Prisoners of Ourselves

Totalitarianism in Everyday Life

Gündüz Vassaf

• Publisher: VandA edizioni
• Year: 2014
• ISBN:
  9788868990664
• Topic: Philosophy
• Subtopic: Political Philosophy

A provocative essay on the psychology of totalitarianism in everyday life available for the first time in English, the language in which it was originally written. The Turkish edition of this cult best-seller has sold over 70, 000 copies and is considered a contemporary classic in Turkey, where the author is one of the country's most well-respected intellectuals. Gündüz Vassaf was educated between Turkey and the United States."A compassionate devil's advocate with literary flourish."Murat Aytul, Aktüel"The stronger our cultural history, the more likely our survival in the future. Vassaf's book boldly shows how we have become prisoners of ourselves."Professor Oruç Aruoba"The freest spirit of any Turkish prose writer."Othan Pamuk, Nobel Laurat

IX
FREEDOM FROM CHOICE

Kuan Yin with 11 heads, VIII century Tang dynasty

We all live in a yellow submarine, a yellow submarine,
a yellow submarine.

The Beatles

I.

For many centuries we wondered about the existence of a free will. The preoccupation of present times is with freedom of choice. The focus has shifted from questioning the meaning to emphasizing the action. We look upon restraints on choosing as infringements of freedom. Most of us profess that democracy is about choice and totalitarianism a lack of it. The right to choose and what is chosen are very important to us. It is an extension of our personality, a part of our identity.

In a universe of change and uncertainty however, all choice is an act of pretension. In choosing we lose any chance of contemplating or comprehending the whole. In choosing we take up sides and oppress those by us to stay with us, fight those against us to be with us, and condemn to oblivion those who do not choose. Choosing is a self-imposed order of divide and rule. By choosing and taking sides we divide both knowledge and people. In dividing we rule over bits of knowledge which become dogma and a collection of people which become an unquestioning crowd. In choosing we become right, righteous and damning. In choosing a side, any side, we become totalitarian.

II.

We are tempted to choose. We who control less and less of what goes on in our daily lives and the world, we who have become increasingly aware of our insignificance since Hiroshima and the possibility of a nuclear holocaust, derive a false sense of strength from choosing. It is a veil over our eyes through which we see ourselves as controllers of a system that oppresses us. As there are those who eat and become obese to feel psychologically secure, we too, consume one choice after another. In our collective insecurity, we tend through choice and consumption, toward material and psychological obesity. Never have a people chosen so much and assessed themselves and others in terms of what they have chosen as we in this century.

Choosing is an act reinforced over and over in our daily consumption of material goods. Most of our choices in life are what we purchase in a shopping centre. A North American probably makes more choices in a shopping centre in an hour than an Asian peasant makes in his lifetime. The conditioned consumer-oriented choice behaviour is generalized and repeats itself in other situations ranging from culture and politics to friendship and marriage. Rather than living processes we consume choices.

The relatively unrestricted act of choosing as a consumer takes away whatever significance and sanctity there may be in “choice” itself. The American poet Robert Frost’s contemplation on “The Road Not Taken” is indeed from a past time. Choice has become insignificant in that very system—democracy—that is purportedly built on it. The most typical, the most frequent choose behaviour is that which leads to the ownership of what has been chosen. We are conditioned to choosing things that we end up owning. In owning we become powerful. Both the act of buying and the state of ownership endow one with power. The relationship between the owner and the object owned exists independently of the intrinsic, inherent value of the object.

The act of choosing is accompanied by a feeling of mastering, of being the master over the process, of being the master over that which one chooses. It is a feeling of power. It is an, “I have chosen...” feeling not requiring any reciprocity. The relationship is complete in spite of the fact that it is one-si­ded. “I,” who have chosen, do not have to be chosen in return for the relationship to be complete. I need not be accepted. I cannot be challenged in turn by what I side with or against. I can choose a President and call Jesus my prophet. I can reject all the mighty and great who walk and have walked on earth and feel stronger than all of them put together. The psychological act of choosing to be for or against makes us the supreme judge. No one can challenge us.

Like consumer preferences, all types of allegiances are also the result of one-sided relationships. They are simply chosen. The one-sided choice is the most complete power relationship. It is the ultimate in domination. But it is also a fantasy. For although our choice and support is wooed by political parties, sellers of consumer goods, entertainers and religious sects, it is actually they who control us by offering, limiting and defining our choices. In deciding to choose we assign rulers. It is they who amass fortune and power through our support.

That which has been chosen in this one-sided relationship never refuses our support. The relationship between the anonymous individual and the established institution is non- discriminating. No political party refuses a vote, no religion a disciple, no club a fan, no company a customer, no producer a consumer. Just the opposite, we are exploited for our inclination to choose and commit ourselves to our choice.

III.

Choosing may also be simply unhealthy. Especially if the choice is difficult it can lead to mental stress and physical illness. Some ulcers, which result from exactly that, can be fatal. Many neuroses as well are exacerbated by states of indecision. Though the magnitude of stress to bring about such illnesses varies individually, there is no doubt that we are all subject to it. The situation also does not end once a decision is made. Many of us wonder if we’ve made the right choice and therefore reconsider. That dilemma triggers yet another stress since we are also taught that it is bad to change sides and that a strong person sticks to his decision. There are also many instances where we stick by our choice in spite of resentment, simply to avoid yet another stress.

All this, because we are taught that one’s future, happiness, wealth and power are all critically influenced by decision and choice, by being on the right side. Most of us end up being members of a side without even having chosen it. Rather, we assume identities which we rationalize as being choices. Like our names that come “attached” to us at birth, such things as religion, ideology, nationality, affiliation with a sports team also become attached to us as a function of our family and the social and physical environment in which we grow up. It is not a psychologically innate mechanism in us that we choose one side over another or choose any side at all. It is rather an unquestioning inclination to the social structures that we are born into and grow up in. Choice and choosing sides is a part of society’s way of life but it is also detrimental to one’s health, happiness and an understanding of life. To be with an idea, person or a thing need not mean that one is either for or against it. It need not necessitate that we end up on opposing sides. While we make no conscious attempt to join sides however, the sides are engaged in an endeavour to exist and be strong and seek supporters. To this end they have missionaries, hire public relations personnel and even make war, with us as the soldiers.

Choosing sides prevents one from expanding, experien­cing, communicating. In choosing sides we construct ghettoes into which we commit ourselves with zeal. The other person is on the wrong side. He is not like us. We are superior. They are inferior. Things having to do with our side, we know by role learning. We repeat our beliefs, arguments, assets day in and day out like an unchanging chant. Doubt is bad for the morale. It is against team spirit. Any doubt, questions our belonging and leads us to a feeling of being lost. Choosing is belonging. In our belonging we have friends. Otherwise we are outcasts.

It is in choosing and belonging however that we also lose sight of ourselves and any sense of perspective. In belonging we lose our capacity to make self-portraits. We become so immersed in what we have chosen that any distinction between “I” the individual and “we” who belong, becomes less and less clear. Furthermore, the “I” and that which has been chosen also become enmeshed with each other. Any identification with the chosen object or side also changes its perception. Each choice changes one’s self-perception as well as the perception of the object.

IV.

The process of the socialization of the individual is tantamount to the withering away of freedom. Socialization is a function of societal structures and definitions of relationships. The society, the structure, is confirmed by the individual through choice.

From infancy on, the individual is constantly put before choices. We are asked to choose and in choosing we become slaves. In choosing we lose our freedom.

We begin to lose our freedom by being forced to make choices amongst/between things over which no choice can be made. We are forced to choose amongst things that cannot be divided or excluded from each other.

One of the most radical forced choices a child faces is about love. Love is neither quantifiable nor mutually exclusive. One cannot love “so much” or “this much.” Nor does loving “this” exclude loving “that.” The totalitarianism of being forced to choose and quantify with respect to love, puts love in the context of a hierarchical power relationship. It is no longer a free, all embracing feeling. It can no longer be altruistic.

The parents are usually the first to confront the child with totalitarian choice. Sometimes together, sometimes in secret from each other, they ask the child, “Who do you love most Daddy or Mommy?” If they don’t ask, they look for small tell tale signs in the behaviour of the child. The, “Who do you love most?” question is transferred and generalized by the siblings. Now, the child also mentally assumes the hierarchical structure, wondering which one of his brothers or sisters the parents love the most. Another favourite question the parents put before children is, “How much do you love me?”or, “Show me how much you love me.” Thus, in the very early years, the individual is introduced to a hierarchical ordering of love.

It is soon “discovered” that through giving and withholding love one can also control the behaviour of others, especially those close. In fact, withholding love is an often a re­commended psychological method of obtaining discipline in a child. Thus, love becomes an instrument of control. The “love choice” is like the original sin of totalitarianism. From then on, one choice follows another. We choose our best friend. Over the years we choose many more and keep on replacing one best friend with yet another. There are also always those we dislike the most. Thus, there is always someone on top, the best friend, and someone at the bottom, the most disliked. We also learn to choose from our toys favouring one over the other and from our dolls which are also ranked in a rigid hierarchical order.

Then comes gender. Though we are given our sex genetically we are also made to choose it psychologically. The psychological identification is again totalitarian, for it is an affirmation of one sex and a condemnation of the other. Boys and girls both look down upon, exclude each other. They choose not to choose each other. They learn to choose not to be with each other. They learn to typecast each other. All this, according to textbooks, is a normal part of growing up in the socialization process. The genetic differences become exaggerated within a psychological field. They take on a new perception with the differences again being used as psychological weapons in a power structure. The choice leads to totalitarianism, this time based on sexual differen­ces. Such differences would not lead to totalitarianism were they perceived in terms of contributing to the greater whole and unity rather than being mutually exclusive categories.

At about the age of six, children begin to play games together. A game is a form of play, a form of amusement, something we do to have a good time, to enjoy ourselves. Yet, simultaneously with learning games, children also learn to choose sides. The most popular games are those in which there are sides. There are instances where children concentrate more on choosing sides than playing the game. It might even be said that the game exists so that sides may be chosen. Who chose whom is a very dramatic event in a child’s life.

Such choices lead to fights, jealousy, frustration, aggression, compromising behaviour, pity. All these games of choosing sides are also a part of the socializing process of the child. Even before adulthood, the child is very much a part and agent of the totalitarian society. As an adult, only the subject matter of the games changes; the “we against them” paradigm continues through classes, nation states, religions.

The historical evolution of children’s games suggests that even across centuries they have not changed all that much. The concept of including some and excluding others has been a part of games, whether society is feudal, capitalist or socialist. In all cases the totalitarian structure in children’s games is there. Such games are a reflection of societal structure. Any society in which those who want to belong can be excluded through the choice of others represses its members. Choosing sides is also a form of mutual ostracism. It is based on some notion of superiority/inferiority, always a reflection of the order of power.

Thus, all the psychological weapons are already installed in the mind/paradigm of the child. Discrimination on the basis of race, social class, intelligence are all based on the set of perceptive structures built upon the basis of forced choice, mutual exclusiveness, quantification and comparison.

V.

The westernized and so called pluralistic contemporary society, in its daily life, has become perhaps one of the most segregated of all societies. First, people have become segregated from each other according to age. The elderly are by themselves in their own ghettoes (homes for the elderly, retirement communities etc.), the young are forever organized to be together during and after school, the middle-aged everywhere else. People are also segregated according to their income, race, religion and affinity to the establishment. There are fewer and fewer communities in which different races, professions, income groups and ages live in the same neighbourhood. Contemporary society, in the way we live, is very much the image of a totalitarian corporate society. The establishment deals with and manipulates people as sociological categories.

We, as people, stay in those categories into which we have divided ourselves. The young want to be with the young, the blacks with the blacks, the artists with the artists, the feminists with the feminists, the soldiers with the soldiers. Our way of life is segregated and totalitarian with each group seeking its own interests and identity.

Alternative movements, those who refuse the ways of the establishment, also choose the same totalitarian mo­del. They live in specific neighbourhoods, have their own restaurants, particular way of dressing and speaking and even vacation spots. They also choose to be segregated and are closed to outsiders. What appears at first to be an attempt at liberalization is another instance of segregation. Although they cry for freedom against the establishment, they are oppressive to their own members. The oppression and the monotony come from the self-imposed totalitarian order.

We choose to seek those who are like us. Those unlike us, disturb us. Not only do we not want them to, but we also don’t even know how to communicate with them. Yet, togetherness in our own flock is a monotonous reinforcement of sameness, a repetition of an endless vigil. We impose an order of oneness. We want everyone to think and behave in the same way. Those who show any individuality, uniqueness are not tolerated. We are bored yet we submit to the group. We dare not cross borders that we yearn to cross. We put up the very borders that we dare not cross.

VI.

By choosing “this” over “that” we block all paths to liberation....

Table of contents

• Cover page
• Title page
• Introduction
• I. In Praise of Night
• II. Freedom in Hell
• III. Prisoners of Speech
• IV. No Longer Free: Madness in Modern Times
• V. Here We Eat, There We Sleep
• VI. Heroes Are Totalitarian
• VII. Informania
• VIII. What's Your Sex?
• IX. Freedom from Choice
• X. In Defense of Traitors
• XT Death Forgetting
• XII. Beware of the Artist!
• XIII. Disagreement Forever
• XIV. Goals Against Life
• XV. Zap! You're Dead
• XVI. Homo Sapiens Blues
• XVII. Why Children?
• XVIII. This Magic Moment
• XIX. The Totalitarianism of Love (As Practiced)
• XX. To Be Drunk!