MENU

Down with Soft Tyranny! Ending the Inhumanity of Second-Hand Soulcraft

By Roger E. Bissell

October 28, 2023

SUBSCRIBE TO SAVVY STREET (It's Free)

 

It is a rejection of the ancient notion that “statecraft is soulcraft”—of the use of government power to make people into nicer or more ethical human beings or to make society good.

This is an essay about the fallacy and the inhumanity of using either political or social power to try to make other people better—using force or pressure to make individuals or society moral. It is a rejection of the ancient notion that “statecraft is soulcraft”—of the use of government power to make people into nicer or more ethical human beings or to make society good. And just as much a rejection of the more modern idea that using a sizeable repertoire of soft coercion, including shaming, blaming, intimidation, canceling, doxing, nagging, manipulation, and the like are acceptably humane ways of dealing with children in one’s care or other adults.

It came about as the result of reflecting on the idea currently being promoted in some circles that libertarianism is much more than the narrowly defined political philosophy that rejects the violation of people’s rights with force or fraud. Instead, all too many of these thinkers claim, libertarianism is a broad social-moral philosophy that accepts the use of any methods short of force and fraud in order to get others to stop behaving in ways one disapproves of—whether those others are being unpatriotic or ungenerous or unhelpful or unsupportive or simply unwilling to associate with or approve of someone else’s lifestyle or personal choices.

How can one endorse, in the name of liberty and justice, such a fuzzy ethical vision?

Something seemed not just confusing, but terribly wrong about such a big expansion and redefining of what was originally such a clear-cut political ideology that opposes hard coercion (aka the initiation of force) and fraud. How can one endorse, in the name of liberty and justice, such a fuzzy ethical vision that does not rule out—indeed, that seems to give a green light to—the kind of soft coercion I described above?

The political and the ethical are not equivalent.

For many years, I have been aware of the insight (not my own originally) that the political and the ethical are not equivalent. That just as there are some things that are properly illegal but not immoral, so there are things that are properly legal but immoral. And vice versa.

For instance, driving on the wrong side of the road is not inherently immoral, but since it can often be reckless and endangering of lives (your own and that of others), it has long been accepted as a violation of the “rules of the road,” and it will get you a ticket unless you have a really good reason for it. Singing someone else’s song is not inherently immoral, but you will be rightfully sued for copyright violation if you try to record and market it without obtaining a license from the publisher.

And conversely, lying—even making up a white lie excuse to avoid attending a party—is immoral in most cases (unless it’s to keep the Nazis from finding your Jewish grandmother and taking her to a prison camp). However, lying should not be illegal unless it is a breach of a legally binding agreement or it amounts to fraud or misrepresentation. (“Unless” actually covers a multitude of cases, including corporate executives lying to stock exchanges or shareholders, fund managers lying to investors or even failing to proffer relevant information whether or not one is asked for it—as well as lying under oath in a court of law or in a sworn affidavit and the like.)

This essay is not exactly about that frequently held confusion. It is more about the idea that trying to get someone to act (or not act) a certain way does not have to be done with force or fraud in order to be very wrong and destructive of both the recipient of such action and of the one dishing it out. And this is true whether you are the parent, the teacher, the leader, or the boss—or the child, the student, the follower, or the employee. Soft coercion is everywhere these days, and those espousing Social Justice make no bones about how they administer their brand of justice is perfectly fine since it doesn’t involve “violence” or “deceit.” As if subverting or hijacking someone else’s autonomy and freedom of thought and action is not doing real violence to that person’s mind and will, which is our basic pair of survival tools, after all.

Even if such soft coercion is used “for a good cause”—and isn’t it always? —the damage is ultimately the same.

And even if such soft coercion is used “for a good cause”—and isn’t it always? —the damage is ultimately the same. People are pushed around—without “violence” of course—and they learn to put up with it and become less of an autonomous, self-directed individual than they could be. Worse, they may turn around and use such tactics on others, especially when they are in a similar position of authority. Like dysfunction in an addictive household, the bad behavior is passed from one person to another like a hot potato.

Such inhumane treatment and resulting human damage often become a multi-generational legacy or a virus that spreads throughout a family, a community, or a country. We become used to it, and it seems like “the way things are done. (Though broad social narratives of right and wrong and permissible or not do change over time, the intensity of the push for the current DEI ethic is so strong that it is sometimes hard to remember that such coercive tactics aimed at a person’s livelihood and privacy—canceling and doxing—are a fairly recent phenomenon.)

I first learned of another way of being when I read some of Thomas Gordon’s excellent work a few years ago, most particularly Parent Effectiveness Training. His later works, just as valuable, are Teacher Effectiveness Training and Leader Effectiveness Training. His books amount to a crash course in how to outgrow or avoid what I call “the tyranny of second-hand soulcraft.” If you don’t read another page or paragraph or sentence of this essay, read (or reread) these books. You will be a better person for it. I say this with the utmost respect and not a scintilla of desire to pressure or manipulate you into doing so. I just offer you my sincere assurance that it will help to make you a happier person and a better parent, teacher, leader, or boss—and a better human being, in general. (Of course, you can read these books after finishing this essay, too.)

Please don’t misunderstand me about soulcraft. As John Galt (in Ayn Rand’s novel Atlas Shrugged) said, “Man is a being of self-made soul. Self-made, not other-made. First-hand soulcraft is perfectly fine, especially if you do it right—i.e., if you treat yourself with honesty and compassion and acceptance rather than judgmentalness and harshness and self-abuse. Your soul, your mind and values, are yours to build and grow and shape as you see fit. But only your soul is yours to treat as your property. No one else’s, period.

As Kahlil Gibran said, “Your children are not your children.” That is precisely what he meant. We are all, and should all be treated as, autonomous individuals, trading value for value, even if one person in a relationship has significantly more knowledge, experience, wealth, authority, or responsibility. As Vinay Kolhatkar said nearly a decade ago: “Social ethos must move toward an individual-centric trader mentality, and parenting is no different.” (See: Don’t Act Like You Own Your Children.)

In other words, no one, not your children and not anyone else, is your property—neither your physical or economic property, nor your psychological property to badger or manipulate or psychologically pressure, as one might inconsiderately mistreat a captive audience. There are plenty of ways to help people learn and grow and become better without your taking over their minds and their lives, even for an hour or a minute. There is really no more excuse for soft tyranny than there is for the most brutal dictatorship. It’s all a failure to properly respect the autonomy and self-directed free choice that is our basic human birthright.

No amount of psychological pressure on another human being is appropriate, if it violates that person’s autonomy.

So, in terms of “isms” and labels, what I am proposing is, indeed, a wider view than simply the non-coercive political philosophy of libertarianism. But it is not a Social Justice brand of faux libertarianism that condones any and all psychological and social tactics short of physical coercion and fraud. Instead, it is a social-psychological theory that might best be called autonomism. This is the view that no amount of psychological pressure on another human being is appropriate, if it violates that person’s autonomy, that individual’s freedom to make self-directed choices free of the manipulation or control of others.

If this all sounds reasonable and advisable, going forward, then a simple admonition to oneself, when tempted to step beyond one’s own legitimate moral and social boundaries, might be “Craft Your Own Soul!” It might also catch on as an effective way to keep control-freaks from stepping outside their lane.

Note: This essay is based on the concept of the Four Orders of Humaneness that is presented in  Modernizing Aristotle’s Ethics: Toward a New Art and Science of Self-Actualization, forthcoming this fall from Ethics International Press.

 

 

(Visited 352 times, 1 visits today)