Here at Eleusis we have all been (separately) watching the film sequence Century of the Self. So far Adam has watched the whole thing, I have watched about two thirds and Elja is about a quarter of the way through. It is the kind of film that in some respects works best taken in small chunks because the story is told using a series of vignettes and each one is worth reflecting upon. It has provided us with a lot of breakfast time conversation.
The basic theme is how the ideas of Sigmund Freud have been applied (or corrupted, according to your perspective) to maintain stability (or oppression and exploitation) in the population, especially the population of the USA. It raises a host of questions.
Is the psyche deeply populated by destructive, irrational forces, by a benign self-actualizing tendency, or just meaninglessness?
Does not having enough sex make you ill (Freud) or is it better to be celibate like Freud's daughter Anna who became the leader of Freud's movement after he died?
A tangential question might be: Is it good for the human race that Gengis Khan had 1600 great grandchildren but the Dalai Lama will not have any?
Does one need a strong ego in order to keep repression in place and make social rules workable, or is it better to 'let it all hang out' and kick over the traces, or is there some middle position, and if so what/where?
The film highlights the power of propaganda, public relations, spin and general manipulation of the population, often using subtle (or not so subtle) sexual imagery to sell products that become identity tags that then keep people in line. Is democracy only possible with such manipulation? Is democracy inseparably tied to capitalism and product fetishism?
Some particular vignettes that stick in my mind include
- how women were persuaded to smoke
- how the attempt to make her normal killed Marilyn Monroe
- how the USA sabotaged central American regimes that did not kowtow to American corporations
- how Nazism made sense to many people in the wake of the 1929 financial crash
- A snippet from a speech of Martin Luther King saying he is proud to be 'maladjusted' to racism and oppression
Freud thought that civilisation was necessary for survival, yet inevitably was won at considerable cost to the individual, especially in terms of deferred sexual gratification. A moderately high incidence of neurosis was therefore inevitable in any civilised society, since the creative energy that builds society was a 'sublimation' or diversion of sexual energy and as the capacity of individuals to achieve such diversion varies, some will become 'well-adjusted', good citizens and some will succumb to the difficulties of what is demanded of them.
His successor, Anna Freud, thought that a strong ego was essential and that it was built by conformity to social values. The central figure in the film, however, is Edward Bernays, Freud's nephew who took his uncle's ideas and used them initially to make money and later to help the CIA.
The film is shocking in some ways, making plain some of the awful way that politics has, on occasion, been lethally manipulated for the sake of greed. It highlights the dilemmas of power and need for order and the repression and reaction involved. Facile answers to the questions raised do not suffice - it is all very challenging and sometimes chilling. One knows some of these things in general, but the film included details that were new to me on top of what I already knew.
Replies
Yes, the question of mass psychology and what happens to people in crowds is fascinating, complex and sometimes very alarming. People in groups seem sometimes to lose all connection with their better principles. There is something about being part of a group that reduces the sense of responsibility and gives a kind of permission. It can be permission for good things, but often it is the opposite.