Erosion of the Mind; H. Brown

I I HAROLD O. J. BROWN "THE QUESTION," writes Oxford philosopher, A. J. Ayer, "how a man ought to live is one to which there is no authoritative answer. It has to be decided by each man for himself." To this, Britain's sharp polemicist, Sir Arnold Lunn, makes the comment, "And if Himmler decides that his way of life involves massacring millions of Jews in gas chambers, there is no criterion by which we pro nounce this way of life to be in ferior to that of St. Francis."I We are all familiar with the way in which the monolithic So viet system exercises thought con trol - the February sentencing of writers Sinyavsky and Daniel to a total of twelve years' hard labor is the most recent example. We are less aware of the fact that in 1 Ayer's statement and Lunn's com ment in Sir Arnold Lunn, The Revolt Against Reason (London: Eyre and Spot tiswoode, 1950), p. 221. Mr. Brown, a doctoral candidate at Harvard University,· is spending this year in Vienna.

our own Western civilization there is also a growing monoli thic thought control, not enforced by a totalitarian dictatorship; nor in volving jail sentences, but gradu ally becoming almost as pervasive, and ultimately as destructive of freedom of thought. A. J. Ayer's contention, which sounds harmless enough, even commendable and in the good old American tradition of independent initiative ("to be decided by each man for himself") , is a good example of a stage in the process by which we, too, are losing freedom of the mind. If we ever reach the point which Lunn foresees,' when we can no longer distinguish between Heinrich Himmler and St. Francis of Assisi, then legal freedom of thought will mean nothing, be cause we will have lost the ability to think. In such a situation a constitutional guarantee will be as irrelevant as freedom of the seas for a nation without ships. 3 4 THE FREEMAN May Mental Equipment Freedom of thought is not guar anteed by the mere absence of legal sanctions against it. It de mands a certain amount of mental equipment, which cannot be legis lated, but which must be provided by education - both by education in the narrow sense of that for mally imparted in schools, and in the larger sense of the experience of living with people and institu tions in a society. There is no im mediate danger of governmental thought control in Western coun tries, but we in the United States, and elsewhere in the West, are nonetheless approaching a critical stage in the battle for the mind.

The famous German physicist, Werner Heisenberg, went through a rather· thorough grounding in classical languages. Far from con sidering this a waste of time for his career as a scientist, Heisen berg has written that he considers it most valuable. Having to deal with firm and unchanging reali ties, such as Latin declensions, sharpened his wits and gave him the mental equipment and disci pline so necessary to competent scientific research. Without the mental equipment provided and improved by the encounter with unyielding facts, Heisenberg's later accomplishments would have been unthinkable. In the moral and intellectual sphere, in which freedom of thought and expres sion is to operate, the necessary mental equipment includes a clar ity and toughness of thought which in turn depends on recog nizing that there is such a thing as truth and that there are values which are absolute. Few people would like to see themselves in the role of the Ro man governor, Pontius Pilate, as he is described in the pages of the Bible - vain, weak, willing to sac rifice a man whom he knew to be innocent in order to spare himself any unpleasantness with Tiberius Caesar. Yet how many ask the same question which Pilate asked, "What is truth?" and mean to say the same thing which he meant, "It all depends on how you look at it." This observation, like Ayer's, is plausible enough, and sometimes is appropriate. But it can also be deadly, and ulti mately destructive of human intel lectual freedom· and dignity. Free dom and dignity depend on the conviction, and on the fact, that there are some things which are unchanging, which do not "all de pend on how you look at them."

Brainwashing, "free Society" Style In addition to the compulsion which subjects of a totalitarian state suffer, it must be seen that even a free society has its own brand of conformism, which is 1966 EROSION OF THE MIND 5 not imposed by law but which can be almost equally effective. The unchallenged authority exercised among teenagers by certain fads (and a similar power shown among adults by certain fashions) offers a readily recognizable example of a control which is not· enforced by law, but which can be quite effective. Fads and fashions are often harmless, but we are begin ning to notice that their unchal lenged power can lead to tragedy - as, for example, when the em phasis on "having experiences" leads a person to take·. the first step on the road to drug addiction. Every society, every culture, every sub-culture (for example, teenagers or retired .people) has its own conventions, its consensus of values. Sometimes these are derived from clearly stated prin ciples or teachings, as the Ten Commandments, sometimes )rom traditions and habits which are harder to trace down. Conventions certainly can outlive their useful ness and become actually harmful; on the other hand, to discard them because they are "outworn" often turns out to mean the loss of values which cannot easily be re placed. ' In free society one variety of brainwashing is the repudiation, at the command of the intellectual climate or the "spirit of the age,"

of important intellectual traditions or axioms, without discussion and without due cause. There are fash ions in thinking as well as in clothes, and often one intellectual principle may be discarded and replaced by another with no more discussion or reason behind it than can be given for a change in the height of a hemline. In the realm of th.e intellect this is dan gerous: there is no way to coun teract it save by thoughtful anal ysis and criticism. It is important to note that va.luable intellectual traditions can be discarded just as thoroughly as last year's fashions, and with much more serious effects, by a process which· is so subtle that one does not notice it until it is too late. The repudiation is not done clearly and openly, because if so it would produce· discussion and perhaRs opposition; but it can be quite complete for all of its lack of clarity. An example is found in the molding effect exer cised by a type of introductory general education course found in many colleges, with a title such as "The Authoritarian Personal ity" or "The True Believer." Any one who has glanced at the books which bear those famous names will recognize that while tech nically they are studies of ex treme examples, they can carry the implication that authority per se, or committed belief per se, is 6 THE FREEMAN May dangerous and leads to mental imbalance.

The presentation which this type of material receives and the climate in which it is discussed, often have an effect which goes beyond the implications of a schol arly study. Even in the hands of a perfectly ethical and neutral teacher or discussion leader the current intellectual fashion can take a subject like "the true be liever," and give it an impact which seriously questions any and all genuine commitment. Intellectual Relativism The consequence of such brain washing by fashion and environ ment, rather than by force, is the establishment of intellectual and moral relativism. Advocates of this position have in their favor the fact that those who stand for absolute values often have tried to establish their intellectual prin ciples by physical force. Ma,rtin Luther once said that converts should be made only by the "sword of the word," and not by the sword of steel; but even Luther did not always follow his own ad vice, and others were. considerably worse.

Against any who would enforce religious or philosophical conform ity, it is necessary in the name of freedom to insist on the practical principle of tolerance. But in the name of that same freedom it is necessary to oppose the intellectual principle of relativism. Relativism, while it begins by promoting free dom, proceeds to the destruction of values, and ends by exacting a new kind of thought control which deprives men of their dignity as responsible beings. Relativism as an intellectual principle is becoming more and more dominant on the American scene, and can almost be taken for granted (as I have observed time and again, in discussions with students). Usually it is fostered by indirect but effective means, as in the polemics against the authoritarian personality and the true believer. Seldom does the relativization of all valu.es receive as unambiguous a statement, or one which so clearly reveals where it leads, as that which follows: First of all it [relativization of values] requires real maturity. It de mands that all men be drawn into the secularization process so that no one clings to the dangerous precritical illusion that his values are ultimate.

All idols and icons [by this is meant, every ultima te religious or moral commitment - H.O.J .B.] must be ex posed for the relative, conditional things they are. Tribal naivete must be laid to rest everywhere, and every~ one must be made a citizen of the land of broken symbols. In this way the process which has destrored the old 1966 EROSION OF THE·· MIND 7 basis for social solidarity now pro vides the basis for a new·one.2 (em phasis mine) This is a wonderfully illustra tive statement. It reveals, first of all, the totalitarian tendency of the relativistic climate: no one is allowed to think his values are absolute. In effect, no one is to be allowed to believe in God in the way in which historic Judaism and Christianity have done. This freedom of belief is guaranteed, in theory at least, even in Soviet Russia - but not by a modern relativist. Secondly, it illustrates the fact that values are dismissed without discussion and without due cause.

It is not clearly said that if one may not hold certain values to be ultimate, one may therefore not believe in God. To have said this would have been too plain, and might have provoked an argu ment, while the same effect can be more easily obtained· by the subtle but persistent influence of the innuendo. Such belief is re ferred to as an "illusion," .when th~ less derogatory word uconvic tion" would have served as well, and at least would have allowed for the possibility that a religious conviction might in fact· be true. This, however, is a possibility 2 Harvey E. Cox, The Secular City (New York: Macmillan, 1965), pp. 34-35. which the relativist is not even willing to discuss. The use of words like "precri t ical," "tribal naIvete," and "idols" further illustrates the tendency. The person who allows himself to enter a discussion on these terms is already at a tremendous disad vantage in trying to fight his way clear of relativism. Language used uncri ticaIIy becomes a tool in the hands· of the enemy.

Captured Words: "freedom" The communist technique of taking over certain words entirely for their own use is well known. "People's democracy" is the stock designation for a communist cou!l try, and the word "people" has been so successfully captured that it can hardly be used in some Eu ropean languages except to refer to a communist movement. In ad dition to plastering the opposition with certain opprobrious labels, of which "tribal naIvete" for "Chris tian faith" is a perfect example, the spirit of cultural brainwash ing captures certain words for its exclusive use, e.g., "freedom." Thus, relativism is good because it leads to freedom (except, of course, the freedom to believe that your beliefs are actually true in other words, except freedom to think). The ability to get along without ideals is paraphrased as "freedom" or "real maturity."

8 THE FREEMAN }.{ay Another age would have called it lack of character, and so would we, if the intellectual climate had not frightened us by its attacks on the "authoritarian personality" into equating strength of charac ter with mental illness. Relativism = freedom? To argue that relativism leads to freedom has at least three flaws. First, as in the passage quoted, the argument supposes that by destroying the old basis for social solidarity (in our case, the values and standards of Western civiliza tion) a basis will be provided for a new one. Even if this argument were true, which is open to ques tion, what defense would we have in the interim, while waiting for the new basis to come to us, against the determined efforts of people who are still "tribally naIve" enough to work and fight for their values (such as the com munists) ? Secondly, the theoretical ques tion must be asked: can one actu ally throwaway all ultimate val ues? Will one not simply discard a well-thought-out, relatively time honored set to accept, willy-nilly, a set of uncritical and unarticu lated but equally absolute assump tions? The contemporary Dutch jurist and philosopher, Herman Dooyeweerd, has argued that the very nature of thought itself requires that a person assume ab solute values: the only question is whether he will recognize this, and name them, as a rationally committed person does, or whether they will merely be unvoiced as sumptions. 3 In religious terms, it has always been put thus: man must worship, and if he is not willing to worship God, then he will find himself worshiping an idol. There is' no proof for this statement, but Dooyeweerd has shown that it is at least worth tak ing seriously.

Thirdly, there is the very seri ous question: can there be any meaningful freedom in the total absence of authority? We know that this is impossible in practical social living: every man requires that his government have at least enough authority to guarantee him a minimum of peace and se curity. Otherwise, to say that he is "free" can be true but pointless. The English archbishop, Thomas Cranmer, wrote that perfect free dom is found in the service of God. By this he meant, not least, that ultimately God will vindicate his servants despite· the presence of tyrants, such as the one who took Cranmer's life in 1556. Keep ing the phrase "under God" in the pledge of allegiance will not 3 Herman Dooyeweerd, In the Twilight of l'Vestern Thought (2nd ed.; Nutley, N. J.: Craig Press, 1965).

1966 EROSION OF THE MIND 9 do much for the religiousness of the children who recite it, but it just may keep the men who run and shape the government aware that finally they will not· be abso lute, but will have to answer to a higher Authority. Tyrannical au thority is destructive of freedom, but so is the absolute absence of authority. Authority to Criticize Freedom depends on authority and responsibility. As a Christian I do not insist that I have the only workable concept of authority and responsibility. I recognize and am glad that there are others, both in other religious traditions and out side of aU religious traditions, who also have a workable view of au thority and responsibility. But I contend tha t pure relativism, the totalitarian ·relativism of the kind exemplified above, is ultimately de structive of both, and, if allowed to spread unchecked and uncriti cized, will deprive people of the ability to think freely and to choose their own values and loyal ties, and will ultimately deliver them into the hands of a tyranny far more oppressive than the nar rowest kind of religious exclusive ness.

On the contrary, it is precisely from a position of well-informed commitment that mutual tolerance is possible. Much of the religious prejudice and persecution of past centuries resulted from the fact that people were· unsure of their own position, and afraid that it could not stand the challenge of a free clash of opinions. In the last few centuries, Christianity has again ·had to learn to stand on its own feet - as it did in its earliest centuries, unsupported by any government - and is stronger for the experience. No longer would any serious Christian demand that for his own sense of security all opposing views be broken down by force - yet that is precisely what the relativist does in the name of freedom. Freedom and Truth It is to obtain freedom that we are asked to become relativists. But ultimately freedom requires responsibility, which is just what relativism destroys. We live in a pluralistic society, and in a plural istic world;· we must recognize that it is neither right (nor prac tical) to attempt to impose any set of absolute values by force. But once we have given up the con viction that there are absolute values, then it is only a short step before we are unable to distin guish Heinrich Himmler from St. Francis. In a crowded world the only possibility for all to have freedom is for individuals to have integrity. The integrity of the in10 THE FREEMAN May dividual depends to a large extent on his commitment to truth. (Here and there a moral relativist can be found who nevertheless behaves with complete personal integrity.

But these are rare cases, what we might call happy inconsistencies.) The cry of the age, in America and throughout much of the world, is "Freedom Now!" Jesus said, ". . . the truth shall make you free." He spoke of himself, but also meant this: where there is no truth, ultimately there is no free dom. In the battle for the mind, we may safely dispute about what is true; but we must never cease to maintain that truth is, for with out it we cannot be free. A Countermeasure In opposition to this deadly drift, several things are neces sary: first it must be recognized that thereis a drift, a monolithic climate, which is slowly but relent lessly submerging intellectual and moral values without ever openly attacking them or proving them wrong. Second, one must be pre pared to criticize the assumptions of this intellectual climate, not ac cept them; by accepting them, the battle is lost before it is well be gun. Third, one must be prepared to have, in the words of Belloc, the courage of one's prejudices. It is without a doubt true that any firmly held position has elements of prejudice in it. However, as one noted Russian theologian says, "Anyone who says he is not preju diced is a liar." And that goes for "liberals" as well as for "conserva tives." Real freedom is possible when, and only when, men of dif ferent opinions can meet in mutu al respect - not when the motto is, "Let us all give up our convic tions, and build on a total absence of ideals." Quarreling about prin ciples may be unpleasant, but it is far healthier than having no prin ciples.

A Need to Re-examine Basic Principles and Premises In the continuing battle for the mind, which may be more crucial for America than the totalitarian threat from outside, we must rec ognize that the principles by which we think are being challenged. A nineteenth-century revolutionary song says, "Thoughts are free. No one can guess them." This is true in the twentieth century too but, if the present drift continues, we will be unable to think any thing but pale and lifeless thoughts which are not worth guessing. The only answer to this is to bring some basic principles out into the open again: Let the Prot estant and the Catholic challenge each other; the atheist, the be liever; and let each see for him1966 EROSION OF THE MIND 11 self - and let the other see whether he is a man of conviction, or merely a creature of habit. Such a course of action will pro duce some heat; it will produce some hurt feelings. It will produce some people who are shocked to learn that they really know nothSINCE FOUNDATIONS of human progress are laid in education, the future can be no more purposeful than the legacy of human values each generation leaves to the next.