|
Comparing Jung-Stilling's and La Rochefoucauld's Position
on the Prerequisite for Economic Success with Regard to Socio-economic Conditions
of the Early 21st Century Postmodern Societies
by Tony Caulfield, 27.11.2006
Recently, I've come across a socio-economic (and partly theological) treatise
titled Bildungsfehler
und Überfeinerung - Sozialer Abstieg von Familien und Staaten (Miseducation*
and Decadence - Social Descent of Families and Countries**, annotated German version
published by Prof. Dr. Gerhard
Merk), written by physician, philosopher, professor and writer Johann
Heinrich Jung-Stilling*** (1740-1817).
In this text, Jung-Stilling
warns against the dangers of striving for "pomp and luxury" which he perceives
as the origins of economical self-destruction:
"This animosity [against
pomp and luxury] derived from manifold observations, which he had made (...):
how much pomp and luxury are in the way of the industry and its useful consequences.
He thus found that a man, who wanted to be rich and get ahead, was to avoid them
both completely."
It reminded me of a quote by François
de La Rochefoucauld (1613-1680), that expresses a contradictory understanding
of how "success" (as defined by the criteria the given author and the society
he lived in used to evaluate an individual's success) is achieved:
"To
get somewhere in this world, you need to pretend you have got somewhere. (...)
The world more often rewards the appearance of merit than merit itself."
Both authors look at the conditions that enable an individual to "get ahead",
to "get somewhere". Their subject is how to achieve what we refer to as "success".
The Early 21st Century Postmodern Societies' Common Definition of
"Success"
It struck me that the statistically most common definition
of success has not changed significantly over the centuries, within the western
culture area: The majority of the industrialized countries' population associates
success mostly with an individual's economic status and the possession of material
goods, furthermore with influence over one's surroundings (including other individuals)
and - growing ever more important - publicity and popularity (one enabling and
feeding the other). It's reflected in studies as well as in the largest part of
contemporary literature and other media.
The way certain terms are being
used and commonly comprehended as referring to one certain connotation (that has
become the predominant meaning of the term in question) while other meanings are
attached as well, also says a lot about how much priority is placed on economic
success and resulting financial wealth.
To make a "living", essentially means
to make money. In German society "Existenzgründung" ("founding an existence")
means founding one's first company, as well as "existentielle Probleme" ("existential
problems") in most common conversations means "lack of money".
While
it is correct that someone with no economic success at all, in a worst case scenario
would have to starve to death, it is remarkable that terms such as "living", "existence"
and "existential" are at least as much (if not more) being associated with economic
status as they are with philosophical, psychological or theological questions
such as "what is man?", "what determines our thoughts and actions?", "where do
we come from and what comes after this life?", etc.
The three main criteria commonly applied (by the typical
representative of our era and culture) to determine an individual's grade of "success"
- economic health, influence and popularity/publicity - are interdependent. One
of these characteristics feeds the others; each one needs the others to grow.
Influence is rarely won without preceding economic success, providing the
resources to engage in all the activities that will lead to an individual being
entrusted with taking responsibility for entities (projects, companies, groups,...)
which comes along with a necessary increase in influence. In addition to money
being required to "make oneself heard", economic success is often seen as (the
only) "proof" of competence, which influence needs to be accepted as authority.
Without being perceived as possessing authority, acting and deciding "responsible"
would rarely lead to any results, as the actions of a person with no authority
are not being acknowledged, his/her decisions not being adhered to.
Similarly,
publicity and popularity are both generated by actions (and informing the public
about these actions) that mostly require financial resources gained through either
personal economic success, the success of parents or ancestors, or "lucky" events
like hitting the jackpot. Less and less simple "good deeds" that deserve publicity
do actually receive it; and when they do, it rarely leads to a stable and enduring
popularity of the people behind them, which would aid their cause on a long-term
perspective.
Charities more and more depend on the engagement of people
who have already become popular enough to get the frequent publicity needed to
stay popular, which enables them to effectively "lend their voice" to a good cause.
And most of these people have become popular through achievements that could not
have been made without investments (which, of course, require economic success
to begin with).
The Strife for Pomp and Luxury: A Destructive
Form of Conscious Hedonism or Merely our Innate Desire for Love Relations Conforming
to Subconscious Mate-selection Criteria?
I wondered which model
does best describe the mechanisms by which the so-defined "success" is made in
our era. Is it Jung-Stilling's position that only the willful and strategic abstinence
from (striving for) pomp and luxury will lead to success? Or is it Rochefoucauld's
proposition that success can only be achieved by those who convince their surroundings
that they are/were already successful? Well, I didn't wonder for long.
Jung-Stilling: "The whole circulation of a nation collapses into four main
periods of time. The first one is: barbarianism, the second one: enthusiasm, the
third one: mercantilistic and philosophical and the fourth one: opulent and infidel.
Thereupon follows destruction and, once again, barbarianism."
Maybe
society structure and "value system" of our era's dominant cultural areas will
force the true proponent of the "human(e)" ideal to become a misanthrope and declare
that - all in all - we deserve destruction. The majority of mankind is detestable
due to its behavior, a lot of which ironically embodies that which we call "beastly",
while no beast not belonging to our own species does act as "beastly" as the only
animal that is known to kill not only for self-preservation but also driven by
"lust to kill": man.
What will lead us into destruction, according to
Jung-Stilling, namely our greed (for "pomp and luxury"), falls into a different
category; but whatever - as long as destruction takes place. Maybe that will finally
lead us into the long-desired New (Ordering of the) Age(es). In case we survive
barbarianism and make it to the enthusiasm phase, we may then hope for better
times to come so manically, that we fail to notice when our mercantile and philosophical
striving has already passed into destructive greed again.
Now, seriously: when I look at the
ways our "civilized" society works (from the perspective of an outsider that was
given to me mercifully), I see greed being omnipresent. Yet most of the time it's
merely a symptom of the strife for (received or returned) love...which is a fact
that most people don't seem to realize, since there is nothing they subconsciously
fear as much as introspection (and consciously they fear nothing as much as the
defeat of their favorite soccer team). God forbid one would gain self-awareness
through analysis of one's own motives...how shocking.
Back in the 80s
it was claimed that greed were good, since it is a strong incentive to be productive.
(And in a very productive society greed will thrive, and if it thrives on nothing
more than mere envy.) I remember once having said something similar, along the
lines of: "discontent is good. If man had been content with pulling something
square over surfaces, then nobody had bothered to invent the wheel".
And no later than the invention of the wheel, commences that which we can observe
today: What one can roll along comfortably, the next one doesn't want to strenuously
pull. But he who rolls is not only somebody who does something, in the
eyes of those who perceive him, he's also somebody who is something. Due
to what he does, certain characteristics are attributed to him as a person.
Who rolls something is who rolls something is "better" than who pulls
something. And who drives a Volvo is not only he who covers a distance using
a vehicle, he's also the Volvo driver.
Likely, Jung-Stilling would
accept the Volvo as being useful; however, a Lamborghini would probably be unnecessary
luxury or pomp in his eyes, depending on whether one drives it to affect one's
senses with stimuli through the driving alone and feel great because of that,
or to feel great cause one feels being perceived by observers as a "successful"
and "high potential" person - merely because of what people associate with the
vehicle.
(Moreover, how much of one's own fortune is used to buy the car would
be a determining factor for Jung-Stilling, in judging how forgivable the sin of
"pride" and "opulence" is...but who except bankers and hackers can take a look
at other people's assets?)
If Jung-Stilling is right, then I blame evolution
itself for periodically leading us into barbarianism through equipping us with
the basic urges that cause the development of greed. We are biologically condemned
to strive for reproduction, even if we don't consciously do so. According to studies,
the majority of mankind chooses their partners for love relationships based on
innate mate-selection criteria that go back to the hunter-gatherer era...even
if they are not consciously driven by the intention to reproduce.
The
more "successful", the more survivable (through good results at hunting mammoths,
owning prosperous companies or having a CEO job), the more likely that the offspring
will be equally able to survive. Moreover, a "successful" person will have the
resources necessary to protect the offspring from harm (safe cave, estate behind
a three meters high electric fence + spear, Magnum .45 or personal security personnel).
In an era that is oversexualized and at the same time "disromanticized" like
no other, a large part of the population mates according to these biologically
induced "material" criteria.
(In earnest: there is one of these marriage arrangement
agencies that named itself "elitepartner". If there is a "plebeianpartner" please
let me know; maybe I'll find myself a lady there who won't have the means to try
and suicide me through psychoterror and harmful defamation.)
Wanting
to be loved is an urge that seeks its gratification mainly through adapting to
the value system and general conditions of the individual's surroundings. Who
wishes to commonly be deemed "eligible" will usually pursue economic success,
since the realization that such is being equated with "eligibility" is partly
innate, partly learned.
The "Fake It To Make It" Era: The Display
or Pretense of Success as a Prerequisite to Succeed
So how to achieve
economic success? According to my own experiences and observations it is almost
only possible if you either already possess enough capital to begin with, or if
you get the chance to acquire the skills and possibilities to offer services or
manufacture products (which often costs a lot of money, too) and then find people
who are willing and able to pay for them. Aside from the rare possibility of "then
I had the great luck to meet..."-events, finding people to support your ideas
when you're not already "successful", is only possible if you can draw a lot of
attention to yourself.
Unfortunately, our senses are so used to being
overstimulated, that they've become numb to stimuli that don't give us the feeling
of driving a Lamborghini through an esthetic landscape on a sunny day, the doors
flipped up, and finding the streets lined with attractive humans, cute dogs and
classy horses.
Conclusion: Who doesn't act glorious in the Jung-Stilling-sense
of displaying pomp and a luxurious lifestyle, will not be acknowledged. Who will
not be acknowledged, remains successless. Who lacks success, will usually be perceived
as unable to survive. Who isn't regarded as capable of surviving, will not be
loved. Who is not being loved (which is an innate desire), will often become depressive
and thereby unproductive. Who is unproductive, will most likely be perceived as
lazy (without background info on the causes of this unproductive state ever being
checked or inquired about). Who is lazy, will be seen as "parasitic" in the eyes
of many. "Parasites" are being avoided. Who is being avoided, has no chance to
improve one's own situation, etc., etc...
True in most cases, nowadays.
Luckily, true friends are still being selected by other criteria; yet recognizing
the true ones sometimes isn't easy. There is a lot of trial and error. At the
end of the day, those who are "successless", according to society's criteria,
find together; and their possibilities to change their own situation for the better
(in a collective effort) are very restricted.
Disengagement from striving
would be a good approach. To rebel against the innate urges that are even intensified
by what life teaches. Klinger**** says the incentives that motivate us to intensely
concentrate on the pursuit of a goal that becomes our current concern, will inevitably
lead us into depression once we realize that this goal is unobtainable for us.
Therefore: pro psychological health...and back to the old class system. Who
is successless shall disengage from the goal of changing that: most likely you
will never obtain the possibility to draw enough attention to yourself, to ever
get the chance to help yourself, a chance to turn ideas into real projects, a
chance to work.
Now, that accurately contradicts our sense of justice
that we have a priori and our adherence to "political correctness", acquired through
education. Moreover, the Jung-Stilling type of modesty is dangerous in our era
to all those not already wealthy enough to be able to afford the kind of understatement
he describes (when writing about a millionaire merchant who didn't surround himself
with as much pomp as he could have), since understatement means risking the loss
of attention (especially by the media).
I know a lot of highly
talented, high potential, very intelligent people who aren't lazy at all...and
who still live in relative poverty compared to the economic status of their surroundings.
They don't display enough pomp, don't make enough noise to be acknowledged, to
get a chance, to not just be completely ignored. That there are still places in
this world where people have to starve to death, doesn't change the way the "successless"
ones in our wealthy parts of the world feel...ist just makes the whole subject
appear even more bizarre.
We can rebel against striving for pomp and
luxury,...even if this means that we won't even achieve the minimum of success
necessary to survive on our own. (At the end of the day, suicide is the ultimate
way of disengaging from all strife.)
But to "let go", we would
first have to learn how to disengage from all urges, emotions and incentives that
make us desire that kind of "success" which - nowadays - can, in most cases, only
be achieved if we can use pomp and luxury to appear as if we were already successful
and thereby draw enough attention to ourselves to not be ignored.
Viable
alternatives? Join a convent. You'll have a place and enough food to live, find
yourself socially recognized and life in celibacy and abstinence will make it
unnecessary to think about fulfilling certain mate-selection criteria. If you're
being admitted or have the money to study theology, of course.
____________
* "Bildungsfehler" can also refer to (physical) abnormality or deformity.
I've chosen "miseducation" as the translation most in accordance with the context.
Implicitly, Jung-Stilling regards miseducation about the relation between striving
for "pomp and luxury" and social descent, as the origin of a process that will
deform the whole life of the miseducated individual: economic health, mind and
soul are being destroyed through (involuntarily) acquired poverty and the suffering
that ensues, as well as through indulging in the sins of pride (superbia) and
salaciousness (luxuria).
It is to be noted that Jung-Stilling uses the term
salaciousness ("wollust") in a way that nowadays is more associated with gluttony
(gula): opulence and greed for overindulgence; thereby it is mostly material goods
as well as admiration and social recognition that are desired, rather than sexual
gratification.
** There is no indicator that "Staaten" is meant to refer
to states only; I've chosen the translation "countries". The difference between
states as parts of one country and the country ("land") itself has often been
(and still is) confused or used interchangeably especially by German writers.
*** Born Johann Heinrich Jung, he added "Stilling" to his family name as
an allusion to his being a member of "Die Stillen im Lande" ("The Silent Ones
in the Land"), a Christian group founded by theologist, mystic and writer Gerhard
Tersteegen.
**** Eric
Klinger, Ph.D. in psychology, professor at the University of Minnesota, Morris.
His general research areas are personality and clinical psychology, especially
influences of motivation and emotion on cognition, including daydreaming and night
dreaming, motivational theory, and applications to treatment of depression and
alcoholism.
Writing
|| Articles | Comparing Jung-Stilling's
and La Rochefoucauld's Position on the Prerequisite for Economic Success with
Regard to Socio-economic Conditions of the Early 21st Century Postmodern Societies
| 
 |
Web Design by