risk lives to achieve it? Why is it protected when in some way or another you will be able to feel and get along living? In the movie Dr. Zhivago all that the doctor wishes for is to live and be happy. He does not see what difference it makes who is ruling. He should be able to be happy by simply living.
He is prevented from doing so because of anarchy in the name of the revolution. What would truly be the difference in life if we had let the Nazis take over the world? Why would it be worse to be a colony of England? Or of Germany for that matter?
The ideals of freedom are based on individualism; the idea that every man is important to the whole. In this world, under whatever paradigm, be it mercanitlism, capitalism globalism, or feudalism there are classes. Under each paradigm they go by different aliases; Serfs, slaves, proletarians etc. The freedom that men fight for is the freedom from class distinction, of being told who and what they are. The freedom to progress to the next level of order and press on with courage to a better world than to fall back into an old level of order in which there is already security but no expansion.
The world will remain in chaos until we reach a paradigm in which every man is free from class distinction. In such a case there will be perfect harmony, a world in which every member of the human family will see each other as an equal and care for them not only for who they are, but also for who they are capable of becoming. It is not enough to equalize classes legally. You can regulate what opportunities are given to individuals but you can’t regulate what individuals give to each other. That will come from who they are; their identity, values and morals.
Mankind is always seeking to improve their government to make the world a better place, but hardly ever do we seek to improve the life of our neighbor. To build the ideal computer you build the connections on the motherboard or other similar hardware, not the box in which it is stored. Wouldn’t it be great if we exercised our Freedom as Individuals to improve the Security Through Order in society and make a more perfect world to live in?
*The author acknowledges that there have been many scientists, physicists, artists etc. who led somewhat hedonistic lives. It should be noted that we are referring more to social order and not personal drive, escape or invention.
**Note that there is no one set of standard morals and therefore does not refer to right wing morals. In a recent interview with a college student it was concluded that everyone has morals. Morals are always based on values and or belief systems. An atheist and a religious person may have differing morals, but they both possess them nevertheless. The author believes that the separation of states in the world can be traced to conflicting morals and values. Moral actions are commonly based on the assumption that the recipent of the action would act similarly and semi altruistically in a similar situation.
***Secularism does not denote atheism, but more especially the state’s fear of partiality to any philosophy that is not neutral.
Works Consulted:
Slater, Lauren “True Love.” The National Geographic Magazine Feb 2006
Weber, Max Essays in Sociology
Wimmer Kurt Equilibrium. Dimension films, 2002
