.png)
By Shaurya Mahajan
Keywords: Desire, Oppression, Human Behaviour, Political Philosophy, Governmentally, Society
“Why do men fight for their servitude as stubbornly as though it were their salvation?”
This is the fundamental question first put forward by Spinoza and rediscovered by Wilhelm Reich, which continues to be the great dilemma in political philosophy. This is the question that has puzzled philosophers and thinkers for over five centuries, and even today there is no clear answer or consensus to it. This question is as theoretical as it is practical, for its effects can be seen clearly in the world around us. The most common and perhaps the ‘commonsensical’ answer to the question is that most people come from a place of ignorance; they do not know what they want or how to achieve it. In such a situation, they end up working towards something that they do not want, something that restricts their self-actualization. But, like most commonsensical answers and notions, this is not the case in and of itself. What, then, is the answer to our great dilemma? We shall find out, but before proceeding to our answer, it is necessary to dissect the question itself, for it is in the question itself that half the answer lies.
I. Understanding the Question
The dissection of the question posed reveals that in its supposedly simple expression, it contains, three complex ideas and terms that require to be dissected before we can proceed to answering it. These ideas, despite their complexity, find themselves contained in three single and rather simple words: people, desire, and oppression.
A. The ‘People’
The first such concept is that of “people.” The word “people” here does not refer to people belonging to any particular race, caste, ideology, religion, nationality, or otherwise. Neither does it relate solely to the upper class, the educated elite, or the working class in a society. Much like the words “We the People” in our Constitution’s preamble, it is supposed to represent the population and society as a whole, and in our question, to refer to the human race itself. Given the wide and generalised nature of the term people, it becomes imperative that there be exceptions to any trends mapped out and differences in the trends themselves when such demographic filters are applied. While in today’s capitalist and post-modern societies, there has been some distortion of these aspects, the framework still remains true.
B. The ‘Desire’
The second aspect is that of “desire.” This represents the central point of contention and exposes the critical flaw in the acceptability of ignorance as the answer. Desire refers not to a state of ambivalence or indifference but to actively wanting something or wishing for it to happen. In reality, it also often includes active efforts to transform the desire into materiality—bringing it true. Various schools of thought in philosophy, psychology, and even religion throughout history have given their own definitions and understandings of desire, but the simplest, and perhaps conservative, understanding relates to having the disposition to act in a certain way. The inclusion of the word ‘desire’ in the question is reflective of an intention to question how people actually wish for their own oppression and cross the boundary between metaphysics and physics by actively seeking out and making it their reality—part of their self-actualization.
C. The ‘Oppression’
The third aspect is that of “oppression.” Oppression refers to the exercise of authority or power in such a way that it makes the recipients feel ‘suffocated’. Oppression presents itself in many forms and varieties, from the subtle and even unrealized type to outright acts of physical violence and marginalisation. Oppression manifests itself in a way that usually targets or marginalises a particular group or community in relation to another. The term has been popularised in usage recently in the critique of authoritarian regimes in popular discourse. It is important for our understanding to link oppression with restrictions or barriers to a person’s quest for self-actualization. It is oppression that both directly and indirectly hinders a person’s pursuit of their goals and barricades their journey towards self-actualisation. But, given the centrality of this term to the question, what is oppression? Simply put, it is the loss of autonomy, freedom, and rights—absolute rights.
II. The Problem with Oppression
Having understood the question and its constituents, we need to first understand whether all oppression is undesirable. Whether oppression of all kinds and forms, from the subtlest and most non-intrusive loss of freedom of any kind to the most extreme kind that affects the very existence of life, need to be brought to an end?
A. The Temptation
While we would be tempted to say yes, this is a question that needs deep reflection. People not only want their oppression but also need it. It is, in a certain sense of the term, essential to the existence of society itself. Thomas Hobbes, in his famous work Leviathan, gives his conception of the state of nature and describes it as “nasty, brutish, and short.“ It is to overcome these very concerns and to improve from this state of nature into a state of civilisation that we form a social contract. This social contract, as eloquently explained by John Locke, and Jean-Jacques Rosseau, includes the surrender of certain natural rights to society or the state in exchange for stability, order, and security. But when the surrender of such rights hinders our liberty and freedom, why do we give them up? Why do we agree to give up our rights and be oppressed?
B. Stability and Security
Stability and security are not just human needs; they are the needs of our species on an evolutionary level. These things are closely linked to our evolutionary nature as homo sapiens. It was our sense of community and need for security that enabled us to triumph over our distant cousins, the Neanderthals and other great apes. These instinctual, primal needs and the desire for their fulfilment are nature’s way of helping our survival. This falls in line with Darwin’s famous theory of “survival of the fittest.” It is to achieve these needs that the “general will” of the people is formed to exchange certain rights for the fulfilment of these needs: a valid bargain and contract. Such great is the irony of nature; the very needs and aspects we see as oppression are the ones that ensure the survival of our species. But then, what is the issue with oppression that is so reprehensible?
C. Reaching a Balance
Excess of anything is not good, and oppression is no different. How do we then find this delicate balance of oppression in our society? The answer lies in understanding the very antithesis of an oppressive society—a just society. The best view of a just society is one viewed through a Rawlsian “veil of ignorance” that allows us to have a truly just conception of society by imagining that we do not know our place in it. This conscious effort strives to achieve a sense of value neutrality coupled with the acknowledgement of existing factors, such as lived experiences, which influence one’s understanding and provide for a truly just view of society. Given that this is a truly ‘just’ society one would assume that, in such a conception, there would be a complete absence of oppression. But this is not the case. It is not the subtle and balanced form of oppression that is an issue in society. It is the excess of oppression, in its blatant form, in a society that is so reprehensible, so unjust, and so undesirable. From a neutral standpoint, a rational person would want to balance and hedge their bets in a way that provides for just enough oppression to ensure privilege if they are a part of the few, but not so much that it becomes oppressive if they are a part of the many. This balance is, I argue, essential to a truly just society.
III. Resolving the Dilemma
The answer to our great dilemma, I argue, is twofold—divided into two clear halves. On the one hand, there is the argument from ignorance and indifference. On the other hand, there is the argument for a structural framework and internalisation. Neither of these answers nor their simple sum, are complete or sufficient to solve our dilemma. The answer lies in their combination, a combination that gives rise to a new whole that is greater than the simple sum of its constitutive parts, a whole itself, a Gestalt. It is important to note that the use of the word ‘oppression’ here, as is the case with the question, is confined to the excessive, undesirable, and unjust kind. To understand this whole, it is necessary to understand all its constituents—not two but three. The argument comes from ignorance and indifference, the argument from structural framework and internalisation, and their dialectic relation. To complete our analysis of this Gestalt, it is necessary to understand it as it operates in the world around us by analysing its practical effects from the perspective of three real-life examples of religion, relationships, and the onset of big data.
A. Ignorance and Indifference
The argument from ignorance and indifference is the classic common sense approach, and while it is certainly not true in itself, it forms a crucial part of our answer. In most cases, people do not realise that they are being oppressed. This is especially the case when the oppression is subtle and not physical in nature. It is also possible that, while people do realise that they are being oppressed, they are indifferent towards it. Their ambivalence stems from the fact that, in their eyes, there is no difference in the material aspects of their lives owing to their oppression. In a way, they are unable to see past their short-term materiality. This is true given the fact that their consciousness is heavily dependent on their lived experience, which results in a limited empirical consciousness. Given this limited consciousness, people do not always know what is best for them and what is the best way to achieve it. They end up desiring and working towards something that, instead of advancing them on the path of self-actualization, ends up leading them to their own oppression.
B. Structural Framework and Internalisation
The second element is the argument from structural framework and internalisation. It is an undeniable fact that we all live in certain structural frameworks. At times, these frameworks, by virtue of their very structure, start generating and perpetuating the oppression of the people. The scale and structural character of this effect over an elongated period of time leads to the internalisation of oppression by the people being oppressed. This follows the model presented by Berger and Luckman on the internalisation and subsequent objectivation of information. This can be very well illustrated with the example of stereotypes and self-fulfilling prophecies. Often the existence of a stereotype, coupled with regular social interaction, leads to the generation of self-fulfilling prophecies, or people who start conforming to the stereotypes because they come to believe the stereotype. Although many studies have depicted this phenomenon over the years, the best one is perhaps the aspect of self-fulfilling prophecy among Jews in Nazi Germany. Jews started believing and conforming to Nazi stereotypes and propaganda about them—subhuman with hooked noses. The structural element here can be better understood by referring to the concept of ‘hegemony’ as developed by Antonio Gramsci, as a modification of Karl Marx’s idea of the superstructure. The hegemonic superstructure overpowers the features and effects of the base and not only creates but also perpetuates a framework of systemic oppression. This hegemonic structural framework is responsible for not just people’s oppression but also for making them desire it.
C. The Dialectical Relationship
The third, and perhaps the most crucial, element is the dialectical relationship between the other two elements. While ignorance perpetuates the existent structural framework by preventing the emergence of resistance, this structural framework also in turn perpetuates this ignorance by creating a system where people are not allowed to and subsequently do not want to know. This relationship has been discussed extensively by Michel Foucault in his work on power. He explains how the lack of resistance to a structure of power or oppression actually perpetuates it, which in turn ensures this lack of resistance, forming a dialectical structure that reproduces the existing system. This is what Foucault eloquently refers to as governmentality: the conduct of conduct, the art of government. This governmentality represents how the system or the government uses subtle ways of controlling citizens, which, as a result, reinforces their own governance. Foucault’s framework provides an essential perspective into understanding the interplay between self and society, which is essential to understanding the Gestalt behind the desire for oppression. It is this interplay between the elements, an interplay akin to Foucault’s governmentality, that makes this answer unique and a Gestalt.
IV. Understanding in Context
The examples of Religion, Freudian relationships and Big Data provide context for understanding the argument and applying it to contemporary issues that continue to affect our lives in real time.
A. Religion
The best example, perhaps to illustrate my two-fold argument, is that of religion. Karl Marx rightly called religion “the opium of the masses.” Religion creates a system wherein, in the name of faith, people are refused education—a system so pervasive that it seeps into the minds of people that they stop desiring to question and learn. They replace reason with its antithesis, blind faith. This was the strategy of the Catholic Church for centuries, with all but a select few being denied education, even education to learn Latin to get closer to God. Religion is nothing but what people hundreds or thousands of years ago came up with to try to explain the world they lived in and drive society in a positive direction, given the time they were in, being used today as the word of ‘God’, a supposedly omnipotent, omniscient, and omnipresent being. Religion generates ignorance, weaves a framework to keep people ignorant, and makes them desire their ignorance and oppression. Religion is the best example to illustrate how people not only live in ignorance and oppression but also start desiring it. It is also something that gets used by the powerful to achieve legitimacy and acceptance of the power over whom they hold it. The great philosopher Seneca eloquently captures the paradoxical significance of religion in his quote: “Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful.” This succinctly captures the role of religion in being a system of oppression in itself and also provides a ready and already accepted framework for justifying and legitimising any act by doing it in the name of God as a holy war. History is filled with examples, from the Crusades to the 9/11 attacks to the religious turmoil in our own country, stretching back to Partition. The aspect of religion as an instrument for creating the desire for operation is eloquently argued for by acclaimed author Richard Dawkins in his famous book ‘The God Delusion’. He has argued for the existence of religion as a delusion, one that creates and perpetuates a system of oppression in a way that makes people desire their own oppression. He further explains how the indoctrination of children into religion provides for the perpetual continuity of this cycle of oppression by making them internalise their own oppression at an extremely impressionable age. This illustrates the role of social institutions and society in both creating and perpetuating the desire for oppression of the self.
B. Freudian Complexes
Another example, perhaps more relatable for the younger audience, is the juxtaposition of Freud’s Oedipus and Electra complex in romantic relationships, especially in teenagers and young adults. Or, basically, “daddy” and “mommy” issues in relationships. While Freud’s analysis of libido and its effects have been severely criticised and called into question, it is evidently visible in these ‘daddy’ and ‘mommy’ issues that teenagers so openly acknowledge today. The very fact that they acknowledge these desires as issues is indicative of the inherent oppression within them. A deeper understanding comes to light with the analysis of the underlying factors of these complexes, as recognised by Freud. These unresolved issues present themselves as ‘mommy’ and ‘daddy’ issues in their romantic relationships. It is not just that they are unable to get out of one; they also actively seek it out, despite awareness of their situation and the need to get out of it. They realise that they are in a toxic and oppressive relationship but struggle to get out of it, and even in the rare chance they do manage to get out, they again and often subconsciously seek similar situations. This illustrates the desire for oppression at the level of the self, in an arena considered to be personal to the person and depicts the effect of our sub-conscious desire for oppression in our conscious lives.
C. Big Data and Demagoguery
The third example, and perhaps the most relevant one in today’s world, is that of Big Data and the demagoguery it precipitates in various arenas of life. The rise of fascist governments in Europe in the years preceding the Second World War raised the question: why would people support a government that brings about their own oppression? This rise of fascism can once again be seen today, just in a different colour, in the authoritarian governments of our time. Why do people bring to power and then maintain in power authoritarian regimes that bring about their own oppression? Why is the prospect of Donald Trump being elected again in the upcoming 2024 US elections a very real and possible one? This follows our answer to our great dilemma, brought on through demagoguery. Demagoguery refers to appealing to people’s desires and prejudices and even constructing them to support your narrative—the desire for oppression. Through demagoguery, a system of oppression is not only created but perpetuated by creating a desire for the system—a desire for oppression. This discussion would be incomplete without understanding the role Big Data plays in this. Big Data refers to large multinational corporations with access to trillions of terabytes of data relating to millions, if not billions, of users and their activities—from how they are feeling to what they are shopping for. Big Data brings about this demagoguery on a scale and complexity hitherto unheard and unfathomable, making it appear to not be demagoguery at all, making it seem real, and thus appealing to people. This has been discussed by Shoshana Zuboff in her work on surveillance capitalism and the creation of systemic ignorance in the people coupled with the perceived benefits of targeted ads made possible with the commodification of information. Whatever progress has been made by the collective consciousness of the people in tackling demagoguery since the end of fascism is thus effectively negated by the overwhelming might of Big Data. The effect of this demagoguery on our political systems, socially with Brexit in the UK and Trumpism in the US, has been brilliantly discussed by AC Grayling in his book titled “Democracy and its Crisis.” The utilisation of Big Data and its commodification of information for targeted ads and other similar tools to influence voting represents a large issue, an issue that perverts election laws around the world to its favour to create an inherently undemocratic system. He goes on to argue that this demagoguery, made possible by the collusion of big data, has unsettled the very basis and foundation of a democratic society and government. This demagoguery is not just limited to the political sphere but permeates all aspects of our lives. This permeation has also been discussed in great detail by Shoshana Zuboff in her work on surveillance capitalism, its effects on our world, and the erosion of choice. The collection, analysis, and utilisation of personal data creates this desire for oppression in all areas of our lives on an unprecedented scale. This illustrates the desire for oppression at the level of the relationship between the self and society and how this creates, perpetuates, and legitimises a system of oppression, which, through internalisation, ultimately results in a desire for oppression.
V. Resolution and the Way Ahead
The answer to our great dilemma, thus, exists as a Gestalt, and the key to understanding this is to understand its constituents and how they interact with each other. The argument from ignorance and the argument from structure come together in a governmentality-like dialectical relationship to present the answer to our fundamental problem. It is this Gestalt, I argue, that is the answer and key to understanding the cause and reasoning behind a paradoxical phenomenon that has puzzled philosophers for centuries.
Our desire for oppression is the biggest obstacle we have to face and overcome on our path to self-actualization. This is very similar and in line with what Paulo Coelho argues for in his famous novel “The Alchemist” with his analogy of ‘fears’ and ‘talking to your heart’, when he says, “Don’t give into your fears. If you do, you won’t be able to talk to your heart.” The famous quote by US President Franklin D. Roosevelt, “You have nothing to fear but fear itself,” eloquently encapsulates this idea and puts forth the truth of the situation. This highlights the central role of individual and individual consciousness in overcoming the desire for oppression. What is required is a conscious effort and understanding to not only remove oppression from action but also the mind—to remove its internalised desire. What is required is actively seeking information that challenges our beliefs, questioning them and analysing them rationally. What is required is to rise above primal instincts based on fear hatred and short-sighted self-interest recognise the problem and come together to solve it. Only when an individual realises, acknowledges, and makes a conscious effort to get out of the cycle of oppression can he ever truly do so. It is only then that he can be free from the desire for oppression. Only then can an individual make the journey on the path of self-actualization and discover and unleash his true potential. Only then can he ever truly be free.
Shaurya Mahajan is a second-year law student at Jindal Global Law School. Main areas of interest are Constitutional Law, Criminal Law, International Law and intersection of society and law.
Comments