Explore " max weber" with insightful episodes like "Work-Life-Balance: Erst die Arbeit, dann das Vergnügen #21", "Escape from Freedom (pt 1)", "Alien Invasions From the Future with Sam Frank, Writer and Galaxy Owner | The Urbit Series", "#5 - O horror à burocracia" and "Max Weber's Bureaucracy" from podcasts like ""Carpe What? Dein Sinn-Podcast", "let's THiNK about it", "Other Life", "Maldita Politicagem" and "The Sociology of Everything Podcast"" and more!
Why would anyone want to escape from Freedom? Well, in a complex system, any move will produce countermanding forces, and humans are slow-evolving creatures, and by merely shouting “you are free” we encounter some problems: 1) now what? and 2) it doesn’t line up with the reality of working every day and still falling behind.
While freedom is held up as an ideological holy grail, the reality on the ground is different: People do want to escape from freedom because having to “know who you are” is a tremendous strain when you are supposed to be an “authentic autonomous individual.” The strain to be free conversely leaves us feeling like frauds, isolated and alone, which hurts our socially evolved self.
Written around 1941, Erich Fromm‘s “Escape from Freedom” compares Socialist, Fascist Nazism and Hitler to America’s Liberal Democracy and the types of people it produces and those, in turn, who produce those systems. But he starts out with some history, so we can see what it looks like to move from (as Karl Popper calls it) a tribal ‘closed society‘ to a free ‘open society’ and why that move causes so many problems.
In the next episode, Escape from Freedom (pt 2), we will look at these “escape mechanisms” and Fromm’s solution: which is to be a genuine individual, an authentic self, which involves independent thinking (which most of us don’t do) and spontaneity (which I have some arguments against.) But until then, this episode maps a historical path that lays the groundwork for why modern man has so many problems.
We cover medieval feudal society altering into a competition for middle-class ascendency, contenting between the crown, the tradesman, and risk. This is echoed in Martin Luther's character, as a stand-in for the psychological and social character of the times, and his confusion and hatred giving rise to reformation. The dissolution of the church authority came at a higher cost: the need to lovingly submit to God, giving away your newfound freedom from authority.
In modern times, we have confused merchants in an industrial capitalist society attempting to find their "self" but viewing themselves as a commodity. This highlights the strain of individuality in a socially competitive world, leading to a burden of freedom and unique autonomy that many people shed, as they feel hollowed out and left behind by progress.
Mickey Mouse, created by Walt Disney, is an apt character for the times: a tiny creature combating nature and predatory with near escapes.
Part 2 will cover the psychological escape mechanisms people undertake to justify giving away their freedom.
Sam Frank has written for Harper's and The New Yorker, but he was also an early buyer of Ethereum because Vitalik "looked like an alien." Sam explains his heuristics for judging technological and cultural projects, how he first met Curtis Yarvin, what he sees in Urbit, and how he eventually became one of 256 senators in Urbit's galactic senate.
✦ Sam on Urbit: ~todset-partug
✦ Get your own Urbit planet at imperceptible.computer
✦ Subscribe to the Other Life newsletter at OtherLife.Co
É possível eliminar a burocracia na sua vida? Sem dúvidas, a papelada e a demora são capazes de irritar qualquer um. Mas esta não é a única forma de se entender a burocracia, um conceito amplo e importante das ciências sociais. Acompanhe conosco os limites e o caráter inescapável deste processo.
O Maldita Politicagem é um projeto independente. Se você gosta do conteúdo, contribua com a nossa campanha de financiamento coletivo para que possamos aprimorá-lo e ampliá-lo :
https://apoia.se/malditapoliticagem
----
Referências:
LOTTA, Gabriela; OLIVEIRA, Vanessa; CAVALCANTE, Pedro. Do insulamento burocrático à governança democrática: Transformações institucionais e a burocracia no Brasil.
MICHELS, Robert. Sociologia dos partidos políticos.
WEBER, Max. Economia e sociedade: fundamentos da sociologia compreensiva.
-----
Se quiser apoiar:
https://apoia.se/malditapoliticagem
Para seguir nossas redes:
https://twitter.com/mpoliticagem
https://www.instagram.com/malditapoliticagem/
Expediente
Edição, identidade visual e capa: Fabio Tokumoto
Roteiro e coexplanação: Luiz Domingos Costa e Alessandro Tokumoto
In this episode, Eric Hsu and Louis Everuss examine Max Weber's theory of bureaucracy. They discuss why it continues to have resonance in the 21st century and totally unprompted by anything or anyone and without a hint of sarcasm, they ponder if they might be the best sociology instructors in the entire world.
Music and sound effects for this episode comes from various sources and is licensed under the Creative Commons 0 License/the Creative Commons Attribution License 3.0 or is covered by a SFX (Multi-Use) License. Tracks include:
https://freesound.org/people/Tuben/sounds/272044/
https://freesound.org/people/DeVern/sounds/365958/
https://freesound.org/people/JPMusic82/sounds/415511/
The opinions expressed in the Sociology of Everything podcast are that of the hosts and/or guest speakers. They do not reflect the opinions of anyone else at UniSA or the institution at large.
The Sociology of Everything podcast | www.sociologypodcast.com
I personally do a lot of woodworking, making cabinets or entertainment centers, I'm currently trying to build a window. I have tools that help me, such as a table saw is great, but sometimes there is a finicky cut in a difficult spot and you need a handsaw.
The hand saw has a downside to it: I'm not skillful enough or experienced enough to make sure it cuts it a perfect 90° angle while staying parallel to the edge and lined up on my marks. One trick is to clamp another board on the line you're cutting, and use that board as a guide, making sure that you stay 90° perpendicular and you're cutting straight back and forth. This is a very simple version of a "jig."
Crawford talks about experts making things easier for themselves by "partially jigging" or "informational restructuring" the environment. So as you're working, you start setting things up around you interacting with your environment, this can be information in the digital space or production in a workshop.
Perhaps consider the workflow of a chef in the kitchen. Not only does structuring your environment help you to be better at what you're doing, it reduces cognitive effort, so you're not having to re-solve your problems or waste steps... instead you jig up a workflow, keep your attention on point, and also restrict the freedom of your wandering mind. This is how you build an environment that allows you to get in the Flow State.
The dark side is of course slewing into the opposite extreme: we now use "over determined jigs" which replace the skill... and the mind along with it.
“Cheap men need expensive jigs; expensive men need only the tools in the toolbox”
Matthew Crawford
This is similar to Christopher Schwartz who wrote The Anarchist's Workbench and The Anarchist's Design Book : If it's a choice between buying a jig or learning a skill, learn the skill. The goal is to move between autonomy and the assembly line.
"Advanced cognition depends crucially on our ability to dissipate reasoning"
Matthew Crawford
To think complex thoughts we need to unburden our limited capacity brain from having to consider everything, allowing us to use more bandwidth to focus deeply on a specific task. The great achievements of knowledge that came before us and practical wisdom are now embodied in complex structures: the structures of linguistics, politics, society, and institutional constraints. These are huge, complex jigs that are often invisible to us. Yet, we can focus on our daily job or current task because we have outsourced some daily reasoning (mental bandwidth or cognitive load) for some structure and stability.
Step 55: Cultural Jigs
Max Weber, the German sociologist who wrote The Protestant Work Ethic, pointed out that there was a change in the way the church perceived wealth. We went from the "camel through the eye of the needle" thing about the difficulty of rich people getting into heaven TO accumulating wealth is a sign of God's favor. The status of your soul was visible in your portfolio, conspicuous wealth was proof of election to God's elite. This ideology ran deep in America, conflating being a good Christian with thrift and freedom.
"Be Frugal and be free."
Benjamin Franklin
Today we have reversed "Be Frugal and be free," not back to "blessed are the poor," but to "be free now, pay it off later."
It is now moral, neigh virtuous, to carry debt. "Consumer credit" with a good FICO or "credit score" requires a credit card and a mortgage: proof of debt carried long term. We even have "good debt" now: home mortgages and student loans are encouraged.
This is not a moral judgment, but a cultural change over time: we have dismantled the moral cultural norms held previously, and now the "non-thinking lazy individual" is looking for a jig to guide them. Today, they are "nudged" by administrative actions.
There is a book called "Nudge" about how policy can be made to make up for lazy human bias. Crawford relates this to “choice architecture,” the policy that structures your available decisions.
For instance, in "Nudge," if you start a new job with a retirement package they find that people are often so lazy or blase that they will not check the box to opt-in, even though it is in their best interest. So, the administration sets it up to auto-enroll you. Then people won't even check a box or make a phone call to opt-out. There is nothing but default behavior.
The problem here, as Crawford describes, is one of "character." Character seems to come from habit, which we have discussed previously as a predictable or reliable pattern of responses developed over time to solve specific problems.
habit seems to work from the outside in; from behavior to personality"
Matthew Crawford
Your behavior is shaped by your environment, through cultural norms, which then form your "character." The circumstances that shape us are often through administrative and cultural nudges.
The ramifications are: if you were auto-enrolled in your 401k and you never unenroll, you have never really faced down anything, made a decision, or confronted temptation (should I save for the future or have more money now?) You have only allowed the virtues of the current system to be further stamped into your personality, and you have fallen deeper into the rut in which your stereotypical life is laid out for you.
Without the friction of making decisions, we don't develop character, we are developed by external design.
Our acquiescence, our inaction, allows our attention and priorities to be managed by others. This is the manipulation by attention pirates we mentioned in the last episode.
Living by "default mode" means being adrift on the current, readily swayed and shaped, nudged, or herded into place. The administration says, “relax, we will take care of you” while the corporation, with no accountability to the common good, says “you have been softened up, now let us take advantage of you.”
“Choice architecture will happen. We just need to be aware so we can choose our architect. “
Matthew Crawford
Step 55: Cultural Jigs
In behavioral economics, they do studies in isolated environments to control variables. The tests show on average, we have little skill at practical reasoning. So we outsource it. Living in a "capitalist representative democracy technocracy" (a few of our cultural jigs) we have been habituated to hand over decision power to sciencey specialists, or really anyone. According to behavioral economics, we can't be bothered to think too much about it.
Historically, after WWII "the left" started a project of liberation. They busily unmask and discredited “cultural Authority,” which means dismantling our inherited cultural jigs. These jigs, things like churches, family, and trust in government, provided coherence for individuals.
This lack of coherence means that individuals are at a loss for how they fit into society. This is exactly the same problem Otto von Bismarck solved in 1871 by applying military bureaucracy to the German state: individuals were running around in packs, terrorizing each other, and upending stability for everyone. For a society to work you need stability, shared goals, and a sense of contribution to those goals.
The project of Liberation led to a new unencumbered self.
Into this void of meaning (dismantled cultural authority) steps "the right." They offer up the idea of the "rational actor" who is reasoning and maximized profit. A sciencey/economic solution to a cultural problem. Cultural authority's role is to regulate society, as much as to provide a framework for stability, so who regulates this ideal economic, reasoning man? Free markets.
As we know from the 1980s free markets deregulate everything. Our increased liberation has de-regulated us. This means we now have to spend more time, energy, attention self-regulating. In this time of the individual as their own authority, you have to have self-discipline.
But all solutions are increasingly economic. We can relieve the burden of self-regulation by payment for "cultural jigs."
Consider paying an accountant so you can relieve the burden of taxes, which in turn can make you more irresponsible, less self-regulated. By paying them you can avoid going to jail, and if you have enough money they shelter your wealth from taxes, allowing you to get richer while being less responsible. Double this class luxury of outsourcing self-discipline to paying for tutors, chefs, and fitness trainers: we pay for others to nag us, feed us, and make us smarter.
Earlier we talked about dismantling cultural authority for liberation. This was done by both "the left" (dissolving cultural, traditional, and parental authority) and the right (de-regulating state authority in favor of markets), yet it seems the "disciplinary functions of our culture" still exist.
Crawford says there remains a cultural cost for not having discipline: If you can afford a therapist to help save your marriage, help you raise your kids, and get them into pedigreed schools it passes social capital forward (as well as the financial capital) which allows the next generation to pay for their offspring to regulate their discipline: this ensures a dynastic succession through affording better cultural jigs.
In the 50s and 60s, you had Protestant thrift, parental authority, and cultural shaming around gluttony. These were not great models in all respects, but they were available to everyone. The need for discipline around finances, behavior, and consumption has now moved from readily accessible churches, parents, and friends to privately paid life coaches, therapists, and personal trainers.
Discipline has been privatized in the space left vacant from the culture wars.
Step 55: Cultural Jigs
Crawford brings up the example of a chef cooking in a kitchen, who gets into a flow state, just chopping and spinning, and handling five tasks at once with impeccable timing. He is savoring his own human excellence, he is a human flourishing within the carefully modeled constraints of the kitchen. He can improvise, he is wholly absorbed and connected to his environment.
"Living skillfully requires that some things be settled."
Crawford wants to remind us that "the ideal of freedom from external influence doesn't capture all the elements that contribute to an impressive human performance."
On a larger level, this episode is questioning the ideal of the “free” individual, pursuing their internal desires, and over-indexing the world inside their head. Crawford is asking us to look at the external conditions that shape our character.
So, our next episode will be looking more at the individual human - what exactly happens when we become skilled because there is a type of freedom in undertaking the discipline to hone your skills. How does our cognition shift when we are skilled? And what exactly is embodied perception or embodied knowledge?
Tracing back to Max Weber’s insights, Sennett talks about the “iron cage” of the militarized bureaucracy is mapped onto society by Otto Von Bismarck.
This does 2 things: it gives everyone a place in society, so they won’t rebel, and it creates “rationalized time.” That is regimented time you can plan around, which develops agency for citizens. For the first time, you could plan for what should happen, instead of worrying about what might happen.
The “fresh page” theory is that as pyramidal, bureaucratic stability crumbles around us, this is not a return to a previous age, but instead a new page in history.
Sennett maps out how in 1962, the Port Huron statement asked for the dissolution of large companies and social frameworks that held people in a rigid, iron grip. Part of that happened: we lost jobs that employ people for life and the ability to plan our life around stability as the corporations dismantled the structures that gave people a place in society and a future they could envision and narrate their lives around. These were not replaced with the communal, sympathetic negotiations and strong social structures, as the authors had envisioned.
Instead, we have a “fresh page” where “relations” have been replaced with “transactions.”
The characteristics of the unique individual who can survive on this fresh page are 1) people who can function in short-term time frames (with no long-term life narrative), 2) a person who can mine their talent for potential rather than becoming a craftsmen at one thing, and 3) they must surrender to their sense of self, over and over.
On the ‘fresh page’ free from rules, many meet failure, and are left drifting alone.
“Alone, they suddenly discovered time- the shapeless time, which before had exhilarated them, the absence of rules for how to proceed… Their fresh page was blank. In this limbo, isolated , without a life narrative, they discover failure.”
Richard Sennett
The “iron cage” taught delayed gratification. Where people internalized their desire fulfillment to the extent that they could never arrive at fulfillment, and thus made the cage their home. The psychological trap became very rigid, producing drones and automatons, people who behaved like the machines they worked around.
Sennett wishes that Max Weber had a little more insight into the military to realize this pyramid hierarchy has some built in features of personal autonomy through the negation and translation of messages: each level gets the chance to interpret the order to fit conditions on the ground.
Feeling this sense of agency, to be able to “make a difference,” is an illusion that people need to proceed with an adult life.
With the replacement of the local banker by a global merchant banker and the introduction of leveraged buyouts and hostile takeovers, the corporations themselves became the capital.
This destabilized them as previous associations and processes were broken apart and loyalty (along with employees) was shed. This faster, more ambitious, more cut-throat organization served capital, not people, because investors with “impatient capital” wanted short-term rewards.
institutional solidity became an investment negative… stability was a sign of weakness… the willingness to destabilize one’s own organization sent a positive signal.
Richard Sennett
This stripped down, de-layered version of the company was also changed by technology, such as e-mail communication. Now, instead of passing a command through managers (requiring interpretation and granting agency) a CEO could send an email directly and document their compliance… to the letter. So, email cut that layer out.
As well, automation stripped a layer of the pyramid at the bottom. Now people have to outpace machines to keep their jobs. They no longer have a place in society. Which in Otto Von Bismarck’s bureaucratic pyramid is a failure: the whole reason it existed was to stabilize society by giving everyone a place and role.
Today, the new workers are ashamed of dependency, and “worry about a loss of self-control.” We have reinvigorated and institutionalized the traumas of the unstable past, breaking community and social bonds, a sense of self, and communal history along the way.
Sennett compares the new system to technology: the corporation acts as an MP3 player. The laser shines from the center, playing one track (function) at a time. The workers are hired, perform their function, then are discarded with no loyalty of consideration. Now the workers must self-govern and educate for a changing future, offering no stability. But the companies suffer as well without formal or informal trust: they have lost formerly institutionalized knowledge of what works and the adaptability of people with agency, often making hubristic mistakes.
Leaders today no longer think critically of their employees, choosing instead to outsource anything painful smacking of responsibility of authority. They divorce power from authority, and hand it over to “consultants,” who know little about a company, and whose actual job is often not to be honest, but to shield leadership from the hard or dirty work.
loyalty is dead
90’s leadership guru
“The core of the managerial mystique is decision-making prowess”
Robert Jackall
So, if decisions were easy, they would be made by someone else, so it is only the big money, big risk decisions that are looked at to determine your prowess. 1,000’s of jobs and the future of the division are on the line. How do you make the call? By your gut.
The rules of a manager are :
“(1) Avoid making any decisions if at all possible; and
(2) if a decision has to be made, involve as many people as you can so that, if things go south, you’re able to point in as many directions as possible.”
You have heard of that moral dilemma thought experiment developed by Utilitarians, such as Peter Singer: the trolley experiment?
In the corporate version, no one takes action: 5 people are hit by the trolley and then everyone blames everyone else for not jumping. Another great day at the office dodging responsibility.
So, your primary GUT DECISION for your survival in company: Who is going to get blamed?
For managers, to be BLAMED is to be injured verbally in public. And since we know that “image is crucial” this is a serious threat. The wise manager knows it has nothing to do with facts or the merits of a case, but is a socially construed manifestation born largely of being in the Wrong place, at the Wrong time.
As Jackall says: “Bureaucracy expands the freedom of those on top by giving them the power to restrict the freedom of those beneath.”
The goal here is to outrun your mistakes! Jump up the ladder, then when the person who replaces you inherits your screw-ups, you blame it on them and fire them.
A manager can defer costs for short-term profits or gains. This sets up what Jackal calls “probationary crucibles” in which managers are tested under extreme pressures, reshaping them to make decisions for short-term expediency, for their own survival. In the end, the games played for a manager to “look good” and “meet the numbers” actually cost the company: it is a parasitic relationship that drains the company rather than keeping it healthy.
There is a natural selfishness… people want to make the system work for themselves. And when they get to the top, they can’t criticize the system that got them there.
Manager in Moral Mazes
As you climb, the rules of the game are, you never publicly criticize or disagree with one another or the company policy. You just wear an agreeable face and use ambiguous language. But when blame time shows up, everyone has already built defenses and set up scapegoats.
Jackall says the higher you go in the corporate world, the better you need to be with manipulating symbols without becoming attached or identified with them. Thus “truth” takes a backseat for the imperative of appearances, which champions adroit talk requiring moral flexibility and dexterity with symbols.
And what happens when there is definitive proof of your mistakes? You say you were in accordance with the rules at the time, claiming that risk is necessary to make money, while you personally avoid risk by hiding in a bureaucracy.
As Jackalll says
You socialize the risks and harms of the corporate industry, while privatizing the benefits.
Jackall shows the contrast from the original protestant ethic: an ideology of self-confident, frugality, and independence. It championed stewardship responsibilities, where your word was your bond. But it also signaled success as God’s favor, and that was used to explain away the misery of the poor and unlucky.
What has happened is that bureaucracy
“breaks apart substance from appearance, action from responsibility, and language from meaning.”
Robert Jackall
With survival tied to such a fickle, mercurial fate corporate bureaucracy erodes internal, and external, morality. It generates its own rules and moral standards, primarily through social context: what is fashionable becomes true, since everyone is looking at each other for moral cues, but to rise in the ranks the only virtue to be found is self-interest masked as company loyalty.
Jackal has a 2009 essay added to Moral Mazes. It proves his 1988 book prophetic. Corporate Culture and Bureaucratic ethics expanded into a societal consciousness of short-term profits with super shady logic, yet everyone was doing it so it became conscionable. And it broke our economy.
This is an egregious example of “socializing risk and privatizing profit.” It proves the protective power of bureaucracy, and encourages future recklessness.
Max Weber has a phrase: “secular ascetism” where you subjugate your impulses to God’s will, through “restless, continuous, systematic work in a worldly calling”. This entangles religious values (hard work, self-reliance, frugality) with work values and success, but over time the religious trappings slipped, opening up to conspicuous wealth and consumer culture. So, while frugality disappeared, self-reliance, gumption, and a foggy notion that morality is linked to success/wealth remained in the workplace.
Yet, also the workplace was becoming industrialized through Taylorism, supercharging bureaucracy. This new bureaucratic structure took those once human/religious virtues and built them into the workplace through regularized time-schedules, work procedures, and administrative hierarchies.
We don’t need to know your character, we have spreadsheets.
This system of bureaucratic industry spread into government and private sector, needing clerks, technicians, and myriad levels of managers to maintain it. A new class emerged: the big salaried man completely dependent and devoted to the corporation. (So much for self-reliance or dedication to God or even family.)
As Jackall points out, is not just being IN the organization, but OF the organization.
Corporations centralize authority in the CEO (the King) while decentralizing it through Presidents, VP’s, District and Regional Managers. Reporting becomes a “web of commitments'' tying people to goals and reinforcing fealty relationships.
To issue a command from the top triggers a cascade of downward pressure to achieve an improbable task, especially when bound by a bureaucratic system. Hence a willingness to sacrifice or bend rules to achieve the King’s whims is championed as “loyalty,” and CEO’s tend to promote those who have the “capacity for creative problem solving” … which is usually shady.
But you must be loyal in the right order: The rule is, you should be loyal to your boss directly above you. Equally, part of your job is to protect your boss from embarrassing themselves or the company.
“symbolically reinforce at every turn his own subordination and his willing acceptance of the obligations of his fealty.”
Robert Jackall
Credit and the King
details are pushed down and credit is pulled up
Bosses give vague instructions, purportedly to encourage subordinates autonomy. But really it is a cover your ass method, 1) because they don’t understand the details, or 2) they need a fall guy and deniability.
Credit or praise is a currency, not to be casually bestowed, it is to be used at the boss’s prudence.
This type of sagacity is especially egregious around the CEO where managers engage in irrational budget expenditures to appease a perceived preference, a wish, a whim. Jackall talks of repainting a whole building to impress a CEO, or dropping $10k on a custom made book… and the justification is, if you don’t appease the capricious king or queen today, your head could be on a pike tomorrow.
One tool in a CEO’s chest is the “shake up” where they reorganize the whole company.
This does a number of things: it reorganizes existing fealty or alliances, breaking up plots or troublesome dissenters. It also hides mistakes, as now no one is sure where the blame should land when things go badly. And it makes the Board and Wall street think you are aggressive. Meanwhile, it promotes anxiousness and stress throughout your company, often reinforcing the perception of needing to cater to the CEO's capricious moods, lest you be fired.
Striving for success is a moral imperative in America.
Once you become a manager, you have proven competency, and beyond and it becomes much more about social factors, where you must align yourself with the “style and ethos of the corporation.”
So… if you want to rise, you have to re-make yourself into what they company desires by staying attuned to social cues. This is known as Self-rationalization or self-streamlining, and it sounds a bit sociopathic, but we probably all do it to a certain extent:
Such a manager “dispassionately takes stock of himself, treating himself as an object, as a commodity. He analyses his strengths and weaknesses and decides what he needs to change in order to survive and flourish in his organization. And then he systematically undertakes a program to reconstruct his image ...” (p.59)
PART III: Social Performance
So, I know it’s hard to believe that being a chameleon good at team play with some lucky connections is all it takes: you have to hit your numbers most of the time. But even if you are hitting your numbers all the time, but lacking the right personality or team play, you will never rise.
When there is no longer an objective standard for success, it isn’t your performance that breaks you, it is other people.
Managers realize, more than most, that there is a capriciousness to their advancement, often based on organizational contingency, luck and timing. And that is internal to the company, but there are also external factors that disrupt the workplace and market.
Managers are very very aware of the ‘optics’ - it might actually be the key point to survival - and they realize the only thing they can do to better ensure their fate is to be seen working hard, putting in the hours (even though productivity may not help), and better streamlining yourself, wearing the right masks, practicing the vocabularies of discourse, knowing the right people, and subtly self-promoting.
Moving through the psychology of guilt vs Shame, and onto the societal implications of a shame-based or guilt-based culture, invoking Max Weber's "Protestant Work Ethic" as roots for our meritocracy, Hannah Arendt and Timothy Snyder's texts on the Nazi occupations and how people not only obeyed in advance, but used words to distance themselves from reality. This is linked to the American South, and the desire to avert shame or guilt of self through cultural constructions that benefit some while shaming others.
https://letusthinkaboutit.com/step-22-guilt-shame--group-think/
2:48 Social pressure uses Shame/Guilt to normalize behaviors, which is better than more laws.
5:01 Protestant Ideals: "Your Wee wee is from the devil"
7:23 Down with the Hierarchy! Don't obey him, obey me!
10:03 Shame leads to Rage: "it is not people that have passions, but passions that have people."
11:58 groupthink belief machine
16:06 "Their ideology ruined their relationship with reality"
18:02 Driven into toxic social groups through guilt, shame and a lack of forgiveness, people offer unwavering loyalty for guilt absolution.
20:44 Guilt and shame isolate people, for acceptance they pledge loyalty to toxic tribes.
El Profesor Alejandro Nieto imparte la cuarta y última conferencia del ciclo titulado “El pensamiento burocrático”. Max Weber, ni apologista ni enemigo de la burocracia, lleva a cabo un estudio neutral, afirmándola sobre las bases de la racionalidad y la eficacia.
Stay up to date
For any inquiries, please email us at hello@podcastworld.io