Annual Fundraising Appeal

Here’s an important message to CounterPunch readers from
BARBARA EHRENREICH…

BarbaraE

Here at CounterPunch we love Barbara Ehrenreich for many reasons: her courage, her intelligence and her untarnished optimism. Ehrenreich knows what’s important in life; she knows how hard most Americans have to work just to get by, and she knows what it’s going to take to forge radical change in this country. We’re proud to fight along side her in this long struggle.  We hope you agree with Barbara that CounterPunch plays a unique role on the Left. Our future is in your hands. Please donate.

Day9

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….)
button-store2_19

or use
pp1

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

A Half-Century Later

Technocrats or Humanists?

by WILLIAM MANSON

In his book Harvard and the Unabomber, Alston Chase describes how Theodore Kaczynski, a 16-year-old Harvard student in 1958, suffered traumatizing abuse as an unwitting test-subject in a CIA-connected experiment designed to manipulate human behavior under intensive isolation and harsh interrogation (and also ultimately: LSD and torture).  This humiliating, formative experience, Chase argues, shaped Kaczynski’s strong dislike for the techno-scientific manipulation and control of human beings.  But Chase also maintains that the Harvard Gen. Ed. curriculum itself—which included moral philosophy as well as critiques of modern civilization (Mumford, Veblen, etc.)—could only exacerbate despair about the state of the modern, “civilized” world.   At that time, little more than a decade after the unspeakable horrors of Auschwitz and Hiroshima, the developing Cold War arms race—made possible by the militarized, extremely well-funded, scientific elite–hung like the proverbial sword of Damocles over the fate of humanity.

On the one hand, by the mid-20th century, technocrats and applied scientists had brought unparalleled managerial “expertise” and new technologies to imperial conquest and war profiteering. Trained at a technical university, the architect Albert Speer had risen to become Hitler’s notably efficient Minister of Armaments.  By the Fifties, nuclear physicist Edward Teller was successfully promoting his creation—the hydrogen bomb—by politically manipulating Cold War fears (and even advocating the possible benefits of a “limited” nuclear war).  By the Sixties, Robert S. McNamara–statistician, WW2 bombing coordinator, auto executive—escalated the genocidal horrors of the Vietnam War as U.S. Secretary of Defense.  (The penultimate technocrat, he would eventually admit to a virtual ignorance of the actual historical struggles of the peoples of Indochina.)

But, at the same time, in this post-WW2 period, public intellectuals and literary figures were shaping a revived “mini-Enlightenment” of sorts—renewing, once more, the 18th century vision of progressive reason, universal human rights, and “the dignity of man.”   In the shadow of this new “atomic age,” seeking to prevent another, possibly final, war (and associated war crimes), world nations including the U.S. ratified the Nuremberg Charter, the UN Charter, and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.  Concurrently, arms-reduction initiatives were sponsored by leading intellectuals (Russell-Einstein Manifesto, SANE, Linus Pauling, etc.)

Moreover, despite the atmosphere of Cold War political repression (“internal security”), many prominent artists and writers who had abandoned Stalinist Communism still embraced some version of socialist-humanism (often jeopardizing their careers: witness the Hollywood Ten).  Playwright Arthur Miller combined a post-Ibsenesque social realism with an earnest moral humanism.  His plays—such as “Death of a Salesman” and “The Crucible”—probed the hollow core of the “American Dream,” as well as ideological repression.  And like existential humanists (notably Camus), Miller emphasized the ultimate autonomy (and thus dignity) of each individual’s moral practice.   Pop-sociology tracts assailed mass-conformism (e.g., David Riesman, Vance Packard); and the youthful Colin Wilson, self-taught intellectual, glorified the defiant rebel/artist in his bestselling The Outsider (1956).

As in Kaczynski’s experience at Harvard, academic psychology continued its disturbing trend toward behavior-modification and social control—sometimes as an adjunct to covert, illegal government programs.  Yet at the same time, an alternate psychology was bringing deeper self-awareness and social sensitivity to American attitudes.  Dr. Benjamin Spock, A. S. Neill (Summerhill), Abraham Maslow’s humanistic psychology—all emphasized the intrinsic value of the individual’s free growth and self-realization.  Psychoanalysis itself—as both a theory of human nature and a therapeutic endeavor toward deeper self-understanding—was tacitly accepted (repressions, inner conflicts, unconscious motivations, etc.).  Such notions as sexual neuroses, “Freudian slips,” the Oedipus complex—became so well-known that they could be dramatized (and satirized) in innumerable films (such as Stanley Kubrick’s brilliant Dr. Strangelove).  Whether focusing on child-rearing or education, the goal of this humanistic psychology was healthy psycho-emotional development—not “adjustment” to the demands of the petty dictators in the home, workplace, bureaucracy, military.

Likewise, at least by the early Sixties, genuine amelioration of human deprivation became a desirable goal for both activists and applied sociologists (poverty, racism, housing, health care).  Thus, the prevailing respect for such ideals as the “public sector,” “public service,” and the “public interest.”  Correspondingly, college students gravitated toward liberal-arts fields (history, sociology/social work, anthropology), with the ultimate aim of employment as educators or in social-service/counseling professions.  Even in the McCarthyite Fifties, a number of prominent public intellectuals and professors had found forums to advocate disarmament and détente with the Soviets–and, by the Sixties, “socialism with a human face” (e.g., Baran, Mills, Marcuse, Fromm, etc.).

But–ultimately?  In this collision between humanistic/socialist values and totalitarian technocracy, the latter “won” (or so it seemed).  In 2013, “value-free” (amoral) weapons scientists are still devising new WMD, and techno-entrepreneurs seek lucrative government contracts with the latest “system” of authoritarian social control (more invasive than ever—as the NSA revelations have shown).

AND YET…once again, in our 21st century world, an ethos of universal human values is unmistakably in the ascendant.  No doubt the horrors and senseless waste of two recent wars of U.S. aggression have galvanized world opinion—as has the dramatic success of a revitalized social democracy in Latin America.  And thus—ironically–with the assistance of hi-tech alternate media (and the global solidarity it has helped to foster), hundreds of millions of human beings are already beginning to recognize that–“We are the 99%.”

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).