Current page: 19 (book has 32 pages total) [available reading passage: 21 pages]
This syndrome is closest to the big picture N, as appears throughout our study. He follows the "classical" psychoanalytic model, which resolves the Oedipus complex in a sadomasochistic way and which Erich Fromm called the "sadomasochistic character" 14. According to Horkheimer’s theory, in the same work for the collection “Authority and the Family,” external social repression goes hand in hand with internal repression of sensory impulses. In order to achieve the “internalization” of social coercion, which always demands from the individual more than it gives him, his behavior in relation to authority and his psychological authority, the super-ego, takes on irrational features. An individual can only realize his own social adaptation if he likes obedience and submission; The sadomasochistic structure of desires is therefore both, both a condition and a result of social adaptation. In our public form both sadistic and masochistic tendencies find satisfaction. With the specific solution of the Oedipus complex, which determines the structure of the syndrome described here, such types of satisfaction turn into character traits. Mother's love in its original form falls under strict taboo; the ensuing hatred of the father is transformed through the formation of a reaction into love. This transformation causes special kind super-ego. It is never entirely possible to complete the most difficult task of an individual in his early development, namely, to turn hatred into love. In the psychodynamics of an “authoritarian” character, early aggressiveness is partially absorbed, transforming into masochism, partially it remains in the form of sadism, which seeks a breeding ground in those with which the individual does not identify himself, i.e. in an out-group. Often the Jew becomes a substitute for the hated father and in the imagination acquires the properties that caused resistance towards the father: sobriety, coldness, a desire to dominate, and even the properties of a sexual rival. Ambivalence is broad: it manifests itself primarily in both a blind faith in authority and a willingness to attack what appears weak and socially acceptable as a “victim.” Stereotyping in this syndrome is not only a means of social identification, but also has a real “economic function” in the individual’s own psyche: it helps to channel his libidinal energy in accordance with the requirements of the enhanced super-ego.
Thus, in the end, stereotyping itself largely acquires the features of libidinity and predominates in the individual’s internal budget. He develops, in part, very strong violent traits, which go back to the anal-sadistic phase of development. From a sociological point of view, this syndrome in Europe was more typical of the lower middle class; in America it can be expected among people whose real status deviates from the desired one. Here the “authoritarian” syndrome is clearly contrasted with the “conventional” one, which is characterized by social dissatisfaction and the absence of such conflicts; however, with regard to conformity, these syndromes have much in common.
Interview M352 starts like this:
(What are you happy with?) Well, I’m the first person - the shift foreman, we work in shifts... (the interviewee emphasizes his “leading” position) small departments, 5 people in each department - five people per shift - this satisfies me personally... that 5 people work for me, they come to me, ask for my advice in matters that relate to our production, and that the final decision is mine. The fact that the final decision is up to me, and I do it, and knowing that I do it right gives me personal satisfaction. What I earn for a living does not give me satisfaction. These are the things I mentioned, knowing that I am pleasing someone gives me satisfaction as well.
The denial of material satisfaction, a sign of a restrictive superego, is no less typical than the double satisfaction of commanding others and pleasing the boss oneself. His ambitions to improve his social status are expressed in overt identification of himself with those who surpass him in authority and rank.
(What would happen if you had more money?) This would raise our standard of living and allow us to buy a car. We could move to a more respectable residential area, have business and personal relationships with people higher up the social ladder, with the exception of some good friends with whom you are always friends. And we, of course, would meet people who are a step higher than us in education and have more experience. And if you get there and have connections with such people... then you yourself are raised to a higher level...
His religious beliefs are slightly coercive and more strong need in punishment:
I believe, exactly as it is written in the Bible, that there is a God - the world has not changed and he needed a savior, and he was born, lived, died, rose again, and one day will come again, and the man who lived according to his Christian faith, will live forever - and others will perish.
The apparent rigidity of conscience shows, however, strong traces of ambivalence: what is forbidden can be accepted if it does not lead to social conflict. A super-ego that is too frozen is not only not truly integrated, but also remains outside.
Adultery, as long as it is not discovered, is normal, but if it is discovered, then it is a disorder, but since so many people do it dear people, then this is apparently normal.
Almost identical to the superficial superego, the ideal-ego, as Freud originally called it, is his concept of God, which carries within itself all the features of a strong but “helpful” father:
Well, if you look deeper, everyone has special ideas: maybe they call him God or not, in any case, this is the ideal by which they live and which they want to be like... Pagans and all other people have some kind of a religion that they believe in, that it does something for them, that it can help them.
What this interviewee reports about his childhood confirms the genetic relationship between the “authoritarian” syndrome and the sadomasochistic solution of the Oedipus complex:
Yes, my father was very a strict person. He was not pious, but he was strict in raising us children. His word was law, and if he was not obeyed, then punishment followed. When I was 12 years old, my father beat me almost every day because I took tools out of the drawer and did not put them back... Finally, he made me understand that these things cost money and I should learn to put them back in their place...
(He explained that he was beaten every day because of his inattention, as his father told him, and that after several weeks he did not touch the instrument at all, since “I simply could not put all the instruments back together”)... But, do you know, I never blamed my father for this - I myself was to blame. He gave his orders, and if I did not follow them, I was punished, but never in anger. My father was a good man– there is no doubt about it. He was always interested in what we did... My father was a very sociable person. He left home somewhere almost every day. He always worked on some committee - a very sociable person, everyone liked him... He took care of us. We always had everything we needed, but no unnecessary luxuries. He didn't like unusual things. My father thought they were a luxury, he considered them unnecessary... Yes, he was quite strict. (Which parent were you closer to?) I think to my father. Although he beat me half to death, I could talk to him about everything... (The interviewee emphasizes that his father was honest towards every person and also towards him.)
This interviewee was broken by a father who tried too hard to “subdue” him, and it is this fact that defines his anti-Semitism. He, along with admiration for brutal violence, accuses the Jews of ruthlessness in practical life.
Jews seem to benefit from the modern situation. Now they are going to bring these Jews from Europe; they seem to all stick together, and they can apparently accumulate capital. They are a peculiar people - unscrupulous, except in financial matters. (The interviewee obviously means here dishonesty in money matters, although, probably, in other matters as well.) If you stop them from making money, your back will be against the wall.
Here the immutability with which the Jews are viewed and which already appears in the “conventional” syndrome is expressed almost absolutely and exclusively with a thirst for revenge:
For me, a Jew is the same kind of stranger, the same kind, as, for example, a Filipino. You pay attention to them. They celebrate all these different holidays, which are completely alien to me and which they adhere to... They will never become real Americans... (What would it be like if there were less prejudice against Jews?) I don't know, I can't help it. I think Jews have to be the way they are - they can't change - a kind of instinct that will never go away. They will always remain thoroughly Jewish. (What should be done?) They are able to seize power - well, so we have to stop them... maybe it would be necessary to pass laws that would prevent them from doing this.
Here too, the authoritarian idea occupies a central place: Jews are a threat, usurpers of “power.”
The next and final characteristic of the authoritarian syndrome is the psychological equivalent of the “no compassion for the poor” way of thinking, which is discussed in Chapter II. An “authoritarian,” who identifies himself with power, simultaneously rejects everything that is “below.” Even where social conditions can be recognized as the cause of the plight of a group, he resorts to a trick and falsifies the situation, turning it into something deserving of punishment: this is accompanied by moralistic caustic speeches, signs of the categorical suppression of his own instincts.
The interviewee further emphasized that blacks and whites must be separated so that they definitely have chances and “so as not to bypass the problem,” as he put it. He pointed out that venereal diseases are common among blacks, which come from low morality, and when asked about other reasons, he explained this by “unsatisfactory living conditions” and tried to explain what was difficult for him, what he had in mind. The conditions lead to a lack of restraint and respect for the private sphere of life - they are all so cramped - and “lose the sense of distance” that should be between people, etc.
Strong emphasis on “distance”, fear of “closeness” physical contact" can be interpreted in the sense of our thesis that in this syndrome, the division between in-group and out-group absorbs a huge amount of spiritual energy. For individuals of this type, identification with the family and subsequently with their entire group is a necessary mechanism for imposing authoritarian discipline on themselves and avoiding the temptation of the “outburst of anger”, which, due to their inherent ambivalence, constantly finds a new niche in them.
4. Rebel and psychopathThe solution to the Oedipus complex, characteristic of the “authoritarian syndrome,” is not the only thing that favors character structure N. Instead of identifying with paternal authority, the individual may “rebel” against him. IN certain cases then sadomasochistic tendencies disappear. However, it is also possible for a revolt to occur in which the authoritarian structure remains largely unaffected 15 . So, for example, the hated paternal authority can be eliminated simply by the fact that another has taken his place; this process is facilitated by the “superficial” structure of the superego, which is characteristic of all prejudiced people. Or the masochistic transference to authority is held in the area of the unconscious, and the opposition takes place on a demonstrative level. This can lead to an irrational and blind hatred against “any” authority, mixed with strong destructive accents, coupled with a secret readiness to “surrender” and capable of uniting with hated “stronger individuals.” This reaction is difficult to distinguish from a truly non-authoritarian one; for a reason purely psychological criteria differentiation is almost impossible. Here, as in other cases, only social and political behavior is important, by which it is determined whether a person is truly independent or whether his dependence has been replaced by a negative transference.
For the type we call a “rebel,” the negative transference of dependence is associated with the desire, in a pseudo-revolutionary way, to oppose those who, in his eyes, are weak. This syndrome played a major role in National Socialist Germany: Rem, who in his autobiography called himself “ state criminal and a traitor" is a great example of this. Here we also meet the "condottiere", whom we include here according to the typology developed by the Institute of Social Research in 1939, and who was described as follows:
This type appeared in connection with the growing uncertainty in the post-war years. He is convinced that the main thing is not life, but chance. He is a nihilist, but not because of a destructive desire for destruction, but because life individual person he doesn't care. The mass of modern unemployed is one of the sources from which this type emerges. He differs from the former unemployed in that his contact with the field of production, if it exists at all, is sporadic. Such unemployed individuals can no longer count on the job market to regularly provide them with work. From a young age, they tried to work where they could get something. They tend to hate Jews because, in their opinion, they are too cautious and physically weak. On the other hand, being unemployed and deprived of economic roots, they are unusually receptive to any propaganda and are therefore ready to follow any Fuhrer. Another source is at the opposite pole of society: a group of dangerous professions, adventurers in the colonies, racers, ace pilots. They are born leaders, leaders for the first group. Their ideal is essentially a heroic one, which is more sensitive to the "corrupting" critical intelligence of the Jews. Moreover, they themselves are not convinced in their hearts of this ideal, which they erected only in order to rationalize their dangerous way of life 16.
The characteristic symptoms of this syndrome include, first of all, a tendency to “tolerant” excesses: from excessive drunkenness and open homosexuality, which is passed off as admiration for youth, to readiness for violent acts like a putsch. Interviewees of this type less rigid than orthodox “authorities”.
The extreme representative of this syndrome is the “hooligan”, in psychiatry terminology “psychopath”. His super-ego seems completely unviable as a result of the consequences of the Oedipus complex. He resolves it through regression of omnipotential fantasies early childhood. Among all the subjects tested, these are the most “infantile”; their development has completely failed, civilization has not been able to shape them in the slightest. They are antisocial. Destructive instincts also manifest themselves undisguised and recklessly. Physical strength and good health, as well as the ability to endure hardships, are the predominant factors. The dividing line with criminals is blurred. Their desire to torture is directed brutally and sadistically at each helpless victim; this desire is nonspecific and bears almost no traces of “prejudice.” Here we meet tramps and bullies, street hooligans and executioners, and all those “who share the dirty work” of the fascist movement.
In his detailed case study of the Rebel without a Cause, 17 Robert M. Lindner offers a dynamic interpretation of the "bully" in which he defines the type's kinship with the "rebel" and with the "authoritarian." Lindner says:
A psychopath is not only a criminal; he is a born fascist. He is a disinherited, deceived enemy... whose aggressiveness can be mobilized at the moment when he is offered a well-targeted and frustrating slogan by that Fuehrer, under whose tinsel sign, licentiousness becomes law; hidden and primitive desires become cheaply acquired virtuous ambitions, and instinctive reactions, always considered as deserving of punishment, become the order of the day.
The psychopath is described as a "rebel", a religious fanatic who violates prevailing norms and laws, main feature whose unwillingness to wait and who is unable to postpone the pleasure of satisfaction. Its failure allows us to conclude that, despite the pent-up “need to mean something,” along with failed education super-ego, the formation of the ego also did not take place. Regarding the masochistic component, we will quote Lindner once again:
The fact that a psychopath is tormented by feelings of guilt and that he is literally words are looking for punishment, the author has observed countless times. This unusual circumstance is best explained by the situation with Oedipus. Since he is cut off from a satisfactory post-Oedipal adaptation and is constantly haunted by fantasies of incest and parricide, he can only reduce his feelings of increasing guilt through punishment. “I have sinned against my father and must be “punished”” is the unspoken motive of psychopathic behavior, and for this reason psychopaths often commit crimes that are never motivated by the desire to get rich. They marry prostitutes or if we're talking about about women who sell their charms in an attempt to punish themselves. That such actions are a form of "neurotic profit" must also be taken into account. The fact that punishment is sought, received, and consented to is not all: they obtain through punishment directly narcissistic “gain” as a surrogate for the original desire. All this, of course, happens in the subconscious and cannot be directly proven, but can always be perceived.
There are examples of the psychopathic rebel among the San Quentin subjects. First of all we mean M658, psychopath Floyd, and M662A, bully Eugene, which are described in detail in the subsequent chapter 18. If the traits we are exploring here are not so clearly evident there, it is worth recalling that in the San Quentin case study we were not so much interested in psychological subgroups among N And N, how many are our common variables? In addition, the situation of the prisoner must be taken into account; it prevents the defining characteristics of a psychopath from emerging. After all, he is not psychopathic, but behaves in a certain sense in a very “realistic” way.
Moreover, he, “who lives in the moment” and who lacks a self-identity, is able to successfully adapt to the given situation: in an interview he will not directly display behavior that would reveal his “hooliganism.” Moreover, this can be inferred from indirect, mainly certain linguistic habits, such as, for example, from the repeated mention of physical strength. The two interviews from San Quentin should be read with such indicators in mind. There is no doubt that the bully syndrome is very widespread, especially on the periphery of society, and that it has great importance for an extremely sinister aspect of fascist potential.
5. "Dreamer""Authoritarian" syndrome can be defined as frustration in in a broad sense words, since the introjection of paternal discipline means the constant suppression of the id. But there seems to be a structure in which frustration does absolutely specific function. It occurs in individuals who have failed to adapt to their environment, to master the “principle of reality” and who, so to speak, are unable to compensate for satisfaction with refusal. Their inner life determined by failures due to their own inadequacy, which were placed on them by their environment in childhood and in later life. These people were driven into isolation. They are forced to create their own internal, often bordering on mania, illusory world, which they emphatically contrast with reality. They can only exist if they elevate themselves and passionately reject the outside world. Their “soul” becomes their most precious possession. At the same time, they are very projective and distrustful. The affinity with psychosis cannot be overlooked; they are paranoid. For them, prejudice is vitally important: it is their means of avoiding the acute form of mental illness through collectivization. With its help, they construct a pseudo-reality against which they can direct their aggressiveness without openly violating the “reality principle.” Stereotyping has crucial: it functions, so to speak, as a social confirmation of its projective formulas and is therefore institutionalized to a degree that often approaches religious faith. This syndrome occurs in women and older men, who are further isolated by their exclusion from productive activities. These include those who belong to the war widows' organization and, even in times of waning racial propaganda, tireless supporters of the agitators. The often overused expression "fanatical adherents" has some justification here; the commitment of these people has reached the stage of fanaticism. In order to mutually confirm to each other their pseudo-reality, they unite in sects, which often propagate (in accordance with their projective concept of an eternally harmful Jew who destroys the purity of nature) something from “nature” as universal remedy. Ideas of conspiracy play a role in this big role; they do not hesitate to accuse the Jews of seeking world domination and firmly believe in the existence of the Elders of Zion. Unfinished education, magical belief in natural sciences that makes them ideal supporters racial theories, - all this is characteristic social characteristics. They can hardly be found higher a certain level education, as well as among workers. F124
- This is a woman, about fifty years old, tall, strong build, with sharp facial features, bulging gray-blue eyes, a sharp nose, and thin straight lips. Her behavior should make an impression.
In this desire to impress lie pathological feelings of inner superiority, as if she belongs to a secret order, but is surrounded by people whose names she does not want to name, since from this one can draw too vulgar and risky conclusions and they could be disseminated further:
She doesn't care about her colleagues. Some of them have all sorts of academic titles, but they lack common sense. She would not like to name names, but she still wants to tell what is happening there. Many people do nothing else all day but chat with each other. She can't bring herself to say more than a few words to her colleagues. She speaks about them only with contempt, she feels noble that she is superior to them... They don’t know her at all - they really don’t know her - with this she wants to hint that she is something very special, that she could show them her talent, but not wants.
She cares about her internal rank and, as far as possible, external status, which is expressed in an excessive emphasis on “connections” and acquaintances, from which one can conclude that there is a mania for connections.
She was governess to President X and the President's sons Y, first with the older one, then with the younger one. With Mrs. Y she spoke on the phone when she was just in the White House and when the 3rd child was born. Her sister worked for S, who later became governor of a state in the southwest.
Her “inner” pseudo-world, her half-education and pseudo-intelligence are characterized by the following statement:
She reads a lot - only “ good books”, attended school in her hometown in Texas until the seventh grade. She draws and writes, and learned to play an instrument. But I didn’t show the picture I drew at school to anyone. She depicted two mountains, between them the sun illuminating a valley in which the fog was just rising. It just “came” to her, although she never learned it. It was really beautiful. She also writes stories. When her husband died, she began to write, instead of, as other women do, chasing men. One of her stories was a fantasy about Mary Pickford. This would have been just the role for her, but, of course, she never showed it to anyone. She called her "Little May and O'June"; it occurred to her during a picnic with her children. Love story about little May (girl) and O'Jun (boy). According to her, her daughter is also very gifted. One artist... who painted Texas cornflower - “ state symbol“, you know, I saw her daughter’s work and said: “You have a little genius.” He wanted to give his daughter lessons, but she refused them and said: “No, mom, he will ruin my style; I know what I should draw, what I want to draw.”
In racial matters, her hatred exhibits a paranoid tendency that cannot be stopped - in principle, she shows a desire to condemn every group that comes into her mind, and she hesitates to limit herself to only her preferred enemies.
She believes that “the Japs, the Jews and the Negroes must disappear, go back to where they came from”... “Of course, the Italians should also return to where their homeland is, in Italy, but in the end there are three main groups that do not belong here, these are Japs, Jews and blacks.”
Her anti-Semitism bears clear features of projection, false “blood” mystification and sexual envy. The following passage clearly reveals her attitude:
“Jews feel superior to non-Jews. They do not want to taint their blood by mixing with non-Jews. They want to bleed us financially and use our women as mistresses, but they will not marry them. And they want to leave their own women virgins. Family Y I talked a lot with Jews. I don't know if it was because of the money or something else. That's why I didn't choose the second time Y. I saw too many fat Jewish women and Jews with hooked noses in their house. Of course, I also heard that President Roosevelt’s mother was also of Jewish descent.” She left the family IN because they were Jews. They had a house like a palace, they wanted me to stay. They said, “We knew it would be too good to happen”... when she left.
The similarity between the views of this subject and certain crazy religious movements, which are based on the desire to hear, is striking. inner voices”, providing both moral reassurance and gloomy advice.
The Catholics were great to her and she admired them, but she wouldn't go to their church. Something in her says no. (She expresses her refusal with gestures.) She has her own religion. One day, when she was walking early in the morning and raised her hands and face to the sky, they became wet... (She views this as a supernatural event.)
Types of varnishes for wood.
Burno M.E.
ContinuationIntense authoritarian character (epileptoid)
Anthropologist Ya.Ya. Roginsky (1977) derives from the still primitive need to fight “hostile forces outside world”, along with other “age-old character types”, the strong-willed type of “hunter-warrior”, corresponding to our intense authoritarian character.
This personality type, which in appearance resembles an epileptic one, in its psychopathic severity (epileptoid psychopath, or epileptoid) is visibly, classically described in detail by F. Minkowska (1923, 1935) and P.B. Gannushkin (1933).
The essence of a tensely authoritarian (epileptoid) radical is in realistic authoritarianism, manifested by straightforwardly aggressive, self-loving thinking, feeling and actions. The mental tension of such a person is truly softened only by some kind of realization, the implementation of his original authoritarianism, and it would be good if this realization occurred for the benefit of society.
Straightforwardness of thinking and feeling is always more or less aggressive and aggressiveness is always straightforward. An anxious-doubting person is not aggressive. He constantly doubts excitedly, examines his thoughts and feelings from the outside - does he think and feel this way, in accordance with the different circumstances of life? Anxious doubts search through the back streets for the truth, discover that precious thing that the untroubled, straightforward in their thinking passed by on the straight road. However, a doubter is bad in those matters where it is harmful to think or philosophize: while driving a car, at a complex remote control, in a criminal capture group, or being a prison guard or leader complex team, commander, soldier in a combat trench, etc.
A straightforward person is usually confident (even overconfident) in his rightness and victory, thorough and solid, ponderous and clear, suppressing and convincing those who disagree with his authority. Such a person can sometimes even seem outwardly to be quite alive in his thoughts, but, looking closely, we will notice that he thinks (often with an excellent memory) still within a fairly straightforward, albeit complex, detailed framework. Without symbolism and realistic ambiguity as if in Latin, in the language of tense authoritarian Ancient Rome. Or is it the earthy, vigorous, sarcastic, authoritarian language of Saltykov-Shchedrin, Rozanov. At one time, the dogmatic words of the epileptoid Stalin weighed heavily, weightily, and impressively on people.
Due to straightforwardness and authoritarianism, such a person often does not ask the person he is talking to (for example, on the street) if he has time to talk, and becomes angrily offended when the interlocutor is in a hurry. Even those of the intensely authoritarian type who are somewhat insecure often become angry and embittered when they turn out to be wrong, at those who discover their wrongness. They strive for power and only with it do they treat their feelings of inferiority. In general, anger-tension, breaking out from time to time in aggressive outbursts, is constantly (stronger or weaker) present in the soul of a tense authoritarian person (especially an epileptoid). Vulnerable, sensitive people often feel bad around such a person: either fear or acute self-doubt arises in their souls, or they involuntarily want to obey such a person in order to soften, appease him, or protest-indignation arises because they are putting authoritarian pressure on you.
The constant mental tension of an epileptoid, especially an elderly one, is at the same time a harmful tension-load on his blood vessels. He must certainly relax with some satisfaction of his authoritarianism (if only in the name of Good!) or at least with outbursts of indignation at his family (not seriously affecting his career) in order to feel better both mentally and physically (for example, so as not to get a stroke ). In this regard, life with an epileptoid is a test for his loved ones. And when he is a pensioner, who has lost power and is already weakened physically, when all he has left in his memories is to scold others and praise himself (no matter what he talks about) it is necessary for those close to him, if possible, to be patient, to listen to all this, so that everyone does not feel worse. Maybe even sincerely sympathize with him (if possible) when he is angry, for example, at drunk people, lovers, kissing for a long time on a trolleybus.
The fear of losing at least some power makes a tense authoritarian person seriously suspicious, and this straightforward suspicion (jealousy, thoughts of danger, etc.) is a conviction of something that does not actually exist, and in psychopathic cases it is painful. It seems that it is epileptoids, with their particularly high tendency towards intense suspicion and overvalued ideas in general (including invention), that make up a well-known group of paranoid psychopaths (paranoids).
Straightforward mental defense also explains the ability, with conviction in one’s rightness, in victory, to think “past” what is unpleasant, traumatic and look “through” one’s opponent or also “past” (as if not seeing him), so as not to be wounded by this meeting.
Some intensely authoritarian people are trusting in their own way and tend to change their attitude towards events and people depending on external circumstances and under the influence of their powerful drives. More often, however, all these circumstances causing change here appease authoritarianism.
Angry-aggressiveness here usually softens in old age (especially weakening with sclerosis and alcoholism, which give rise to complacency), but suspicion and stinginess can increase in old age, like Plyushkin.
Like the sanguine person, the intensely authoritarian person is sensual, but with an aggressive sensuality (sometimes with moments of sadism and vindictiveness). With the gloomy authoritarian solidity of the coachmen drinking tea in Kustodiev’s painting “Moscow Tavern”, one of the tensely authoritarian ones can sit at the table. Others taste the food with delight and sweetness. Still others eat in their own noble and businesslike way. But we will not find here a living, sanguine naturalness that infects us with an appetite.
Sexual attraction here is powerful and aggressively intense. Some intensely authoritarian people may be overwhelmed by a passion for sexual variety and cynically and straightforwardly justify this by caring for their health. Others are natural monogamists, like wolves. Such a person is sometimes so helplessly dependent on his wife for his release from acute, heavy sexual tension that he cannot even lay a finger on her, he lies pathetically at her feet, begging for intimacy, endures all her infidelities, thus allowing himself to be twisted into ropes . Unless he suddenly kills his wife or maims him, exhausted.
These people are often distinguished by their powerful will to the point of turning green or graying of their skin. At the same time, some epileptoids with a “hare soul”, despite all the external aggressiveness and tension, cannot help but restrain themselves and therefore are organically incapable of raising a hand against someone in ordinary (non-combat) life.
Fulfilling your desire for power here is the meaning of life, the main joy. And in this regard, the intensely authoritarian (epileptoid) fights for power in the broad sense, in whatever profession or position it is necessary to do so - power in science, in literature, in art, the power of wealth (like Pushkin’s Miserly Knight), etc. d.
The struggle for justice, characteristic of intensely authoritarian (epileptoids), can take place both in the position of an accountant and in some election commission, but here, as usual, with the intensity of a warrior. If such a person is being treated for alcoholism, then he often becomes a fierce fighter for sobriety, which makes, for example, his moderately drinking relatives cry. But somehow, for his well-being and happiness, such a person must feel his power.
While fighting in battle or peaceful life, limited by his straightforwardness, overwhelmed by aggressiveness, he simply does not think at this time about danger, about death. Being an authoritarian-straightforward realist, he is able to straightforwardly not think for a long time that death has anything to do with him. When he is reminded of her, he will say: “Why remember the bad? It will come on its own." Or he passionately and straightforwardly, with the same super-conviction, believes in God and an eternal paradise for himself after death.
The “voice of blood” is often imbued with aggressiveness, vindictiveness, and a penchant for blood feud. An assertive warrior, often of athletic build, he truly respects only the strong. An immoral epileptoid simply needs to show strength, like a shepherd dog, so that he begins to respect you and serve you faithfully. Many epileptoid women (often beautiful with the intense, hypnotizing beauty of lionesses and witches) cannot stand soft-bodied, intelligent men who are not capable of taking them by force.
And many tensely authoritarians also want to have a muscular, domineering, strict God-protector in order to slavishly worship him, feeling like a master over his slaves. But with God, philosophy and his earthly superiors he is able to justify his crimes (for example, this is better for the state). A true warrior, when shooting down an enemy plane, does not directly think about who is in it - the enemy, and that's all. And the warrior pilot does not think straightforwardly about those on whom the bomb will fall, it is necessary to fulfill the assigned combat mission, and that's it.
Many moral epileptoids are characterized by high honesty, conscientiousness, diligence, “kind” “boyar” conservatism, “Cossack” devotion to Good.
For the sake of satisfying their powerful desires, many immoral people of this type are ready to serve any government, and moral ones become true selfless, not false fighters for justice. After all, we call moral those who want the same good for other people as they want for themselves, that is, good in their own understanding.
The straightforwardness of thinking and feeling can, of course, introduce a lot of complexity here into the question of the morality of the intensely authoritarian. Thus, good “boyar” conservatism is not always good. Or, for example, such a person cares with all his heart about the daughter of his deceased brother, not allowing her to marry a person he does not like. “Yes, they feel good together now,” he reasons. But this won’t last long, I’m convinced. And I am responsible for her to my brother.” And he, perhaps, sincerely would like to be treated in the same way if he were in this girl’s place. Or in hard time brings guests home for dinner, without noticing that his wife is hungry because of them, etc.
People who are not indifferent to power are often drawn to historical reading. It’s about exactly who and how took and lost power, and often these are people who are similar in nature to them.
Tension with the desire for power, a special interest in military events are seen in the paintings of Surikov and Vereshchagin. Often a tensely authoritarian artist is a master of aggressive tension or refined naturalism (like Shilov).
Those who receive high pleasure from power are usually not capable of detailed, spiritual delving into themselves, into complex human relationships. But, of course, everyone has their own special path in life, and it is important to feel its surface under your feet in more detail.
Immoral epileptoids (tensely authoritarian) usually reveal themselves as a beautiful mask of various sugary diminutive words with lackey-servile behavior, behind which they hide their immoral nature. All this is directly related to the refined, so-called oriental cunning. But noble moral epileptoids (intensely authoritarian) should be helped in every possible way in their sometimes difficult relationships with people, at least to hide, if possible, their obvious authoritarianism and power, at least to pretend that you listen to other people, value their opinion, etc. in order to rise even higher in life.
Anxious and doubtful character (psychasthenic)
Detailed clinical descriptions of this personality type in its painful intensity (psychasthenic, psychasthenic psychopath from psychastenia (mental weakness, from Greek), descriptions that remarkably complement and deepen one another, were made by P. Janet (1903, 1911), S.A. Sukhanov (1905, 1912), P. B. Gannushkin (1907, 1933), I. P. Pavlov (1935).
The creature of an anxious-doubting (psychasthenic) radical caused by natural, original anxiety-defensiveness, coupled with sensual witheredness-fading and the dominance of realistic analytical work thoughts, anxious and painful uncertainty about one’s rather realistic-earthly feelings, especially under circumstances when these feelings are accepted, should somehow be naturally revealed (in a conversation with an unfamiliar person, in an atmosphere of a joyful or sad event, etc.).
Defensiveness (defenso to defend, Latin) a concept that is opposite in content to the concept of “aggression”. This is the experience of one’s inferiority, reflected in timidity, shyness, shyness, indecision, anxious suspiciousness, cowardice, a tendency to doubt, self-doubt, and, finally, all this is imbued with vulnerable pride. Defensiveness is also characteristic of people of a different type (for example, defensive sanguine people, many withdrawn people), but among anxious-doubting people (psychasthenics) it is also clouded from within by a depersonalization* experience of the unnaturalness of their feelings, uncertainty in their feelings with attempts at a more or less detailed anxious analysis what's happening.
This alarming dominance of thought (analysis) over feeling (direct sensory experience) is reflected in the fact that such a person, in communication with people who are not closest to him, with a feeling of his unnaturalness and anxiety about this, constantly uncertainly examines and ponders his emotional attitude towards them , trying to help myself feel. The interlocutor may notice some alarming confusion or absence in his eyes (absorbed in his thoughts, absent-mindedness, looking “through” people). For this reason, it is often easier for a psychasthenic to write a letter to a person than to meet with him.
The natural meaning of this soft depersonalization is to protect the sensitive soul from the touches of reality that hurt it. In any case, if some misfortune happens (death loved one, a threat to one’s own life), Nature helps by turning off the ability to be acutely anxious and worried in deepening depersonalization. But in mild anxious depersonalization, when communicating with people, organizing, for example, some meetings, such a person will often absent-mindedly miss something or say the wrong thing, not thank someone and then he is severely tormented by these omissions and tries to prepare for similar tests with preliminary notes on points.
And it happens that, with all his moral scrupulousness, anxious conscientiousness in observing laws and instructions, an anxious-doubting person (psychasthenic) suddenly absent-mindedly crosses the line of what is permitted. Sometimes this is possible not because of absent-mindedness, but because of spiritual courage that flares up in a tormented conscience.
Alone with yourself, with books, in creativity in your room or in communication with those closest to you, the feeling of your own emotional change (more often this is an alarming mental numbness) weakens and lets go, so that soon, depending on the circumstances, it reappears.
Anxious concentration on thoughts about elusive immediate feelings often explains the lack of composure and everyday absent-mindedness of these people. Defensiveness, loaded with detailed analytical reflection, woven from doubts, reveals itself as complex moral and ethical experiences with the usual painful self-accusation.
Thus, an anxious-doubting person (psychasthenic) is not simply an insensitive person. He is capable of acute hunger, but satisfies his hunger without spicy, heady gourmet or sexually erotic details. The sensuality here is not artistic or sharp enough for a person to go crazy in sensual intimacy. It is possible for him to often even exploratively observe at this time the sluggish manifestations of his sensuality, in which it is impossible to forget himself. But the often-frequent Chekhovian tenderness and lyricism of the spiritualized anxious-doubting (psychasthenic) can drive the most sensual, easily constricted women crazy.
Spiritually shy, hidden tenderness and lyricism is also characteristic of many psychasthenic women.
Anxious-doubting (psychasthenic) a person not with direct-sensual, but with mental (dull, realistic-analytical) emotionality, defensiveness, experiencing in relation to another person precisely at a distance (remembering the past or imagining the future) a much more integral feeling than in direct communication. It is difficult for him without a genuine practical instinct, a sensual grasp, to intuitively evaluate another person and therefore he carefully thinks and analyzes him, “sorting him out into pieces.”
He can be a great actor or director, but even then he “lays things out on the shelves,” like Stanislavsky, for the amusement of spontaneous, sensual actors who live primarily with their hearts. Other famous anxious-doubting (psychasthenic) people who show us their character (radical) in their creativity are Baratynsky, Belinsky, Darwin, Chekhov, Pavlov, Monet, rich not in sensuality, but in reflective spirituality.
Not being practical enough, such a person must cultivate in himself a readiness to act, to overcome his laziness in the complex work of dreams. It happens that an anxious-doubting person (psychasthenic) loves his sick dog, but still won’t take it to the veterinarian (he’s lazy). A psychasthenic who is disorganized by nature (anxious and doubtful) needs to live according to a schedule, in a routine, rejoicing in the fact that he has completed at least two-thirds of the schedule.
Impracticality, largely due to inertia-slowness, reveals itself in the fact that an anxious-doubting person does not offer to help a woman he knows with a heavy bag in time, does not remember to say a kind word in time to someone who needs it, followed by internal repentance. And here, too, he has no choice but to train himself in advance to be ready to act, so as not to be tormented by remorse later.
Many of these people, especially in their youth, are capable of overcompensating so much (wittingly or unwittingly showing their opposite in their behavior) that they are considered overconfident, “frantic.” But all this is “impudence from shyness”, ready at any moment, depending on the circumstances, to crumble into pathetic self-recrimination.
Overcompensation of self-doubt here is often expressed in sometimes excessive categoricalness and a teacher’s (mentor’s) tone, despite the ability, however, to look at it all self-critically.
From sensory poverty, depersonalization, many anxious-doubting people (psychasthenics), living in a depersonalization fog primarily with their anxious doubts (doubt mental work, in contrast to anxious suspiciousness, that is, the tendency mainly to exaggerate danger by feeling), do not remember in sufficient detail bright events that happen to them in life. For example, the face, the appearance of a person, the taste of a pie that he praised so much because it really was delicious is not remembered. The feeling of falling in love with the inflamed brightness of the world around is forgotten, as if something painful and unreal had passed. Apparently, a sufficiently strong everyday sensuality is necessary to remember in detail previous particularly vivid sensory experiences when one was “choked” by feelings. Otherwise, what remains from life is the piercingly sad feeling of Chekhov’s eighty-year-old Firs: “Life has passed as if you had never lived...” In order to avoid this, if possible, you should write down more, photograph, draw your life, the days of your joy, so that creatively more vividly imprint them on the soul and so that, while re-reading the diary, looking at the albums, one can revive in oneself that emotional, sensual thing that was, after all, was.
But everyday grievances, personal insults, someone’s attempts to violate spiritual freedom, so easily forgotten (repressed from consciousness) by many sensual people, sit like splinters in the vulnerable soul of an anxious-doubting person (psychasthenic) until death, without any recording. A man with such a character usually seeks with people, first of all, spiritual, ideological, personal consonance and is not able to love a woman for a long time with only his sluggish sensual sensations. For this reason, he can love much more strongly a non-relative person who is spiritually in tune with him, or even a dog who is in tune with his shyness, than a discordant close relative (a weak “voice of blood”, unlike, for example, a sanguine person).
The main thing in the experiences of an anxious-doubting person (psychasthenic), if he is sufficiently complex, is subtle moral and ethical motives, service (including scientific) to Good. This is what really worries him, and this is what he remembers in detail with his very average (not sensory, not mechanical) memory. She doesn't keep any details to herself. family novels, nor detective incidents, but preserves much of the creativity of the above-mentioned consonant anxious-doubting (psychasthenic) artists and scientists, as well as from the creativity of the psychasthenic-like epileptics Dostoevsky and Tolstoy, consonant with the anxious-doubting (psychasthenic) with their psychasthenic side.
Impracticality in a broad sense (derived, first of all, from weak sensuality) is expressed here in the fact that an anxious-doubting person (psychasthenic) will not calculate the time for travel, buy more in stores than he can carry, buy clothes of the wrong size, plan more tasks than he can complete, he is poorly oriented visually and geographically. Due to absent-mindedness, he loses too much time looking for some thing or paper.
An anxious and doubtful person (psychasthenic), a realist by nature, little capable of religious experiences, usually does not live in sensual joys, not in organizational affairs, not in struggle, not in the sweetness of power. He is able to be content with little in life, but he wants to do some of his own, feasible, noble and moral work for people. Or the woman is ready to help her husband do this.
It is important, however, to know that you are fulfilling your duty, to somehow serve Good. This is what the worldview here is based on. If it is not possible to do this, then the person suffers. Seized by an initial reflective anxiety, he is afraid of terrible illnesses, death, and madness because it is terrible for him not to fulfill his life duty of Good in some more or less complete form.
Autonomic instability (palpitations, headaches from vascular spasms, empty belching, etc.), which is congenital here, as in other defensive people, osteochondrosis sensations, pain, hemorrhoids and other chronic, usually not dangerous, troubles to which defensive people are so predisposed people all this constitutes a rich, lush soil for anxious-hypochondriacal experiences (worries about terrible diseases that actually do not exist).
Reflective anxiety and weak, withered sensuality, lack of rich sensual life experience prevent you from soberly feeling the improbability of trouble and cause here almost constant anxious doubts about even the tiniest malfunctions in the body. These malfunctions (for example, muscle pain, abscess, heartburn) are often perceived with fear and anxiety as something malignant, as a possible “beginning of the end.” “All my life I feel like I’ve been walking around minefield“,” one psychasthenic said about similar hypochondriacal experiences. At the same time, it is known that this kind of mentally suffering hypochondriacs, who examine their bodies every day (including with a magnifying glass), immerse themselves in medical reference books, bore doctors with questions, and often live to a ripe old age (Grushevsky, 1994).
An anxious-doubting (psychasthenic) person is unable not to think about the bad, about what he doesn’t want to think about. He always anxiously knows that in any case someday he will become seriously ill and someday (and maybe soon!) he will die. His mental defense, which is activated in situations of danger to life, well-being, is precisely depersonalization: numbness of the soul with the inability to acutely experience and with a clear understanding of what is happening. Immortality for him is real life after death in the memory of loved ones and, perhaps, unknown, but spiritually consonant people, through his deeds, which he strives to more or less complete in his life. I would like to remain in my memory and conversations exactly as I lived, and not in the form of a “faceless ghost.” Even if this immortality will not be as long as that of Shakespeare or Homer, he is ready to be content with little: just so as not to die immediately, along with his body. Akhmatova believed that the non-religious Chekhov was incompatible with poetry, apparently because, as is known, she understood and felt all poetry as a Divine sound, a quotation from the Lord.
The vegetative instability noted above is usually associated with the so-called irritable weakness (exhausting irritability), which manifests itself either in insomnia, then in a painful feeling of fatigue, in laziness, or in capricious impatience.
Reflective self-doubt is also expressed in “sluggish-unconfident” body shapes with a tendency to a narrow (leptosomal from leptos narrow, Greek) build with some awkwardness. It is also expressed by a mild awkwardness of body movements and a frequent dislike of physical education here.
An anxious-doubting (psychasthenic) woman is not a classic (in the accepted sense) warm, weak, sensual, sweetly flirtatious woman. Thoughtful and sensually dry-deaf (although in her own way sincerely shy-sweet and tender), she often worries throughout her life that she does not feel like a caring wife, or an ardent lover, or a hardworking mother, or a good housewife (an impractically slow “absent-minded slob” "), nor a useful worker in his profession, but simply, they say, an unsuccessful, “unfinished” creature, neither this nor that, “neither fish nor fowl.” Doesn’t intuitively feel like a woman, practically people; With his rigid thinking, he doesn’t understand, for example, why the husband turned out to be different from dad (he doesn’t help with the housework, doesn’t do exercises with the children, like dad once did, and doesn’t tell him when he’ll come home today). Impracticality, lack of sensual acumen, and high anxiety prevent her from choosing something for herself from the clothes in the store: she peers dully and intensely at each seam, cannot clearly grasp the shades of color and, to the horror of her hurrying, already sanguine friend, who is helping her buy, asks Still think with her about whether it’s worth taking it. And generally speaking. “I’m just ruining everything, I’m not made for this life.”
Only a few of the psychasthenics, without the help of a psychotherapist, are able to know and feel their spiritual values, other characters, get together somehow and, thanks to all this, find their extraordinary place in life, among people close to them, in tune with them, forever finding their own meaning inherent in their nature .
Especially for primitive, uncomplicated souls, anxious-doubting (psychasthenic) people, without creative courage, without a sense of humor, noble hooligan flight in the soul, life often turns into an annoyingly strict, mechanically tiring in its anxiety implementation of some set of rules (and then it’s as if something wouldn’t work out!), obsessively boring service to one’s moral duty, which can be very painful for loved ones and even, in fact, immoral. In this sense, Chekhov's Belikov (“Man in a Case”), apparently, is a clot of the worst psychasthenic.
Often, a complex, vulnerable psychasthenic (anxious-doubting) dryly pushes away people who seem to him immediately or for some time now to be somehow better, more significant than him, or even just that person with a higher rank, academic degree. Or a psychasthenic (anxious and doubtful) avoids communicating with these people (although before, for example, before “promoting someone in rank,” they were friends). And all this so as not to feel even more inferior next to such a “successful” person.
Or, for example, another psychasthenic professor can be very difficult with his irritable categoricalness, from which he unfairly does not see something truly good in his student’s article due to some real shortcomings. However, he is able (at least over time) to understand this injustice of his and to be cruelly tormented by self-accusation. Self-accusation, however, is self-accusation, and the egoism of a psychasthenic, who often pushes away from himself almost everything that does not help serve the cause (sometimes unnecessary and forced), is selfishness.
A psychasthenic person can torment loved ones with his, albeit depleted, irritability, petty-pathological conscientiousness and responsibility, “great” dreamy laziness on the sofa from the inability to act actively and energetically.
Nevertheless, both the moral and psychological dreams and reflections of the Chekhov intellectual about a bright future (closely related to his inability to act quickly and quickly in practice, to work hard and conscientiously), and “do you respect me?” The lazy, impractical, drunken Russian peasant Emelya is, after all, the components of one of the Russian trees, and the peasant is the root of this tree.
Such actions and experiences-suffering are not characteristic of either a sanguine person or a tense authoritarian. But unlike sanguine and intensely authoritarian people, even immoral psychasthenics extremely rarely commit any crimes, since they experience incredible fear of possible punishment and even of the investigative procedure itself and are not able to forget this fear, to repress this fear into the unconscious. They have neither lush-colorful curtains of emotions for this, nor straightforward super-confidence that the criminal matter will be resolved without complications for them, and most importantly, a sick conscience stings and torments.
Old psychasthenics (anxious-doubting), apparently due primarily to age, sclerotic sensitivity, increased inhibition-inertia and the inability, even in old age, to naturally accept the position of the complete death of a person can become, like sanguine people, believers in eternal life souls, in the opportunity to meet loved ones who have passed away. This religious feeling, however, is imbued with real earthly colors. We often think about the materiality of thoughts, experiences, etc.
Generally speaking, illness and old age predispose each of us to faith in our own way.
* Depersonalization (French depersonnalisation; de- + Latin persona personality) experiencing one’s emotional alteration.
[Previous] [Next]
[Home] [The power of the weak] [Contents]
Guys, we put our soul into the site. Thank you for that
that you are discovering this beauty. Thanks for the inspiration and goosebumps.
Join us on Facebook And In contact with
What your choice says: You seem to be a calm and balanced person, but at the same time you are very stubborn and it is impossible to come to an agreement with you. If you don't want to do something, then you won't say it openly, instead you will artificially create obstacles to own way until they leave you alone and remove this responsibility. You love to psychologically exhaust people and then show your authoritarianism. Your inner self tries to suppress the desires associated with the need to dominate.
2. Epilepsy
Character diagnosis: Argentine director Fabian Bielinski's Aura is about a taxidermist suffering from epileptic seizures
What your choice says: Those around you see you as a kind and charming person. You easily connect with people and create an impression responsible person. But you have long learned to suppress anger and impulsiveness in yourself, so now in your life there are outbreaks of aggression and irritation, which you try not to show to anyone. Your inner self is trying to form new identity and displace negative side your character.
3. Catatonia
Character diagnosis: Based on the memoir by Oliver Sacks, Awakening follows a humble medical researcher as he tries to find the cause. catatonic stupor-a strange disease in which patients do not speak or move.
What your choice says: You are a very timid person and do not like change. It is extremely difficult for you to adapt to new circumstances. Have you developed your own rules that you will never break. The reason lies, perhaps, even in childhood, you were forced to suppress your mental hyperactivity in order not to lose touch with reality. Your biggest fear remains in your inner self - loss of control over yourself.
4. Schizophrenia
Character diagnosis: In the film "The Ideal Master" you can see how friendly person turns into a monster, so director Nick Tomnay showed schizophrenia as it is.
What your choice says: You are accustomed to suppressing feelings of indifference to others, trying to be interested in people and find reasons why they should be in your life. You even know how to be sociable person and hide the feeling of complete loneliness from others. This is why your relationships are often superficial - sometimes you even catch yourself thinking that you can easily live alone, isolation does not scare you. Communication is a forced measure and an attempt not to meet the true “I”.
5. Agoraphobia
Character diagnosis: The title of the film speaks for itself - "Agoraphobia"(fear of open space, fear of being in public places).
What your choice says: You come across as a very modest person. However, inside you there is an irresistible desire to please everyone. Your psychological state depends on the opinions of others, and you are often dissatisfied with your life, although you do not dare say it out loud. Fear and anxiety are constantly hidden behind external introversion.
6. Asperger's Syndrome
Character diagnosis: The main character of the film "Adam" is a modest, timid and kind guy who suffers from Asperger's syndrome (a form of autism).
What your choice says: Three personalities coexist within you: an actor, a loner and an outcast. You can be very open, sociable and create an impression carefree person but then you want to run away from large quantity people and find your soul mate. What's stopping you? You feel this world differently, and sometimes it seems to you that it is hostile towards you, so you choose solitary activities and do not dare to open up. You become withdrawn when people do not understand you, and you demonstratively show emotional coldness and detachment.
7. Major depressive disorder
Character diagnosis: The “black” tragicomedy “Dirt” shows a whole bunch of psychological problems of the main character, among which one can identify major depressive disorder.
What your choice says: To those around you, you seem to be a carefree and sociable person - you are full of optimism and confidence, but at home you are often sad and apathetic; when alone with yourself, it is difficult for you to restrain yourself. heartache. Surely you have mastered the traditional way of hiding from your own thoughts and constantly blaming yourself - you delve into other people’s problems and often act as a psychologist, thereby suppressing at least the slightest opportunity think about yourself.
Today in ISKCON there is a lot of talk about leadership principles. Devotees attend seminars and meetings and read books on the art of leadership. However, Srila Prabhupada, as far as we know, did not attend any seminars or read any books on leadership, but was nevertheless a perfect leader. Even nondevotees admit this. One of the main managers of Stephen Covey's organization, after reading Srila Pabhupada Lilamrita, noted that Srila Prabhupada fully embodied the “seven habits.” Why was Srila Prabhupada naturally a good leader?
The leader is influence and the source of influence is Krishna. Because Srila Prabhupada was directly related to the Supreme Lord, Sri Krishna, he was endowed with the potency of devotion, bhakti-sakti. Srila Prabhupada, completely immersed in devotion to Krishna, understood that this devotion awakens. Therefore, he made sure that the spirit of devotion was always present in his society. We must learn to recognize, study and practice these principles, which were something completely natural for Srila Prabhupada.
There is a huge difference between authority and authoritarianism. The following are Webster's Collegiate Dictionary definitions for these words. It is in this sense that these words are used in this book. "Authoritative" means "based on or having authority." An authoritative person (or group of people) deserves recognition and trust.
The word "authoritarian", according to Webster's dictionary, has two meanings. The first indicates blind obedience to authority, and the second indicates the concentration of power in the hands of leaders who bear no constitutional responsibility to the people. In other words, such leaders are in no way responsible for the problems of society and claim respect regardless of their behavior.
Thanks to its inner spiritual power, the real spiritual leader has authority. He does not rely on blind obedience, title or customs accepted in one or another religious organization. He always tries to improve internally and knows that he will cope with the burden of responsibility of his position only if he is open, pure and selfless. He cares for others because he feels the connection of all beings with Sri Krishna and knows that all souls are part and parcel of the Lord. Such a leader always feels responsible for people. If someone suffers, complains, or perceives a situation incorrectly, they feel personally responsible for it. He makes every effort to understand what is his fault in the occurrence of a particular problem, and how to solve it. People naturally follow such a leader; he earns their sincere respect.
The current ISKCON is being torn apart by great internal conflicts, as for example with the ritvikvadis, who are considered deviant. And the recent mass exodus of devotees to other Gaudiya Vaishnava organizations has been a real shock for many ISKCON members. Some leaders believe that it is necessary to somehow combat these problems, but many of them do not even think about the fact that they often created them themselves.
If the guru is humble, considering himself just a priest and trying simply to help his flock, then both the disciples and other followers will be deeply grateful to him. If he considers himself better than others, proud of his followers and position, then there will be people who will begin to convince everyone that he is just a clergyman, and not a guru in in every sense this word. The highest justice is seen in this, and it is quite possible that the Lord Himself arranges this to teach a lesson to His devotee.
During the time of Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati Thakura, the mahantas, the temple leaders, under the influence of greed, began to spread the jati-gosaya heresy and tried to gain a monopoly on the right to worship the salagrama-sila and give initiation. When Srila Saraswati Thakura challenged these mahantas, they hired goons and attacked his group of pilgrims during the Gaura-mandala parikrama in Navadvipa. As a result, many local residents, seeing how their mahantas attacked innocent Vaishnava pilgrims, lost faith in their traditional religion of Gaudiya Vaishnavism, and heretical Apasa-Mpradayas began to grow like mushrooms after rain.
There is a proverb in Bengal: “A fish rots from the head.” This means that deviations that occur within a religious tradition or organization are often the responsibility of the religious leaders themselves. Some of the causes of the current problems in our communities are self-interest, authoritarianism and pride, which, as the history of Gaudiya Vaishnavism shows, has caused problems before. History often repeats itself.
Excerpt from the book Hidden Obstacles on the Path of Bhakti by Purnachandra Goswami.
According to the theory of Karl Marx, any state is an apparatus of violent suppression ruling class all other layers of society. Ideologically, many of the views of this theorist can be disputed, but such a definition seems quite fair. In a sense, any state is an authoritarian regime.
Until now, no one has really determined what exactly distinguishes an authoritarian regime from a democratic one. Nowadays, it is mainly the US State Department that is responsible for sorting countries into free and totalitarian, but it does this, understandably, based on the national interests of its homeland. F.D. Roosevelt is credited with defining Somoza Sr. as a scoundrel, but an American one, and therefore a democratic one. Franklin Delano himself was elected to a responsible post four times, and at the most fateful moments for the United States, which became a kind of record. At the same time, during his career, Roosevelt often made unpopular decisions among the population, and he was often reproached for establishing an authoritarian regime in the country.
French President Charles de Gaulle was also criticized by the opposition for being undemocratic. Seeking economic independence from the United States, he stopped colonial war in Algeria, made certain concessions to the USSR, and committed many other actions that irritated his political opponents. The decisions made by Gaulle himself would not have found support from the opposition parties, but, confident in his rightness, he went ahead, as they say, and ultimately proved the correctness of his own policy. Feeling that the majority was not always right, the French president established an authoritarian regime of government.
Any strong government leader in difficult moments for the country is forced to make decisions that are not to the liking of a certain part of the political and economic elite, this happens in almost all countries. As if spontaneously, an opposition appears, financed by oligarchs or foreign opponents of the new course, which immediately begins to convince the population that the leader has established an authoritarian regime. The signs by which it is determined are numerous and often contradictory.
The main one of these signs is very convenient for manipulation. These are free elections. The voting process is always difficult and is not without violations, each of which can be declared flagrant. The next thing in line is usually the fact of suppressing the opposition, more often defined by the word “massacre.” Any embezzled oligarch who ends up behind bars can claim that he is being persecuted for political reasons, as if the very fact of involvement in opposition forces should serve as some kind of safe conduct, guaranteeing the inviolability and complete freedom actions - from embezzlement to banal hooliganism. However, it should be noted that those who oppose public policy, representatives of the authorities do not at all cherish it in any country, even in the bastion of democracy, the USA.
So, neither the fight against the opposition, nor violations during voting, nor the degree of participation of the broad masses in government are signs that distinguish an authoritarian regime from a totalitarian one. What's the difference then? It is essential, but lies in personal abilities strong leader attract supporters of their policies and maintain power through legal means. Authoritarianism is possible in democratic countries. But it is almost useless under totalitarianism, when a leader is promoted from the ranks of the ruling elite based on how convenient he is to its other members. An authoritarian regime is necessary measure when the country is going through difficult moments and various threats, from