Do we have a psychological need to be led?

[coberst]

Do we have a psychological need to be led?

 

Iron Law of Oligarchy refers to the inherent tendency for all complex organizations to develop a ruling clique of leaders with interests in the organization itself rather than in its official aims. These leaders came to desire leadership and its status and rewards more than any commitment to common social goals.

 

Robert Michels, a German sociologist who first defined the term, argued that these inherent organizational tendencies were strengthened by a mass psychology of leadership dependency; he felt that people had a basic psychological need to be led.

 

Democracy is an attempt to thwart this ‘iron law’ by creating a system of government wherein the nation state is ruled by the will and consent of the whole population.

 

The United States is the first nation to fully implement a system of government wherein the iron law is not a reality. How well are we doing? Does the US have a ruling oligarchy that determines public policy to suit the needs and desires of that oligarchy rather than the needs and desires of its citizens?

 

Does the US have a ruling oligarchy that desires leadership and its status and rewards more than any commitment to common social goals of the nation? I think yes!

 

Do the citizens of the US display a basic psychological need to be led? I am undecided!

 

Are all democratic forms of government merely a system of illusions designed to allow the citizens to sit back and think they control even when they do not? I am undecided!

 

Do you think, as I do, that bullfight is an apt analogy for all democracies (the bull being the people and the Matador being the oligarchy)?

 

If such an oligarchy existed do you think many citizens could recognize its existence? I do not.

[GAHD]

In oder:

maby

yup, they're judges...

(considers standing army size, considers percentage of people that actually vote)..yeah I think so.

The US is a republic, a true democratic government most likely is not going to end up like that if the counter(s) is different each time.

I think a round-robin tournament is a better example...

[Panjandrum]

I would say that there are merely some humans who are natural leaders, while the majority are more or less conservative and happy with the status quo. the natural leader sees what must be done to improve society (whether that be to improve it for its members or merely for the benefit of the leader) and has the drive to impose her will on the masses.

[paigetheoracle]

Conformity is about wanting somebody else to make all the decisions in your life (Hiding behind somebody elses coat tails/ wanting to have somebody else to blame when things go wrong - psychological projction "It's his fault, not mine!"). True individuals are true adults and are self led (Creative, original, independent) - they follow no-one but themselves and their own minds. You cannot lie to them because they do not lie to themselves. When things go wrong, they blame no-one but their own decisions. In other words it is a choice depending upon our current courage (knowledge) factor - Are we a child or an adult at this moment?

[Panjandrum]

I think we are talking about the same thing. What I call a natural leader is what you are describing as a true individual. They are not common, and they are not typical of the bulk of humanity, who will never have an original thought if they live to be 1000.

[InfiniteNow]

Some posts made here are discussing the concept of how some people are leaders and others are followers. However, the opening question of this thread is if/why there is a need to be led, and that has not yet been addressed.

 

My thoughts are going back to extremely early evolution, such as bacteria. Groups and colonies of bacteria having greater strength due to the membership of a stronger bacteria... or something along those lines.

 

Then, when organisms became more complex, those group members who offered a competitive advantage over other groups not only assisted in survival, but received recognition for this assistance.

 

I presume that millions of years later, this could be the cause of a psychological "need" (however, I prefer the term predilection) for leaderhip.

[coberst]

Some posts made here are discussing the concept of how some people are leaders and others are followers. However, the opening question of this thread is if/why there is a need to be led, and that has not yet been addressed.

 

My thoughts are going back to extremely early evolution, such as bacteria. Groups and colonies of bacteria having greater strength due to the membership of a stronger bacteria... or something along those lines.

 

Then, when organisms became more complex, those group members who offered a competitive advantage over other groups not only assisted in survival, but received recognition for this assistance.

 

I presume that millions of years later, this could be the cause of a psychological "need" (however, I prefer the term predilection) for leaderhip.

 

That sounds reasonable to me. So you think that such a need exists in humans and this is a possible reason?

 

Do you have any thoughts regarding these other questions in the OP?

 

"The United States is the first nation to fully implement a system of government wherein the iron law is not a reality. How well are we doing? Does the US have a ruling oligarchy that determines public policy to suit the needs and desires of that oligarchy rather than the needs and desires of its citizens?

 

Does the US have a ruling oligarchy that desires leadership and its status and rewards more than any commitment to common social goals of the nation? I think yes!

 

Do the citizens of the US display a basic psychological need to be led? I am undecided!

 

Are all democratic forms of government merely a system of illusions designed to allow the citizens to sit back and think they control even when they do not? I am undecided!

 

Do you think, as I do, that bullfight is an apt analogy for all democracies (the bull being the people and the Matador being the oligarchy)?

 

If such an oligarchy existed do you think many citizens could recognize its existence? I do not."

 

I use the word 'oligarchy' to mean a secret group that rule. I do not want to say that oligarchy means our elected officials.

[InfiniteNow]

That sounds reasonable to me. So you think that such a need exists in humans and this is a possible reason?

It's certainly possible, but again, I prefer to use a different term than "need."

 

 

"The United States is the first nation to fully implement a system of government wherein the iron law is not a reality.

I disagree with this statement on a few levels. My definition of nation is likely broader than your intention here, and also it could be argued that others have been successful in preventing the reality which is iron law previous to the US.

 

 

How well are we doing? Does the US have a ruling oligarchy that determines public policy to suit the needs and desires of that oligarchy rather than the needs and desires of its citizens?

Yes to both really. Some laws and rules are made to satisfy the needs of the citizenship, and others are made to satisfy the needs of "oligarchy." It depends on the law or rule being discussed, as well as the individuals voting on / creating it and their motivations for doing so.

 

 

Does the US have a ruling oligarchy that desires leadership and its status and rewards more than any commitment to common social goals of the nation? I think yes!

Again, this depends on the individual in question, and it's dangerous and inaccurate to make a generalization that all members of the class you describe as "oligarchy" have this desire. Some are there to make things better, some are there to satisfy their own greed. Individual differences are key to this line or reasoning.

 

 

Do the citizens of the US display a basic psychological need to be led? I am undecided!

No different than any other human or even other animals as I addressed in a previous post.

 

 

Are all democratic forms of government merely a system of illusions designed to allow the citizens to sit back and think they control even when they do not? I am undecided!

I can say "no" simply because you said "all." There is more to this question than at first may appear. What is it to control? What is an illusion? Blah blah blah... buy me a beer.

 

 

Do you think, as I do, that bullfight is an apt analogy for all democracies (the bull being the people and the Matador being the oligarchy)?

It depends on what mood I'm in for this one, so I can understand your indecision. It could also be argued that other way that the "oligarchy" are the bull, and we the people are holding the cape through which they must run to maintain their authority. Perhaps we are all our own bulls running through a cape which we've presented ourselves (i.e. also the matador).

 

Easy answer? I'll give you a definite mayby. :wink:

[coberst]

Infinite says ”Again, this depends on the individual in question, and it's dangerous and inaccurate to make a generalization that all members of the class you describe as "oligarchy" have this desire. Some are there to make things better, some are there to satisfy their own greed. Individual differences are key to this line or reasoning.”

 

I have studied Thomas Dye’s book “Who’s Running America” and he claims that the oligarchy in America is funded by corporate money and that a well organize effort is constantly on going to set public policy in accordance with that desired by this network of industrial and institutional leaders. The money is funneled into foundations, universities, and various ‘think tanks’ that maintain a complete retinue of intellectuals to organize policy programs. Many of these think tank people we see constantly as ‘talking heads’ on TV.

 

Also this ‘organization’ maintains individuals and groups to study possible candidates for public office that are then supported for elective office and that the people get to vote on either of two candidates each having passed the test of acceptance by the ‘organization’.

 

Virtually everyone in the oligarchy have similar backgrounds and they often have very similar world views especially in matters of their own wealth and power.

 

What is your impression of these claims?

[paigetheoracle]

Do we have a psychological need to be led?

No but as robots we might need to be 'lead'! (Sorry I couldn't resist that)

 

The terrible punner strikes again

/forums/images/smilies/devilsign.gif

[Resema]

Conformity is about wanting somebody else to make all the decisions in your life (Hiding behind somebody elses coat tails/ wanting to have somebody else to blame when things go wrong - psychological projction "It's his fault, not mine!"). True individuals are true adults and are self led (Creative, original, independent) - they follow no-one but themselves and their own minds. You cannot lie to them because they do not lie to themselves. When things go wrong, they blame no-one but their own decisions. In other words it is a choice depending upon our current courage (knowledge) factor - Are we a child or an adult at this moment?

 

I am interested in learning more about these. Do you have a book or a site about this?

How can a child get more courage and stop conforming and blaming others? Why does he blame anyway?

[Kriminal99]

America absolutely has this problem, but it is mitigated with respect to other countries. America has checks and balances, but it also has diversity. Diversity brings different goals from different sectors of the population that must be balanced - and is the true power behind the checks and balances as well.

 

Leaders are rejected when it becomes seen that they are not solving problems. The iron law you refer to depends on a lack of obvious chaos and anarchy that would require immediate forsaking of comfort in favor of solving problems.

 

Ideas allow us to relate our decisions and actions to less obvious forms of disaster. Diversity allows us different levels of experience with different kinds of such less than obvious problems. Then people create ideas based on their experiences, and demand leadership that addresses them.

 

Having so many interested parties working against each other is what helps us keep our government from becoming too comfortable.

[coberst]

I have recently watched “The Nazis: A Warning from History”. This series of DVDs makes it perfectly clear that the Germany population were handmaidens of Hitler. Hitler and the civilian population had a symbiotic relationship that provides the embodiment of the Freudian theory of transference on both the individual and on the group level.

 

Freud was the first to focus upon the phenomenon of a patient’s inclination to transfer the feelings s/he had toward her parents as a child to the physician. The patient distorts the perception of the physician; s/he enlarges the figure up far out of reason and becomes dependent upon him. In this transference of feeling, which the patient had for his parents, to the physician the grown person displays all the characteristics of the child at heart, a child who distorts reality in order to relieve his helplessness and fears.

 

Freud saw these transference phenomena as the form of human suggestibility that makes the control over another, as displayed by hypnosis, as being possible. Hypnosis seems mysterious and mystifying to us only because we hide our slavish need for authority from our self. We live the big lie, which lay within this need to submit our self slavishly to another, because we want to think of our self as self-determined and independent in judgment and choice.

 

The predisposition to hypnosis is identical to that which gives rise to transference and it is characteristic of all sapiens. We could not function as adults if we retained this submissive attitude to our parents, however, this attitude of submissiveness, as noted by Ferenczi, is “The need to be subject to someone remains; only the part of the father is transferred to teachers, superiors, impressive personalities; the submissive loyalty to rulers that is so widespread is also a transference of this sort.”

 

Freud saw immediately that when caught up in groups wo/man became dependent children once again. They abandoned their individual egos for that of the leader; they identified with their leader and proceeded to function with him as their ideal. Freud identified man, not as a herd animal but as a horde (teeming crowd) animal that is led by a chief. Wo/man has an insatiable need for authority.

 

People have an insatiable need to be hypnotized by authority; they seek a magical protection as when they were infants protected by their mother. This is the force that acts to hold groups together, intertwined within a mutually constructed but often mindless interdependence. This mindless group think also builds a feeling of potency. The members feel a sense of unity within the grasp of their leadership.

 

What do the following entities have in common: fascism, capitalism, communism, political parties, and religions? They all have a common characteristic that can be called “group mind”.

 

What is striking is that members of these entities often undergo a major change in behavior just by being members of such entities. Under certain conditions individuals who become members of these groups behave differently than they would as individuals. These individuals acquire the characteristics of a ‘psychological group’.

 

What is the nature of the ‘group mind’, i.e. the mental changes such individuals undergo as a result of becoming a group?

 

A bond develops much like cells which constitute a living body—group mind is more of an unconscious than a conscious force—there are motives for action that elude conscious attention—distinctiveness and individuality become group behavior based upon unconscious motives—there develops a sentiment of invincible power, anonymous and irresponsible attitudes--repressions of unconscious forces under normal situations are ignored—conscience which results from social anxiety disappear.

 

Contagion sets in—hypnotic order becomes prevalent—individuals sacrifice personal interest for the group interest.

 

Suggestibility, of which contagion is a symptom, leads to the lose of conscious personality—the individual follows suggestions for actions totally contradictory to person conscience—hypnotic like fascination sets in—will and discernment vanishes—direction is taken from the leader in an hypnotic like manner—the conscious personality disappears.

 

“Moreover, by the mere fact that he forms part of an organized group, a man descends several rungs in the ladder of civilization.” Isolated, he may be a cultivated individual; in a crowd, he is a barbarian—a creature acting by instinct. “He possesses the spontaneity, the violence, the ferocity, and also the enthusiasm and heroism of primitive beings.”

 

There is a lowering of intellectual ability “pointing to its similarity with the mental life of primitive people and of children…A group is credulous and easily influenced”—the improbable seldom exists—they think in images—feelings are very simple and exaggerated—the group knows neither doubt nor uncertainty—extremes are prevalent, antipathy becomes hate and suspicion becomes certainty.

 

Force is king—force is respected and obeyed without question—kindness is weakness—tradition is triumphant—words have a magical power—supernatural powers are easily accepted—groups never thirst for truth, they demand illusions—the unreal receives precedence over the real—the group is an obedient herd—prestige is a source for domination, however it “is also dependent upon success, and is lost in the event of failure”.

 

‘Why are groups so blind and stupid?’ Freud asked; and he replied that mankind lived by self delusion. They “constantly give what is unreal precedence over what is real.” The real world is too frightening to behold; delusion changes this by making sapiens seem important. This explains the terrible sadism we see in group activity.

 

I do not wish to admit it but Hitler’s Germany resulted from normal humans acting like normal humans.

 

Quotes are from Freud and his book “Group Psychology and the Analysis of the Ego”. I discovered that Freud had turned to the Frenchman Gustave Le Bon for empirical data on group behavior.

 

Gustave Le Bon was a French social psychologist, sociologist, and amateur physicist. His work on crowd psychology became important in the first half of the twentieth century. Le Bon was one of the great popularizers of theories of the unconscious at a critical moment in the formation of new theories of sociology.