Brainwashing and “Freedom”

Term brain washing was evolved in the height of behaviourism – in as much as “conditioning” was accepted as a component. One belief was that all behaviour was a result of acquired, externally induced, patterns. The extension of this was that such behaviour could be erased (or “washed out “). Fundamental to the concept (coercive persuasion) was that there was no other component to behaviour. This view was energetically supported by (inter alia) the “gender experts” or, perhaps better said, the gender loud-mouths. Their claim was that all distinctions of behaviour between the genders were inducted by external influence. They made no attempt to explain how those differences began originally.

In contrast, it is probable that the foundation of all human social behaviour is intrinsic. That is not to say that learned behaviour does not exist – of course it does. But this sits on the foundation of the hardwired. This is not a place to demonstrate evidence to support this belief, which exists elsewhere. Ipso facto brainwashing in its usually understood sense cannot occur. Instead if extensive behavioural patterns are to be altered, suppression of the intuitive is demanded.

In common parlance the term “freedom” is meaningless. It is raised with high emotional colour to claim the latitude to contest everything from strong antisocial behaviour, to manipulative strategies aimed at the entire authoritarian hierarchy from parents to politicians. This has been applied to almost every form of constraint, whether social, “artistic”, financial or physical. Therefore, any discussion about “freedom” has to be pre-empted by definition.

Analysis of claims of “deprivation of freedom” can demonstrate that the cry for “freedom” is merely a condemnation of a constraint against the intuitive and inherently hardwired mechanisms of behaviour. Intuitive behaviour itself, clearly, contains a great number of restraints. At times these constraints are exercised by society against individuals. Therefore, those who believe they might be deprived of their freedom are often reacting against social restraints necessary for the preservation of societal equilibrium. Some forms of “freedom”, on the other hand, operate to protect individual from threat by groups of greater or lesser size. This is the foundation of “freedom of expression”, which is the mechanism by which an individual can call for support from other individuals. This might be that the singular level, such as a cry for help by a drowning person. On the other hand it may reflect an insight into a threat to lesser group, and this call for freedom of expression is necessary to muster assistance in protecting that group.

Because protection against personal damage is the prime concern of individuals, this form of protection has a primacy. Therefore if a hierarchy of levels of “freedom” were attempted, freedom of expression would be paramount. That explains the prominence of Freedom of Expression in political constitutions, and as a consequence Freedom of the Press.

One variant of self-protection is the caution exhibited, both by individuals and groups, against the entrance of “strangers” into their society. Such as entree can be exceptionally damaging to both individuals and society. Hence antagonism to strangers is a powerful component of social integrity and a powerful intuitive behavioural response. Any attempts to suppress the reluctance to admit strangers must therefore be an equally powerful suppression of the intuitive. In modern political gamesmanship the suppression is given muscle by extensive legislation and substantial punitive responses.

Because the intuitive response against “alienation” is so widespread legal attempts to baffle it have required layers of legislation, one superimposed upon the other, as populations express different strategies as attempts to protect itself are made. This legal strategy can be likened to sheltering from rain under a tree. Invariably, there will be gaps between the leaves and this analogy suggests that ever-increasing law results in new legislative “offshoots” whereby further leaves are added to prevent percolation or residual rain.

Common sense dictates that this is impossible strategy and ultimately attempts to suppress the powerful forces of intuition are doomed to failure. It has been said that “the end-result of such coercion remained very unstable, as most of the individuals reverted to their previous condition soon after they left the coercive environment”.

A rider to that is that the greater the suppressive force and the more energy factored into that suppression, so the more likely is a catastrophic outcome. This can be predicted when a critical mass of intuitive behaviour is concentrated it will over-ride the relatively small politico-military suppressive force. [The distinction between a military and a police force is ultimately purely semantic].

Should it be speculated that attempts to suppress the inherent are successful, the likely outcome (given the close intermeshing and concord of intuitive behaviour) would be  collapse of the entire adhesive bonding of society. Said another way, universal anarchy.


About jp

Orthopaedic Surgeon
This entry was posted in Human Behaviour, Humans as social animals, Language, Sex and Society and tagged , , , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s