To what extent are we encouraged to think of ourselves as free and self-determining individuals, whilst in reality being restricted both overtly and insidiously by our institutional frameworks?
If this is our state in contemporary society, are we losing our capability for true freedom of thought and action? Do we defer to institutions for leadership and direction to guide our personal thinking and acting?
What if institutions provide direction to suit their own interests rather than ours, or society’s generally? What if, in the face of extreme conditions, they are incapable of responding effectively?
Will human beings’ expression of individual freedom of thought and action, particularly in relation to extreme or “big” issues, be manifest in thinking that institutions will respond for them?
At the same time, will institutions themselves succumb to indecision and paralysis as individual members within them follow the same train of thought?
If all of these seem reasonable propositions – noting that they are not posited as “the truth” or “reality” – do we face the prospect of human societies more and more paralysed by “learned helplessness”?
Learned helplessness is a term that originates in animal biology, referring to eventual loss of mental capability to respond to some discomforting stimulus when the physical ability to respond is removed through repeated cycles of constraint. In human psychology, it describes the loss of the individual’s ability to respond to any situation, “with the eventual result that people give up without even trying”.
Examples of human failure to respond to extreme circumstances abound, where individuals fail to leave burning buildings or sinking ships, seemingly paralysed by fear.
However, it can also be argued that humans have abandoned their ability to act independently in relation to a wide range of matters, even where they consider themselves to be free agents. Do we exercise individual choice as consumers when we buy a car, a television, or the latest iPhone? Or, are we merely selecting between different institutional offerings that we accept that we must choose from? We must consume because it is expected of us and we comply.
You may think at this point that events of the past year show these ideas to be nonsense. We have, after all, followed the “Arab Spring” on our news bulletins throughout 2011. We have seen individuals and societies challenge and topple their institutions. Contemporary Western culture encourages us to think of ourselves as individuals – free spirits who can make our own choices through self-determination. New youth cultures in emerging and developing economies pick up on this individualist tendency, even within some of the strictest regimes.
Yet, as individualism has developed as an espoused aspirational value, the institutional frameworks within which we must function – even in the most liberal of liberal democracies – appear more and more restrictive.
Our lives are monitored from birth to death by governmental institutions. Our day-to-day life is dependent upon, influenced and, some would say, controlled by commercial institutions. While applauding the Arab Spring, how have most in the non-Arab world thought of the Occupy movement? Has the “99%” been motivated to challenge the institutions of Western democracy?
At the extreme, our institutions demand uncompromising adherence. George W Bush and Tony Blair epitomised such thinking in the lead up to invasion of Iraq. Those that were not with them fully were de facto against them – the “enemy” within as well as without.
Everyday party politics in modern democratic states appear to many to be grounded in ideological conflict. Electorates are forced to choose between different “right” positions, with little compromise on their different value propositions. Yet, it is also argued that there is little to choose between parties.
Constraints on individual thought and action range from formal, governmental and legislative frameworks to informal, peer pressures.
Most if not all of us would no doubt agree that murder should be proscribed and punished severely. Opinion on issues like cannabis use is divided within Australian society, whilst both legal rules and societal norms on matters of freedom of speech and dress vary widely across nations. But, I would argue that the thinking and acting of the majority of individuals on all these matters is moulded by some set of institutional norms more than by individual freedom and choice.
To what purpose do I offer this discourse? There are major challenges facing contemporary societies. These include global issues of climate change, resource depletion, accelerating socio-economic disparity, environmental degradation and over-population.
They also include seemingly intractable local problems such as how to “correct” the Northern Territory intervention, what is the key to the Murray-Darling basin’s sustainability, and how can the Wild Rivers of North Queensland be managed for the greater good?
I suggest that, at present, there is little real prospect of most if not all of these issues being resolved because we are in the throes of a global “learned helplessness” pandemic, in which individuals see themselves as powerless and unable to act, and key institutions are paralysed by indecision and inaction. What appears to be action and change in the short term turns out to be a chimera.
Join the conversation
Comments (9)
Tim Niven
Unspecified (logged in via email @yahoo.com.au)
George, I have often lamented on similar thoughts. However, have you read Alinsky's Rules for Radicals? He discusses just this, encountered in communities where he's organised - a learned helplessness. In fact, he spends a couple of pages (if I remember correctly) discussing how this learned helplessness can turn into a defensiveness when he points out that they can take power back - kind of "why didn't we think of that, why were we not doing that already". He gives the example of one community…
show full comment
Kris White
Public Servant (logged in via email @hotmail.com)
Tim - Im at about the same point. I have, as i said, only just found education that for me confirms and adds specific evidence to truths i have felt since i was a child. I would like to suggest for (hopefully) your benefit that you investigate: Alex Jones, Jorden Maxwell and Ben and Daniel Stewart . I have found these very interesting and educational, but at the same time not misleading or overly persuasive (like the opposing, mainstream information). As you said, making different decisions is a way forward as is acquiring and sharing such information.
Kris
Tim Niven
Unspecified (logged in via email @yahoo.com.au)
Hi Kris,
Whilst I certainly don't know anything about Alex Jones, Jordan Maxwell or the Stewarts, I can definitely agree that knowledge is important to guide action.
As you say, we must look at a situation in terms of power dynamics - to refuse to is foolishly naive.
But I still think getting stuck thinking about the world, whilst neglecting action, is stale and a recipe for disaster. I don't want to sound like I'm criticising anyone else, this is primarily a conclusion from my own experience…
show full comment
Kris White
Public Servant (logged in via email @hotmail.com)
Great article George! Respectfully I would like to suggest to this discussion however, in my opinion of course, one major factor. I feel, that there is absolutely no 'what if' re institutions and government having their own personal interests and agenda in mind here, above society let alone the group or individual. The extremity of economic disparity is a means to acquire total control. I have only very recently found what i believe to be trustworthy education on the clandestine workings of power…
show full comment
Graeme Ferris
Healing Facilitator (logged in via email @gmail.com)
Hi All.
A lot of solid ideas and ideals.
I'd like to throw a different perspective on action-motivation into the mix.
Spiritual Values and Primitive Instincts are the two sources of agitation which lead us to act.
The former by galvanising us to create a better world for ourselves and those we care about.
The latter by urging us to escape noxious physical stimuli, or to attain sensory pleasures.
Knowledge is simply the tool we use to channel these motivations.
If we truly want…
show full comment
Matt Stevens
Senior Research Fellow/Statistician (logged in via email @gmail.com)
First, thanks for an interesting article, one that forces us (and them) to think. This learned helplessness would appear to be the normal human condition, given that all human societies though out history, show organisation, regardless of whether they are hunter gatherer, agricultural or technological. While I do believe that structuralistic arguments can hold some sway over people, I agree with Kris, above that people and communities do hold the keys to empower themselves to search and find a better…
show full comment
George Cairns
(Head of School, School of Management at RMIT University)
Dear Tim, Kris and Matt,
Thank you very much for your kind words and for the additional sources and ideas. I will follow these up with interest. Whilst I acknowledge that I am not saying anything earth-shatteringly new in the article, the more of us who find it unsurprising makes it all the more surprising that the condition exists so widely.. Why do we not do something about it? Are we victims of our own learned helplessness?
Another resource that you may find interesting is Bent Flyvbjerg…
show full comment
Kris White
Public Servant (logged in via email @hotmail.com)
Good Afternoon and Thanks everyone,
Tim,
I agree with you that to sit back contemplating long term and leave action and solution out of all this is pointless and shows a morally lethargic tendancy and irresponsibility regarding solution. I personally am passionate about finding solutions (and desire to lead some) to many local to worldwide problems, but strong knowledge must precede this.
With respect, and please read this as a thought and not as a defensive retort or misunderstanding…
show full comment
Tim Niven
Unspecified (logged in via email @yahoo.com.au)
Hi George and Kris,
George, you are of course right: that it is widespread makes it a signficant phenomena, worthy of attention.
Kris, I can't share your judgment that in Australia we could end up like Tianamen square.
I do think that the coal lobby couldn't buy a better supporter than me, who has done nothing but lament the situation. I genuinely don't think it's academic anymore, it's time to act.
Sincerely,
Tim.