Eric Hoffer: totalitarianism in free societies

No. 28

There is a large measure of totalitarianism even in the freest of free societies.  But in a free society totalitarianism is not imposed from without but is implanted within the individual.  There is a totalitarian regime inside everyone of us.  We are ruled  by a ruthless politburo which sets our norms and drives us from one five-year plan to another.  The autonomous individual who has to justify his existence by his own efforts is in eternal bondage to himself.  

-- Eric Hoffer --
from  The Passionate State of Mind



If autonomous individuals are in bondage to themselves, then the non-autonomous individuals must be in bondage to outside forces.  Since there is no escape from bondage, according to Hoffer, then I would prefer to be in bondage to myself.

Aside from death, is there another option which could free us from this bondage?  Or, does this bondage really exist?   

Eric Hoffer: More! More! More! More!

No. 22

"MORE!" is as effective a revolutionary slogan as was ever invented by doctrinaires of discontent.  The American, who cannot learn to want what he has, is a permanent revolutionary.  He glories in change, has faith in that which he has not yet, and is ready to give his life for it. 

-- Eric Hoffer --
from The Passionate State of Mind and other Aphorisms 


Frankly I have some doubt about part of the following assertion:

He glories in change, has faith in that which he has not yet, and is ready to give his life for it. 

I agree that we have faith in that which we don't have and might give up our lives to gain it, depending, of course, upon what it is we think we don't have and must have, but I do think Hoffer goes a bit overboard here.

What I most disagree with is that part about glorying in change.  This may be true for some Americans, but based on how I read the papers and listen to politicians, there appears to be a very large portion of the American populace who do NOT glory in change, but fear it instead.  They glory in stasis and fear any change and are much more likely to give their lives to maintain a static existence or even return to a mythical Golden Age (and what's worse, are ready to give the lives of others also).

Eric Hoffer: conservatives and radicals

Another quotation or aphorism from Eric Hoffer's The Passionate State of Mind.


No. 21

"There is radicalism in all getting, and conservatism in all keeping.  Lovemaking is radical, while marriage is conservative.  So, too, get-rich-quick capitalism is radical, while a capitalism intent solely on keeping what it already has is conservative.  Radicalism itself ceases to be radical when absorbed mainly in preserving its control over a society or an economy."
-- Eric Hoffer --
The Passionate State of Mind

conservative: believing in the value of established and traditional practices in politics and society: not liking or accepting changes or new ideas.

radical: very new and different from what is traditional or ordinary: having extreme political or social views that are not shared by most people

Merriam Webster Dictionary  



What do you think?  Is Hoffer being simplistic here?  Is there more to being conservative or radical?  Or, is this one of those cases where being simple is best?

Are "getting" and "keeping" the signficant differences between them?

Corporations then would obviously be conservative as their focus is mainly on survival, and all else comes second (or last).  Restaurants or cafes are common in this country, if not world-wide.  Would opening a new restaurant or cafe be conservative or radical?  If that would be a conservative act, what would be necessary to make opening a new restaurant a radical act?

Cat cafes or lounges are very popular now in Japan.  Something similar has just opened up in San Francisco (I think).  A customer can walk in, order a cup of tea or coffee, and relax.  The place has many cats wandering around, and eventually one will come up to investigate and be petted.  It is supposed to be very relaxing and peaceful, just right for harried 9-5ers and shoppers.

Would opening up one of these lounges be a radical act?  In Japan?  Here?

Eric Hoffer: product of dissatisfaction

No. 17

There is perhaps no better way of measuring the natural endowment of a soul than by its ability to transmute dissatisfaction into a creative impulse.  The genuine artist is as much a dissatisfied person as the revolutionary, yet how diametrically opposed are the products each distills from his dissatisfaction.

--  Eric Hoffer --
from The Passionate State of Mind


While I can see how dissatisfaction can move a revolutionary to act, I'm not sure how dissatisfaction can move an artist to create.

Do you think Hoffer is neutral here--showing no preference for either the products of a genuine artist or that of a revolutionary?

Does "creative impulse" refer only to the product of a genuine artist or to the products of both the artist and the revolutionary?


I lean towards the position that Hoffer prefers the products of the genuine artist, but I have nothing to support that "lean."  Perhaps it's my own rather distrustful attitude towards revolutionaries and the results of their actions:  that revolutionaries seldom produce real change--that only the names of the rulers are changed and little else. 

Eric Hoffer: The Passionate State of Mind

No. 10

"The dislocation involved in switching from one passion to another--even its very opposite--is less than one wold expect.  There is a basic similarity in the make-up of all passionate minds.  The sinner who turns saint undergoes no more dramatic transformation than the lecher who turns miser."

-- Eric Hoffer --
from The Passionate State of Mind

Essentially it seems that people who are passionate about something are much the same, be it sports,  politics, religion, music, wine, or anything you can think of.   It's only the object that is significantly different, not the emotion or intensity, for they are quite similar.  Is a fight between the supporters of two athletic teams any different really than a fight between supporters of two political philosophies or two religions?

Or at least that's what it seems to me he's saying. 

Eric Hoffer: quiet confidence and noisy insecurity

No. 11

"The passionate state of mind is often indicative of a lack of skill, talent or power.  Moreover, passionate intensity can serve as a substitute for the confidence born of proficiency and the possession of power.  A workingman sure of his skill goes leisurely about his job, and accomplishes much though he works as if at play.  On the other hand, the workingman who is without confidence attacks his work as if he were saving the world, and he must do so if he is to get anything done.  The same is true of the soldier.  A well-trained and well-equipped soldier will fight well even when not stirred by strong feeling.  But the untrained soldier will give a good account of himself only when animated by enthusiasm and fervor."

-- Eric Hoffer --
from The Passionate State of Mind


This reminds me of certain politicians today--those who make a lot of noise and insist they are saving the country from its internal and external enemies, when in reality they accomplish the opposite and, what is worse,  they prevent others from doing what is necessary.  In other words, those who shout the loudest and make the most noise accomplish the least. 

Eric Hoffer: dissipation

#9

"DISSIPATION is a form of self-sacrifice.  The reckless wasting of one's vigor is a blind striving to 'liquidate' an unwanted self.  And as one would expect, the passage from this to other forms of self-sacrifice is not uncommon.  Passionate sinning has not infrequently been an apprenticeship to sainthood.  Many of the insights of the saint stem from his experience as a sinner."

-- Eric Hoffer --
from The Passionate State of Mind


In other words, dissipation is an indirect form of suicide.  This seems reasonable to me.  Or perhaps  it's a way of punishing oneself for some sin or transgression.

Does this seem reasonable to you?


That great sinners sometimes become saints has been noted before.   One of the most famous examples is St. Augustine who, after spending many years in dissipation, converted and became one of the most respected leaders of the early Christian Church.

This is the point made by C. S. Lewis in his great satirical work, The Screwtape Letters, specifically in the section titled  "Screwtape Proposes a Toast."  Screwtape is responding to complaints by other devils that the souls served up at the banquets recently have been bland and tasteless, flabby and insipid.  He agrees, but he then points out that while the quality of souls has decreased, the quantity has considerably increased.  There is no risk of famine today because of the great number of souls that just sort of end up in hell without even choosing to do evil.   The reason for the diminished quality of souls is clear:


"The great (and toothsome) sinners are made out of the very same material as those horrible phenomena the great Saints."

This, I believe, is the same point Hoffer is making at the end of his statement.  Strong or passionate feelings are the same, but what makes the difference in them is the focus of those feelings.  There are ways of measuring the intensity of one's feelings, but there's no way of identifying the focus of those passions, short of asking the individual.  Emotions are much the same in all, but what makes the difference is the focus of those strong passions.

Eric Hoffer: on desire

"7.  Every intense desire is perhaps basically a desire to be different from what we are.  Hence probably the imperiousness of the desire for fame, which is a desire for a self utterly unlike the real self."

"8.  There is even in the most selfish passion a large element of self-abnegation.  It is startling to realize that what we call extreme self-seeking is actually self-abnegation.  The miser, health addict, glory chaser, and their like are not far behind the selfless in the excise of self-sacrifice.

Every extreme attitude is a flight from the self."

-- Eric Hoffer --
from The Passionate State of Mind


Desires or needs seem to signify a lack in ourselves or perhaps a feeling that all is not right with us, that something is missing, while those who lack desire are those who are content with who they are and with what they have.  If so, then our consumer-oriented culture suggests that a majority of us are dissatisfied with ourselves, and advertising agencies use this to manipulate us into buying products that will make us happy by filling gaps or by changing ourselves into something we are not at this moment.

All advertisements directly or indirectly suggest that this product is something we must have if we are to be happy, and many go even a step further.  In order to assuage any possible guilt at purchasing the product or service, which might be viewed as a luxury or perhaps self-indulgence, the ad tells us that we "deserve" this product or service, in other words, you should have this, whatever is may be.

What I wonder is how this ever came about?  What is it that we lack that earlier generations seemed to have?

Eric Hoffer: desires and self-esteem

#5
"It is strange how the moment we have reason to be dissatisfied with ourselves we are set upon by a pack of insistent clamorous desires. Is desire somehow an expression of the centrifugal force that tears and pulls us away from an undesirable self?  A gain in self-esteem usually reduces the pull of the appetites, while a crisis in self-esteem is likely to cause of a weakening or a complete breakdown of self-discipline.

Asceticism is sometimes a deliberate effort to reverse a reaction in the chemistry of our soul: by suppressing desire we try to rebuild and bolster self-esteem."




#6
"To believe that if we could but have this or that we would be happy is to suppress the realization that the cause of our unhappiness is in our inadequate and blemished selves.  Excessive desire is thus a means of suppressing our sense of worthlessness."






-- Eric Hoffer --
from The Passionate State of Mind


In times of a personal crisis or emotional distress, how many people turn to binge eating or shopping sprees or becoming angry with those around them? Is it to distract themselves from the real problem or perhaps a misdirected way of regaining control in some way:  I can eat or I can shop or I can strike out at others when I want. Could this also be a basis for an obsessive interest in collecting objects or idolizing film stars,  athletes,  TV series,  politicians?

Is this a way of regaining self-esteem?

Eric Hoffer on responsibility

The following quotations come from Eric Hoffer's The Passionate State of Mind.  It is said to be a sign of maturity and inner strength to accept responsibility for our own actions.  It is this that distinguishes us from the children and the immature.

85.
"There is a powerful caving in most of us to see ourselves as instruments in the hands of others and thus free ourselves from the responsibility of acts which are prompted by our own questionable inclinations and impulses.  Both the strong and the weak grasp at this alibi.  The latter hide their malevolence under the virtue of obedience: they acted dishonorably because they had to obey orders.  The strong, too, claim absolution by proclaiming themselves the chosen instruments of a higher power--God, history, fate, nation or humanity."


At one time, ministers and preachers would claim the support of the deity for their actions, that God told them what to say and do, but today we see politicians and legislators now insisting that the deity has told them what is right and what they must do.  They imply, of course, that a vote for them is a vote for God; voting for their opponents is voting against God.  It's God's responsibility, not theirs.

Who was the comedian whose tagline became instantly famous and quoted and revised innumerable times?
--The Devil made me do it.   There's some truth in humor, I think.


86.
"The awareness that the misfortunes which befall us are some sort of retribution for past transgressions often evokes in us a sense of relief.  We are relieved of immediate responsibility for whatever it is that is happening to us.  For if our difficulties can be ascribed to something that has happened in the past, they cannot serve as evidence of our present inadequacy and cannot blemish our self-confidence and self-esteem."

Doesn't it say somewhere in the Bible that the sins of  the fathers shall fall even onto the third generation?  And Buddhists speak of Karma which means that actions in our past lives can have an effect on us in the present incarnation.  

Eric Hoffer: Something to think about

No. 4

It seems that we are most busy when we do not do the one thing we ought to do; most greedy when we cannot have the one thing we really want; most hurried when we can never arrive; most self-righteous when irrevocably in the wrong.

There is apparently a link between excess and unattainability.

-- Eric Hoffer --
from The Passionate State of Mind


Why excess? Perhaps we hope to distract ourselves?

Something to think about

3

That we pursue something passionately does not always mean that we really want it or have a special aptitude for it. Often, the thing we pursue most passionately is but a substitute for the one thing we really want and cannot have. It is usually safe to predict that the fulfillment of an excessively cherished desire is not likely to still our nagging anxiety.

In every passionate pursuit, the pursuit counts more than the object pursued.

-- Eric Hoffer --
from The Passionate State of Mind




Well, one part that I can agree with is that even getting what we want doesn't satisfy us for long.

Do we often go after substitutes instead of what we really want?

Is the chase more important than the capture or the acquisition? Or, possibly another way to ask: Is the journey more important than the destination?

Something to think about

No. 2

A poignant dissatisfaction, whatever be its cause, is at bottom a dissatisfaction with ourselves. It is surprising how much hardship and humiliation a man will endure without bitterness when he has not the least doubt about his worth or when he is so integrated with others that he is not aware of a separate self.

-- Eric Hoffer --
from The Passionate State of Mind



I wonder how true this is. Are we really most dissatisfied when we are dissatisfied with ourselves?

Can't we be dissatisfied or unhappy with a situation or a person and still be satisfied with ourselves?