From Kings and Religion to Corporate Elites and Positive Psychology

by Dr Robert Muller, Medium: https://medium.com/@DrRobertMuller/from-kings-and-religion-to-corporate-elites-and-positive-psychology-b8bd0c1ae779

(image: factmyth.com)

Considering that modern western democracies are undoubtedly moving backwards in many areas, including women’s rights, the rights of minorities, social justice and welfare, and a host of other issues, due to the overwhelmingly powerful discourse of neoliberalism, and the actions that flow from this discourse, I would like to propose an interesting analogy which may not be too far from the truth in the near future.

Firstly, let us look at the ruling classes and their main social control mechanism in the feudal era. In what we now know as western societies, the feudal era was ruled by royal families, large landowners, and the church. In this period, the population was largely dependent on the rulers who provided ‘employment’ and possibly a small piece of land to create produce, in return for taxes. These taxes were very onerous, taking the bulk of the people’s earnings and leaving just enough to survive on.

We ask the question today of why ‘the poor’ are so acquiescent to the powers that be — but this has always been the case, mostly because of the power of the social control mechanisms that are utilized. In the feudal era, it was the power of religion that controlled the people (in addition to the fear of execution by the royals or the large landowners for doing something wrong).

As outlined earlier in this document, the work of Max Weber shows how the Protestant Church “teaches” people to regulate themselves, so religious teachings do have major social consequences. Of course, the Protestant Church was established in the post-feudal era; however, let us look at the social consequences of the teachings of the Catholic Church. Firstly, there is the idea of the all-powerful and vengeful god that people lived in fear of. They (the general public) believed that if they did something wrong that god would punish them through some terrible form of revenge. This was the stick for widespread social control through religion. But … there was also a carrot — if one was to behave oneself and do good deeds, then they may just be saved by god. So, these three forms of social control, the fear instilled by the kings and the large landowners, the revenge reeked by god, and the belief that one may be saved by god, was a very basic and direct mechanism of social control.

The mechanisms of social control are vastly more subtle and complex in the present age. Let us begin by making an analogy that the new ‘kings and large landowners’ of the present day are the members of the corporate elites whose needs are very well served by “democratic” governments across the western world. The other side of the equation is that the religion of the present-day is positive psychology and the ‘new-age’ spiritualism that has become so prevalent.

The analogy is continued in looking at the corporate elites. The overwhelming majority of the population is dependent in some way or other on the corporate sector, particularly in terms of employment, the food we eat, the clothes we wear, the houses we live in, the cars we drive, and so on. Except for the VERY few people who live off the land, build their own homes out of scrap, and who make their own clothes from raw materials, almost 100% of us are completely dependent on the corporate sector for everything — this is the way modern society has been organized. The level of dependency is possibly greater than it even was in the feudal era.

The most interesting aspect of the present era is the question of why ‘the poor’ aren’t more disillusioned and angry at the current set-up. After all, it is they who suffer the most, as anyone in current-day Greece (and may other countries) can tell us. There is a highly insidious and very controlling set of methods that are in place in modern western societies that have a large measure of control over the population. But … this control is not as direct and obvious as in the feudal era. There is more a sense of evolution, and then, opportunism by the elites in the development of these forms of social control.

The timeline really starts in the mid-1970s with the rise of the neoliberal ideology. Out of the remnants of the hippy era of the late 1960s, came the new-age era of self-help and positive psychology. It is no accident that these ‘technologies’ under individualizing tools that say to the individual “if I think positively, I can achieve anything” or “if I follow [guru’s] ideas, I’ll be successful”, through to the present-day ‘business’ seminars that tell us that with a ‘wealth mindset’, we can achieve great wealth. Right through the self-help literature, there is very little on the power of community; the focus is almost exclusively on the empowerment of the individual. The solutions are also couched as if there is always something wrong with the individual and that if they could only do ‘x’, then they will achieve their goals. This coincides very closely to the individualizing power of the neoliberal ideology who brands anyone who cannot achieve as a ‘loser’ or a ‘leaner’.

These self-help and positive psychology technologies only hold out false hope as very few people can make it on their own in such a complex and inter-dependent society such as todays. But … you hear these utterances everywhere, and they just serve to make people passive and accepting and unaware of the true barriers to their success — the corporate elites.

The analogy holds up well. Just as religion made the population passive, accepting and unaware of their true oppressors, so does positive psychology and the new-age individualising beliefs that the corporate elites, our new rulers, have used to their own advantage to enhance THEIR Levels of success and control over the direction of society. The class struggle is alive and well. It has been initiated by the corporate elites and is backed up all the way by present-day, apparently democratic governments, while the people are largely unaware what has actually changed.

The Main Existential Threat of the 21st Century

by Dr Robert Muller, Medium: https://medium.com/@DrRobertMuller/the-main-existential-threat-of-the-21st-century-a703e11349bb

(image: pinterest.com)

There are many existential threats to human life in the 21st Century, many of which are carried over from the 20th Century.

The threats of terrorism, nuclear war, militaristic regimes, and so on, are issues that paralysed nations and individuals throughout the 20th Century. On the other hand, it is often argued that climate change is the most significant problem facing human life in the 21st Century. Indeed, the obliteration of all sentient and plant life on the planet is an immeasurable issue, well beyond the imagination of most humans who continue to live in the same way as they have for many decades. It is difficult to argue against climate change being the number one issue facing life on this planet. However, this is just what I would like to do in this article.

My premise is that climate change is the ultimate issue that will cause the destruction of life on Earth if drastic action is not taken very soon, but it is not the most serious threat. It is fully acknowledged by an overwhelming majority of the world’s independent scientists, who are not in the service of the corporate elites, that if action is not taken, then it may be too late. On the other hand, it has been argued that if enough action is taken by governments to tackle emissions, then the planet can be saved in a liveable enough state that human and other life will be able to continue.

So, what is the main threat? Again, many people argue that the corporate elites are the main threat. These owners of massive mining corporations and industrial agriculture are hugely responsible for spewing out massive amounts of emissions which are destroying many aspects of our life-support system. In addition, they are responsible for practices which not only create inequality, but actually have dramatically increased inequality through their practices over the last forty years, and in particular, over the last ten. In other words, the power of the corporate elites, and the consequences of their practices, has increased exponentially over the last ten years. 

As argued earlier, capitalism has reached a point where it is now confronting environmental and economic limits to the accumulation of capital. What this means is that capital can no longer be accumulated through the manipulation of labour and technology to create profit. This kind of profit is simply no longer available. In response, governments have been acquiescent in deregulating many industrial practices and trade regimes to the benefit of the corporate elites. The result of this process is that a new form of accumulation has developed which can be characterized as ‘accumulation by dispossession’. This is basically the accumulation of capital through privatization, deregulation, and the takeover of public space, all facilitated by national governments, mostly in democratic nations such as the USA, the European Union, the UK, Australia, New Zealand, Canada, and South Africa. It is argued, again, that the corporate elites are not the main threat, but only because we have a mechanism that can put the brakes on the corporate elites — that of democratic government.

My argument is that national governments in democratic nations are the current main threat and barrier to finding solutions to climate change. Why? Because they are the ONLY institution that has the potential and the legal power (although this is rapidly diminishing) to curb the power of the corporate elites. This can be achieved through legislation that will place limits on what the corporate sector are allowed to do, and to re-regulate industry, and to reclaim those assets that have been privatized — this is also a point of justice as these very assets have been paid for by tax-payers and have effectively been stolen by the corporate sector with the assistance of government.

Of course, there is nothing in the legal statutes to stop politicians from acting in their own interests or from colluding with the corporate elites to ‘get a piece of the pie’ on the condition that they ‘give’ away a piece of the public pie. And this essentially is the weakness of the democratic system. So, let’s unpack this state of affairs by boiling it back to its basics.

Firstly, democracy is about the people rather than about the politicians. Politicians are supposed to be the representatives of the people. In Australia, the people go to the ballot box and place their votes for their local members in the upper and lower houses of parliament. The local member then gets a seat in the parliament, usually as a backbencher. This is a good opportunity for these elected members to voice their opinions and the opinions of their electorate on crucial issues. So far, the system appears to be very sound. However, Australia has a ‘party political system’, meaning that the parties are very powerful and tend to coerce the members into voting according to the party line. The fact that Australia has such a collective notion of party politics is a huge irony, considering that both major parties see anything at all that is even vaguely collectivist as complete anathema. And yet what could be more collectivist than the process of government?

A number of those who are in the party or coalition that has won the election are appointed into the cabinet as ministers. This may be more due to their ability to ‘make things happen’, or to tow the party line, more so than having any expertise in the portfolio to which they are appointed — the evidence suggests that this is very much the case, with ongoing portfolio reshuffles illustrating this point very clearly.

As representatives of the people, the cabinet ministers and the power of party politics act against true representation. Add to the mix the very powerful influence of Australia’s media monopoly spouting the values of neoliberalism, competition, and divisiveness on social issues, such as on gender, ethnic, immigration, sexuality, and Aboriginal issues, and one can see that the politicians are finding it very difficult to represent the people.

In order to get politicians to represent the people in true democratic fashion, instead of constantly undermining democracy, they need to listen to the mood of the people and to understand the people, instead of brushing off those who do voice their opinions as whingers and leaners. There is no democracy in selling the country off to the corporate elites and the majority certainly does not want to see this happen. Does anyone truly believe that if there was a referendum on the question of: “Should Australia sell everything in the country off to the corporate elites?” that it would not get a massive ‘no’ vote? Only if the politicians listen to the people will they be able to stop the corporate elites as has happened in Iceland.

Is it the End of History, or Was Karl Marx Correct?

by Dr Robert Muller, Medium: https://medium.com/@DrRobertMuller/is-it-the-end-of-history-or-was-karl-marx-correct-850be235fa5d

(Image: freeliberal.com)

In 1992, American political philosopher, Francis Fukuyama, released his infamous work “The End of History and the Last Man”, arguing that the progression of human history as a struggle between ideologies is largely at an end, with the world settling on liberal democracy after the end of the Cold War.

Without going too far into Fukuyama’s actual argument, in this article, I would first like to problematise Fukuyama’s underlying assumption that ‘history has ended’. Following this, I propose an argument that Karl Marx’s suggestion, that history is based upon the dialectical opposition of economic forces, may possibly be correct given recent history, and that Marx’s ideas should not be simply written off just because of the fall of Communism.

Fukuyama’s End of History

Despite being a very conservative thinker, Fukuyama’s claim is actually based upon a very Marxian argument. (Note: not a Marxist argument, but a Marxian argument — Marx actually stated that “I am not a Marxist” after the damage he had seen committed on his theories in his own lifetime). Basically, Marx argued that the forward linear trajectory of history is the logical result of the struggle between opposing economic forces — the owners of the means of production (capitalists) and the workers (the proletariat).

Fukuyama’s argument is based on his observation of the global political climate at the time of the fall of the Berlin Wall and the collapse of the Soviet Union and the Communist political system. He argued that the opposing ideological forces of Communism and Capitalism resulted in the political stand-off of the Cold War. When Communism fell in the late-1980s and early- to mid-1990s, this was the indication that there were no longer any opposing ideological forces and therefore that history had come to an end. Or so Fukuyama claimed.

Karl Marx and the Path of History

Karl Marx claimed that the progressive, linear march of history was a result of the struggle between the workers and the owners of the means of production. It is important to understand that Marx’s work was primarily a critique of Capitalism. He recognised the massive social problems that had been caused by the Industrial Revolution and the transition from Feudalism to Capitalism. Only a minor portion of Marx’s work involved his ideas about Communism — not minor in terms of impact, but minor in terms of volume.

The important point here is that Marx aligned this ideological struggle with the march of history due largely to his belief that history was also associated with the progressive domination of ‘man’ (in Marx’s words) over nature. At around the same time that Marx was writing, the ideas propounded by Charles Darwin were becoming the scientific and social orthodoxy of the time.

These ideas had a great impact on Marx, perhaps not directly, but instead due to the impact and popularity of Darwin’s arguments throughout society in general. The domination of ‘man’ over nature through technology and the ‘taming’ of nature became part of Marx’s view of progress which became part of his view of history.

Fukuyama and Marx

One can see that this idea of opposing forces that create the progressive march of history in the work of Marx, is quite similar in some ways to Fukuyama’s idea of the two opposing ideological forces of modern times, Communism and Capitalism. The logical conclusion for Fukuyama is that if one of the two ideological forces vanishes (in this case Communism), then there is no opposing force left to progress history. Thus, he pronounced the end of history.

But What if Marx is Correct?

Marx’s idea that there is a progressive, linear march of history culminated in the idea that Capitalism would evolve into a utopian society that he called Communism. However, one of the most important parts of his argument, one that often gets overlooked, is that in order to reach this utopia, it would be necessary for the Capitalist system to reach it’s maximum economic capacity. Thus it was a ‘natural’ progression of society, a natural evolution rather than a revolution. This part of Marx’s work was part of his critique of Capitalism. Marx’s political work involved theorising (not doing) the transition from Capitalism to the Communist utopia and this would occur (theoretically) through skipping some of the stages of the natural progress of history, through revolution. In other words, it was a case of speeding up the evolution of society through revolution.

Now, what this actually meant was that, regardless of anything, Capitalism still needed to reach it’s maximum economic capacity in order for the utopia to be reached. Therefore, a revolution would mean that the working classes would realise their own class position (as ‘slaves’ to the capitalists) and be ready to take power when the utopia dawned.

The question to be asked is: have we reached the maximum economic potential of Capitalism? If we have not, was Soviet Communism, and for that matter, Chinese Communism, too premature? If the answer is yes, then Marx may be right. Without reaching the maximum economic potential of Capitalism, Communism cannot be realised. In this way, it could be argued that Karl Marx was correct. The collapse of the Soviet system was just that, the collapse of a system of states which was run by a military oligarchy. It bears little resemblance to Marx’s Utopia. So was it actually an experiment based on Marx’s ideas and philosophy? Or was it actually a leadership based on different principles which these days are branded as Stalinist?

Conclusion

When Francis Fukuyama proclaimed that the end of history had been reached, he may very well have been wrong. To claim that history, based on opposing forces and ideologies, is over and that we will inevitably settle on liberal democracy, may be mistaken. If Communism, based on Marx’s ideas, has not yet even been tried, and if Capitalism has not yet reached its full economic capacity, then the end, or ‘death’ of history may very well be premature!

What is neoliberalism and how does it work?

by Dr Robert Muller, Medium: https://medium.com/@DrRobertMuller/what-is-neoliberalism-and-how-does-it-work-34c6e6e96030

(Image: uncomputing.org)

We are currently living in a neoliberal era, but what does this actually mean? We need to differentiate neoliberalism from what came before; so this paper is an attempt to clarify this issue.

Firstly, let us say for the sake of the argument that the neoliberal ascendancy started in around 1974, just after the oil shock. This date gives us the generation of approximately 30 years of development of the ideas of Hayek and the Austrian School of Economics before the ideas started to gel into a dominant discourse in the mid-1970s.

In terms of neoliberal political figures, we can say that Margaret Thatcher was the first of the significant neoliberals; however, there were still significant opposing currents of thought. Today, we have what I would characterise as a neoliberal western world which has the ideological power to have an enormous imperialist influence over much of the global south (or the developing world). This can be seen in the push for the developing nations to take on board policies to ‘reform’ their public services through outsourcing, privatisation, the expensive application of outside consultancies, and so on, all to gain access to loans by global neoliberal agencies such as the World Bank, the IMF, and the European Central Bank, in the case of the ‘European south’.

Secondly, one can say that neoliberalism is an ideology that combines personal technologies with governmental technologies. These personal technologies are concerned with regulating the self, while the governmental technologies are concerned with regulating the state.

It is the intersection of these two sets of technologies that characterises neoliberal capitalism and that I will explain in some detail below.

Personal technologies

The particular personal technologies of the neoliberal era have deep roots in history, stemming from what Max Weber called the Protestant Ethic. According to Weber, in the early stages of capitalism, Protestants worked hard (hence the Protestant work ethic) and lived frugally, seeing this as a sign that they were good and righteous, and therefore, that this MIGHT be a further sign of being one of the chosen few to be taken up to heaven after they die. Of course, there was no guarantee of this, but Weber says that they constantly worked hard and looked for these signs. This was what set Protestantism apart from Catholicism and, according to Weber, led to the development of Capitalism. This was also a very strong manifestation of self-regulation. They curbed their desires and appetites and lived very sober, frugal, hard-working lives.

It is these attempts at self-regulation that we call ‘personal technologies’. They are techniques employed to ‘work on the self’ and to continuously improve oneself.

Governmental technologies

If we take the state in its widest possible sense, then we can talk about, not only the government as part of the state, but also many other institutions of society, such as corporations, trade unions, banks, the parliament, and so on. In fact, any institution that is in negotiation with others to ‘govern’ or ‘manage’ the population can be considered to be part of the modern western state.

This was not necessarily as apparent prior to the neoliberal era, as previously, it appeared that the state was ‘the government’, whatever that actually means. In the neoliberal era, after the mass privatizations, the public-private partnerships, and the outsourcing of public services, there has been a blurring of the notion of what constitutes ‘the state’.

The neoliberal era

What sets the neoliberal era apart from previous political and social configurations is the combining of personal and governmental technologies. Some examples here will be instructive:

1. There is a constant discourse emanating from ‘the state’ that individuals (the building block of a society) should (which is a moral term) improve themselves and that those who don’t are users, bludgers, or even worse, criminals. We can see this in the language used in the 2014 Australian federal budget in which the Treasurer used the terms “lifters” and “leaners” and “the deserving” and “the undeserving” when referring to basically the middle-classes and the working classes (of course, there was no word for the rich because they, apparently do not require one, because who they are, is apparently, obvious). This is an example of the state stepping in to label various sectors of the population, ‘assisting’ them to regulate their own behaviours. This, of course, is not a conscious thought process, but is more of a manifestation of the ‘conscience collective’, as Emile Durkheim would have put it.
2. There has also been a ‘psychologisation’ of society in the neoliberal era which has facilitated the process of self-regulation. We see the explosion of self-help books and resources, and the proliferation of coaches, with so much of the population wanting to coach the rest of the population who have little desire to be coached. We see a huge proliferation of psychologists in all companies and organisations, and we see thriving schools of psychology propping up entire collapsing faculties of social sciences in our universities. And we see the state using this psychologisation as a convenient way to label people as failures or winners. Those who can regulate themselves and compete as time-crazed producers and consumers are the apparent winners, while those who can’t are the losers. This labelling results in our elected representatives justifying the cutting of services that affect those labelled as ‘losers’ the most.
3. Finally, neoliberalism is also perversely associated with neoclassical economics, even though this link is contingent on a number of factors rather than a link made of necessity. Again, the sense of self-regulation moves across to the realm of economics in which people, as individuals, are expected to operate their lives as if they were running a business. This, of course, is also linked to the notion of avoiding any sense of subsidisation. Thus, in the economy, every service or good must “stand alone” and not be subsidised by any other part of the organisation or of the economy. If IT does not make a profit, then IT must be left to fall over at the whim of the market. In the personal economy of the neoliberal world (that is, in the life of the individual), one must not be subsidised (or propped up or helped) by the collective (by public services for example) — if one succeeds, then one is contributing; if one fails, then they must be left to fall through the cracks.

Being in the World: Social Movements and Social Change

by Dr Robert Muller, Medium: https://medium.com/@DrRobertMuller/being-in-the-world-social-movements-and-social-change-9d46240cc2ee

(Image: lifeasahuman.com)

Resilience as a form of resistance, especially to neoliberalism in the current epoch, is essential to those people who struggle to change the system and yet find it difficult to continue to do their work.

The history of social change tells us that it is collective social movements that create generally progressive social change from the grassroots upwards. This is the story of every revolution, of every progressive change, of every initiative taken that enhances freedom, and it is social movements that are critical to such progress.

Recently, there has been much said, particularly by politicians, about the virtues of the Magna Carta on its 800th anniversary. The perverse hypocrisy of their utterances serve to prove one thing — that we can have as many Magna Carta’s, as many laws, as many protections, as we want, but if the people we vote into power (in democratic nations) wish to usurp those protections, then it appears that there is little that can be done in response.

This presents a very difficult situation for people who are struggling for justice and fairness and who need to find some measure of resilience in order to keep up their struggle. Without resilience, a person can simply collapse emotionally, physically, and mentally in the face of onslaught of a political system that seeks to do nothing to support disadvantaged groups.

It is the collective nature of social change, through social movements, where people find their strength to stand up against injustice and inequality. In doing so, people find meaning, friendship, and strength. In fact, what many of them find is that very sense of community that makes up one the tools of resilience in the toolbox. This is one major reason why people are attracted to groups with similar values to their own. In the process, as has been the case with social movements across time, they are also major agents of social change. From the grassroots, they put moral and, on occasions, economic pressure (perhaps through strikes) on government to make progressive changes.

As resilience is learnt through experience, such involvement can be a positive enhancement to a person’s resilience. In addition, people learn much through the process of social change, especially enhancing their problem-solving skills. 

Social change always involves a struggle between progressive and conservative thought and action. As such, this struggle is fought out firstly at the grassroots level where the forces of conservatism often put quite draconian practices in place to control the people at the grassroots. As the progressive side starts to gain an advantage through sheer weight of numbers (and make no mistake about it, this takes years or decades), the struggle starts to move upwards until it reaches the houses of parliament and the courts when finally progressive laws are enacted. The lengthy nature of the struggle is precisely why resilience is necessary, and why resilience needs to be taught to individuals and groups to be able to continue the work they do.

Hedonism: what it really means

by Dr Robert Muller, Medium: https://medium.com/@DrRobertMuller/hedonism-what-it-really-means-1f0768742594

(Image: classicalwisdom.com)

The philosophy of bourgeois society, after the rise of the middle-classes, was based on utilitarianism, which, according to Daniel Bell, is ‘a hedonistic calculation of pleasure and pain’. Such beliefs and ways of conduct partly paved the way for modern-day hedonism. Such hedonism is characterised by Bell as “the idea of pleasure as a way of life”. Furthermore, Bell argues that hedonism now provides the basis for the cultural justification of capitalism. Bell calls such hedonism ‘fun morality’.

In the contemporary era, if a person is not having fun, there is a period of soul-searching in which the individual attempts to establish what the problem is. Such ‘fun morality’ stands in stark contrast to the ‘goodness morality’ promoted within the Protestant ethic in which impulses must be controlled and resisted. Within such fun morality, instinct has become the basic justification for life in the contemporary era. Pleasure and the release of impulse become the priorities of living.

For Bell, hedonism is a ‘world of make-believe’ in which one lives for the future, dreaming of what will happen rather than what is happening. In this way, Bell’s conception of hedonism represents the idea of ‘self-autonomous illusory hedonism’ in which illusions are created in the mind of the individual, dwelt upon and often dreamed of.

Social Changes Leading to Hedonism

Bell points out the social changes which occurred throughout the 20th century which have helped to usher in the hedonistic ethic. He argues that the demographic changes that occurred in the first decades of the 20th century resulted in the rapid growth of American cities and a resultant decline in influence of ‘small-town’ lifestyles and mentality. 

Furthermore, this period saw the emergence of an economy based increasingly on consumption. Such a change, according to Bell, was in direct contrast with the Protestant ethic and as a result, began to undermine the older tradition. The emphasis on consumption saw priorities move towards ‘spending and material possessions’ and away from ‘thrift, frugality, self-control and impulse renunciation’. On top of these changes, the automobile, and the spread of media, particularly the increasing popularity of movie theatres and radio, helped to lessen the isolation of rural communities and to create a national culture with more homogeneous goals.

Further social change occurred throughout the 20th century, acting to undermine the last vestiges of the Protestant ethic. Bell cites changes in banking as a significant step towards the cultural inculcation of hedonism. With credit and overdraft facilities becoming commonplace by the end of the 1960s, the consumer no longer saw the need to delay gratification through the curbing of impulse. Instead, those impulses could now be given free rein when they arose. With credit, the longing of the consumer could be satisfied immediately. 

Throughout the 20th century, the shift in emphasis from an economy based on production to one based on consumption, saw consumer durables and the invention of credit and installment plans, together with the growth of marketing and advertising, which promoted spending and instant gratification, leading to the undermining of the Protestant ethic. Ultimately, these transformations brought about the end of Puritanism as the moral underpinning of American life. American capitalism, ‘the new capitalism’, claimed to produce abundance, and the fruits of the system were promoted as ‘the glorification of plenty’. A higher standard of living, not work as an end in itself, then becomes the engine of change.

Replacement of the Protestant Ethic by Hedonism

Bell’s thesis is that the Protestant ethic has been undermined and displaced by an ethic of hedonism or a ‘pleasure ethic’, as a culture based on consumerism took hold. The Protestant ethic had provided a transcendental justification in people’s lives and had served to place limits on the accumulation and experience of luxury. On the other hand, capital accumulation was not subject to these same limitations, as long as such accumulation was sober, rational, and responsible. Bell argues that once the Protestant ethic began to fade as an influence upon modern society, all that was left was hedonism.

Such private wants and unlimited ends with which to attain them (due to the burgeoning of the ‘new’ capitalism of America), had a belief in individualism as their underlying justification. According to Bell, bourgeois middle-class society had incorporated strands of both Protestantism and individualism. On the one hand, the Puritan style of capitalism which emphasised a certain type of character based on ‘sobriety, probity, work as a calling’ in a particular form of capitalist economic activity, contrasted and acted in tandem with a secular Hobbesianism, a radical individualism which saw humans as unlimited in their appetite, which was restrained in politics by a sovereign but ran fully free in economics and culture. Gradually, the relationship between these two sets of ethics weakened. Secular individualism gained in strength at the cost of the Protestant ethic, a situation continuing into the present.

Ultimately, the changes that were wrought by the transformations of the early decades of the 20th century, heavily promoted hedonism but could not provide any justification for it. Hedonism lacked a value system with which to replace the old one.

The good life, balance and moderation, hospitality, and resilience: Aristotle and Epicurus

by Dr Robert Muller, Medium: https://medium.com/@DrRobertMuller/the-good-life-balance-and-moderation-hospitality-and-resilience-aristotle-and-epicurus-859008bebc8

(Image: thequotes.net)

A vital part of the resilience toolbox is the notion of exploring the good life. This has been a major topic of debate over the centuries, starting with the ideas put forward by Aristotle and Epicurus, both great Greek Philosophers of the Classical Age of Athens.

Aristotle professed that the ‘good life’ could be attained through balance and moderation in all aspects of life, from eating and drinking through to doing business. Rather than an Eastern circular notion of ‘completing the cycle’ through balance, for the Greeks, balance and moderation was more of a pendulum in which the further from the centre that the pendulum would swing, the less moderation and balance there was. As one guided their life towards the centre, meaning a lesser swing of the pendulum, the more likely one would be to find balance through moderation. There are similarities here to the notion of resilience. If one has extreme thoughts and emotional swings, that person is less likely to be resilient. This does not mean that the resilient person cannot be passionate. What it does mean is that the passion must be channelled into action. This is a moderation of passion and a very positive and powerful outcome.

Epicurus has a somewhat different view from Aristotle, but it is still associated with a search for the meaning of the ‘good life’. For Epicurus, the main motivation is to avoid pain. This is somewhat controversial in terms of resilience because it may well be that going through the downs of life is somewhat educative in terms of being able to rebuild one’s life. However, let us explore Epicurus’ position a little further.

Firstly, many people see Epicurus as the epitome of excess, hence the notion of epicurian delights and the associated connotations. However, Epicurus was a highly moderate character whose argument was that excess in anything would only lead to some form of pain. Thus, the consumption of too much food would lead to heartburn, feeling overly-full, or in the long run, obesity, all of which lead to either uncomfortable physical sensations, including a lack of fitness, or feelings of guilt.

Likewise, exercise was considered to be good if it was a stroll in the park or a long, leisurely walk, just enough to keep one relatively fit. But, exerting oneself too much would lead to muscle aches and so on, which would be considered to be painful. For Epicurus, life was about avoiding pain. As a result, he created a haven on his own property where his friends and acquaintances would come together to eat, drink and philosophise, but all in moderation of course.

The implications of this philosophy for resilience may well lie in the idea that moderation, as similar to Aristotle, may be one of the keys to resilience. However, the jury is out on the concept of avoidance of pain.

The concept of hospitality also plays a significant part in resilience, particularly the Greek interpretation of the concept. Hospitality or Xenia, as it is known in Greece, is much wider than the notion that we understand in the English-speaking world.

Xenia is the idea of welcoming and entertaining the stranger who comes from far away. Of course, trust comes into this, but it is seen as the obligation of the host, not as something reciprocal that might be repaid at some time in the future, but as ‘the right thing to do’, because the stranger is at least temporarily displaced and in need of support in an unfamiliar environment.

The value of hospitality for resilience is about the spirit of hospitality, that we should treat those around us with hospitality, so that a sense of community can be built. If a community is strong, this holds the potential for greater personal resilience of community members as a source of support. More on community later, but at this point, one can say that indeed hospitality as the basis of community IS the social support side of the resilience equation. The final point on hospitality is that it is a reciprocity that drives it; instead, it is done through a sense of ‘doing the right thing’ (even though reciprocity itself is a valuable tool as well).

The Fundamental Connection to Nature

by Dr Robert Muller, Medium: https://medium.com/@DrRobertMuller/the-fundamental-connection-to-nature-e96cdb2886e4

So … we have moved so far from nature — or have we?

I mean, I’m not a spiritual guy. I don’t believe in any higher being, and I certainly don’t believe God or any such concept. And yet … I walk into the forest and I feel peace. Let me fill you in.

I work from home — my work is in community building and education, but when I want inspiration, I head for the forest which is within a ten minute drive of my home.

(Image by Dr Robert Muller)

Give me the blue sky, the animals running free, the beautiful thick vegetation — even if I’m not trying to create ideas, they come to me when I’m out here.

(Image by Dr Robert Muller)

My local forest is a haven. It’s a sizeable wilderness area in the foothills on the edge of a city of 1.2 million people. When life gets too hectic, I drive into the forest where my shoulders drop, my lungs open, and my frowns just melt away. But … I do this EVERY day — EVERY lunchtime as a break from my work.

This sense of a haven in the midst of the fast pace of modern life — a place where you can be still with your thoughts but still with a feeling of being out there in the world — this is what it’s all about.

(Image by Dr Robert Muller)

The 15-minute city

by Carlos Moreno, TED: https://www.ted.com/talks/carlos_moreno_the_15_minute_city

Living in a city means accepting a certain level of dysfunction: long commutes, noisy streets, underutilized spaces. Carlos Moreno wants to change that. He makes the case for the "15-minute city," where inhabitants have access to all the services they need to live, learn and thrive within their immediate vicinity -- and shares ideas for making urban areas adapt to humans, not the other way around.

This talk was presented at an official TED conference, and was featured by our editors on the home page.

COVID-19 misinformation: scientists create a ‘psychological vaccine’ to protect against fake news

by Sander van der Linden and Jon Roozenbeek, The Conversation:  https://theconversation.com/covid-19-misinformation-scientists-create-a-psychological-vaccine-to-protect-against-fake-news-153024

Alexander Limbach/Shutterstock

Anti-vaccination groups are projected to dominate social media in the next decade if left unchallenged. To counter their viral misinformation at a time when COVID-19 vaccines are being rolled out, our research team has produced a “psychological vaccine” that helps people detect and resist the lies and hoaxes they encounter online.

The World Health Organization (WHO) expressed concern about a global misinformation “infodemic” in February 2020, recognising that the COVID-19 pandemic would be fought both on the ground and on social media. That’s because an effective vaccine roll out will rely on high vaccine confidence, and viral misinformation can adversely affect that confidence, leading to vaccine hesitancy.

We recently published a large study which found that higher belief in misinformation about the virus was consistently associated with a reduced willingness to get vaccinated. These findings were later reaffirmed in a subsequent study  which found a significant relationship between disinformation campaigns and declining vaccination coverage.

The spread of false information about COVID-19 poses a serious risk to not only the success of vaccination campaigns but to public health in general. Our solution is to inoculate people against false information – and we’ve borrowed from the logic of real-life vaccines to inform our approach.

When looking for ways to mitigate misinformation, scientists are confronted with several challenges: first, rumours have been shown to spread faster, further and deeper in social networks than other news, making it difficult for corrections (such as fact-checks) to consistently reach the same number of people as the original misinformation.

Second, even when someone is exposed to a fact-check,  research has shown that corrections are unlikely to entirely undo the damage done by misinformation – a phenomenon known as the “continued influence effect”. In other words, approaches to combating misinformation “post-exposure” are probably insufficient.

Our work in recent years has therefore focused on how to prevent people from falling for misinformation in the first place, building on a framework from social psychology known as  inoculation theory.

COVID-19 misinformation is common across social media.  TeodorLazarev/Shutterstock

Mental resistance

Psychological inoculations are similar to medical vaccines. Exposing someone to a severely weakened dose of the “virus” (in this case misinformation) triggers the production of mental “antibodies”, thus conferring psychological resistance against future unwanted persuasion attempts.

However, rather than only “vaccinating” people against individual examples of misinformation, we instead focus on the more general ways in which people are misled – manipulation techniques such as the use of excessively emotional language, the construction of conspiracy theories, and the false testimony of fake experts.

To do so, we developed a series of online games in which players learn how misinformation works from the inside by being encouraged to create their own fake news: Bad News  (about misinformation in general), Harmony Square (about political misinformation) and Go Viral!, which is specifically about misinformation around COVID-19.

Research has shown that a powerful way to induce resistance to persuasion is to make people aware of their own vulnerabilities. In our games, players are forewarned about the dangers of fake news and encouraged to actively generate their own antibodies through gradual exposure to weakened examples of misinformation in a simulated social media environment.

When we assessed the success of these projects, we found that playing a misinformation game reduces the perceived reliability of misinformation (even if participants had never  seen the misinformation before); increases people’s confidence in their ability to assess the reliability of misinformation on their feed; and reduces their self-reported willingness to share misinformation with other people in their network. We also found that similar inoculation effects are conferred across cultures and languages.

An image from the ‘psychological vaccine’ game GoViral! Sander van der Linden, Author provided (No reuse)

We then looked at how long the games’ inoculation effect lasted and found that people remained significantly better at spotting manipulation techniques in social media content for at least one week after playing our game Bad News. This “immunity” lasted up to three months when participants were assessed at regular intervals each week. We see these prompts as motivational “booster shots”, topping up people’s immunity to misinformation by staying engaged.

Herd Immunity

Of course, our work is not without its limitations. Although these games have been played over a million times around the world and have been shared by governments, the WHO, and the United Nations, not everyone is interested in playing an online game.

But the game itself functions as just one kind of “virtual needle”. A global “vaccination programme” against misinformation will require a suite of different interventions. For example, we’re working with Google’s technology incubator “Jigsaw”, and our colleague Professor Stephan Lewandowsky, to develop and test a series of short animated inoculation videos.

Like the game, these videos forewarn and administer a micro-dose of a manipulation technique, which primes the watcher to spot similar techniques in the information they subsequently consume online. We intend to publish our study on the efficacy of video vaccines later this year.

As the pandemic continues to wreak havoc worldwide, a successful vaccine rollout is of vital interest to the global community. Preventing the spread of misinformation about the virus and the vaccines that have been developed against it is a crucial component of this effort.

Although it is not possible to inoculate everyone against misinformation on a permanent basis, if enough people have gained a sufficient level of psychological immunity to misinformation, fake news won’t have a chance to spread as far and as wide as it does currently. This will help arrest the alarming growth of anti-vaccination sentiment on the internet.