I think the authoritarian vs dictatorial distinction of the electee is important but so also would be the tendency in electors to vote in contravention of their own interests. I would say more but I am called to place baubles on a sacrificial tree.
David Savory
On Dec 5, 2010, Veronica Caley <molleo1@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Omar: "Conversely, if Saddam Hussain had been genuinely elected by the majority of Iraqis, he would not then have been a dictator but an authoritarian president."In following the discussion on this thread, I looked up Juan Peron. To determine which of these he was, having been elected. Like most things, it depends on who you ask. The Argentine population seems divided on it.Re-election or not, and aside from the kind of governance practiced, the US presidential electiion of 2000 stands out spectacularly. Beyond that, one can certainly pick apart the democratic or dictatorial aspects of the electoral college in US. If one had time, which I don't. But the contributions to this thread are wonderful. Thanks to everyone. I am following it carefully.Veronica CaleyMilford, MI----- Original Message -----From: Omar KusturicaSent: Sunday, December 05, 2010 7:44 AMSubject: [lit-ideas] Re: Giving Thanksgiving/Adorno and TAP
--- On Sun, 12/5/10, Omar Kusturica <omarkusto@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
From: Omar Kusturica <omarkusto@xxxxxxxxx>
Subject: [lit-ideas] Re: Giving Thanksgiving/Adorno and TAP
To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Date: Sunday, December 5, 2010, 12:31 PM
--- On Sun, 12/5/10, Donal McEvoy <donalmcevoyuk@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
From: Donal McEvoy <donalmcevoyuk@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: [lit-ideas] Re: Giving Thanksgiving/Adorno and TAP
To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Date: Sunday, December 5, 2010, 10:47 AM
--- On Sun, 5/12/10, Eric Yost <mr.eric.yost@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Donal goes the Adorno route to
> explain, or perhaps to frame, the question of
> totalitarianism.
You are confusing me with Veronica, admittedly an easy mistake to make in the dark.
Brief comments
> In his course on the Biology of Human Behavior, Sapolsky
> stresses that no human behavior can be explained by putting
> all explanations in a single "bucket" (his term). Using his
> thesis, one would have to explain totalitarianism by
> developmental psychology, evolutionary biology,
> environmental stresses, neurobiology, neuroendocrinology,
> and a host of others factors operating in individuals and
> groups.
The first sentence I understand and would tend to agree and disagree: agree if "explained" means 'fully explained', as nothing (human behaviour or otherwise) can be fully explained; disagree in that insofar as human behaviour is capable of understanding, using a multiplicity of explanations, the fullest possibile understanding will be in the "bucket" containing the multiplicity. If his point is that the multiplicity of explanations will not be reducible to a single, over-arching explanation, then I tend to agree. However, to explain fascism by way of the frontal cortex, for example, seems as far-fetched as explaining GDP this way. Fundamental to why it is far-fetched is because new problems arise at the level of human sociology that are not reducible to human psychology, which in turn gives rise to problems that are not reducible to biology, chemistry or physics. For those interested in considering this point, about the emergence of higher-level problems
that are irreducible to the lower-levels from which they emerged, it is worth considering the failure of attempts within the natural sciences to reduce chemistry to physics or of Russell's valiant attempt to reduce maths to logic.
> The frontal cortex, for example, is in its operation, a
> part of the limbic system. (See _Descartes' Error_ by A.
> Damasio.) Therefore species-dependent emotional centers as
> well as socialization come into play in the way people vote.
> And people do seem to vote their self-idealization or vote
> their emotional defense of a symbolic self.
It is surely worth mentioning that, given genuine choice, they rarely vote for dictatorship.
> Yet to postulate a "personality" prone to totalitarianism
> seems unnecessary. Rather one can look at kinship and
> "pseudo-kinship" in shaping aggression in groups.
If we are to take "kinship" or "pseudo-kinship" as an explanatory framework here, it ought to be taken in proper neo-Darwinian terms: there of course it has been the subject of much discussion, for a fundamental problem for Darwinism is accounting for apparent altruism. Even taking a genes-eye view of things, the role of 'kinship' as an evolutionary force is problematic and controversial; and the genes-eye POV is hardly adequate to even partly explain the political organisation of human societies, since the levels of explanation needed for human society involve factors far beyond those needed to explain genetic material.
> One can see pseudo-kinship in Hitler Youth, al-Qaeda, the
> US army, and even Peace rallies where, again,
> species-dependent emotional centers as well as socialization
> overtake the supposedly rational mind.
Yes. One can equally "see" 'pseudo-kinship' in the workings of democratic political parties, in our accepting the results of a democratic vote and our obeying democratic laws etc. Also in going to war against fascist states. So how does pseudo-kinship furnish a specific explanation for fascist tendencies as opposed to anti-fascist ones? [Not for nothing did Spielberg et al title their anti-fascist warriors the "Band of Brothers"; and of course in, say, the Spanish Civil War we have people fighting their fascist genetic kin - it is hard to imagine a genes-eye POV that could explain why some 'pseudo-kinship' trumps kinship here, rather than the explanation lying in the moral beliefs of the anti-fascists].
Donal
London
------------------------------------------------------------------
To change your Lit-Ideas settings (subscribe/unsub, vacation on/off,
digest on/off), visit www.andreas.com/faq-lit-ideas.html
