Why Do Good Men Do Nothing?
July 14, 2006
By Wendy McElroy
Edmund Burke
 
Thoughts on the Cause of the Present Discontents
|
In his book Thoughts on the Cause of the Present Discontents (1770), the
British philosopher Edmund Burke wrote, "When bad men combine, the good
must associate; else they will fall one by one…" This sentiment has
survived as "All that is necessary for evil to succeed is that good men do
nothing."
Why do good men do nothing in the face of evil, especially when evil
aggressively invades their lives?
The question has red-hot relevance to those who value the tradition of
individual freedom into which America was born -- a tradition that includes
freedom of speech, the right to bear arms and to demand due process. These
traditional freedoms are crumbling under the wheels of run-away government.
Through dozens of 'alphabet agencies' -- the IRS, BATF, CPS, DHS, et al --
government aggression enters the lives of good men who do nothing to protect
themselves or their families.
Some people are paralyzed by fear; some by denial. But many others are
immobilized by an apathy that strips away the emotional will to act in
self-defense.
In psychological terms, apathy is a state of constant indifference that is
generally associated with depression. Apathy leaves an individual unresponsive
to the world and creates a disconnect between what he believes, how he feels
and which actions he takes. For example, a man might fully recognize that food
is necessary to life but, because he doesn't care, he doesn't eat.
Translated into political terms, he might realize that a gluttonous government
is feasting on his liberty, his wealth and even on his children's future but,
because he feels only numbness toward government, he doesn't act in
self-defense. He obeys even when the command is self-destructive.
The question of why people passively obey government has haunted the history of
political discourse. In 1552, Étienne de la Boétie addressed what he called the
most important problem confronting freedom: people consent to their own
enslavement. His analysis of 'why' resulted in the world's first book on
non-violent resistance, The Politics Of Obedience The Discourse Of Voluntary Servitude
Modern historians ask the same question. During the mass arrests of Stalinist
Russia, people reportedly slept in their clothing not in order to flee more
easily but in order to be fully dressed when seized. In Hitler's Europe, Jews
reported on their own to deportation centers and to their deaths. Why?
Part of the complex answer lies in what psychologists call 'object specific'
apathy. That is, a person's numbness is directed toward a specific situation
and may not be manifested in other areas of his life. The same man who is
passionate about music or his wife may feel impotent in the area of demanding
or even wanting his own freedom.
This response is a form of 'learned helplessness.' It is 'learned' because the
response comes from relentlessly teaching an individual that he has no control
over a situation and, so, his efforts are futile.
The original and now-famous experiment from which the term 'learned
helplessness' derives involved shocking dogs with electricity until they
developed the psychology of submission. When applied to human beings, 'learned
helplessness' is most often used to describe people who have been
institutionalized, for example, in prisons, mental institutions or orphanages.
There, the regimentation strips an individual of the smallest choice and
punishes the expression of preference. In time, many institutionalized people
accept the inevitability of their environment. Some of them lose all ability to
feel their own preferences.
The depth of learned helplessness that comes from being institutionalized is
rare. But most of us absorb a degree of this apathy through constant exposure
to a society that attempts to control almost every choice in daily life:
smoking, eating fast food, gun ownership, telling a rude joke at work, marriage
and divorce, boarding an airplane, medical care, banking…making a phone
call. It is difficult to find a choice that isn't scrutinized by bureaucracy
and covered by some form of government control. The message is clear:
Conformity is rewarded; the 'wrong' choices are punished or otherwise
discouraged. The public school system is just one example of what could be
called the institutionalizing or bureaucratizing of daily life.
The Castle
, a brilliant novel by Franz Kafka, offers a window into
what happens to the psychology of a man who confronts bureaucracy. Due a
mistake in paperwork, the main character K. is summoned to work in a village as
a surveyor but ends up as a janitor. The Castle is the summoning authority with
which K. must but cannot deal because he cannot contact the proper official.
K.'s long and agonizing exercise in futility reveals the impact that
bureaucracy has upon the human soul: it deadens.
K.'s error was to accept the authority of The Castle in the first place.
The foregoing observation contains good news: bureaucracy and authority require
consent. And, if that consent is learned behavior, then it can also be
unlearned.
Something within the human spirit seems to want to shake off destructive
programming. Call it a survival instinct. Perhaps it is the inbred urge
revealed by every two-year-old who yells 'no' over and over again for the
simple joy of exercising veto over his own life.
Adults need to recapture the childlike joy and power of saying 'no.' The words
most feared by those in authority are 'I won't.' Individuals with the habit of
obedience may need to start by saying 'no' on small matters like refusing to
fill in racial information on application forms. They may be shocked by how
difficult it is to say 'I won't' even to petty demands. But the difficulty is a
sign of how important it is. Only when a person is able to say 'no' can he say
'yes' and have the word mean more that the obedient response of a servant.
'Yes' is properly the affirmation of a free man.
Wendy
McElroy [send her mail] is the editor
of ifeminists.com and a research fellow
for The Independent Institute in Oakland,
Liberty
for Women: Freedom and Feminism in the 21st Century
Wendy
McElroy Archives
NOTE: In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. section 107, any copyrighted material herein is distributed without profit or payment to those who have expressed prior interest in receiving this information for non-profit research and educational purposes only. For further information please refer to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml
|
