Download Capitalist society, social character, and

Capitalist Society, Social Character, and Communication Attitude
Dr Richard J Varey, Director, BNFL Corporate Communications Unit, The
Management School, University of Salford, Salford, England M5 4WT.
Tel: +44 161 745 5884. Fax: +44 161 745 5442. E-mail: [email protected]
Capitalist Society, Social Character, and Communication Attitude
Abstract
A historical perspective shows that the advent of capitalism had a profound effect
on the thinking, feeling and resulting communicative actions of Western man by
altering his social character.
The contemporary communication crisis is explained by examining the prevailing
social character. It is suggested that only now are we reaching a turning point in
our cultural development (post-modernity?) in which communicative
relationships will rise in place of the shackles of competition, isolation, alienation,
selfishness, having, and consuming.
The author draws on various perspectives in considering socio-economic,
psychological, and ideological factors to show that relatedness is rooted in the
social character structure. A psychology of social character, rather than that of the
communication process, illuminates a growing problem of conservatism in
contemporary society. We just don’t relate by communicating. Conscious (radical)
corporate communication can only occur if we communicate consciously as
citizens in a particular New World context which promotes autonomy and cooperation. A new socio-economic condition of corporate community is suggested.
Introduction
We fool ourselves that our communication behaviour is about sharing and
understanding, not realising that our capitalistic assumptions drive us to behave
in ways we are not aware of. There may be contradictions between a person’s real
interests and those imposed on him by society. The rise of individualism has
brought forth a me-centred philosophy which presents us with an apparent
paradox. The new religion of ‘me’ must operate within a society which requires
thinking about ‘us’. The ‘marketing’ character which has grown out of the
marketisation of social life in the industrialising/scientific eras is a socially
patterned defect which has consequences for the self and our attitudes to our
communicative actions. Contemporary man displays his communication attitude
when asked to define ‘communication’. Almost always information dissemination
or exchange is proffered in explanation, as if information is possessed and is to be
sold in the marketplace.
All too few of us are willing to communicate about communication. This
unconsidered striving for “better communication” or “more communication”
(meaning opportunities to get what I want, irrespective of the desires and needs
of others) is perpetuated because we now live in an up-tight business culture
which worships unreflective hyper-activity and pragmatism (Hampden-Turner,
1970) and its got worse since then in the ‘information explosion’ of the 1990s.
Examination of the origins and development of industrial society from the village
to the “global village” (McLuhan, 1967) allows discernment of two revolutions in
the social character of man (Riesman et al, 1961). Fromm (1942) sees social
character as resulting from basic experiences and mode of life. Society requires a
degree of uniformity, coherence, conformity, otherwise one cannot really speak of
“a society”. Hobhouse (1924) observed that we have shifted from a functionally
undifferentiated society to one of differentiation with some degree of integration.
This has required the development of diversity and refinement in social
communication. As society has ‘progressed’ there has been a gradual succession
to dominance of three modes of conformity which have been identified by
Riesman’s research. Each of these has resulted in a particular dominant social
character type. Social character can be thought of as a more or less permanent
socially and historically conditioned organisation of an individual’s drives and
satisfactions. Put another way, each of us has a ‘mindset’ with which we approach
the world and people, including ourselves.
In order to function as a part of a society, a person becomes adjusted to their
social role at the price of giving up part of their own will, originality and
spontaneity. The idea of work and success as the main aims of life in Western
society were able to become powerful and appealing to modern man on the basis
of his aloneness and doubt upon being freed from domination and exploitation of
the elite during medieval times. Has the person proper become an appendage to
his/her socio-economic role?, asks Fromm (1947, p. 128).
The biggest cost to the self of the advent of capitalistic social organisation is the
loss of authentic relating by the adoption of a “marketing character” or selfpromoting persona which is not genuine in a social milieu in which everything,
including the self, is for sale and rational calculation becomes pervasive in all
spheres of life, with attendant depersonalisation of social relations, particularly in
work. The resulting superficial attachment constitutes detachment in the sphere of
deeper emotions. The ideas by which contemporary man explains his actions ..
self-deception, sales talk ... are the kind of insincerity which Riesman (1961)
describes as the state of mind of a man who habitually believes his own
propaganda.
Hampden-Turner (1970) observes that “when human beings meet and interact
both may part wiser and emotionally richer”. Sadly and frustratingly, this often is
not the case. No dialogue arises when one party is intent on control and merely
desires to change the other, whilst resisting change in the self.
When we don’t get the expected result from our communicative acts we tend to
blame ‘communication breakdown’ and call for more and better communication.
Perhaps it is not communication that is defective, but rather why we communicate
to rather than with each other. Communication need not always be, and often
should not be, merely a means to an end.
Early Language Development
There is little evidence of major differences in grammatical complexity found by
anthropologists, pointing to the probable antiquity of human communication
(Ardrey, 1972). Altman (cited in Ardrey, p. 89) defines a society as a group of
beings in which communication carries understanding, this being possible only
when there is mutual understanding of signals. Perhaps a biological basis can be
traced for the development of communication. Hominid society was essentially
bipolar in nature. There was functional segregation, physical separation, and
disparity of styles, routines and goals. Things had to be told when not
experienced. The hunting group saw the wide world whilst women, infants, and
juveniles knew only the ‘home place’. Language was required for learning of
others’ experiences. A simple language serves to integrate sub-groups, whilst
non-communication between those who speak the same language led to the
invention of the notion of strangers.
As language developed communication capabilities determined the form of social
structure possible. Now and in the future, society will determine the form of
communication.
Impact of Capitalism on Social Character
In our ‘advanced’ Western societies (increasingly merging into a single society as
McLuhan’s predicted ‘global village’ becomes a reality), a particular character
type has been forged by the rise of capitalism and can be a dominant orientation
in the person. The psychoanalyst Erich Fromm (1942) has studied the striving for,
and attempts at escape from, that single most prized human state - freedom.
Along the way he has illuminated our understanding of the economic relations
which are characteristic of the individual in a capitalist society. The rise of
democracy, argues Fromm, has set us free, but has also created a society in which
we feel isolated from other people, where relationships are impersonal, no specific
and permanent kind of relatedness is developed due to the changeability of the
market created, and where insecurity replaces a sense of belonging. Riesman
(1961) points to the dilemma facing modern man: he is alienated from others and
is afraid of close contact with another and equally afraid to be alone and have no
contact. Powell (1969), a Jesuit Priest, asks why we are afraid to tell others who we
are? Levels of interpersonal communication range from cliché conversation, in
which we don’t mean what we say and do not wish for a commitment (“How are
you?” is not a request for information), through to ‘peak communication’ (c.f.
Maslow’s self-actualisation), in which there is openness and honesty (each feels
mutual empathy). Much of modern communication lies at the cliché level and is
not real communication. At best we reveal something of our ideas, judgements,
and decisions, but only a strictly censored version which is thought to be
acceptable to others.
Has man always had this dual sense of freedom and isolation? The work of
Riesman, Glazer and Denney (1961) supposes the gradual succession to
dominance of particular modes of conformity. A revolution occurred when the
Renaissance period moved into the Industrial Age and a further revolution is now
upon us as we move into the post-industrial age (the Information Age, PostModern Age, the New Age, etc.) Hobhouse (1924) (cited in Sprott, 1966) identifies
changing themes of social relationship in the evolution of society. Early society
was dominated by relation of birth, and social structure was of kinship. Until
relatively recently structure was authoritarian in which one or a few people have
authority over others. Contemporarily real prospects of citizenship are perhaps
emerging as the bulk of the population may achieve articulate expression as
computing and telecommunications technologies create a dynamic
communicating community (Halal, 1996). We will discuss each mode of
conformity as a social character type (Fromm, 1942; Riesman et al, 1961).
Man’s first social organising was for agriculture, hunting, and fishing. Individuals
had clear functional relationships to others, and much cultural development was
through slow adaptation of ritual and routine. There was perhaps no sense of
development in The Age of Tradition as handicraft skills and rules were passed
from generation to generation. Control came from fear of shame - this is the era of
tradition-direction.
The Renaissance and Reformation period is seen as the dawn of the sense of the
individual. This Age of Production emphasises manufacture and products with
attendant social division and stratification. People are different - there is a
developing self-consciousness and drive for individuality. Skills become those of
the craft and property an extension of the self. There is a rise in acquisitive
conspicuous consumption. Work is a mode of relating oneself to physical objects
and ideas and only indirectly to people. Self-reliance is thought possible and
desirable and striving is for the achievement of this. Thinking becomes
expansionist and long-term and self-approval and achievement become widely
valued. There is a sense of scarcity. Communications and services become
primary, yet there is a large number of unproductive consumers. People become
shallower, friendlier, unsure of themselves and their values. Work becomes
central to most people’s lives and is experienced as technological and intellectual
processes rather than as human co-operation. There is widespread desire to
master resource exploitation. Conformities are externalised in dress, etc. We
became inner-directed, striving to “amount to something”.
“In more primitive societies, and in medieval Europe,
there appears to be far more uniformity than there is
today in our own society” (Sprott, 1966, p. 138).
Indications are that we are now beginning to experience (to create) a second
revolution towards other-directed conformity to society. Craftsmanship has given
way to consumership. Many of us now look to others for guidance on what
experiences to seek and how to interpret them - symbolism rules. Our relations
with the outer world and with our self are mediated by the flow of mass
communication. Only this week film actor Bruce Willis announced at the 1997
Cannes Film Festival that the written word is dead as reviews from critics did not
have meaning. He pronounced that today no one pays attention to written
reviews because most people get their information from the cinema and the
spoken word (Connell, 1997). We play act to a wider audience in a form of
compulsive adjustment. Manipulative skills develop with our anxiety and there is
superficial intimacy in the Age of Consumption (of words and images) driven by
the surety of abundance.
The modern world other-directed social character has arisen through the
widespread adoption of capitalism, which in turn has been ‘bought’ as the route
to personal freedom. We have become people-minded, but not in a healthy way.
This newer industrial revolution is visibly concerned with techniques of
communication and control. The tool is symbolism. The aim: some observable
response from other people.
In a society increasingly dependent on the manipulation of people, smooth
negotiation has become the principal ability of the successful (hence the enduring
popularity of classes in self-presentation skills and the soaring sales of self-help
books). Competition will never be entirely co-operative so long as we are
competing for places of marginal differentiation (Riesman, 1961, p. 139). We jostle
for these places by seeking the respect and affectation of those we want as our
peers:
“obliged to conciliate or manipulate a variety of
people, the other-directed person handles all men as
customers who are always right”.....
“the other-directed person tends to become merely his
succession of roles and encounters and hence to doubt
who he is or where he is going”.....
“a multi-face policy that he sets in secrecy and varies
with each class of encounters” (Riesman et al, 1961, p.
139).
However, we should not imagine that this social strategy belongs only to otherdirected people:
“Many inner-directed people are successful
manipulators of people; often, their very innerdirection makes them unaware of how much they do
manipulate and exploit others. Nevertheless, for
manipulating others, there is a somewhat greater
compatibility between characterological otherdirection and sensitivity to others’ subtler wants” (p.
128).
Berger (1966) suggests that a person is perceived as a repertoire of roles, each one
properly equipped with a certain identity:
“the self is no longer a solid, given entity that moves
from one situation to another. It is rather a process,
continuously created and re-created, held together by
a slender thread of memory”.
In the capitalistic society each person works for himself, individualistically, at his
own risk, and not primarily in co-operation with others. But he needs others, as
customers, as employees, as employer. Men cannot live without some sort of cooperation with others - communication is essential to our modern living. And yet,
points out biologist Richard Dawkins (in Axelrod, 1984), co-operation among
people does not arise naturally. At present individuality and individualism are
highly prized. But their value is highly ambiguous, representing liberation from
authority which prevents autonomous development of the person, but built on
trivial differences (the marketing personality must be free of all peculiarities - of
individuality - to be acceptable in the market), and seen as a possession, and
allowing manipulation through advertising which creates the illusion of free
choice (Fromm, 1993). Fromm argues that individualism is not the root cause of
the failure of modern culture, but rather this is due to people being not concerned
enough with the interest of the real self, but rather with a fictitious idea of selfinterest (Fromm, 1947, p. 139).
The economic relations are regulated, in a capitalist society, by commodity and
labour markets. The individual, primarily alone and self-sufficient, enters into
economic relations with others as a means to an end - to buy and sell - to give and
take. The individual enters into these relations with other ‘objects’ - and always as
a means to his end. He develops a cynical, detached attitude and looks upon
others as objects to be used and manipulated.
This social character has emerged since the destruction of the medieval world in
which the feudal economic system was based on the principle of co-operation and
provide regimentation through rules which curbed competition for the good of
common enterprise in a corporative system. Human individuation - the destruction
of all ‘primary bonds’ and the medieval world - is being completed in our era. The
rise of capitalism has had a profound psychological effect on the individual in
shaping his personality. Man has become an individual who has completely
emerged from the world surrounding him, to be seen and to feel as an isolated
‘atom’.
If private enterprise prevails as the basis for social order, then everyone is a
potential competitor and relationships become hostile and estranged. At the same
time the rise of the ‘Protestant work ethic’ has provided an internal compulsion to
work. Indeed:
“capitalism could not have been developed had not the
greatest part of man’s energy been channelled in the
direction of work” (Fromm, 1942, p. 80).
With the rise of competitive endeavour as the primary force in society, so came
the rise of conscious self-interest and egotism, which were not to be found in the
medieval society of clearly defined social role and tradition. As the ‘individual’
emerged so did new ways of relating to others:
“the concrete relationship of one individual to another
has lost its direct and human character and has
assumed a spirit of manipulation and instrumentality”
(Fromm, 1942, p. 102).
The egotist is selfish, wanting everything for himself, and has no pleasure in
giving, in sharing, in solidarity, in co-operation, and is suspicious of others who
might take from him, and fearful of uncertainty. His strength comes from what he
has and the security of keeping it (Fromm, 1993). The idea that egotism is the basis
of the general welfare of man is the principle on which competitive society has
been built (Fromm, 1947). Yet, the selfish person has no genuine concern for
others and judges everyone and everything in terms of its usefulness to him. He
searches for symbiotic attachment in relationships which are not based on mutual
respect and integrity but two persons depending on each other because they are
incapable of depending on themselves.
The relationship between competitors has to be based on mutual indifference, as
duty is replaced in all social and personal relations by the laws of the market. At
the same time, economic life eliminates the concrete differences of personality,
and by treating all as the same, the essence of individuality, our uniqueness, is
stifled.
Personal relationships suffer from an absence of concentration (Fromm, 1993). We
do not grasp anymore than the surface of another’s personality and we are poor
judges of character. We detect only what he says, how he behaves, his position,
and dress. We observe only the persona he shows us (that is, the image he hopes
that others have of himself) and do not penetrate below the surface to the person.
Others do not present themselves but their saleable part. It seems that we are afraid
to know anyone fully, including ourselves, so we do not concentrate on people.
Individuality interferes. We keep or distance, wanting to know each other only as
much as is necessary to live together, to co-operate, and to feel secure. We desire
surface knowledge and find knowledge gained by concentrating disturbing.
Human relationships have developed a superficial character. People present as
interchangeable commodities rather than as themselves, and everyone is engaged
in the same battle of competition and striving for success.
Man becomes alienated from his craft as a means to sustain his livelihood. The
modern manufacturer is not primarily interested in what he produces; he
produces essentially in order to make a profit, and what he produces depends
essentially on the market which promises that the investment will be profitable.
The employer and employee both use each other for the pursuit of their own
economic interests. Their relationship is one in which both are means to an end.
There is no interest outside this mutual usefulness. The same instrumentality is
the rule in the relationship between the businessman and his customer. The
customer is an object to be manipulated, not a concrete person whose aims the
businessman is interested to satisfy. Personal relations also have this character of
alienation. Instead of being relations between human beings, they assume the
character of relations between things. I have discussed the nature of the impact of
instrumental relationships on communication elsewhere (Varey, 1997).
Man has become a commodity. He does not only sell commodities, he sells
himself and feels himself to be a commodity - he sells his ‘personality’ - it is the
market which decides the value of human qualities. If a quality is not in demand
it has no value. Thus the feeling of the ‘self’ is merely an indication of what others
think of the person. Value is not constituted by human qualities or powers, but by
success in selling them. Self-esteem depends on conditions (of the market) beyond
our control. Value is exchange value rather than use value.
The new ‘freedom’ of capitalism, freedom from the dictates of the master, brought
the individual isolation and turned him into the instrument of overwhelmingly
strong forces outside himself - man has made himself an instrument of the
economic machine - a tool for industrial progress. Indeed, freedom is never
merely the possession of security. He turned to possession of property to back up
the weakened insecure self. Along with this came prestige and power, enabling
man to proclaim “I am what I have” and “I am what I do”, since “ I am who I am”
carried little weight (Fromm, 1976). Modern industrial society has driven many
people into a ‘having’ mode which concentrates on material possessions, the
possession of habits, accustomed thoughts and status and power, and is based on
greed, envy and aggressiveness. This striving for material possessions to define
the self results in behaviour which is alienating. Man thinks that he is acting for
his own self-interest when actually his main concern is money and success, and
his most important human potentialities (to be himself) are unfulfilled - he loses
himself in the process of seeking what is supposed to be best for him.
In the present era other-direction is coming to dominate over tradition-direction
and inner-direction as the principal mode of societal conformity. In this mode
acquisition diminishes and there is an orientation towards the non-economic side
of life, such as pursuit of happiness and peace of mind. There is manipulation of
the self in order to manipulate others, primarily for the attainment of intangible
assets such as affection. Interpersonal effort and tolerance have become
commodities (Riesman, p. 153). But there is a price to pay:
“the other-directed person has no clear core of self to
escape from; no clear line between production and
consumption; between adjusting to the group and
serving private interests; between work and play” (p.
157).
There is a tension between the public self, the social self, and the private self which self has most value in the market?
Irrational doubt consumes modern man so long as he does not progress from
negative freedom (freedom from external domination but also from a world
which gave a sense of security and reassurance) to positive freedom (to be an
individual and to realise the potentiality of the self without losing the connection
to the world). The doubt will not disappear until man overcomes his isolation and
his place in the world is meaningful in terms of his human needs. Attempts to rid
oneself of this doubt can be seen in: compulsive striving for success; the belief that
unlimited knowledge of facts can answer the quest for ‘certainty’; submission to a
leader who assumes the responsibility for ‘certainty’. But such behaviour merely
eliminates the awareness of doubt. The doubt remains and guides our hand.
Industrial society offers many people no satisfactory roles as the basis for (self)
identification (Perlman, 1966). Such people may become uninterested in life, have
no commitment to society, no sense of values because nothing available to them is
of any value (to them). In consequence they possess no acceptable (to them) selfimage. Genuine meeting or contact requires identification, but this is beyond
almost all of the role relationships of everyday life (Ruddock, 1969, p. 110).
“the need to come to terms with corrupt role systems
in our time imposes distortions on us all and leaves us
alienated from our basic human potentialities” (p. 18).
Western society has become so competitive that life is seen by many as a struggle
in which one tries to out-do one’s fellow man (p. 19). Rousseau (1947) argued that
society was the enemy of man, and Ruddock concurs:
“we feel suffocated or exhausted by the roles we have
created for ourselves and for each other” (p. 34).
These structures and role-systems are based on fragmentation and specialisation,
and they block personal growth and result in alienation. Roles appear
increasingly elaborated in our ‘advancing’ societies.
“man becomes further alienated from his human
potentialities and from other people, in trying to fulfil
the role demands of a culture based on competitive
commercial and bureaucratic values” (Ruddock, 1969,
p. 40).
What is needed is a return to the self by moving out of normal roles, to live as we
are inwardly disposed to achieve authenticity.
Social Character and Communication Attitude
The ascendance of science is symptomatic of our striving to perfect command
over nature. This ‘science of actions’ takes solace in technology to the exclusion of
relationships. Observe how “soft-side” issues are still considered diversionary or
even subversionary by some. McLuhan (1967) lays the blame for our overriding
passion for uniform, sequential, continuous, rational communication with the
invention of typography (p. 24). Fromm (1942) asserts that thinking is not
exclusively intellectual, but in dealing with ethical, philosophical, political,
psychological and social problems, is greatly determined by the personality
structure of the person who thinks. The social character comprises that part of the
personality which channels human energy as a productive force in a given social
order. This necessarily impacts on communication attitude, not least because
meaning depends on character structure and may be entirely different among
people.
Fromm (1942) speaks of a socially patterned defect of which most are not aware.
We experience ourselves as a commodity with exchange value. Our skills and
expertise are not enough in our modern industrial world - a ‘personality’ factor is
decisive if we are to be in demand, to be wanted, to be liked, to be valued by
others. One experiences oneself as simultaneously the seller and the commodity
to be sold. The aim is not the living of life and the pursuit of happiness for their
own sakes but a striving to be saleable by paying close attention to others’ signals.
The pseudo self is an agent, according to Fromm (1942, p. 177) who represents the
role a person is supposed to play, in their thinking, feeling and willing, but who
does so under the name of the self. This notion is echoed in recent work on
‘emotional labour’ where social acting suppresses or fakes real emotions in order
to create a synthetic display, for example of friendliness or compassion, resulting
in depersonalisation of interactions (see Mann, 1997, for a comprehensive study of
this emotional control in communication roles). We have no firm ego - “I am as
you desire me”. We have become other-directed. We have ‘evolved’ a pseudo self
- the feeling of “I Am Who I Am” has become replaced by the experience of the
self as the sum total of expectations others have about me - of the person I think I
am supposed to be. I sell myself and this has overridden, for most, the bond of
social brotherhood. But this is not deviancy. Fromm calls it a ‘pathology of
normalcy’. The individual’s ideal of normalcy may contradict the aim of the full
realisation of himself as a human being. For society as a whole this is fine. To
maintain coherence, social character training provides people who ‘want’ to act in
the way they have to act as members of the society.
The modern identity crisis is caused by our identity resting on participation in
corporations and other huge institutions. There is no authentic self. We have
become selfless instruments of economic progress and the pursuit of material
gain. Man has become alienated and estranged from himself within our
consumer-oriented industrial society.
Our relations to our self and to others become flimsy when we lose emotional ties
and lack attachment. Our manipulative intelligence becomes that of the
automaton (the cybernetic person) mobilised to achieve exchange. Charles Darwin
was able to recognise that he developed a scientific, alienated intellect. Karl Marx
defined the ‘alienated character’ with emotional naiveté and a sense of isolation
due to the underdevelopment of emotional response to the world.
Much modern interpersonal communication is overly promotional (marketing
communication) aimed at influencing, through persuasion, others to our values
and goals. Expressive and relational components are often neglected in pursuit of
control and in forcing others to adopt one’s message (Steinberg and Miller, 1975).
Sumberg (1962) warned of the dangers arising from citizens being replaced by
consumers. Man and his communication inevitably become impoverished.
Private social meetings between people are little markets where one exchanges
one’s need to talk about oneself with one’s desire to be listened to for the need of
others who seek the same opportunity (Fromm, 1993).
We may try to communicate as we think others expects us to, resulting in pseudo
communication - we may even believe that we have sharing and understanding as
our purpose - but this may merely be a means to an end. Our interpretation of the
expectations of our society now determine why and how we communicate:
“The sincere man is the one who believes his own
propaganda” (Riesman, 1961).
As an example, the commercialisation of friendliness has driven many of us to
pseudo behaviour. Take the pizza restaurant in 1997. The baseball-capped server
is ‘friendly’ because they have been told to be so and because it may result in a
tip. The customer expects friendliness and will pay for it, and may complain or
exit if this is found lacking. Friendliness has become a commodity and the seller’s
task is to effect a convincing act in return for profit which arises from the quality
of the performance - a modern day busker in a more secure setting, perhaps?
In the Middle Ages almost the only form of communication was correct written
(ordinary) language (literary rhetoric). Ordinary language was the channel of
communication for most people. The modern age requires of us a speedy,
economical and efficient pragmatism (Aranguren, 1967). We have witnessed the
impoverishment of language and its reduction to a mere statement of behaviour.
Instrumental communication has swamped attempts at expressive and
consummatory communication.
Hall (1961) provides a further clue to our crisis of communication. He suggests
that man experiences things on three different levels - there are three types of
awareness. The Formal level of culture concerns beliefs, the Informal level
concerns adaptation and personal style, and the Technical level is concerned with
analysis. People cannot tolerate existing in two systems at the same time (p. 116);
they have to approach life at any given moment from one of these three levels of
integration but not more than one. While one will dominate, all three are present
in any given situation. Perhaps so much non-communication results from
discrepancies between participants who are operating on different levels?
Two distinct orientations towards others may be discerned.
Who am I? How can I get what I want? My first concern is with me I don’t trust you. I do things my way - the way they’ve always been
done, and if you don’t immediately like it that way, I’ll try to
persuade you that you’re wrong - I’m right. If I cannot pacify you I
will ignore you. I win at your expense - life is a competition - a battle
of wits. The needs of others are seen as potential losses to me.
Who am I? How do my actions match others’ needs and wants? My
world is us. How can I get what I want by helping others to get what
they want? Where can I invest in achievement? Marketing is a state
of mind - look at a situation from others’ point of view. In the spirit
of co-operation and the belief that we can all win (get what we
want), and that I get what I want by helping you to get what you
want, I need to know your needs so that I can match what I do and
how to what you want and expect. We can help each other to solve
our practical problems of doing our jobs in a satisfying way. Our
dialogue allows us to interchange values. The needs of others are
seen as opportunities.
The New World - Society at a Turning Point
I am not so foolish as to predict the immediate death of capitalism - its promise
remains too alluring. However, ‘advanced’ societies seem to be reaching a turning
point and we may well find that the assumptions of capitalistic development are
further challenged and the notion of capitalism may be re-defined. Fromm (1942)
felt that the modern industrial system may be able to provide the means for an
economically secure life for everybody, and also:
“to create the material basis for the full expression of
man’s intellectual, sensuous, and emotional
potentialities” (p. 205).
Yet, modern man is dependent upon industrial society. Inner-direction is no
longer feasible for most people. Capitalist society has made major progress.
Manipulation of people has widely taken the place of their brutalisation. Even
persuasion is preferred to force. The religion of success is crumbling and has
become a facade which no longer satisfies. But what is required now is
‘autonomy’ (Riesman et al, 1961).
The autonomous social character as a mode of adaptation is capable of
conforming to behavioural norms of the individual’s society, but is free to choose
whether to conform or not. This differs from authoritarianism and automaton
behaviour in as much as in the former the person admires authority and submits
to it and at the same time wishes others to submit to him (authority as a superiorinferior relationship), whereas in the latter there is compulsive conformity to
accepted patterns (Fromm, 1942).
The autonomous person accepts that social and political authority is always
conditional: they can co-operate with others in action while maintaining the right
to private judgement, and they are at heart questioners.
Capra (1982) speaks at length of a nearing cultural transformation - a profound
shift in our social institutions, values, and ideas. This he sees as essential to the
development of civilisations, and suggests that social indicators for this shift are
to be seen in “the symptoms of our current crisis” (p. 7). A sense of alienation, and
increase in mental illness, violent crime, social disruption, and increased interest
in religious cultism, are all to be seen in the past 20-30 years. Social structures and
behaviour patterns so rigid that the society can no longer adapt to changing
situations, will lead to social disintegration because the society will no longer be
able to carry on the creative process of cultural evolution. The loss of flexibility in
a disintegrating society is accompanied by a general loss of harmony among it s
elements, which inevitably leads to the outbreak of social discord and disruption
(p. 9). If Capra is right we are about to experience the transition, a turning point, to
a new order within the next few decades.
Waldrop (1997, p. 84) has recently observed that:
“We are at that very point in time when a 400 year-old
age is dying and another is struggling to be born - a
shifting of culture, science, society, and institutions
enormously greater than the world has ever
experienced. Ahead, the possibility of the regeneration
of individuality, liberty, community, and ethics such as
the world has never known, and a harmony with
nature, with one another, and with the divine
intelligence such as the world has never dreamed”.
Halal (1996) would argue that the shift has already started. Halal (p. 206-208)
assesses the emerging the knowledge society as an evolutionary development
characterised as:
 leadership through participation which recognises freedom;
 a shift from materialism to idealism, valuing self-esteem;
 technology of information systems for dealing with complexity.
Halal (p. 97) is optimistic about the driving forces unleashed by the developing
communication technologies:
“Disparate nations, social diversity, and other
fragmented subsystems (will be synthesised) into a
balanced, integral, functioning whole”.
Barnatt (1997) speaks of a future mindset. This “future mindset” will be required
for long-term business success in our future world which will be created by the
way we think about possibilities in order to create our future ‘reality’. Barnatt
challenges us to embrace a new mindset as we leave the mechanical age of craft
and production (concerned with the technicalities of what to do? and how?), into
an automated and mediated era of ideas (concerned with why?) requiring clear
aspirations and imagination. Yet modern man applies his thinking mostly in
grasping information quickly in order to manipulate for success. Quick mental
adaptation is prized above reasoning. Knowledge, like man, has become a
commodity with exchange value in the market: consider university students who
do not want to learn to learn, only to get the degree as a means to a new job; or,
managers who withhold information supposedly as a source of power.
A Mind Set for the New World
We are all subject to culturally patterned secular strivings, suggests Fromm (1947,
p. 48). These “frames of orientation and devotion”, whilst not quite a religion
(there is no God), constitute systems of thought which try to give an answer to the
human quest for meaning and to man’s attempt to make sense of his own
existence. For some, this means striving for the attainment of success and prestige.
Others may seek conquest and domination. All seem to deal with the same basic
need to which they attempt to offer answers.
In considering the types of personality engendered by our modern industrial
civilisation, Berger (1966), reflecting on the work of Thomas Luckmann, reassures
us that not all people scheme, plot and deliberately put on disguises to fool others.
Role-playing is generally unreflected and unplanned (“almost automatic”). Our
psychological needs for consistency of self-image ensure this. Few people are
capable of the degree of psychological control that deliberate deception requires.
Most are sincere - they believe their own act. Sincerity is the consciousness of the
man who is taken in by his own act (p. 127).
Whilst we live in an advanced society to which we need to feel that we belong,
this may simply be an illusion. Individuation constructs individuals - this
fragments society and brings into doubt the notion of the achievement of social
cohesion. Unless, that is, we can each be brought under control by allowing
ourselves to escape freedom through submission to all-powerful authoritarianism
or automation conformity. Either way, we lose our self in our ‘freedom’ and cease
to communicate authentically. As Riesman reassuringly contends:
“modern industrial society has driven great numbers
of people into anomie, and produced a wan
conformity in others, but the very developments which
have done this have also opened up hitherto
undreamed-of possibilities for autonomy. As we come
to understand our society better, and the alternatives it
holds available to us, I think we shall be able to create
many more alternatives, hence still more room for
autonomy” (1961, p. 257).
Waddington (1948) observed that science and marketing are simply attitudes of
mind to the world - ways of living with specific ideals and values. The postmodern problem is one of organisation of social life, since the problem of
production is solved by industry and science. Now we should turn our energies to
the task of living.
In a marketised world we have turned ourselves into instruments for purposes
outside ourselves. We experience and treat ourselves as commodities. We have
become things and others around us have become things. If we can replace profit
and power motives with a desire for being, sharing, understanding - what would
our world be like? If our marketing character could be superseded by a truly
productive, loving social character - what would our world be like? Our herd
instinct leads us to believe that the road we are on must lead to a goal since
everyone else is on it. What is that goal? Is it valuable? Do we really want it?
This alternative world would require that we can relate to people through love
and self-esteem and to objects and the world generally through active
participation in creative work. We would have to reinvent assumptions about
how people communicate and work together (Barnatt, 1997) - indeed, about why
people communicate. Communication is not studied in schools of management
(Salford University hosts one exception) so managers do not learn much about
communication except through personal experience. Getting along socially was
key to the early development of the human species - to make organised hunting,
finding shelter, and food gathering work, members of such groups had to be
sympathetic to the feelings of others - they were ‘natural psychologists’ (Evans
and Deehan, 1990). Today we seek to understand the behaviour of our relatives,
enemies, friends - in terms of our own behaviour - the key is introspection.
Insights into our own drivers lead us to believe that other people will respond in
the same way. Humphrey (1986) suggested that we need an “inner eye” which
looks in on our own brain and tells us why and how we’re acting in the way that
that we are, providing a plain man’s guide to our own minds.
Emotional intelligence (Goleman, 1996) is the non-intellectual factors which
govern personal and professional competence:
 awareness of own feelings as they are experienced;
 empathy;
 awareness of what others are feeling;
 managing own moods to stay motivated and optimistic even when there are
setbacks;
 good interaction with others.
Power superseded duty as a social goal, and is only now giving way to
meaningfulness. Effectiveness will derive from competence in information
processing rather than memorising.
Fromm (1976) argues that an alternative ‘being’ mode of existence is possible,
based on shared experience and productive activity and rooted in love and the
ascendancy of human values over material values.
Hampden-Turner (1970, p. 135) argues that the root problem is man’s psychosocial infancy. There are too many of us thinking in conservative mode, and
psycho-social learning is required to develop autonomous reasoning and
imagining. What we need, Hampden-Turner stated emphatically and with much
supporting evidence, is ‘creative rebellion’. We need to enlighten the anomic,
dogmatic mind which is fat too comfortable with: hierarchical relationships;
ritualised and repetitive statements of conformity; the belief that words and
dogmas in themselves have authoritative meaning which surpasses the
intentionality of the utterer and that ‘Great Truths’ are ascendant; a preference for
one-way over two-way communication; unanimous acclaim of object symbols;
short psychological distance. All of these traits block development. HampdenTurner’s model for a continuous process of psycho-social development explains
the communication problem of contemporary society (p. 37):
“Man exists freely through the quality of his PERCEPTION, the strength of
his IDENTITY, and the synthesis of these into his anticipated and
experienced COMPETENCE. He INVESTS this with intensity and authenticity
in his human environment by periodically SUSPENDING his cognitive
structures and RISKING himself in trying to BRIDGE THE DISTANCE to
the other(s). He seeks to make a SELF CONFIRMING, SELF
TRANSCENDING IMPACT upon the other(s) and through a dialectic
achieve a HIGHER SYNERGY. Each will attempt to INTEGRATE the
FEEDBACK from this process into mental matrices of developing
COMPLEXITY”.
If only this were the model of human communication process and intent! Too
many so called ‘communication’ events do not have these aims or methods. We
should fix the process before we seek to build instrumental “communication
skills”.
Langer’s (1989) concept of ‘mindfulness’ (similar to the Buddhist Satipatthana requiring that things are not done in a distracted or less than wide-awake and
aware manner (Fromm, 1993)) suggests that dysfunctional behaviour is based on
unnecessarily limiting thought processes resulting in compulsion or automation.
Mindful thinking requires that the person:
 Creates new categories for new information about the perceived world, rather
than trying to force it to fit existing categories;
 Is open to the new information which is added to his/her expanding, and
increasingly differentiated, information base;
 Is aware that there is usually more than one perspective on a situation, i.e. is
sensitive to context;
 Pays attention to the process before its outcomes.
If a “New World” is upon us: what is its origin? Who is in the driving seat? Where
will it take us? Where do we want to go? How does it differ from the ‘old world’
we wish to leave behind? Can we hope for a spiritual society as does Aranguran
or Halal? Dare we hope that we are entering a “communication age”? Is it going
to be ‘better’, or only different?
If the ‘cybernetic religion’ can be replaced by a radical-humanistic spirit by
becoming autonomous, then will the New World we get be the one we want? Do
we know what we want? How will we better understand our society?
Sprott (1966, p. 69) proffered citizenship in an inclusive society in which more
people have influence and a more conscious notion of belonging together.
Aristocratic dominance on the basis of property always leads to conflict as
attempts to balance the power between the rich and less rich always results in the
substance of power falling into the hands of the former. Because social character
internalises external necessities and thus harnesses human energy for the task of a
given economic and social system (Fromm, 1942, p. 243), we must alter our
dominant social character for the new reality (psychological evolution) we can
invent - if we are inclined to do so.
If we are to return to a Communication Age, then we must re-learn the art of
communication and apply this profound wisdom to the new context. Perhaps this
can only be realised in Fromm’s ‘democratic socialism’ or Halal’s ‘corporate
community’ - Fromm’s state of natural democracy based on solidarity rather than
antagonism.
In the meantime - live your own life!: “To dream of the person you’d like to be is
to waste the person you are” (The Body Shop, catalogue, November 1996).
Bibliography
Aranguren, J L. (1967) Human Communication, London: Weidenfeld & Nicolson
Ardrey, R. (1972) The Social Contract: A Personal Inquiry into the Evolutionary
Sources of Order and Disorder, London: Fontana
Axelrod, R. (1984) The Evolution of Co-operation, New York: Basic Books
Barnatt, C. (1997) Challenging Reality: In Search of the Future Organization,
Chichester: John Wiley & Sons
Berger, P L. (1966) Invitation to Sociology: A Humanistic Perspective, London:
Pelican Books
Capra, F. (1983) The Turning Point: Science, Society and the Rising Culture,
London: Flamingo/HarperCollins
Connell, J. (1997) news summary, The Week, 17th May, p. 3
Evans, P. and Deehan, G. (1990) The Descent of Mind: The Nature and Purpose of
Intelligence, London: Paladin/Grafton Books
Fromm, E. (1942, 1991, 1995, 1997) The Fear of Freedom, London: Routledge
Fromm, E. (1947) Man For Himself: An Enquiry into the Psychology of Ethics,
Greenwich, CT.: Fawcett Publishers/Rinehart & Co.
Fromm, E. (1976) To Have or To Be?, London: Abacus/Sphere Books, Jonathan
Cape
Fromm, E. (1993) The Art of Being, London: Constable & Co.
Goleman, D. (1996) Emotional Intelligence: Why it can matter more than the IQ,
London: Bloomsbury
Halal, W E. (1986) The New Capitalism, New York: John Wiley & Sons
Halal, W E. (1996) The New Management: Democracy and Enterprise are
Transforming Organizations, San Francisco, CA.: Berrett-Koehler Publishers, Inc.
Hall, E T. (1961) The Silent Language, New York: Fawcett World Library
Hampden-Turner, C. (1970) Radical Man: The Process of Psycho-Social
Development, New York: Anchor Books/Doubleday & Co, Inc.
Hobhouse, L H. (1924) Social Development, London: Allen & Unwin
Humphrey, N. (1986) The Inner Eye, London: Faber & Faber/Channel 4
Langer, E (1989) Mindfulness: Choice and Control in Everyday Life, London:
HarperCollins
Mann, S. (1997) The Emotional Labour of Corporate Communication,
unpublished PhD thesis, forthcoming, BNFL Corporate Communications Unit,
The Management School, University of Salford, England
McLuhan, M. (1967) Understanding Media: The Extensions of Man, London:
Sphere Books
Perlman, H. (1966) in Younghusband, E., New Developments in Casework,
London: Allen & Unwin
Powell, J. (1969) Why Am I Afraid to Tell You Who I Am?, London:
Fount/HarperCollins
Riesman, D. with Glazer, N. and Denney, R. (1961) The Lonely Crowd, New
Haven, CT.: Yale University Press
Rousseau, J J. (1947) (edited by Frankel, C.) The Social Contract, New York:
Hafner Publishing Co., Inc.
Ruddock, R. (1969) Roles and Relationships, London: Routledge & Kegan Paul
Sprott, W J H. (1966) Sociology, 3rd Edition, London: Hutchinson University
Library
Steinberg, M. and Miller, G R. (1975) ‘Interpersonal Communication: A Sharing
Process’, in Hanneman, G J. and McEwen, W J. (eds.) Communication and
Behaviour, Reading, MA.: Addison-Wesley Publishing Co.
Sumberg, T A. (1962) ‘The more abundant life’, The American Journal of
Economics & Sociology, January
Varey, R J. (1997) ‘Relational Orientation in Management: Re-visiting the
Concepts of Relationship and Communication’, Journal of Communication
Management, forthcoming
Waddington, C H. (1948) The Scientific Attitude, London: Pelican Books
Waldrop, M. (1997) quoted in Fast Company: New Rules of Business (The
Greatest Hits, Vol. 1), Boulder, CO.: Fast Company
papers/iabc-97.doc