Matching Grant Challenge
BruceMatch
We’re slowly making headway in our annual fund drive, but not nearly fast enough to meet our make-or-break goal.  On the bright side, a generous CounterPuncher has stepped forward with a pledge to match every donation of $100 or more. Any of you out there thinking of donating $50 should know that if you donate a further $50, CounterPunch will receive an additional $100. And if you plan to send us $200 or $500 or more, he will give CounterPunch a matching $200 or $500 or more. Don’t miss the chance. Double your clout right now. Please donate.
 unnamed

Yes, these are dire political times. Many who optimistically hoped for real change have spent nearly five years under the cold downpour of political reality. Here at CounterPunch we’ve always aimed to tell it like it is, without illusions or despair. That’s why so many of you have found a refuge at CounterPunch and made us your homepage. You tell us that you love CounterPunch because the quality of the writing you find here in the original articles we offer every day and because we never flinch under fire. We appreciate the support and are prepared for the fierce battles to come.

Unlike other outfits, we don’t hit you up for money every month … or even every quarter. We ask only once a year. But when we ask, we mean it.

CounterPunch’s website is supported almost entirely by subscribers to the print edition of our magazine. We aren’t on the receiving end of six-figure grants from big foundations. George Soros doesn’t have us on retainer. We don’t sell tickets on cruise liners. We don’t clog our site with deceptive corporate ads.

The continued existence of CounterPunch depends solely on the support and dedication of our readers. We know there are a lot of you. We get thousands of emails from you every day. Our website receives millions of hits and nearly 100,000 readers each day. And we don’t charge you a dime.

Please, use our brand new secure shopping cart to make a tax-deductible donation to CounterPunch today or purchase a subscription our monthly magazine and a gift sub for someone or one of our explosive  books, including the ground-breaking Killing Trayvons. Show a little affection for subversion: consider an automated monthly donation. (We accept checks, credit cards, PayPal and cold-hard cash….)

pp1

or
cp-store

To contribute by phone you can call Becky or Deva toll free at: 1-800-840-3683

Thank you for your support,

Jeffrey, Joshua, Becky, Deva, and Nathaniel

CounterPunch
 PO Box 228, Petrolia, CA 95558

The Obsessive-Compulsive Snoops

NSA Control Freaks

by WILLIAM MANSON

Those who are attracted to the non-alive are the people who prefer ‘law-and-order’ to living structure, bureaucratic to spontaneous methods, gadgets to living beings, repetition to originality… They want to control life because they are afraid of its uncontrollable spontaneity; they would rather kill it than expose themselves to it and merge with the world around them.”

—Psychoanalyst Erich Fromm1

The hyper-focused obsession with dominance and control is, according to many psychoanalysts, symptomatic of a deep-rooted fear of spontaneous self-expression (notably of repressed emotions)—in short, of psychological “freedom” in its most general sense.  Conflicted human relations, however ambivalent and nuanced, are reduced to technically-solvable “problems.”  Rigidly willful, inflexible, detailed-obsessed, the techno-scientific “control freak”—as we say colloquially–may ultimately fear “the impulses and emotions within…himself.  Unconsciously he fears that if they should get out of control, terrible things might happen, murder perhaps.  So on the one hand he keeps himself under tight control, and on the other hand he projects this intrapsychic drama on the world and tries to control it.”2

Such individuals—which psychoanalyst Wilhelm Reich once termed “living machines”3—tend to gravitate to careers in applied science, technology, law enforcement, and, last but not least, the military. Indeed, military training in itself explicitly seeks to transform unique individuals into obedient, unthinking subordinates (and potential killers)—standardizing attitudes and conduct within an authoritarian command structure which mirrors, in a grotesque extreme, the hierarchical regimentation of the U.S. workplace.

Gen. Keith Alexander, who holds a master’s degree in systems technology and physics, is by all accounts technically well-versed in the ultimate potentials of the data-retrieval systems he oversees—and has relentlessly sought to expand–as director of the NSA.  Former associates and government officials have characterized Alexander as being single-mindedly focused on amassing “big-data” (such as PRISM), and as willfully indifferent to the Fourth Amendment rights of mere human beings called citizens.

Fifty years ago Erich Fromm warned of an unchallenged dogma of technocracy: “something ought to be done because it is technically possible to do it.”  More recently, Gen. Alexander reportedly decided: “We have the capability, so let’s use it.”4 (Fortunately, such expedient “logic” has yet to be realized in the case of, say, the hydrogen bomb.)    A second technocratic dogma, critiqued by Fromm, is “maximal efficiency and output”—even if the end-results, in real human terms, are usurped civil liberties (or, as in the case of hi-tech warfare, “successfully”-executed mass murder).

Moreover, as Fromm and other critics of techno-systems noted, such technical “means” become self-perpetuating, finally eclipsing and subverting any originally useful “ends.” Witness the super-colossal Military-Industrial Complex, constantly in search of “enemies.”  Or, the NSA: technologically-enabled, worldwide surveillance and storage/retrieval of all communications—in short, the death of human privacy—and for what?  So that a handful of possible “terrorist acts” might be prevented from threatening small numbers of U.S. citizens (while, meanwhile, all citizens are forced to give up their Fourth Amendment rights)?

Nonetheless, as psychoanalyst David Shapiro noted, the obsessive-compulsive personality may exhibit a rigid pattern of persisting—even “in a course of action that has become irrelevant or absurd.”5

William Manson, a psychoanalytic anthropologist,  formerly taught social science at Rutgers and Columbia universities. He is the author of The Psychodynamics of Culture (Greenwood Press).

Notes

1. Erich Fromm, The Revolution of Hope: Toward a Humanized Technology (Bantam, 1968); pps. 33-34, 44-45.
2. Abraham Maslow, The Psychology of Science (Harper & Row, 1966), p. 25.  Maslow elaborates on the “cognitive pathologies” which defensively distort understanding of reality, by both scientist and “layman” alike.
3. Wilhelm Reich, Character Analysis (third edition, Noonday, 1949). Section on “compulsive character” (pps. 193-200).
4. Shane Harris, “The Cowboy at the NSA,” Foreign Policy, September 9, 2013.
5. David Shapiro, Neurotic Styles (Basic Books, 1965), p. 24.