The Sociopolitical Spectrum, Part I
Ideology is a Secondary Factor in Defining the Sociopolitical Spectrum
Robert A. Harman, M.D
Reprinted from the Journal of Orgonomy, Vol. 35 No. 1
The American College of Orgonomy

In the absence of armoring, a liberal or a conservative would "tend to prefer" (as Reich says) one direction of thought over the other, but would be capable of both. In the presence of armored thinking, one direction of thought is significantly impaired and may even operate to the exclusion of the other.

With these considerations in mind, we can identify more specifically the functional limitations in Baker's original formulation:

1. It is not clear how it happens that contact with the core is lost in the liberal, but not in the conservative. Baker knew that in the liberal energy is "pulled up into the head," away from the genital. But this is a bioenergetic shift involving the segments of the body. What is the underlying protoplasmic factor in the liberal that enables this to happen?

2. Baker refers, correctly, to different ways of defending against feeling in the liberal and the conservative, but the term "feeling" is not defined. Specifically, the distinction between the two types of feelings, sensation and emotion, is not made. Liberals experience feelings, sometimes perhaps as much as conservatives do. As Burnham has pointed out (4:149-158) liberals often follow these feelings in preference to the logical conclusions of their thoughts and theories, especially when they are up against the contradictions in their ideology. The difference is that the "feelings" experienced by a liberal are sensations, whereas the "feelings" experienced by a conservative are emotions.

3. Important components of both intellectual and muscular defenses, components which can be loosely described as "tension in the brain" and "tension in the muscles," lie in the realm of excitation. However, the primary difference between the liberal and conservative is not in the realm of excitation, but in the realm of perception. A more accurate understanding by Konia, based on orgonometry, of the distinction between liberal and conservative is presented in this issue of the Journal in the article "The Biophysical Basis of Sociopolitical Thought." Konia's observation, that the liberal perceives himself and the world through sensation and that the conservative perceives himself and the world through emotion, successfully resolves the limitations described above and moves us much closer to an objective formulation of the sociopolitical spectrum.

The Modern Liberal Versus the True Liberal

Baker used Burnham's ideologically-based definition (4:89-97) to distinguish between the true liberal (what Burnham called the "classic liberal") and the modern liberal. Burnham's definition of the classic liberal vs. the "modern liberal" can be summarized as follows:

1. The classic liberal is one whose beliefs are based on the 19th century liberal ideology which was individualistic and opposed to intervention in personal life by the aristocratic, hierarchical governments of the time ( i.e., classic liberal ideology was laissez faire or libertarian).

2. The "modern liberal," according to Burnham, is simply a liberal whose ideology has changed with the times to a more collectivist viewpoint, in favor of massive intervention in individual life by the government, which is now perceived to be a government expressing the "popular or general will."

Burnham's description of the shift in liberal ideology is true, as far as it goes, but does not really discriminate between the true liberal and the modern liberal as sociopolitical character types. It only points out the fact that, in the democracies of the West, many true liberals and nearly all characterological modern liberals have changed their ideology. Burnham's explanation, above, of the cause of the change is deduced from his analysis of liberal ideology and therefore misses the essence of the change in the nature of government in modern times:

1. National governments in past centuries were, in fact, governments, i.e., organizations whose function was to govern. Present day "governments" are a mixture in which half-hearted attempts to govern take second place to efforts at reengineering society in accordance with various ideologies. Following the important distinction made by Konia (2) we can say that the older governments functioned in the realm of politics and that modern "governments" have begun to function in the realm of sociopolitics.

2. The older governments were not merely hierarchical, but authoritarian. Modern governments are not merely democratic, but are becoming anti-authoritarian. 5

3. The anti-authoritarian trend, in both government and in society as a whole, has transformed social contact from a process of "simple (attractive) opposition"

where opposing forces make direct contact and confront each other in a manner that produces a constructive resolution, to "antagonistic (mutually exclusive) opposition"

where opposing forces react to each other in such a manner as to pull the social fabric apart (7). In recent years there has been a functional transformation from:

Thus we can see that the shift in the nature of government, the shift in the nature of social authority itself, and the corresponding superficial shift in liberal ideology described by Burnham are a result of centuries-long sociopolitical (emotional plague) activity, primarily by the modern liberal. 6 Sowell describes the relation between liberal and conservative that exists in the present state of antagonistic opposition:

These different ways of conceiving mankind and the world lead not merely to different conclusions but to sharply divergent, often diametrically opposed, conclusions on issues ranging from justice to war. There are not merely differences of visions but conflicts of visions. (6:309)

It has always been true that the two different forms of perception and thought are "diametrically opposed" and lead to "conflict" in the form of opposition. Sowell does not mention, however, that opposition, even diametric opposition, does not have to be "divergent" (moving away from each other). The present day divergence is a manifestation of antagonistic opposition. In the past, there have been periods when the views of true liberals and conservatives met in simple opposition (came together, i.e., attractive opposition) to lead to a satisfactory resolution of social conflicts. For example:

1. In the framing of the United States Constitution, conservatives and liberals came together in disagreement about one crucial question: Should the United States become a nation or continue as a confederation of independent states? The framers set up a working arrangement for themselves (which included no publicity of the debates) which made it possible for the conflict to be resolved successfully: the United States became a nation. Various compromises were made which satisfied the legitimate concerns of the losing side without compromising the essential decision that was made.

2. The war (1861-1865) between the United States and the rebelling southern confederacy, the so-called "Civil War," in which the North and South came together, after years of drifting apart, to resolve the primary issue of union and the important secondary issue of slavery. Lincoln had to contend constantly with two elements working to make the conflict an antagonistic one:

a. Those, including most of his commanding generals prior to Grant, who regarded the South as a separate nation, an attitude which by definition perceived the parties as mutually exclusive, i.e., antagonistic. This manifested itself repeatedly in failure to "engage" with the opponent militarily.

b. Radical elements who wished to exact a vicious revenge on the South, i.e., pure antagonism.

Thanks to Lincoln, the ultimate outcome of the war was to bring the nation together in permanent unity. This example shows that it is not the superficial qualities of the interaction, e.g., the presence or absence of physical violence, but the essential interrelation between the contending functions, that determines whether there is simple, attractive opposition or antagonistic, mutually exclusive opposition. Pre-war, nonviolent interaction between North and South, particularly after 1854, had been essentially antagonistic.

Returning to the question of the distinction between the true liberal and the modern liberal, a great deal of confusion can be resolved by considering that the term "modern liberal" is used with three different meanings:

1. generically, to refer to a liberal who happens to live in modern times, just as we would say a "modern automobile" or a "modern physician," etc.,

2. in Burnham's sense of the term, to refer to a liberal who has adopted one particular variety of modern ideology (collectivism), and

3. as a biophysical description of the deep (protoplasmically based) sociopolitical structure of an individual, i.e., the emotional plague character on the left. The reader should be aware that when the term "modern liberal" is used in the Journal of Orgonomy it is usually with this specific meaning.

In defining the "modern liberal" Baker was, at least to some extent, following Burnham's definition, to which he added definitions of the socialist and communist to the left and formulated a symmetric set of four ideological categories on the right. When the emphasis on ideology is eliminated, it becomes clear that in most cases any particular "modern liberal" (in Burnham's sense of the term) and any particular socialist could be either a characterological true liberal or a characterological modern liberal. Similarly, a typical conservative living in Alabama in 1967 might have met, based on his ideology, Baker's criteria for "extreme conservative" or "reactionary." But this ideology was more a function of the individual's time and place, i.e., his environment, than of his degree of biophysical conservatism. That same individual (some are still alive today) most likely now has a more moderate set of beliefs without necessarily having experienced any change in his biophysical structure. In short, the biophysical character type is innate but the ideology varies greatly depending on the individual's environment. Ideology (which shifts with time, place, circumstances, and other environmental influences) is not wholly reliable as an indication of the degree of sociopolitical armoring.

A Revised Version of the Sociopolitical Spectrum

A more reliable, and simpler, description of the sociopolitical spectrum can be constructed as follows:

LEFT..............................................................................................RIGHT

i. the modern liberal (emotional plague on the left, including the communist)

…..…..ii. the extreme liberal (socialist)

…..…..…..…..iii. the true liberal

…..…..…..…..…..…..iv. the conservative

…..…..…..…..…..…..…..…..v. the extreme conservative (rigidly mystical)

…..…..…..…..…..…..…..…..…..…..vi. the fascist (emotional plague on the right)

LEFT..............................................................................................RIGHT

A description of the detailed characteristics of each sociopolitical character type and how each type can be defined without relying primarily on ideology will be presented in part 2 of this paper.

Examples of the Discrepancies Between Ideology and Sociopolitical Character Type

We can give several examples of how the emphasis on ideology confuses the perception of sociopolitical character:

Conclusion

Examples such as those given above have led me to conclude that attempts to identify sociopolitical character types based on political beliefs, voting patterns, mannerisms, and even individual actions involving superficial life functions are prone to inaccuracy. It is often possible to make an accurate diagnosis only when one can observe the individual in a situation where he must exert authority to safeguard the core functions of life.

Footnotes

1. An excerpt, "The True Liberal, the Modern Liberal and the Environmental Liberal" appears elsewhere in this issue of the Journal.

2. Assessing sociopolitical character type is different from psychiatric diagnosis. Psychiatric diagnosis requires examination of a patient by a physician, including evaluation of his functioning in private life. Identifying sociopolitical character type requires an accurate understanding of an individual's public acts and their consequences.

3. Much of what is now considered "conservative" thought is simply healthy thought that may not be particularly conservative, but is labeled as such because it contradicts liberal doctrines. Thought that is specifically conservative, unless it comes from fringe elements, is usually articulated so as to pay token respect to some liberal principle as well.

4. Note that this terminology uses "right" and "left" contrary to their usual political meanings. Those on the left think toward the right. Those on the right think toward the left.

5. The term "anti-authoritarian" as used here means "acting to destroy authority itself," and not merely "opposed to authoritarianism." It would be less ambiguous, but grammatically awkward, to use the term, "anti-authority."

6. There remains the question of how great a contribution to the current social deterioration has been made by right-wing sociopolitical "government," of which Nazi Germany is the clearest example, and the question of whether or not the Nazi government was, as this author believes, also anti-authoritarian (despite appearances). These questions are beyond the scope of this paper.

7. "Environmental liberal" does not mean a liberal concerned with the preservation of nature, but rather a biophysical conservative who has liberal beliefs which he has picked up from his environment. When Baker first used "environmental liberal" in the mid-1960s it was clear and unambiguous. However, the subsequent widespread use of the catchy, but meaningless and confusing, term "environmentalism" makes clarification necessary.

References

1. Baker, E. Man in the Trap. Princeton, NJ: ACO Press, 2000. (Originally published in 1967 by Macmillan, New York)

2. Konia, C. Neither Left nor Right, in preparation

3. Konia, C., In a personal communication to the author.

4. Burnham, J. Suicide of the West. New Rochelle, NY: Arlington House, 1964.

5. Reich, W. "Orgonometric Equations: I. General Form," Orgone Energy Bulletin 4(2), 1950, pp. 161-183.

6. Sowell, T. A Conflict of Visions, New York: William Morrow, 1987.

7. Harman, R. "Simple Opposition versus Antagonistic Opposition in Social Functioning," presentation to the Elsworth F. Baker Advanced Technical Seminar of the American College of Orgonomy, September 12, 1999.

8. Hayek, F. The Road to Serfdom. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1944.

9. Oliver, F. S. Alexander Hamilton, An Essay on American Union. London: Constable, 1906. p. 268.

10. Adams, H. History of the United States during the Administrations of Thomas Jefferson. New York: The Library of America (Penguin Books), 1986. (Originally published as four volumes, in 1889 and 1890, by Charles Scribner's Sons, New York)

© 2008 The American College of Orgonomy. All rights reserved.