This is our final Democracy newsletter.
 
Our group has been meeting since 2006 to study and promote democratic principles; to convince others of the importance of clarifying those principles and bringing them into our everyday lives and actions. My 2016 book, The Future of Democracy, summarized what we had discussed for ten years, and my talk at the Commonwealth Club two years later included a discussion about whether democracy would survive.
 
It is time to acknowledge that democracy currently is not the choice of the American people. We The People is being replaced by Us vs. Them. Voters in our country are not convinced that democracy is to promote the common good, not just their individual needs.
 
Our recent election justifies that view. It is easy to be clear that we don’t want oppression — no one does — but clarifying what we want instead and how to attain that always has been difficult. Even in our group it was a challenge to focus on how the democratic model can be brought into our lives and the real world.
 
The human mind has great difficulty contemplating democracy. It seeks clear models from others for how to act and usually would rather do what it is told than think for itself. It is only when people feel unrecognized and oppressed that they consider rebellion. But rarely has a viable alternative to oppression succeeded for long.
 
Democracy’s origins are in ancient Athens, where it lasted about 200 years, and then Rome had its Republic for a while longer, but both were difficult to maintain. Democracy was resurrected after 2000 years at the founding of the United States. Now it is impossible to know its future. Its success in many other parts of the world — countries that once looked to us as a model — also is being challenged. Voting does not equal democracy; autocrats have come to power by legitimate means in Germany, Russia, Venezuela, Egypt, and Hungary, to name just a few countries where this has happened.
 
This view is not rooted in pessimism, but in the reality of human nature. Both Socrates and Aristotle were skeptical of democracy. In Plato’s The Republic, Socrates suggests that the ideal government would be run by a philosopher king who had the best interests of the people in mind. In his Politics, Aristotle argues that people can be fooled by demagogues posing as populists, and that government should educate people to know the difference.
 
Many countries begin with the intention of being democratic, but that impulse often dies as our autocratic nature reasserts itself. My 2018 book The Death of Democracy predicts a possible direction our country now may take:

Democracy Newsletter: November 2024

By Steve Zolno

No matter the outcome of this election, democracy can be preserved only if we maintain faith in its vision.
 
This means a continued belief in the value of every human being, even when others lose that faith. It means maintaining the essential principle of human dignity — that all are created equal — even when it seems that some are able to value themselves only by diminishing others.
 
You and I are not the labels we or others put on us. Our judgments do not reflect the essence of people. When we judge others, we experience judgment. When we hate others, we bring ourselves hate. The alternative is recognizing the essential value of every human being. As we do this, we experience our own value. Democracy becomes actualized as we bring that idea into our institutions and everyday lives.
 
This principle is the basis of economic prosperity that affects those at all levels of society, as recognized by the recently awarded 2024 Nobel Prize in economics. According to Daron Acemoglu, one of the three Nobel Laureates who shared that prize: “I think broadly speaking the work that we have done favors democracy.… Democracy is not a panacea. … There’re many examples in world history of societies that do well for 40, 50 years.… What you see is that’s never sustainable.… The Soviet Union did well for 50 or 60 years.”

Countries that make the transition to an “inclusive society” create viable economies, added James A. Robinson, another of the recipients: “The United States … was a country of slavery, of privilege, where women were not allowed to take part in the economy or vote.… Every country that is currently relatively inclusive and open made that transition.”
 
Acemoglu expressed worry that democratic institutions in the United States and Europe were losing support from the population: “Support for democracy is at an all-time low, especially in the U.S., but also in Greece and in the UK and France.… They think democracy hasn’t delivered what it promised.”
 
Added Robinson, “Clearly, you had an attack on inclusive institutions in this country.… You had a presidential candidate who denied that he lost the last election, [who] rejected the democratic rule of the citizens.… Of course, I’m worried. I’m a concerned citizen.”
 
The third recipient, Simon Johnson, remarked, “A lot of people who were previously in the middle class were hit very hard by the combination of globalization, automation, the decline of trade unions, and a sort of shift more broadly in corporate philosophy.… So instead of workers being a resource to be developed, which they were in the 19th and early 20th century, they became a cost to be minimized … that squeezed the middle class.
 
“We have, as a country, failed to deliver in recent decades on what we were previously very good at, which was sharing prosperity. A key for the future is how societies manage new technologies such as artificial intelligence.… AI could either empower people with a lot of education, make them more highly skilled, enable them to do more tasks and get more pay; or it could be another massive wave of automation that pushes the remnants of the middle down to the bottom. And then, yes, you’re not going to like the political outcomes.”*
 
Essentially, their research shows that commitment to democracy by a society — where there is less unrest and rivalry between those at different economic levels — brings general prosperity. It provides an aura of mutual support similar to what the US experienced, at least economically, in the aftermath of World War II.
 
There always are elements in society — and perhaps in each of us — that consider the interests of those who look or think like them to be superior to those of others. That contrast is clear in the current election. So the question always is: “How can I pursue my own interests and those of my group without demeaning the interests of others?” Furthering the interests of some while ignoring others has led to unrest and revolution throughout history. But using that question as a guide allows us to move democracy forward in a way that advances the interests of us all.

So now we have a choice. We can vote for autocracy or democracy; one man rule or rule of law; an economy that primarily serves the powerful or the entire population; prioritizing our own tribe or the human race. We soon will know what America chooses.

———————--
*Source of quotations: “Nobel economics prize goes to 3 economists who found that freer societies are more likely to prosper,” Associated Press, October 14, 2024.

Steve Zolno graduated from Shimer College with a bachelor’s degree in social sciences and holds a master’s in educational psychology from Sonoma State University. Steve has founded and directed private schools and a health care agency in the San Francisco Bay Area. He is the author of seven books.

Please recommend this newsletter to people who you think might appreciate it. If you want to be added to the email list to receive each new newsletter when written, fill out our contact form and check the box just above the SUBMIT button. You may also use that form to be removed from our list.
​
Visit our Books page for information about purchasing The Future of Democracy, The Death of Democracy, Truth and Democracy, Guide to Living In a Democracy, Everyday Spirituality for Everyone, The Pursuit of Happiness, and What Love Does.
​
Click ↓ (#) Comments below to view comments/questions or add yours. Click Reply below to respond to an existing comment.​

Going back to Ancient Greece and Rome — and even glimpsing at history prior to that time — there always has been a division among and within human beings about whether they are capable of self-governance or if it is best to cede leadership to an individual. Thus the quandary of whether democracy or authoritarian rule is preferable is rooted deep in the human psyche.
 
When we roamed in tribes the decision to give over authority for decision-making to a leader seemed easiest. But at some point we discovered human dignity, a place within that believes it knows right from wrong and seeks to function from that principle rather than allow another to determine our path.
 
That quandary continues in aspiring democracies around the world where “rule by the people” — always imperfect — still is an aspiration for some, but a lost hope for others. Our own country has teetered between leaders who would shape us in their image, and those who would lead based on respect for the democratic impulse in every person.
 
But never has the choice been clearer whether to cede our authority to someone who has told us he would suspend the Constitution from day one or a leader who would continue us on our imperfect path toward consensual governance.
 
Our guide to our current federal election makes our choice clear. There still are those who would vote for authoritarianism despite its ascendancy around the world in places where human rights and freedoms have been lost. We are also providing a tabulation of the most likely direction of the election if the current polls hold up.
 
The fate of the most successful democracy in history — that has served as a model for all the others — now is in the hands of its people. In a month’s time we will know if  ”government by the people” has survived.
 
For the vast majority of our readers — who live in California and the East Bay — guides to the current election are forthcoming.

Robert Katz served as a staff attorney and supervising attorney at the California Supreme Court from 1993-2018. Before that he was in private practice representing public agencies, and worked as a newspaper reporter covering local government in Santa Cruz County.
 
Steve Zolno graduated from Shimer College with a bachelor’s degree in social sciences and holds a master’s in educational psychology from Sonoma State University. Steve has founded and directed private schools and a health care agency in the San Francisco Bay Area. He is the author of seven books.

I mentioned in a recent Newsletter that I have been working with a diverse group of young people to write a book about democracy for other young people. Many of them are excited about the fact that this is an election year and that they soon will be eligible to vote. I consider this their project and the end product will have their names on it, with old Steve only mentioned as an editor. 
 
You might think that this group, who now are becoming high school seniors, are in need of education before they can formulate their ideas about how democracy best can function. But I think it is much the opposite: young people can teach us and each other about the essential purpose of democracy because they have fresh ideas and are less jaded by life experience. 
 
Our hope is to distribute this book to young people in parts of the country where curriculums have been limited to avoid providing students a clear picture about mistakes our country has made, and from which we might learn, such as slavery, segregation and the tragic history of how we treated Native Americans. Books throughout the South also have been banned that teach tolerance and understanding for diversity of all kinds — including racial, religious, ethnic and sexual minorities. 
 
What I have learned so far from this group is a primer in what I think we all should be looking for in those who seek to represent us in a voting year. The quotes below are from our draft and may not be included in our final product. Our working title is What is Democracy?
 
Democracy comes from the ancient Greek language, and means “rule by the people.” This rarely has been accomplished: in every society — including democracies — there have been those who gain power and want to impose their own interests on others. Human nature always has been both competitive and cooperative. It is no different in our country today, and likely will not change in the future. 

The difference in democratic situations is that people work together to determine what is the common good, which always is being redefined, and to design the best society possible based on that principle. If politicians represent only one part of the population, they are not working in the interest of “the people.” 
 
Democracy can be brought into all life situations: our families, schools, organizations, and governments. Here is what our book says about that so far: ​

By Robert Katz

The threat to American democracy that a second Trump presidency would be was recently compounded by the Supreme Court’s immunity decision, Trump v. United States, raising even higher the stakes of the next election. The case typifies a court that is bent on abandoning judicial restraint and pursuing an activist right-wing agenda.
 
Before discussing that case, I would recall by way of contrast, another case about a different rogue president decided 50 years prior, United States v. Nixon. In Nixon, the question was whether the president could assert executive privilege in order to quash a subpoena in a criminal prosecution that sought to obtain tapes of Oval Office conversations about the Watergate burglary. The unanimous opinion, written by Chief Justice Warren Burger, a Nixon appointee, held that there was no such broad executive privilege. That privilege could be asserted in certain circumstances, such as where national security is genuinely at stake, and that would be determined by the judge who presides in the case reviewing the material claimed to be privileged in the privacy of his/her chambers. Nixon had to hand over the tapes and resigned shortly thereafter. The decision represented a careful balancing of the need of the president to communicate in confidence about sensitive matters and the needs of the justice system to obtain evidence when crimes are alleged to have been committed.
 
In contrast, the Trump case showed a court that is profoundly out of balance. The majority declared immunity from criminal prosecution for all of the president’s official acts. There is absolute immunity when the president exercises his “core” official powers, the kind that the Constitution explicitly grants to the president alone, such as exercising the pardon power or removing cabinet officials. For official actions that were not “core,” the court said immunity may be either absolute or presumptive, apparently unable to decide which. Even assuming the immunity is presumptive, the prosecutor would have to prove that the prosecution for those acts would not “pose any dangers of intrusion on the authority and functions of the Executive Branch,” a test that, if broadly interpreted, may be virtually impossible for a prosecutor to pass. The court said that the President’s acts would be considered “official” if they were “‘not manifestly or palpably beyond [his] authority.” Finally, the court held that, as even Trump’s lawyers admitted, the president could be prosecuted for unofficial acts; but with “official acts” defined so broadly, the opinion leaves the reader to wonder whether “unofficial acts” will prove to be a vanishingly small category.
 
Where does the majority derive such broad immunity? Not from the text of the Constitution, which explicitly states that an official subject to removal by impeachment, such as the president, can’t be criminally punished by Congress but “shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law.” Not from historical understanding of original intent: the Sotomayor dissent shows how the framers were clear that presidents were not kings above the law, without so much as hinting that that proposition would be nullified if the president were to be acting in an official capacity. It seems the majority, so often touting its opinions as following the Constitution’s original meaning, use history when it furthers their agenda and ignores it when it does not.
 
It can be admitted that, as in the case of executive privilege, there are circumstances in which presidential immunity is appropriate. Legal scholars would agree that U.S. courts should not be using the criminal law to second-guess a presidential decision to deploy a drone strike to kill an American on foreign soil who is in league with an enemy of the United States. But instead of carefully balancing the need not to inhibit the legitimate exercise of presidential powers with the need to prevent the abuse of those powers to punish political enemies, or for other nefarious ends, the Trump majority focused almost exclusively on the former need and seems blind to the latter. The majority could have crafted a narrower judicial rule that would allow a criminal case against the president to go forward if the presiding judge concludes preliminarily that the evidence clearly shows his manifest abuse of power. The majority appears not to have considered such an option, so preoccupied were they by their focus on protecting presidential power.
 
That is one case, but there were many more. It isn’t hyperbolic to say that the current court is keenly interested in protecting the rights of polluters and other corporate malefactors to challenge government regulations and the rights of gun enthusiasts to the arsenal of their choice, while interested not at all in protecting the rights of women to reproductive health and very little in protecting minority voting rights. These cases, like the immunity decision, show a court profoundly out of balance.
 
The prospect of a man who has regularly flouted the law returning to the world’s most powerful political office under the protection of the Supreme Court’s immunity ruling is chilling to say the least. His defeat, on the other hand, would show that democracy in America is still strong. If that defeat is accompanied by the return of a Democratic majority in Congress, it will allow a President to address another threat to democracy — a Supreme Court consistently guided more by an activist right wing ideology than by a sensible reading of the law. The only effective remedy would be some reform that would change the composition of the court itself and restore balance — and the respect of our citizens — to the nation’s highest tribunal.
 
[Editor’s note: On July 29, President Joe Biden published three proposed reforms for the Supreme Court.]

By Steve Zolno

​Once we were enthusiastic about the possibilities for ourselves and the world. Then “reality” set in — we needed to adjust to the “real” world which demanded we lower our expectations or eliminate them altogether. Our youthful enthusiasm waned or disappeared.
 
Yet still we complained about the state of the world. People were not kind enough. The world was on the wrong track. We saw each other as competitors or enemies and decided we needed to be continually on guard in our everyday functioning.
 
But somewhere inside we still maintained that vision for a better world.
 
I recently met with a group of bright high school students attending a three-week special program based on a grant at my former school, Shimer Great Books School at North Central College. That meeting proved to me that there still is reason to be optimistic about the possibility of moving toward the world in which we want to live.
 
I have long had a vision of writing a book about democracy with young people for other young people. Young people are more likely to listen to each other rather than the staid lessons in history taught them by those who have lost the enthusiasm in their vision and their step.
 
Democracy is not just about how we are governed — or even govern ourselves — but is about a sense of inclusiveness that is not provided by any other political system. It is — when it functions best — about returning us to a world where everyone is valued and we also value ourselves. It includes a strong feeling of belonging to an entity greater than ourselves. It is about returning to a sense of freedom that we believe we once knew.
 
In many parts of our country a cynicism and divisiveness have taken over. In states such as Florida and Texas, curriculums are altered and books are banned to keep children — and adults — from discovering the truth about our history of slavery and discrimination based on one’s race, religion, gender, origin, or sexual preferences, among other areas. Children are taught to judge others and themselves based on their outward characteristics rather than appreciation based on their intrinsic worth. But progress is impossible when we fail to face our history.
 
Young people are pessimistic about themselves and their futures. Many are experiencing despair. Youth suicide rates rose 62% between 2017 and 2021, according to the CDC.
 
The difference between children and adults is that children are eager to learn about others and the world, while adults, for the most part, think they already know what they need to know and thus fail to grow. Yet the gap between what I know and what I have yet to learn — even at my rather advanced age — is vast. When I stop learning I stop growing. Opening ourselves to continual learning is more than just about education. It’s about being and feeling truly alive.
 
If we choose we can replace the cynicism we carry in our minds with an openness to seeing the world anew. We probably can learn to do this best from children, but it ultimately is a decision to acknowledge how little we know and open ourselves to humility. This is what was in clear evidence from the students I interviewed and from whom I already have learned much in a short period of time. This is the principle by which I try to live my life, although I clearly often fall short. Over the next few months I will provide updates for how our project progresses.
 
In the meantime, those upset by the current political climate might ask themselves what they are willing to do beyond complaining. Are you willing to clarify your vision of what democracy looks like and how to move toward that vision? It’s easy to concentrate on what we don’t like, but if we are not clear on what we want to replace it — and unwilling to work toward that — our energy becomes entrapped in a downward spiral.

By Steve Zolno

Our group has been meeting to discuss democracy and related subjects since 2006 and I have been publishing this Newsletter since 2017. I also have written seven books.

Through it all I have been promoting one essential idea: democracy — and our civilization — only can succeed when people commit to action based on a common vision. We have worked to clarify that vision for the entire time our group has been in existence, but it seems to me that most people remain focused on what is wrong with others and the world rather than being willing to identify and move toward what would make it work. Recent research confirms that view. [1]
​
This is why we are caught in nearly perpetual war, going back to prehistoric times. But when we come from a view of connection with others — or “love” if I can use that word — as we usually do with our families and close friends, we work things out, or at least decide to live with each other in peace.
 
Clarifying a vision and having the commitment to follow through on it are two different things. The US founders stated their vision of “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness,” but once they won their independence the country struggled for ten years before establishing a Constitution that embodied what they meant. Since then our country has floundered in establishing how “government by and for the people” actually looks.
 
Despite the common view that our crises are larger and more significant than those of the past, the challenges we face remain the same. They are based mainly on how we see others and the world rather than reality itself.
 
As Einstein taught us, and as repeated by many scientists and philosophers since, our perspective on “reality” is limited: we only have our view of things. By discussing our views — and respecting others and those expressing them — we come closer to a common understanding. Truth ultimately is much larger than our limited minds can fathom. But rather than leaving us mired in pessimism, this understanding can lead to profound respect for everything and everyone, including ourselves.

A few lessons I have learned in my study and interactions with many of you over the years:

1. We begin with a feeling of connection and openness to others and the world and long to return to that feeling. Many sources confirm that view and a few are cited below. [2] [3] [4] [5]
2. People or circumstances cannot bring us the feeling we seek; we restore it to ourselves when open to it.
3. When we hate, we bring ourselves an experience of hate regardless of its effect on others. When we allow ourselves a feeling of connection — or love — we bring that into our lives and interactions.
4. No concept or spiritual practice or words — including these words — can reliably bring us the feeling of connection we seek. Only an openness to experiencing that feeling brings it to us.
5. We may think our problems will be solved when rid of a difficult person or situation. But after we achieve that another problem takes its place. Our chronic dissatisfaction is based on a continual focus on what is wrong. If everything — and everyone — were exactly as we want them to be, we would focus again on what is missing. We move past this by cultivating a feeling of appreciation that we bring into our interactions.
6. Democracy ultimately is about valuing every human being, as we all are “created equal.” The first step is freeing ourselves from self-judgment. Then we bring the feeling of valuing others into our personal interactions. Then we bring it into our work with groups toward mutual goals. Then we bring that feeling to acting with love for our nation and everyone in it. Then we bring it into our interactions with the world and all its inhabitants. And finally we acknowledge our place in the ever-changing universe.

 
Which brings us to consciousness, which simply is observation. This allows us to make decisions based more on reality than just reacting to stimuli, as all creatures — including humans — have done as long as we have been on Earth. Thus we always have a choice whether to act based on greater consciousness — which includes seeing others more clearly and opening to their humanity — or remaining in our reactive state based on prejudgments.
 
We are talking about a paradigm where we create our own experience by how we see the world rather than just being victims of circumstance. When we provide empathy and understanding for others we bring those qualities to ourselves.

But doing this takes commitment — at least in my case and maybe also yours. This is the theme of my new book, What Love Does. My real interest is not in selling books, but promoting the idea that the only hope for our planet — and its inhabitants — is focusing on identifying and moving together in concert with our long-term interests, which include recognizing the validity of every human being.
 
Our next discussion will focus on Chapter I of the book, “The Self,” but if we are to continue our meetings I need to know if there is enough interest, so if planning to attend please email me by June 10 at [email protected]. If anyone can’t afford the book I will send you a copy. The meeting this month will be on June 17 at 7PM Pacific Time. I will send out the meeting link before that date to those who have stated they want to attend.

My future may include one more book and possibly a podcast if I can figure out what that is and how to do it. At present my intent is to embark on my annual birthday journey — or “vision quest” — so you might want to keep your locks secured in case I show up on your doorstep.
 
Thanks for listening, and I’ll see you out there. — Steve

NOTES

​[1] “If you ask an American when times were worst, the most commons response will be ‘right now.’” See “When America was ‘great’ according to the data,” Washington Post, May 24, 2024.
 
[2] In his later writings, Freud moved beyond his view of sexuality as the key human motivating factor to the alienation of people from their original sense of self: “Originally the ego includes everything, later it detaches itself from the external world.” Civilization and Its Discontents, Sigmund Freud, Page 12. First published in 1930; 2011 version by Martino Publishing.
 
[3] Research shows that, despite our idea of being separate selves, we can share what is in the minds of others: “Neural mirroring solves the ‘problem of other minds’ (how we can access and understand the minds of others) and makes intersubjectivity possible, thus facilitating social behavior.” From the article “Imitation, empathy, and mirror neurons,” Annual Review of Psychology, 2009, 60:653-70.
 
[4] Many studies show that infants have natural empathy and respond to stimuli as if there were no barriers between them and others. See, for example, “The relationship between maternal and infant empathy: The mediating role of responsive parenting,” Frontiers in Psychology 2022; 13: 1061551.
 
[5] In many Eastern religions the real self is the universal presence that continually flows through us. Bhagavad Gita, 2-20: “The Self, which dwells in the body of everyone, is eternal and can never be slain.”

Steve Zolno graduated from Shimer College with a bachelor’s degree in social sciences and holds a master’s in educational psychology from Sonoma State University. Steve has founded and directed private schools and a health care agency in the San Francisco Bay Area. He is the author of seven books.

Please recommend this newsletter to people who you think might appreciate it. If you want to be added to the email list to receive each new newsletter when written, fill out our contact form and check the box just above the SUBMIT button. You may also use that form to be removed from our list.
​
Visit our Books page for information about purchasing The Future of Democracy, The Death of Democracy, Truth and Democracy, Guide to Living In a Democracy, Everyday Spirituality for Everyone, The Pursuit of Happiness, and What Love Does.
​
Click ↓ (#) Comments below to view comments/questions or add yours. Click Reply below to respond to an existing comment.​

By Steve Zolno

​Our discussion for April 8 was about Sigmund Freud’s book Civilization and Its Discontents. It was written toward the end of Freud’s career, in 1930.
 
In his later years, Freud adopted the view that aggression and competition are our most significant motivating factors, replacing his emphasis on sexuality: “The impression forces itself upon one that men measure by false standards, that everyone seeks power, success, riches for himself and admires others who attain them, while undervaluing the truly precious things in life” (Page 7). So we read further to determine what he thought were the precious things in life.
 
Perhaps he means love as one of those precious things: “Normally there is nothing we are more certain of than the feeling of our self, our ego. … At its height the feeling of being in love threatens to obliterate the boundaries between ego and subject” (Page 10). Is he saying that the ego finds fulfillment in its own obliteration?
 
Perhaps the feeling of connection with the mother (and thus the world) is the original state to which we long to return. Another term for this seeking is the Pleasure Principle: “The adult’s sense of his own ego cannot have been the same from the beginning. It must have undergone a development, which naturally cannot be demonstrated, but which admits of reconstruction with a fair degree of probability. When the infant at the breast receives stimuli, he cannot as yet distinguish whether they come from his ego or from the outer world. … The tendency arises to dissociate from the ego everything which can give rise to pain, to cast it out and create a pure pleasure-ego, in contrast to the threatening outside” (Page 11).
 
He still views religion in psychological terms, as a continuation of the infantile dependence on the father: “I could not point to any need in childhood so strong as that for the father’s protection. … The derivation of the religious feeling can be followed back in clear outline as far as the child’s feeling of helplessness” (Page 21), and “Religion [assures man] that Providence is watching over him … [in the form of] a greatly exalted father. The whole thing is … patently infantile [and] incongruous with reality” (Page 23).
 
Another key motivation, according to Freud, is avoiding the inevitable pain of life by distracting ourselves, similarly to Becker’s Denial of Death: “Life as we find it is too hard for us; it entails too much pain, too many disappointments, impossible tasks. We cannot do without palliative remedies [such as] powerful diversions of interest, which leads us to care little about our misery; substitute gratification, which lessens it; and intoxicating substances, which make us insensitive to it” (Page 25).
 
For Freud, there is no answer to a key question: “ ‘What is the purpose of life?’ has been asked times without number; it never has received a satisfactory answer” (Page 26).
 
On happiness: “[People] seek happiness…There are two sides to this striving…it aims on the one hand at eliminating pain and discomfort, on the other at the experience of intense pleasures,” but “The task of avoiding pain forces that of obtaining happiness into the background” (Pages 27–28).
 
Freud seems to approve of love as a path to happiness more than religion: “Love…does not turn away from the outer world; on the contrary, it takes a firm hold of its objects and obtains happiness from an emotional relation to them” (Page 37). But then, loss of the love object [person] causes suffering: “We are never so defenseless against suffering as when we love, never so forlornly unhappy as when we have lost our love object” (Page 38).
 
He tells us that happiness, at least in the long term, is not possible, but working to attain it still is a noble objective: “The goal toward which the pleasure principle impels us — of becoming happy — is not attainable; yet we cannot give up the effort to come nearer to realization of it by some means or other” (Page 39). And it is best to focus on multiple sources of happiness to avoid disappointment: “Just as a cautious businessman avoids investing all his capital in one concern, so wisdom would probably admonish us not to anticipate all our happiness from one quarter” (Page 41).
 
Now we get to the gist of his argument. Is human unhappiness caused by civilization or our view of things? “According to [one point of view] our so-called civilization itself is to blame for a great part of our misery” (Page 44). And it seems that all of human progress has not made us happier: “But men are beginning to perceive that all this newly won power over space and time, this conquest of the forces of nature, this fulfillment of age-old longings, has not increased the amount of pleasure they can obtain in life, has not made them feel any happier” (Page 46).
 
So Freud seems to take the view of Hobbes (Leviathan) that our basic state is misery and aggression, which leads to the necessity that civilization is needed to reign us in: “And what do we gain by a long life when it is full of hardship and starved of joys and so wretched that we only can welcome death as our deliverer” (Page 48), and “Human life in communities only becomes possible when a number of men unite together in strength superior to any single individual and remain united against all single individuals” (Page 59).
 
Yet our quest for freedom seems a basic human attribute: “[Man] will always defend his claim to individual freedom against the will of the multitude” (Page 61).
 
Getting back to sex, he claims that marriage is an essential conduit for the sexual instinct: “Present-day civilization gives us to understand that sexual relations are permitted only on the basis of a final, indissoluble bond between a man and woman” (Page 77).
 
He comments on the impossibility of living up to our moral standards, largely because we are incapable of it, but also because there are those who don’t deserve to be treated according to the tenet of “Love thy neighbor as thyself.” “Not merely is this stranger on the whole not worthy of love, but I must confess he has more claim to my hostility, even to my hatred” (Page 83).
 
Freud tells us that our laws are incapable of modifying our basic aggressive nature because it is part of our daily thoughts and actions: “Civilization expects to prevent the world’s atrocities of brutal violence by taking upon itself the right to employ violence against criminals, but the law is not able to lay hands on the more discreet and subtle forms in which human aggressions are expressed” (Page 87).
 
Love, he believes, is built into us because it is part of our survival mechanism: “It is easy to discover this motive in man’s helplessness and dependence on others; it can best be designated the dread of losing love. If he loses the love of others on whom he is dependent, he will forfeit also their protection against many dangers, and above all he runs the risk that this stronger person will show his superiority in the form of punishing him” (Page 107).
 
Freud claims that it is only our conscience, or super-ego, that keeps a check on our aggression: “A great change takes place as soon as the authority has been internalized by the development of a super-ego. … As long as things go well with a man, his conscience is lenient and lets the ego do all kinds of things; when some calamity befalls, he holds an inquisition within, discovers his sin, heightens the standards of his conscience, imposes abstinence on himself and punishes himself with penances” (Pages 108–110).
 
Because of our internalized sense of guilt, we have the same sensation if we only contemplate aggression: “A mere intention to commit an act of violence could evoke a sense of guilt” (Page 129). So, we are told to believe, ethics is not as much about upholding our ideals as doing all we can to avoid the guilt caused by our internal tendency toward aggression: “The cultural super-ego has elaborated its ideals and erected its standards. Those of its demands which deal with the relations of human beings to one another are comprised under the name of ethics” (Page 138).

By Steve Zolno

​Our discussion for March 11 was on Ernest Becker’s book The Denial of Death, which won the Pulitzer Prize in 1974, just after Becker died from cancer. It was extremely popular in its day. I was reminded about it by a documentary at a film festival I attended.
 
The author’s main theme is that the fear of death is what keeps people from living full lives, but he actually discusses how fear generally affects us. What does that have to do with democracy? Stay tuned.
 
The book starts by exploring the theme of heroism. We identify with our heroes because they defy death. But the author doesn’t seem to have a positive view of the role of heroism in society: “One of the key concepts for understanding man’s urge to heroism is the idea of narcissism. Narcissism is what keeps men marching point blank into wars: at heart one doesn’t feel he will die … Freud’s explanation for this was that the unconscious does not know death or time: in man’s inner organic recesses we feel immortal” (Page 2).
 
Another way he states we deny death is by accumulation: ‘We disguise our struggle by piling up figures in a bank book to reflect privately our sense of heroic worth. Or by having only a little better home in the neighborhood, or a bigger car” (Page 4).
 
Animals have a survival instinct, but humans are aware of themselves as individuals which leads to fear of death and a whole different level of self-preservation: “Animals in order to survive have had to be protected by fear-responses, in relationship not only to other animals but to nature itself … .Reality and fear go together naturally. Man’s fears are fashioned out of the ways he sees the world” (Pages 13–14).
 
Our idea of ourselves as separate from nature adds to our fear of death, but in reality all ends in anonymity: “Man has a symbolic identity that brings him sharply out of nature. He is a creature with a name, a life history. He is a creator with a mind that soars out to speculate about atoms and infinity … .This self-consciousness gives man the status of a small god … at the same time man is food for worms” (Page 26).
 
Like many writers, Becker considers childhood a state where life is lived fully until we learn to restrict ourselves with rules that crimp our emotions and full participation in activities: “Children feel hounded by … verbal demands … rules and codes … that call them away from their pleasure in the straightforward expression of their natural energies” (Page 28).
 
But as adults, we are able to maintain our full participation in life to the extent we can bring love into it: “Love … allows the collapse of the individual into the animal dimension (of sexuality and his beast-like nature) without fear and guilt” (Page 42).
 
As does Kierkegaard, the author states that full participation in life brings uncertainty: “Full humanness means full fear and trembling … The world as it really is is devastating and terrifying” (Pages 59–60).
 
Parents should do all they can to avoid instilling a fear of living fully into their children: “Just as Rousseau and Dewey, Kierkegaard is warning the parent to let the child do his own exploration of the world and develop his own sure experimental powers” (Page 71). But parents still need to provide some guidance: “On the other hand, children are best not left totally free if they are to develop a confident sense of how to navigate life” (Page 75).
 
The author considers depression to be a condition created by denial of death. But here he begins to reveal that what he also means is fear of being — and expressing — oneself: “The depressed person is so afraid of being himself, of exerting his own individuality … that he seems stupid. … One can hardly breathe or move” (Page 79).
 
Which leads to his model for how we can live when not continually affected by fear (which is much like his idea of how children express themselves when not inhibited): “The ‘healthy’ person … is the one who has transcended himself … by realizing the truth of his situation, by dispelling the lie of his character, by breaking his spirit out of its conditioned prison. The prison of one’s character is built … to deny one’s creatureliness [a word the author made up]” (Pages 86-87). This is not an easy existence: “It means that one lives unprotected by armor, exposed to his aloneness and helplessness” (Page 90).
 
The main theme comes through when he challenges Freud: “Consciousness of death is the primary repression, not sexuality [Page 96]. … He was haunted by death anxiety all his life and admitted that not a day went by that he did not think about it” (Page 102).
 
Now we get into the relevance of his views to history, and to democracy: “We know that all through history the masses have followed leaders because of the magic aura they projected, because they seemed larger than life … .Men don’t become slaves out of mere calculating self-interest; the slavishness is in the soul” (Page 127). He is telling us that fear of death causes people to seek immortality by joining movements that tie them to history and the greatness that outlives the lives of individuals.
 
From this view we can learn the relevance of movements in which joiners avoid responsibility — in their own minds — for actions that they likely would not take on their own: “When people give in to the leader’s commands they can always reserve the feeling that … [their acts] are the leader’s responsibility [Page 137]. … [and] The leader projects onto his followers his own inability to stand alone” (Page 139). Whereas in democracy, when it functions best, it is the responsibility of individuals to combine forces to best serve the needs of everyone.
 
Then the author takes us into what some may call the spiritual realm: “The person reaches out naturally for a self beyond his own self in order to know who he is, in order to feel that he belongs in the universe … It seems that the life force reaches naturally even beyond the earth itself, which is one reason man has always placed God in the heavens” (Pages 152–153). This leads to a conflict between what we might consider the individual self and the transcendental self: “Man wants to expand by merging with the powerful beyond that transcends him yet he wants to remain individual and aloof” (Page 155).
 
Love is another way we attempt to transcend ourselves: “If the love object is divine perfection, then one’s own self is elevated by joining one’s destiny to it” (Page 161).
 
But in the reality of our everyday lives: “The individual has to protect himself against the world. He can only do this as any other animal would: by narrowing down the world, shutting off experience” (Page 177).
 
A primary consideration is not gaining more knowledge, but using what we know: “The great characteristic of our time is that we know everything important about human nature there is to know. Yet never has there been an age in which so little knowledge is securely possessed, so little a part of the common understanding” (Page 209).
 
Perhaps convincing others, and even ourselves, of the correctness of our views, ties us to ideas that transcend us, and provides a glimpse of immortality: “People try so hard to win converts for their point of view because it is more than merely an outlook on life: it is an immortality formula” (Page 255).
 
So we try to become immortal by tying ourselves to grand ideas or what we consider the wisdom of the gods: “There is no way to overcome creature anxiety unless one is god and not a creature” (Page 261). Which leads to the concept of transference that is an essential principle in psychoanalysis: “The prophets of unrepression simply have not understood human nature; they envision a utopia with perfect freedom from inner restraint and outer authority … .Men need transference because they need to see their morality embodied” (Page 266).
 
But all our efforts at immortality are for naught because in a few generations we will be forgotten: “Man feels agonizingly unique, and yet knows this doesn’t make any difference [because] he has to go the way of the grasshopper” (Page 269).
 
Nevertheless, the author holds that happiness is possible: “Mental illness is due to ‘problems of living,’ but we must remember that life itself is the insurmountable problem. … When a person becomes less fragmented, less blocked and bottled up, he does experience real joy” (Page 270).
He lived and taught at Berkeley in the age of Transcendental Psychology and Maslow.
 
But, according to the author, moving past our worst fears only lands us in the world of normal, everyday anxiety: “Freud said he cured the miseries of the neurotic only to open him to the normal misery of life” (Page 271). The evils of the world are not only in our minds, but on the outside, in the nature of our everyday lives: “Taking life seriously means something like this: whatever man does on this planet has to be done in the lived truth of the terror of creation” (Page 283).
 
So we distract ourselves from the reality of everyday life: “Modern man is drinking and drugging himself out of awareness, or he spends his time shopping, which is the same thing. … Society contrives to help him forget” (Page 284).
 
Perhaps the ultimate questions that Becker poses are: “Are our lives less full and satisfying because we live in constant fear of disappointment?” or “Do we deprive ourselves of the full enjoyment of life because we are afraid to live fully?” We will get into answers to these questions in further discussions.
 
On the second Monday in April, we will be discussing Freud’s classic Civilization and Its Discontents which deals with how society both serves and alienates us. And in May we will discuss a new book by someone you know that might suggest some answers to these questions.

By Steve Zolno

​Our discussion for February 12, 2024 was on the book Surviving Our Catastrophes [hardcover] [Kindle], by Robert Jay Lifton, published September, 2023.
 
The author points out that catastrophes always have been with us, but there are ways for us to become less overwhelmed by them. They have varied from war to pandemics to personal trauma.
 
He states that experiencing a catastrophe can affect us physically as well as mentally, making us less able to move through life and confront our daily challenges (Page 4). Many books have been written about survivors who have adopted means to help them cope and move on. Sharing those experiences with others — which has the potential to make them meaningful — can have a healing effect (Page 5). Lifton (who is 97) interviewed Hiroshima survivors who carried the trauma of that bombing with them. But many were able to convert their trauma to anti-nuclear activism which gave their lives meaning (Page 11).
 
The author quotes from the diary of an occupant of the Warsaw ghetto: “The worst part of this ugly death is you don’t know the reason for it.” This individual was typical of those who have lost hope and were unable to find meaning in their situation (Page 27).
 
Some survivors of catastrophes close themselves off altogether from their memory of the event and experience what the author calls “doubling” — establishing a separate inner personality that is hidden from the world as that individual refuses to discuss the event (Page 29). Other survivors can become angry at the world and vent that anger repeatedly to those around them (Page 31).
 
Catastrophes, or fear of them, that affect large numbers of people, like the Black Plague of the 1300s, the 1918 flu epidemic, or our recent Covid pandemic, can contribute to what the author calls “a general apocalyptic aura where fear is widespread.” (Page 37)
 
The author discusses the apocalyptic narrative in some religions that predict a violent end to the world, but with a glorious resurrection for believers, as occurs in the Judaic and Christian traditions (Page 38).
 
Those who survive large catastrophes can have survivor’s guilt while they mourn for what they have lost. In some cases, such as the 2001 attack on the World Trade Center, widely shared mourning can contribute to healing (Page 65).
 
Jacques Lacan, the French psychoanalyst, wrote about those who refuse to mourn but instead hold on to a hope to avenge themselves, Shakespeare’s Hamlet as an example (Page 68). These people remain psychologically stuck because they refuse to fully experience their mourning.
 
Collective mourning for mass losses, such as the soldiers whose lives were lost in the Vietnam war, is a beginning to healing for those affected by such events: “In collective mourning the sharing is the essence of the process.” (Page 72) This also may include the naming of the dead.
 
There are many survivor groups that support each other during meetings, speaking out, and even starting organizations to champion their cause (Page 87). This has been done by groups composed of victims of mass school shooting, both parents and children.
 
Lifton identifies climate change as a “looming catastrophe” (Page 93). “Climate scientists have identified some of those effects as very much present in our immediate world and as posing a threat to human civilization over the course of this century.” He expresses hope that enough people will see it that way so that the urgent action needed to prevent climate change from being an irreversible catastrophe will be taken. Most of the American public sees this threat, but we are distracted by other catastrophes that may keep us from focusing on it.
 
How do we learn the lessons that we need from our history of catastrophes? “They can be passed down, directly or informally, through word of mouth in families and communities, and sometimes taught in schools. But they also can be given more public structure in memorials and commemorative events.” (Page 108)
 
Hopefully we have learned enough to successfully deal with future catastrophes that inevitably will occur: “We need to confront whatever catastrophe we experience and recognize its interaction with everyday life.” (Page 131)