Pay attention. You will always know when the morning is coming, if you pay attention. Do you feel it? Do you hear the birds? There are in all parts of the World those birds who sing right before dawn. One motive for delinquency—a way of getting out of line—is, possibly, a preference for occasional prison terms to imprisonment by routine. Crime, by its ultimate irrationality, may protest against the subordination of individual spontaneity to social efficiency. Three further reactions to anonymity may be noted: (1) The prestige of histrionics has risen. We long to impersonate, to get a name—better a pseudonym than to remain nameless; better a borrowed character than none; better to impersonate than never to feel like person. The wish to be oneself does not occur, for the only self known is empty and must be filled from the outside. (2) The attempt to become “interesting” (no doubt unconsciously to become interested) by buying a ready-made individuality, through “sending for,” “enrolling in,” or “reading up on” something, or “going places.” (3) Impersonal and abstract things and utilitarian relationships are cozily “personalized” as though to offset the depersonalization of individual life. #RandolphHarris 1 of 17

De-individualization, however, should not be viewed as a grim, deliberate, or coercive process. It is induced gradually by economic rewards and not experienced as de-individualization at all, though the symptoms are demonstrable. Most of the people who are nourished with homogenized pap never has solid food on which to cut their teeth. They feel vaguely restless and dissatisfied, but do not know what they are pining for and could not masticate or digest it if they had it. The cooks are kept busy ransacking all the recipes the World has ever known to prepare new dishes. However, the texture is always the same, always mushy, for the materials are always strained, blended, beaten, heated, and cooled until it is. Let us briefly tour the institutional kitchens where “recreation” is cooked up—movies, radio, television. Mass media cannot afford to step on anyone’s toes, and this implies a number of restrictions which, though less significant than the positive prescriptions, are not negligible. We can forebear rehearsing tiresome minutiae—forbidden words, topics, situations, actions; but the countless dangerous associations mass media must avoid deserve some scrutiny. No religious, racial, occupational, national, economic, political, and so forth, group can be offended. #RandolphHarris 2 of 17

Hence: Can an evil man be Mormon? Left-handed? Pipesmoking? Can he perish in an airplane accident? Can a villain have any qualities shared with non-villains and a hero have disapproved traits? In short, can either be human? The playwright or script writer may not mean to say that Mormons are evil or all evil men left-handed, or all pipesmokers; one may not intend to advocate bigamy or to suggest that airplane are dangerous or that we ought to be atheists. Anne Rice did not intend Tales of the Body Thief to be anti-Vampire, any more than Shakespeare intended Othello as a tract against handkerchiefs (in favor of Kleenex?). No matter. There is a danger that the play will be so understood. In Shylock and Fagin, Shakespeare and Dickens created individuals, experiences, and ideas and, unlike copy writers or propagandists, did not intend them as instruction on how to act and think. Yet the groups that press restrictions on mass media are wrong. For the audience tends to react as though such instruction had been received. The audience of mass media always expects to be sold goods, stereotypes, and recipes for living—a new vitamin for that tired, listless feeling, or a new line for romance. #RandolphHarris 3 of 17

And the audience is usually right: the same actress who just implored a soap-opera husband not to leave her and the kids turns and implores one and all in identically sincere and personal tones to buy insurance and perfume. The small boy’s heroes admonish him to get mommy to buy this or that (and even if the heroes did not, someone will sell Davy Crockett caps to the small boy). In many breakfast and news shows, advertising recommendations are deliberately mixed with “actual” expressions of opinion. Even non-professionals—society leaders, well-known novelists, successful and “average” common beings-ringingly declare their profound personal convictions on brands of soap, or beer, or God: “This I believe.” The line dividing views and characters presented as fiction and as “real” becomes hazy and the audience necessarily muddled about separating advertisements, pleas, and recipes from art. In such a context, the audience cannot receive art as individual experience and perspective on experience. Art becomes irrelevant. It is not perceived in its own terms, but first reduced to, then accepted or rejected as, a series of rules and opinions on what to expect or do. The idea that something must be sold is held by the media managers as fervently as it is held by the audience. It transcends the commercial motives which begot it. #RandolphHarris 4 of 17

Thus public or educational stations, which do not accept commercial advertising, spend nearly as much time on (non-commercial) attempts to sell something as do commercial ones. They sell themselves or their program, or next week’s offering—anything at all, as long as something is sold: “please listen again tomorrow,” “please send for our booklet,” “please do this or do not do that”—the listener must always be hectored, sold on or wheedled into something. How, then, could the audience see that a character such as Shylock simply is? A character in the audience’s experience always exists for a purpose; a character is invented to sell something, a point of view, or a product, or oneself. It is never an end in itself. Hence the audience always asks, Should be buy his or her line?, and it is nearly impossible to present something without suggesting by implication that it be bought. Art, like love, can be experiences only as a personal, continuous, cumulative relationship. Else art becomes entertainment—dull entertainment often—just as love is reduced to pleasures of the flesh or prestige. Not that art should not be entertaining; but it is no more deliberately aimed at entertainment than love is. Art (and love) must be felt; they cannot be manufactured by someone to suit the tastes of someone else. Yet mass-media fare is prepared for consumers devoted to amusement, not, as art (and love) must be, devoted to the work (or person) itself. #RandolphHarris 5 of 17

The circumstances which permit the expected in the audience of mass media. That audience is dispersed and heterogeneous, and though it listens often, it does so incidentally and intermittently and poised to leave if not immediately enthralled and kept amused. Such an audience is captured by loud, broad, and easy charms, by advertising posters, by copywriter’s prose. And the conditions and conditioning of the audience demand a mad mixture of important and trivial matters, atom bombs, hit tunes, symphonies, B.O., sob stories, hotcha girls, round tables, and jokes. It jells into one thing: diversion. Hence what art is presented is received as entertainment or propaganda. Shylock would be understood as an anti-Semitic stereotype. The mass media may as  well fit their offerings to the audience which they address and, knowing the limitations of that audience, they would be irresponsible to disregard the kind of understanding and misunderstand their offerings will meet. They must omit, therefore, all human experiences likely to be misunderstood—all experience and expression, the meaning of which is not obvious and approved. Which is to say that the mass media cannot touch the experiences that are, philosophy and literature deal with: relevant and significant human experience presented in relevant and significant form. #RandolphHarris 6 of 17

For if it is such, it is new, doubtful, difficult, perhaps offensive, at any rate easily misunderstood. Art is not concerned with making the obvious and approved more obvious and approved; it is precisely after this point that art begins and the mass media stop. There is a small debate being aired in certain circles of anthropology today about the many ways in which primitive life was superior to our own. I do not want to go int the pros and cons of it and the many subtle and valid arguments produced on both sides. However, if we agree to the old anthropological tenet about the psychic unity of humankind—that is, the beings everywhere, no matter how exotic a particular culture, is basically standard Homo sapiens, interchangeable in their nature and motives with any other human being–it does help us to understand the primitive World. This is what the whole movement to rehabilitate the primitive has been about: to show that one is basically no different from ourselves and certainly not inferior mentally or emotionally. Well, having agreed that the primitive is no worse than we are, it might be in order to add that one is no better. Otherwise, as we shall see, we cannot really understand what happened in history, unless we try to make out that a different animal developed, nor can we understand the problems of modern society, unless we pretend that modern beings are a wholly degenerate type of Homo sapiens. #RandolphHarris 7 of 17

What I am saying is that if modern beings seem mad in their obsession to control nature by technology, primitive beings were no less obsessed by their own mystical technics of sacrifice. After all, one of the things we have learned from the modern study of mental illness is that to make the body the referent of the whole cosmos is a technique of madness. It is true that by institutionalizing macrocosmization, primitive beings made it a normal way of referring oneself to transcendent events. However, this kind of normality is itself unreal, it blows beings up to an abnormal size, and so we are right to consider it self-defeating, a departure from the truth of the human condition. If the primitive was not less intelligent, one was equally not less intent on self-perpetuation. When we step off into history, we seem to see a type of being who is more driven—but this is only because one started off already obsessed with control and with a hunger for immortality. It is true that primitive beings were kinder to nature, that one did not cause the kind of destructiveness we are causing and, in fact, did not seem capable of our kind of casual disregard for the bounty of the natural World. It would take a lot of study and compilation of comparative data to bear these impressions out, but I think that if primitive beings were kinder to nature, it was not because one was innately different in one’s emotional sensitivity nor more altruistic toward other living forms than we are. #RandolphHarris 8 of 17

I think, rather, that it was because one’s technics of manipulation were less destructive in the past. One needed a tree, the spirit of an animal or plant, the sacrifice of one animal species. A we shall see, we grind up astronomically larger quantities of life, but it is in the same spirit and for the same basic reasons. If we talk about a certain primitive quality of reverence for lice, we must be very careful. The primitives’ attitude toward animals considered sacred was sometimes more cruel than our own is. They did not hesitate to sacrifice those whom they considered their benefactors or their gods, or even hesitate to kill their chiefs and kinds. The main value was whether this brought life to the community and whether the ritual demanded it. Beings have always casually sacrificed life for more life. Probably more to the point, beings have always treated with consideration and respect those parts of the natural World over which one has had no control. As soon as one was sure of one’s powers, one’s respect for the mystery of what one faced diminished. As the superiority and mastery over the rest of the living World became more and more apparent one seems to have become more and more anxious to disclaim relationships with animals, especially when worship because associated with respect. #RandolphHarris 9 of 17

There is no objection to an animal’s being the object of a cult when this does not imply respect but is merely a procedure for causing the animal to multiply. It is a very different thing when ritual becomes worship; beings are loath to abase themselves before an animal. This is attributed to the growing conceit of human beings. However, we could just as well see it as a result of natural narcissism. Each organism preens itself on the specialness of the life that throbs within it, and is ready to subordinate all others to its own continuation. Beings are always conceited; one only began to show one’s destructive side to the rest of nature when the ritual technology of the spiritual production of animals was superseded by other technologies. The unfolding of history is precisely the saga of the succession of new and different ideologies of organismic self-perpetuation—and the new injustices and heightened destructiveness of historical beings. However, there is no love without aggression. As opposed to ordinary aggression, it is directed toward one individual, just as love is, and probably hate presupposes the presence of love: one can really hate only where one has loved and, even if one denies it, still does. #RandolphHarris 10 of 17

That love is sometimes transformed into hate has often been said, even though it is more correct to say that it is not love which suffers this transformation, but the wounded narcissism of the loving person, this is to say, the non-love which causes hate. To claim one hates only where one has loved, however, turn the element of truth in the statement into plain absurdity. Does the oppressed hate the oppressor, does the mother of the child hate its murderer, does the tortured hate the torturer because they one loved him or still do? Primitive forms of petty individual aggression owes its motivating force to phylogenetically evolved behavior patterns. There cannot be the slightest doubt that human militant enthusiasm evolved out of a communal defense response of our prehuman ancestors. It is the enthusiasm shared by the group in defense against a common enemy. Every being of normally strong emotions knows, from one’s own experience, the subjective phenomena that go hand in hand with the response of militant enthusiasm. A shiver runs down the back and, as more exact observation shows, along the outside of both arms. One soars elated, above all the ties of everyday life, one is ready to abandon all for the call of what, in the moment of this specific emotion, seems to be a sacred duty. #RandolphHarris 11 of 17

All obstacles in its path become unimportant; the instinctive inhibitions against hurting or killing one’s fellows lose unfortunately much of their power. Rational considerations, criticism, and all reasonable arguments against the behavior dictated by militant enthusiasm are silenced by an amazing reversal of all values making them appear not only untenable but base and dishonorable. Beings may enjoy the feeling of absolute righteousness even while they commit atrocities. Conceptual thought and moral responsibility are at their lowest ebb. As a Ukrainian proverb says: “When the banner is unfurled, all reason is in the trumpet.” There is a reasonable hope that our moral responsibility may gain control over the primeval drive, but our only hope of its ever doing so rests on the humble recognition of the fact that militant enthusiasm is an instinctive response with a phylogenetically determined releasing mechanism and that the only point at which intelligent and responsible supervision can get control is the conditioning of the response to an object which proves to be a genuine value under the scrutiny of the categorical questions. No doubt many beings do enjoy the feeling of absolute righteousness even while they commit atrocities—or rather, to put it in more adequate psychological terms, many enjoy committing atrocities without any more inhibitions and without experiencing a sense of guilt. #RandolphHarris 12 of 17

However, it is an untenable scientific procedure to claim, without even trying to muster evidence for it, that this is a universal human reaction, or that it is human nature to commit atrocities during war, and to base this claim on an alleged instinct based on the questionable analogy with fishes and birds. The fact is that when hate is aroused against in the group, individuals and groups differ tremendously in their tendency to commit atrocities. In the first World War British propaganda had to invent the stories of German soldiers bayoneting Belgian babies, because there were too few real atrocities to feed the hatred against the enemy. Similarly, the Germans reported few atrocities committed by their enemies, for the simple reason that there were so few. Even during the second World War, in spite of the increasing brutalization of humankind, atrocities were generally restricted to special formations of the Nazis. In general, regular troops on both sides did not commit war crimes on the scale which would be expected. However, as far as atrocities are concerned, the behavior of sadistic or bloodthirsty character type often display a militant enthusiasm, it is a nationalistic and emotionally somewhat primitive reaction. To assert that a readiness to commit atrocities once the flag has been unfurled is an instinctively given part of human nature and is the classic defense against the accusation of violating the principles of the Geneva Convention. #RandolphHarris 13 of 17

We do not mean to defense atrocities, and our approach in dealing with them must never block the understanding of the character systems in which they are rooted, and the individual and social conditions that cause their development. However, without military enthusiasm (this true autonomous instinct) neither art, nor science, nor indeed any of the great endeavors of humanity would have come into being. How can this be when the first condition for the manifestation of this instinct is that a social unit with which the subject identifies must appear to be threatened by some danger from outside? Is there any evidence that art and science flower only when there is an outside threat? We can explain this as the love of neighbor, expressed in the willingness to risk one’s life for one, as a matter of course if one is your best friend and has saved yours a number of times: you do it without even thinking. Instance of such decent behavior in tight spots easily occur, provided they are of a kind that occurred often enough in the paleolithic period to produce phylogenetically adapted social norms to deal with the situation. Such a view of love of neighbor is mixture of instinctivism and utilitarianism. You save your friend because he or she has saved your life a number of times; what is one did it only once, or not at all? Besides, you only do it because it happened often enough in the paleolithic period. #RandolphHarris 14 of 17

Furthermore, there is a difference in the satisfaction attained—in general terms the difference between pleasures and reassurance. Strivings for satisfaction and security present a basic principle regulating life. The distinction, however, is less sharp than appears at first sight. The satisfaction of instinctual drives such as hunger and pleasures of the flesh is desire, but if physical tension has been pent up the satisfaction attained is very similar to that attained in relief from anxiety. In both cases there is relief from an unbearable tension. As to intensity, pleasure and reassurance may be equally strong. A satisfaction in pleasures of the flesh, though different in kind, may be equally as strong as the feelings of a person who is suddenly relieved from an intense anxiety; and, generally speaking, the strivings for reassurance not only may be as strong as instinctual drives, but may yield an equally strong satisfaction. The strivings for reassurance contain also other secondary sources of satisfaction. For example, the feeling of being loved or appreciated, of having success or influence, may be highly satisfactory, quite apart from the gain in security. Furthermore, as we shall see presently, the various approaches to reassurance allow quite a discharge of pent-up hostility and thus afford another kind of relief from tensions. #RandolphHarris 15 of 17

The craving for affection is so frequent in neuroses, and so easily recognizable by the trained observer, that it may be considered one of the surest indicators for an existing anxiety and its approximate intensity. In fact if one feels fundamentally helpless toward a World which is invariably menacing and hostile, then the search for affection would appear to be the most logical and direct way of reaching out for any kind of benevolence, help or appreciation. If the psychic conditions of the neurotic person were what they frequently appear to oneself to be, it ought to be easy for one to gain affection. If I may verbalize what one often sense only dimly, one’s impression are something like this: what one wants is so little, only the people should be kind to one, should give one advice, should appreciate that one is less affluent, harmless, lonely soul, anxious to please, anxious not to hurt anyone’s feelings. That is all one sees or feels. One does not recognize how much one’s sensitivities, one’s latent hostilities, one’s exacting demands interfere with one’s own relationships; nor is one able to judge the impression one makes on other or their reaction to one. Consequently one is at a loss to understand why one’s friendships, marriages, love affairs, professional relations are so often dissatisfactory. #RandolphHarris 16 of 17

One tends to conclude that all of this dysfunction is the fault of others, that they are inconsiderate, disloyal, abusive, or that for some unfathomable reason one lack the gift of being popular. This one keeps chasing the phantom of love. One day the mysterious event called by Jesus being born again will occur. There will be a serene displacement of the lower self by the higher one. It will come in the secrecy of disciple’s heart and it will come with an overwhelming power which the intellect, the ego, and the animal in one may resist, but resist in vain. One is brought to this experience by the Overself as soon as one is oneself able to penetrate to the deeper regions of one’s heart. Only when the disciple has given up all the Earthly attractions and wishes, expectations and desires that previously sustained one, only when one has had the courage to pluck them out by the roots and throw them aside forever, only then does one find the mysterious unearthly compensation for all this terrible sacrifice. For one is anointed with the sacred oil of a new and higher life. Henceforth one is truly saved, redeemed, illumined. The lower self has died only to give birth to a divine successor. “And blessed are all they who do hunger and thirst after righteousness for they shall be filled with the Holy Ghost. And blessed are the merciful, for they shall obtain mercy. And blessed are all the pure in heart, for they shall see God,” reports 3 Nephi 12.6-8. #RandolphHarris 17 of 17