播放地址
猜你喜欢
剧照
更新时间：2024-08-01 04:38
详细剧情
Part historical fiction, part conspiracy thriller, “Manhunt” will take audiences into the aftermath of the first American presidential assassination and the fight to preserve and protect the ideals that were the foundation of Lincoln’s Reconstruction plans — issues that reverberate into the present day.
长篇影评
1 ) 击败了敌人，却成为了敌人的信徒
（文/杨时旸）
终于，FBI抓住了那个声名狼藉的连环炸弹客，在此之前的十几年中，他用一颗又一颗自制的炸弹包裹让3人丧命，让23人重伤，除了尸体和残肢，他没有给警方留下任何可能追查到自己的线索。
抓捕行动成功之后，警探们在酒吧里庆祝，互相吹嘘着自己的胆识以及抓捕瞬间的壮举，而高层领导们则在媒体镜头前侃侃而谈，论述自己制定的方案与策略多么行之有效。唯独没有人提及菲茨杰拉德——那个真正的寻获线索的抓捕者，一个习惯于沉默和被忽视的幕后英雄。这个男人神情苍凉地默默走过举杯痛饮的同事和夸夸其谈的上司，开车上路，去往了那个炸弹客在丛林里为自己搭建的小屋。他走进那个没有自来水，不通电，没有任何现代文明迹象的屋子，一寸又一寸地抚摸过所有木头，然后慢慢转身，关上了房门。某种程度上说，是这个瞬间成就了《炸弹追凶》，这是最野心勃勃的一幕，也是最胆大妄为的一幕，它奠定了整个故事的基调，完成了男主角最重大的内心转折，让这个故事从所有这一类连环杀手的俗常设定中飞升。菲茨杰拉德是凝视深渊的人，但深渊不只回望于他，更难以想象的是，他认同了深渊——从某个层面上讲。关闭房门的那个瞬间，抓捕者和炸弹客从精神意义上开始重叠。
与其说《炸弹追凶》的主角是被追捕的凶犯泰德，不如说，真正的主角是追缉者菲茨杰拉德，这个木讷但坚韧的男人，被调往这个特别行动组之初不会想到，这个案件会如此诡异又残忍地改变自己的一生。原本，像绝大多数警察一样，他希冀于一个重大的案件为自己的履历增光添彩，但这个案件把他逐出了家庭，让他远离人群，继而甚至让他开始怀疑自己曾经坚定的信念。
《炸弹追凶》的故事始自于一场寻访，FBI的几位高层人士在一座森林小屋里找到了已经隐居的菲茨杰拉德，希望他能够帮助警方与连环炸弹客泰德进行后续谈判，以便让他认罪，因为后者声称只愿意和那个“真正抓住自己”的人对话。很快，这个短暂的镜头就被之后回溯的追捕故事和一次次令人焦虑的失败冲淡了，直到最终，人们才会明白，菲茨杰拉德从木屋走出的那一刻意味着什么——某种程度上说，菲茨杰拉德部分信仰了泰德的理论，他剔除了暴力报复的部分，也没有变得那么彻底而极端，但是，有些无法说清的东西终究进入了他的大脑。他的隐居，他的孤僻，他对于世俗热闹的拒斥，对于人群的厌倦，都犹如泰德的再生和还魂。这个瞬间和当初他独自一人走进泰德的木屋的瞬间，彼此交接互相印证。
真正的对手都是难得的知己。只有让自己成为那个人，才能真的抓获那个人，这是唯一的途径。于是，菲茨杰拉德分析了对手所写下的一词一句，这是个无意识的漫浸过程，他觉得自己是在追捕敌人，但却在下意识中修改了自己。这才是故事最隐秘的核心。
这部8集的罪案剧改编自真实事件，一个智商超群的数学教授厌弃了现代文明，自己躲进了密林深处的木屋，他毁灭了一个又一个他心中与现代文明相关的人，院校的学者或者电脑供应商，连环炸弹是他的策略，他想由此让自己得到重视。他给几家重要媒体寄送了自己写作的宣言，呼唤人们返璞归真，不要被科技反噬。这份声明是他的精神支柱，却最终成为了线索将自己送入了监牢。谁能参透这其中宿命般残忍的幽默。
菲茨杰拉德的追凶过程几乎建立在一片虚空之上，语言，竟然成为了擒获一个暴力犯罪者的通路。那份激昂的宣言中，泰德流露出了个人的语言习惯，那些独特的倒置的词汇，被菲茨杰拉德命名为犯罪语言学，这被主流嗤之以鼻，但这个玄学般的断案方式，却被他执拗地认定，在他心里，那些琐碎的辞藻就是一个人的精神指纹。最终，那几行字母让人们抓获了这个疯狂却又缜密的男人。
《炸弹追凶》有火光冲天的爆炸，也有FBI声势铺张的抓捕，但是相较于这些，它更像一幕心理追凶的暗战戏码。这故事里到处都是处心积虑的研判和难以言明的揣度。菲茨杰拉德和泰德的对决如此，而在FBI这一方阵营之内，同样如是。这个故事的成功之处在于，从未吝笔墨去展现那些存在于正义方之中的内耗、挫败、慌乱、困惑以及绝望的不知所措。这个故事的有趣之处在于，描述了一个人搅乱了一个世界的故事。从这个意义上讲，炸弹客泰德就犹如神。而FBI内部不过是一群凡人。而最终，菲茨杰拉德成为了另一尊神。
对于普通的犯罪者而言，被抓获是终结，而对于泰德而言，这不过是个逗号，下半场刚刚启幕。但他没有想到，之前，他玩弄全世界于股掌，而这一次，他竟然成为了自己律师以及法律体系的玩物。他的律师企图瞒骗他，以精神错乱作为辩护理由为其脱罪。对于绝大多数罪犯而言，去往病院总比老死狱中强过太多，但是，泰德又怎能允许自己最终以疯子的面目被世人回忆。这成为了这幕心理暗战故事的高潮。
从旁人看来，泰德的行为无疑是疯癫的，但从他本人的价值观出发，他认为自己才是理性的警示者和预言家，而其他那些被科技控制的人类都疯狂得毫不自知。所以，于他而言，最大的惩罚并非牢狱之灾，而是疯癫的污名。菲茨杰拉德利用这一切把他逼入了死角，让他独自完成一场二选一的游戏：以疯子的身份进入精神病院，在接连不断的电击和服药之后，成为一个“正常人”，平庸而呆滞，找一份工作，办一张信用卡，吃着垃圾食品看着肥皂剧度过一生，或者，入狱成圣，继续维系自己的尖锐和愤怒。泰德一直有着自己独特的体面，不是物质层面，而是精神意义上的体面，有条不紊，内心笃定，但这最后的抉择让他濒临崩溃，他选择了后者，主动认罪当然是一种羞辱，但如若不然就得经受被贴上疯癫标签的更大的羞辱。菲茨杰拉德赢了吗？赢得也并不体面。泰德输了吗？即便是输了，但他却切实地篡改了对手的内心世界。对抗的过程中，菲茨杰拉德稳固的信念边界也开始抖动，科技是否意味着对人性的解放？社交是否比孤僻更能定义一个人的正常？疑窦丛生。他开始思索生活中那些简单的被命名为教养的习惯，那些根本空无一人的深夜路口，自己仍然会在红灯前默默停下。这到底是文明的进步还是精神的桎梏？
最后的一幕，菲茨杰拉德在路口，抬头盯着红色的信号灯，一脸若有所思但终究无解的神情，嘴边有细若游丝的笑意但又满含深重无比的悲悯。这表情像极了泰德。
（本文首发《北京青年报》）
2 ) 《工业社会及其未来》完整版：全文引自华盛顿邮报
google到的，原文在华盛顿邮报官网。未及勘误。
原文地址： INDUSTRIAL SOCIETY AND ITS FUTURE
The Unabomber Trial: The Manifesto
Editor's Note: This is the text of a 35,000-word manifesto as submitted to The Washington Post and the New York Times by the serial mail bomber called the Unabomber. The manifesto appeared in The Washington Post as an eight-page supplement that was not part of the news sections. This document contains corrections that appeared in the Friday, Sept. 22, 1995 editions of Washington Post. The text was sent in June, 1995 to The New York Times and The Washington Post by the person who calls himself 揊C,� identified by the FBI as the Unabomber, whom authorities have implicated in three murders and 16 bombings. The author threatened to send a bomb to an unspecified destination 搘ith intent to kill� unless one of the newspapers published this manuscript. The Attorney General and the Director of the FBI recommended publication.
Return to our special report.
INDUSTRIAL SOCIETY AND ITS FUTURE
Introduction
1. The Industrial Revolution and its consequences have been a disaster for the human race. They have greatly increased the life-expectancy of those of us who live in 揳dvanced� countries, but they have destabilized society, have made life unfulfilling, have subjected human beings to indignities, have led to widespread psychological suffering (in the Third World to physical suffering as well) and have inflicted severe damage on the natural world. The continued development of technology will worsen the situation. It will certainly subject human beings to greater indignities and inflict greater damage on the natural world, it will probably lead to greater social disruption and psychological suffering, and it may lead to increased physical suffering even in 揳dvanced� countries.
2. The industrial-technological system may survive or it may break down. If it survives, it MAY eventually achieve a low level of physical and psychological suffering, but only after passing through a long and very painful period of adjustment and only at the cost of permanently reducing human beings and many other living organisms to engineered products and mere cogs in the social machine. Furthermore, if the system survives, the consequences will be inevitable: There is no way of reforming or modifying the system so as to prevent it from depriving people of dignity and autonomy.
3. If the system breaks down the consequences will still be very painful. But the bigger the system grows the more disastrous the results of its breakdown will be, so if it is to break down it had best break down sooner rather than later.
4. We therefore advocate a revolution against the industrial system. This revolution may or may not make use of violence; it may be sudden or it may be a relatively gradual process spanning a few decades. We can抰 predict any of that. But we do outline in a very general way the measures that those who hate the industrial system should take in order to prepare the way for a revolution against that form of society. This is not to be a POLITICAL revolution. Its object will be to overthrow not governments but the economic and technological basis of the present society.
5. In this article we give attention to only some of the negative developments that have grown out of the industrial-technological system. Other such developments we mention only briefly or ignore altogether. This does not mean that we regard these other developments as unimportant. For practical reasons we have to confine our discussion to areas that have received insufficient public attention or in which we have something new to say. For example, since there are well-developed environmental and wilderness movements, we have written very little about environmental degradation or the destruction of wild nature, even though we consider these to be highly important.
THE PSYCHOLOGY OF MODERN LEFTISM
6. Almost everyone will agree that we live in a deeply troubled society. One of the most widespread manifestations of the craziness of our world is leftism, so a discussion of the psychology of leftism can serve as an introduction to the discussion of the problems of modern society in general.
7. But what is leftism? During the first half of the 20th century leftism could have been practically identified with socialism. Today the movement is fragmented and it is not clear who can properly be called a leftist. When we speak of leftists in this article we have in mind mainly socialists, collectivists, 損olitically correct� types, feminists, gay and disability activists, animal rights activists and the like. But not everyone who is associated with one of these movements is a leftist. What we are trying to get at in discussing leftism is not so much movement or an ideology as a psychological type, or rather a collection of related types. Thus, what we mean by 搇eftism� will emerge more clearly in the course of our discussion of leftist psychology. (Also, see paragraphs 227-230.)
8. Even so, our conception of leftism will remain a good deal less clear than we would wish, but there doesn抰 seem to be any remedy for this. All we are trying to do here is indicate in a rough and approximate way the two psychological tendencies that we believe are the main driving force of modern leftism. We by no means claim to be telling the WHOLE truth about leftist psychology. Also, our discussion is meant to apply to modern leftism only. We leave open the question of the extent to which our discussion could be applied to the leftists of the 19th and early 20th centuries.
9. The two psychological tendencies that underlie modern leftism we call 揻eelings of inferiority� and 搊versocialization.� Feelings of inferiority are characteristic of modern leftism as a whole, while oversocialization is characteristic only of a certain segment of modern leftism; but this segment is highly influential.
FEELINGS OF INFERIORITY
10. By 揻eelings of inferiority� we mean not only inferiority feelings in the strict sense but a whole spectrum of related traits; low self-esteem, feelings of powerlessness, depressive tendencies, defeatism, guilt, self- hatred, etc. We argue that modern leftists tend to have some such feelings (possibly more or less repressed) and that these feelings are decisive in determining the direction of modern leftism.
11. When someone interprets as derogatory almost anything that is said about him (or about groups with whom he identifies) we conclude that he has inferiority feelings or low self-esteem. This tendency is pronounced among minority rights activists, whether or not they belong to the minority groups whose rights they defend. They are hypersensitive about the words used to designate minorities and about anything that is said concerning minorities. The terms 搉egro,� 搊riental,� 揾andicapped� or 揷hick� for an African, an Asian, a disabled person or a woman originally had no derogatory connotation. 揃road� and 揷hick� were merely the feminine equivalents of 揼uy,� 揹ude� or 揻ellow.� The negative connotations have been attached to these terms by the activists themselves. Some animal rights activists have gone so far as to reject the word 損et� and insist on its replacement by 揳nimal companion.� Leftish anthropologists go to great lengths to avoid saying anything about primitive peoples that could conceivably be interpreted as negative. They want to replace the world 損rimitive� by 搉onliterate.� They seem almost paranoid about anything that might suggest that any primitive culture is inferior to our own. (We do not mean to imply that primitive cultures ARE inferior to ours. We merely point out the hypersensitivity of leftish anthropologists.)
12. Those who are most sensitive about 損olitically incorrect� terminology are not the average black ghetto- dweller, Asian immigrant, abused woman or disabled person, but a minority of activists, many of whom do not even belong to any 搊ppressed� group but come from privileged strata of society. Political correctness has its stronghold among university professors, who have secure employment with comfortable salaries, and the majority of whom are heterosexual white males from middle- to upper-middle-class families.
13. Many leftists have an intense identification with the problems of groups that have an image of being weak (women), defeated (American Indians), repellent (homosexuals) or otherwise inferior. The leftists themselves feel that these groups are inferior. They would never admit to themselves that they have such feelings, but it is precisely because they do see these groups as inferior that they identify with their problems. (We do not mean to suggest that women, Indians, etc. ARE inferior; we are only making a point about leftist psychology.)
14. Feminists are desperately anxious to prove that women are as strong and as capable as men. Clearly they are nagged by a fear that women may NOT be as strong and as capable as men.
15. Leftists tend to hate anything that has an image of being strong, good and successful. They hate America, they hate Western civilization, they hate white males, they hate rationality. The reasons that leftists give for hating the West, etc. clearly do not correspond with their real motives. They SAY they hate the West because it is warlike, imperialistic, sexist, ethnocentric and so forth, but where these same faults appear in socialist countries or in primitive cultures, the leftist finds excuses for them, or at best he GRUDGINGLY admits that they exist; whereas he ENTHUSIASTICALLY points out (and often greatly exaggerates) these faults where they appear in Western civilization. Thus it is clear that these faults are not the leftist抯 real motive for hating America and the West. He hates America and the West because they are strong and successful.
16. Words like 搒elf-confidence,� 搒elf-reliance,� 搃nitiative,� 揺nterprise,� 搊ptimism,� etc., play little role in the liberal and leftist vocabulary. The leftist is anti-individualistic, pro-collectivist. He wants society to solve everyone抯 problems for them, satisfy everyone抯 needs for them, take care of them. He is not the sort of person who has an inner sense of confidence in his ability to solve his own problems and satisfy his own needs. The leftist is antagonistic to the concept of competition because, deep inside, he feels like a loser.
17. Art forms that appeal to modern leftish intellectuals tend to focus on sordidness, defeat and despair, or else they take an orgiastic tone, throwing off rational control as if there were no hope of accomplishing anything through rational calculation and all that was left was to immerse oneself in the sensations of the moment.
18. Modern leftish philosophers tend to dismiss reason, science, objective reality and to insist that everything is culturally relative. It is true that one can ask serious questions about the foundations of scientific knowledge and about how, if at all, the concept of objective reality can be defined. But it is obvious that modern leftish philosophers are not simply cool-headed logicians systematically analyzing the foundations of knowledge. They are deeply involved emotionally in their attack on truth and reality. They attack these concepts because of their own psychological needs. For one thing, their attack is an outlet for hostility, and, to the extent that it is successful, it satisfies the drive for power. More importantly, the leftist hates science and rationality because they classify certain beliefs as true (i.e., successful, superior) and other beliefs as false (i.e., failed, inferior). The leftist抯 feelings of inferiority run so deep that he cannot tolerate any classification of some things as successful or superior and other things as failed or inferior. This also underlies the rejection by many leftists of the concept of mental illness and of the utility of IQ tests. Leftists are antagonistic to genetic explanations of human abilities or behavior because such explanations tend to make some persons appear superior or inferior to others. Leftists prefer to give society the credit or blame for an individual抯 ability or lack of it. Thus if a person is 搃nferior� it is not his fault, but society抯, because he has not been brought up properly.
19. The leftist is not typically the kind of person whose feelings of inferiority make him a braggart, an egotist, a bully, a self-promoter, a ruthless competitor. This kind of person has not wholly lost faith in himself. He has a deficit in his sense of power and self-worth, but he can still conceive of himself as having the capacity to be strong, and his efforts to make himself strong produce his unpleasant behavior. [1] But the leftist is too far gone for that. His feelings of inferiority are so ingrained that he cannot conceive of himself as individually strong and valuable. Hence the collectivism of the leftist. He can feel strong only as a member of a large organization or a mass movement with which he identifies himself.
20. Notice the masochistic tendency of leftist tactics. Leftists protest by lying down in front of vehicles, they intentionally provoke police or racists to abuse them, etc. These tactics may often be effective, but many leftists use them not as a means to an end but because they PREFER masochistic tactics. Self-hatred is a leftist trait.
21. Leftists may claim that their activism is motivated by compassion or by moral principles, and moral principle does play a role for the leftist of the oversocialized type. But compassion and moral principle cannot be the main motives for leftist activism. Hostility is too prominent a component of leftist behavior; so is the drive for power. Moreover, much leftist behavior is not rationally calculated to be of benefit to the people whom the leftists claim to be trying to help. For example, if one believes that affirmative action is good for black people, does it make sense to demand affirmative action in hostile or dogmatic terms? Obviously it would be more productive to take a diplomatic and conciliatory approach that would make at least verbal and symbolic concessions to white people who think that affirmative action discriminates against them. But leftist activists do not take such an approach because it would not satisfy their emotional needs. Helping black people is not their real goal. Instead, race problems serve as an excuse for them to express their own hostility and frustrated need for power. In doing so they actually harm black people, because the activists� hostile attitude toward the white majority tends to intensify race hatred.
22. If our society had no social problems at all, the leftists would have to INVENT problems in order to provide themselves with an excuse for making a fuss.
23. We emphasize that the foregoing does not pretend to be an accurate description of everyone who might be considered a leftist. It is only a rough indication of a general tendency of leftism.
OVERSOCIALIZATION
24. Psychologists use the term 搒ocialization� to designate the process by which children are trained to think and act as society demands. A person is said to be well socialized if he believes in and obeys the moral code of his society and fits in well as a functioning part of that society. It may seem senseless to say that many leftists are oversocialized, since the leftist is perceived as a rebel. Nevertheless, the position can be defended. Many leftists are not such rebels as they seem.
25. The moral code of our society is so demanding that no one can think, feel and act in a completely moral way. For example, we are not supposed to hate anyone, yet almost everyone hates somebody at some time or other, whether he admits it to himself or not. Some people are so highly socialized that the attempt to think, feel and act morally imposes a severe burden on them. In order to avoid feelings of guilt, they continually have to deceive themselves about their own motives and find moral explanations for feelings and actions that in reality have a non-moral origin. We use the term 搊versocialized� to describe such people. [2]
26. Oversocialization can lead to low self-esteem, a sense of powerlessness, defeatism, guilt, etc. One of the most important means by which our society socializes children is by making them feel ashamed of behavior or speech that is contrary to society抯 expectations. If this is overdone, or if a particular child is especially susceptible to such feelings, he ends by feeling ashamed of HIMSELF. Moreover the thought and the behavior of the oversocialized person are more restricted by society抯 expectations than are those of the lightly socialized person. The majority of people engage in a significant amount of naughty behavior. They lie, they commit petty thefts, they break traffic laws, they goof off at work, they hate someone, they say spiteful things or they use some underhanded trick to get ahead of the other guy. The oversocialized person cannot do these things, or if he does do them he generates in himself a sense of shame and self-hatred. The oversocialized person cannot even experience, without guilt, thoughts or feelings that are contrary to the accepted morality; he cannot think 搖nclean� thoughts. And socialization is not just a matter of morality; we are socialized to conform to many norms of behavior that do not fall under the heading of morality. Thus the oversocialized person is kept on a psychological leash and spends his life running on rails that society has laid down for him. In many oversocialized people this results in a sense of constraint and powerlessness that can be a severe hardship. We suggest that oversocialization is among the more serious cruelties that human beings inflict on one another.
27. We argue that a very important and influential segment of the modern left is oversocialized and that their oversocialization is of great importance in determining the direction of modern leftism. Leftists of the oversocialized type tend to be intellectuals or members of the upper-middle class. Notice that university intellectuals [3] constitute the most highly socialized segment of our society and also the most left-wing segment.
28. The leftist of the oversocialized type tries to get off his psychological leash and assert his autonomy by rebelling. But usually he is not strong enough to rebel against the most basic values of society. Generally speaking, the goals of today抯 leftists are NOT in conflict with the accepted morality. On the contrary, the left takes an accepted moral principle, adopts it as its own, and then accuses mainstream society of violating that principle. Examples: racial equality, equality of the sexes, helping poor people, peace as opposed to war, nonviolence generally, freedom of expression, kindness to animals. More fundamentally, the duty of the individual to serve society and the duty of society to take care of the individual. All these have been deeply rooted values of our society (or at least of its middle and upper classes [4] for a long time. These values are explicitly or implicitly expressed or presupposed in most of the material presented to us by the mainstream communications media and the educational system. Leftists, especially those of the oversocialized type, usually do not rebel against these principles but justify their hostility to society by claiming (with some degree of truth) that society is not living up to these principles.
29. Here is an illustration of the way in which the oversocialized leftist shows his real attachment to the conventional attitudes of our society while pretending to be in rebellion against it. Many leftists push for affirmative action, for moving black people into high-prestige jobs, for improved education in black schools and more money for such schools; the way of life of the black 搖nderclass� they regard as a social disgrace. They want to integrate the black man into the system, make him a business executive, a lawyer, a scientist just like upper-middle-class white people. The leftists will reply that the last thing they want is to make the black man into a copy of the white man; instead, they want to preserve African American culture. But in what does this preservation of African American culture consist? It can hardly consist in anything more than eating black-style food, listening to black-style music, wearing black-style clothing and going to a black- style church or mosque. In other words, it can express itself only in superficial matters. In all ESSENTIAL respects most leftists of the oversocialized type want to make the black man conform to white, middle-class ideals. They want to make him study technical subjects, become an executive or a scientist, spend his life climbing the status ladder to prove that black people are as good as white. They want to make black fathers 搑esponsible,� they want black gangs to become nonviolent, etc. But these are exactly the values of the industrial-technological system. The system couldn抰 care less what kind of music a man listens to, what kind of clothes he wears or what religion he believes in as long as he studies in school, holds a respectable job, climbs the status ladder, is a 搑esponsible� parent, is nonviolent and so forth. In effect, however much he may deny it, the oversocialized leftist wants to integrate the black man into the system and make him adopt its values.
30. We certainly do not claim that leftists, even of the oversocialized type, NEVER rebel against the fundamental values of our society. Clearly they sometimes do. Some oversocialized leftists have gone so far as to rebel against one of modern society抯 most important principles by engaging in physical violence. By their own account, violence is for them a form of 搇iberation.� In other words, by committing violence they break through the psychological restraints that have been trained into them. Because they are oversocialized these restraints have been more confining for them than for others; hence their need to break free of them. But they usually justify their rebellion in terms of mainstream values. If they engage in violence they claim to be fighting against racism or the like.
31. We realize that many objections could be raised to the foregoing thumbnail sketch of leftist psychology. The real situation is complex, and anything like a complete description of it would take several volumes even if the necessary data were available. We claim only to have indicated very roughly the two most important tendencies in the psychology of modern leftism.
32. The problems of the leftist are indicative of the problems of our society as a whole. Low self-esteem, depressive tendencies and defeatism are not restricted to the left. Though they are especially noticeable in the left, they are widespread in our society. And today抯 society tries to socialize us to a greater extent than any previous society. We are even told by experts how to eat, how to exercise, how to make love, how to raise our kids and so forth.
THE POWER PROCESS
33. Human beings have a need (probably based in biology) for something that we will call the 損ower process.� This is closely related to the need for power (which is widely recognized) but is not quite the same thing. The power process has four elements. The three most clear-cut of these we call goal, effort and attainment of goal. (Everyone needs to have goals whose attainment requires effort, and needs to succeed in attaining at least some of his goals.) The fourth element is more difficult to define and may not be necessary for everyone. We call it autonomy and will discuss it later (paragraphs 42-44).
34. Consider the hypothetical case of a man who can have anything he wants just by wishing for it. Such a man has power, but he will develop serious psychological problems. At first he will have a lot of fun, but by and by he will become acutely bored and demoralized. Eventually he may become clinically depressed. History shows that leisured aristocracies tend to become decadent. This is not true of fighting aristocracies that have to struggle to maintain their power. But leisured, secure aristocracies that have no need to exert themselves usually become bored, hedonistic and demoralized, even though they have power. This shows that power is not enough. One must have goals toward which to exercise one抯 power.
35. Everyone has goals; if nothing else, to obtain the physical necessities of life: food, water and whatever clothing and shelter are made necessary by the climate. But the leisured aristocrat obtains these things without effort. Hence his boredom and demoralization.
36. Nonattainment of important goals results in death if the goals are physical necessities, and in frustration if nonattainment of the goals is compatible with survival. Consistent failure to attain goals throughout life results in defeatism, low self-esteem or depression.
37, Thus, in order to avoid serious psychological problems, a human being needs goals whose attainment requires effort, and he must have a reasonable rate of success in attaining his goals.
SURROGATE ACTIVITIES
38. But not every leisured aristocrat becomes bored and demoralized. For example, the emperor Hirohito, instead of sinking into decadent hedonism, devoted himself to marine biology, a field in which he became distinguished. When people do not have to exert themselves to satisfy their physical needs they often set up artificial goals for themselves. In many cases they then pursue these goals with the same energy and emotional involvement that they otherwise would have put into the search for physical necessities. Thus the aristocrats of the Roman Empire had their literary pretensions; many European aristocrats a few centuries ago invested tremendous time and energy in hunting, though they certainly didn抰 need the meat; other aristocracies have competed for status through elaborate displays of wealth; and a few aristocrats, like Hirohito, have turned to science.
39. We use the term 搒urrogate activity� to designate an activity that is directed toward an artificial goal that people set up for themselves merely in order to have some goal to work toward, or let us say, merely for the sake of the 揻ulfillment� that they get from pursuing the goal. Here is a rule of thumb for the identification of surrogate activities. Given a person who devotes much time and energy to the pursuit of goal X, ask yourself this: If he had to devote most of his time and energy to satisfying his biological needs, and if that effort required him to use his physical and mental faculties in a varied and interesting way, would he feel seriously deprived because he did not attain goal X? If the answer is no, then the person抯 pursuit of goal X is a surrogate activity. Hirohito抯 studies in marine biology clearly constituted a surrogate activity, since it is pretty certain that if Hirohito had had to spend his time working at interesting non-scientific tasks in order to obtain the necessities of life, he would not have felt deprived because he didn抰 know all about the anatomy and life-cycles of marine animals. On the other hand the pursuit of sex and love (for example) is not a surrogate activity, because most people, even if their existence were otherwise satisfactory, would feel deprived if they passed their lives without ever having a relationship with a member of the opposite sex. (But pursuit of an excessive amount of sex, more than one really needs, can be a surrogate activity.)
40. In modern industrial society only minimal effort is necessary to satisfy one抯 physical needs. It is enough to go through a training program to acquire some petty technical skill, then come to work on time and exert the very modest effort needed to hold a job. The only requirements are a moderate amount of intelligence and, most of all, simple OBEDIENCE. If one has those, society takes care of one from cradle to grave. (Yes, there is an underclass that cannot take the physical necessities for granted, but we are speaking here of mainstream society.) Thus it is not surprising that modern society is full of surrogate activities. These include scientific work, athletic achievement, humanitarian work, artistic and literary creation, climbing the corporate ladder, acquisition of money and material goods far beyond the point at which they cease to give any additional physical satisfaction, and social activism when it addresses issues that are not important for the activist personally, as in the case of white activists who work for the rights of nonwhite minorities. These are not always PURE surrogate activities, since for many people they may be motivated in part by needs other than the need to have some goal to pursue. Scientific work may be motivated in part by a drive for prestige, artistic creation by a need to express feelings, militant social activism by hostility. But for most people who pursue them, these activities are in large part surrogate activities. For example, the majority of scientists will probably agree that the 揻ulfillment� they get from their work is more important than the money and prestige they earn.
41. For many if not most people, surrogate activities are less satisfying than the pursuit of real goals (that is, goals that people would want to attain even if their need for the power process were already fulfilled). One indication of this is the fact that, in many or most cases, people who are deeply involved in surrogate activities are never satisfied, never at rest. Thus the money-maker constantly strives for more and more wealth. The scientist no sooner solves one problem than he moves on to the next. The long-distance runner drives himself to run always farther and faster. Many people who pursue surrogate activities will say that they get far more fulfillment from these activities than they do from the 搈undane� business of satisfying their biological needs, but that is because in our society the effort needed to satisfy the biological needs has been reduced to triviality. More importantly, in our society people do not satisfy their biological needs AUTONOMOUSLY but by functioning as parts of an immense social machine. In contrast, people generally have a great deal of autonomy in pursuing their surrogate activities.
AUTONOMY
42. Autonomy as a part of the power process may not be necessary for every individual. But most people need a greater or lesser degree of autonomy in working toward their goals. Their efforts must be undertaken on their own initiative and must be under their own direction and control. Yet most people do not have to exert this initiative, direction and control as single individuals. It is usually enough to act as a member of a SMALL group. Thus if half a dozen people discuss a goal among themselves and make a successful joint effort to attain that goal, their need for the power process will be served. But if they work under rigid orders handed down from above that leave them no room for autonomous decision and initiative, then their need for the power process will not be served. The same is true when decisions are made on a collective basis if the group making the collective decision is so large that the role of each individual is insignificant. [5]
43. It is true that some individuals seem to have little need for autonomy. Either their drive for power is weak or they satisfy it by identifying themselves with some powerful organization to which they belong. And then there are unthinking, animal types who seem to be satisfied with a purely physical sense of power (the good combat soldier, who gets his sense of power by developing fighting skills that he is quite content to use in blind obedience to his superiors).
44. But for most people it is through the power process梙aving a goal, making an AUTONOMOUS effort and attaining the goal梩hat self-esteem, self-confidence and a sense of power are acquired. When one does not have adequate opportunity to go through the power process the consequences are (depending on the individual and on the way the power process is disrupted) boredom, demoralization, low self-esteem, inferiority feelings, defeatism, depression, anxiety, guilt, frustration, hostility, spouse or child abuse, insatiable hedonism, abnormal sexual behavior, sleep disorders, eating disorders, etc. [6]
SOURCES OF SOCIAL PROBLEMS
45. Any of the foregoing symptoms can occur in any society, but in modern industrial society they are present on a massive scale. We aren抰 the first to mention that the world today seems to be going crazy. This sort of thing is not normal for human societies. There is good reason to believe that primitive man suffered from less stress and frustration and was better satisfied with his way of life than modern man is. It is true that not all was sweetness and light in primitive societies. Abuse of women was common among the Australian aborigines, transexuality was fairly common among some of the American Indian tribes. But it does appear that GENERALLY SPEAKING the kinds of problems that we have listed in the preceding paragraph were far less common among primitive peoples than they are in modern society.
46. We attribute the social and psychological problems of modern society to the fact that that society requires people to live under conditions radically different from those under which the human race evolved and to behave in ways that conflict with the patterns of behavior that the human race developed while living under the earlier conditions. It is clear from what we have already written that we consider lack of opportunity to properly experience the power process as the most important of the abnormal conditions to which modern society subjects people. But it is not the only one. Before dealing with disruption of the power process as a source of social problems we will discuss some of the other sources.
47. Among the abnormal conditions present in modern industrial society are excessive density of population, isolation of man from nature, excessive rapidity of social change and the breakdown of natural small-scale communities such as the extended family, the village or the tribe.
48. It is well known that crowding increases stress and aggression. The degree of crowding that exists today and the isolation of man from nature are consequences of technological progress. All pre-industrial societies were predominantly rural. The Industrial Revolution vastly increased the size of cities and the proportion of the population that lives in them, and modern agricultural technology has made it possible for the Earth to support a far denser population than it ever did before. (Also, technology exacerbates the effects of crowding because it puts increased disruptive powers in people抯 hands. For example, a variety of noise- making devices: power mowers, radios, motorcycles, etc. If the use of these devices is unrestricted, people who want peace and quiet are frustrated by the noise. If their use is restricted, people who use the devices are frustrated by the regulations. But if these machines had never been invented there would have been no conflict and no frustration generated by them.)
49. For primitive societies the natural world (which usually changes only slowly) provided a stable framework and therefore a sense of security. In the modern world it is human society that dominates nature rather than the other way around, and modern society changes very rapidly owing to technological change. Thus there is no stable framework.
50. The conservatives are fools: They whine about the decay of traditional values, yet they enthusiastically support technological progress and economic growth. Apparently it never occurs to them that you can抰 make rapid, drastic changes in the technology and the economy of a society without causing rapid changes in all other aspects of the society as well, and that such rapid changes inevitably break down traditional values.
51. The breakdown of traditional values to some extent implies the breakdown of the bonds that hold together traditional small-scale social groups. The disintegration of small-scale social groups is also promoted by the fact that modern conditions often require or tempt individuals to move to new locations, separating themselves from their communities. Beyond that, a technological society HAS TO weaken family ties and local communities if it is to function efficiently. In modern society an individual抯 loyalty must be first to the system and only secondarily to a small-scale community, because if the internal loyalties of small-scale communities were stronger than loyalty to the system, such communities would pursue their own advantage at the expense of the system.
52. Suppose that a public official or a corporation executive appoints his cousin, his friend or his co- religionist to a position rather than appointing the person best qualified for the job. He has permitted personal loyalty to supersede his loyalty to the system, and that is 搉epotism� or 揹iscrimination,� both of which are terrible sins in modern society. Would-be industrial societies that have done a poor job of subordinating personal or local loyalties to loyalty to the system are usually very inefficient. (Look at Latin America.) Thus an advanced industrial society can tolerate only those small-scale communities that are emasculated, tamed and made into tools of the system. [7]
53. Crowding, rapid change and the breakdown of communities have been widely recognized as sources of social problems. But we do not believe they are enough to account for the extent of the problems that are seen today.
54. A few pre-industrial cities were very large and crowded, yet their inhabitants do not seem to have suffered from psychological problems to the same extent as modern man. In America today there still are uncrowded rural areas, and we find there the same problems as in urban areas, though the problems tend to be less acute in the rural areas. Thus crowding does not seem to be the decisive factor.
55. On the growing edge of the American frontier during the 19th century, the mobility of the population probably broke down extended families and small-scale social groups to at least the same extent as these are broken down today. In fact, many nuclear families lived by choice in such isolation, having no neighbors within several miles, that they belonged to no community at all, yet they do not seem to have developed problems as a result.
56. Furthermore, change in American frontier society was very rapid and deep. A man might be born and raised in a log cabin, outside the reach of law and order and fed largely on wild meat; and by the time he arrived at old age he might be working at a regular job and living in an ordered community with effective law enforcement. This was a deeper change than that which typically occurs in the life of a modern individual, yet it does not seem to have led to psychological problems. In fact, 19th century American society had an optimistic and self-confident tone, quite unlike that of today抯 society. [8]
57. The difference, we argue, is that modern man has the sense (largely justified) that change is IMPOSED on him, whereas the 19th century frontiersman had the sense (also largely justified) that he created change himself, by his own choice. Thus a pioneer settled on a piece of land of his own choosing and made it into a farm through his own effort. In those days an entire county might have only a couple of hundred inhabitants and was a far more isolated and autonomous entity than a modern county is. Hence the pioneer farmer participated as a member of a relatively small group in the creation of a new, ordered community. One may well question whether the creation of this community was an improvement, but at any rate it satisfied the pioneer抯 need for the power process.
58. It would be possible to give other examples of societies in which there has been rapid change and/or lack of close community ties without the kind of massive behavioral aberration that is seen in today抯 industrial society. We contend that the most important cause of social and psychological problems in modern society is the fact that people have insufficient opportunity to go through the power process in a normal way. We don抰 mean to say that modern society is the only one in which the power process has been disrupted. Probably most if not all civilized societies have interfered with the power process to a greater or lesser extent. But in modern industrial society the problem has become particularly acute. Leftism, at least in its recent (mid- to late-20th century) form, is in part a symptom of deprivation with respect to the power process.
DISRUPTION OF THE POWER PROCESS IN MODERN SOCIETY
59. We divide human drives into three groups: (1) those drives that can be satisfied with minimal effort; (2) those that can be satisfied but only at the cost of serious effort; (3) those that cannot be adequately satisfied no matter how much effort one makes. The power process is the process of satisfying the drives of the second group. The more drives there are in the third group, the more there is frustration, anger, eventually defeatism, depression, etc.
60. In modern industrial society natural human drives tend to be pushed into the first and third groups, and the second group tends to consist increasingly of artificially created drives.
61. In primitive societies, physical necessities generally fall into group 2: They can be obtained, but only at the cost of serious effort. But modern society tends to guaranty the physical necessities to everyone [9] in exchange for only minimal effort, hence physical needs are pushed into group 1. (There may be disagreement about whether the effort needed to hold a job is 搈inimal�; but usually, in lower- to middle- level jobs, whatever effort is required is merely that of OBEDIENCE. You sit or stand where you are told to sit or stand and do what you are told to do in the way you are told to do it. Seldom do you have to exert yourself seriously, and in any case you have hardly any autonomy in work, so that the need for the power process is not well served.)
62. Social needs, such as sex, love and status, often remain in group 2 in modern society, depending on the situation of the individual. [10] But, except for people who have a particularly strong drive for status, the effort required to fulfill the social drives is insufficient to satisfy adequately the need for the power process.
63. So certain artificial needs have been created that fall into group 2, hence serve the need for the power process. Advertising and marketing techniques have been developed that make many people feel they need things that their grandparents never desired or even dreamed of. It requires serious effort to earn enough money to satisfy these artificial needs, hence they fall into group 2. (But see paragraphs 80-82.) Modern man must satisfy his need for the power process largely through pursuit of the artificial needs created by the advertising and marketing industry [11], and through surrogate activities.
64. It seems that for many people, maybe the majority, these artificial forms of the power process are insufficient. A theme that appears repeatedly in the writings of the social critics of the second half of the 20th century is the sense of purposelessness that afflicts many people in modern society. (This purposelessness is often called by other names such as 揳nomic� or 搈iddle-class vacuity.�) We suggest that the so-called 搃dentity crisis� is actually a search for a sense of purpose, often for commitment to a suitable surrogate activity. It may be that existentialism is in large part a response to the purposelessness of modern life. [12] Very widespread in modern society is the search for 揻ulfillment.� But we think that for the majority of people an activity whose main goal is fulfillment (that is, a surrogate activity) does not bring completely satisfactory fulfillment. In other words, it does not fully satisfy the need for the power process. (See paragraph 41.) That need can be fully satisfied only through activities that have some external goal, such as physical necessities, sex, love, status, revenge, etc.
65. Moreover, where goals are pursued through earning money, climbing the status ladder or functioning as part of the system in some other way, most people are not in a position to pursue their goals AUTONOMOUSLY. Most workers are someone else抯 employee and, as we pointed out in paragraph 61, must spend their days doing what they are told to do in the way they are told to do it. Even people who are in business for themselves have only limited autonomy. It is a chronic complaint of small-business persons and entrepreneurs that their hands are tied by excessive government regulation. Some of these regulations are doubtless unnecessary, but for the most part government regulations are essential and inevitable parts of our extremely complex society. A large portion of small business today operates on the franchise system. It was reported in the Wall Street Journal a few years ago that many of the franchise-granting companies require applicants for franchises to take a personality test that is designed to EXCLUDE those who have creativity and initiative, because such persons are not sufficiently docile to go along obediently with the franchise system. This excludes from small business many of the people who most need autonomy.
66. Today people live more by virtue of what the system does FOR them or TO them than by virtue of what they do for themselves. And what they do for themselves is done more and more along channels laid down by the system. Opportunities tend to be those that the system provides, the opportunities must be exploited in accord with rules and regulations [13], and techniques prescribed by experts must be followed if there is to be a chance of success.
67. Thus the power process is disrupted in our society through a deficiency of real goals and a deficiency of autonomy in the pursuit of goals. But it is also disrupted because of those human drives that fall into group 3: the drives that one cannot adequately satisfy no matter how much effort one makes. One of these drives is the need for security. Our lives depend on decisions made by other people; we have no control over these decisions and usually we do not even know the people who make them. (揥e live in a world in which relatively few people梞aybe 500 or 1,000梞ake the important decisions敆Philip B. Heymann of Harvard Law School, quoted by Anthony Lewis, New York Times, April 21, 1995.) Our lives depend on whether safety standards at a nuclear power plant are properly maintained; on how much pesticide is allowed to get into our food or how much pollution into our air; on how skillful (or incompetent) our doctor is; whether we lose or get a job may depend on decisions made by government economists or corporation executives; and so forth. Most individuals are not in a position to secure themselves against these threats to more [than] a very limited extent. The individual抯 search for security is therefore frustrated, which leads to a sense of powerlessness.
68. It may be objected that primitive man is physically less secure than modern man, as is shown by his shorter life expectancy; hence modern man suffers from less, not more than the amount of insecurity that is normal for human beings. But psychological security does not closely correspond with physical security. What makes us FEEL secure is not so much objective security as a sense of confidence in our ability to take care of ourselves. Primitive man, threatened by a fierce animal or by hunger, can fight in self-defense or travel in search of food. He has no certainty of success in these efforts, but he is by no means helpless against the things that threaten him. The modern individual on the other hand is threatened by many things against which he is helpless: nuclear accidents, carcinogens in food, environmental pollution, war, increasing taxes, invasion of his privacy by large organizations, nationwide social or economic phenomena that may disrupt his way of life.
69. It is true that primitive man is powerless against some of the things that threaten him; disease for example. But he can accept the risk of disease stoically. It is part of the nature of things, it is no one抯 fault, unless it is the fault of some imaginary, impersonal demon. But threats to the modern individual tend to be MAN-MADE. They are not the results of chance but are IMPOSED on him by other persons whose decisions he, as an individual, is unable to influence. Consequently he feels frustrated, humiliated and angry.
70. Thus primitive man for the most part has his security in his own hands (either as an individual or as a member of a SMALL group) whereas the security of modern man is in the hands of persons or organizations that are too remote or too large for him to be able personally to influence them. So modern man抯 drive for security tends to fall into groups 1 and 3; in some areas (food, shelter etc.) his security is assured at the cost of only trivial effort, whereas in other areas he CANNOT attain security. (The foregoing greatly simplifies the real situation, but it does indicate in a rough, general way how the condition of modern man differs from that of primitive man.)
71. People have many transitory drives or impulses that are necessarily frustrated in modern life, hence fall into group 3. One may become angry, but modern society cannot permit fighting. In many situations it does not even permit verbal aggression. When going somewhere one may be in a hurry, or one may be in a mood to travel slowly, but one generally has no choice but to move with the flow of traffic and obey the traffic signals. One may want to do one抯 work in a different way, but usually one can work only according to the rules laid down by one抯 employer. In many other ways as well, modern man is strapped down by a network of rules and regulations (explicit or implicit) that frustrate many of his impulses and thus interfere with the power process. Most of these regulations cannot be dispensed with, because they are necessary for the functioning of industrial society.
72. Modern society is in certain respects extremely permissive. In matters that are irrelevant to the functioning of the system we can generally do what we please. We can believe in any religion we like (as long as it does not encourage behavior that is dangerous to the system). We can go to bed with anyone we like (as long as we practice 搒afe sex�). We can do anything we like as long as it is UNIMPORTANT. But in all IMPORTANT matters the system tends increasingly to regulate our behavior.
73. Behavior is regulated not only through explicit rules and not only by the government. Control is often exercised through indirect coercion or through psychological pressure or manipulation, and by organizations other than the government, or by the system as a whole. Most large organizations use some form of propaganda [14] to manipulate public attitudes or behavior. Propaganda is not limited to 揷ommercials� and advertisements, and sometimes it is not even consciously intended as propaganda by the people who make it. For instance, the content of entertainment programming is a powerful form of propaganda. An example of indirect coercion: There is no law that says we have to go to work every day and follow our employer抯 orders. Legally there is nothing to prevent us from going to live in the wild like primitive people or from going into business for ourselves. But in practice there is very little wild country left, and there is room in the economy for only a limited number of small business owners. Hence most of us can survive only as someone else抯 employee.
74. We suggest that modern man抯 obsession with longevity, and with maintaining physical vigor and sexual attractiveness to an advanced age, is a symptom of unfulfillment resulting from deprivation with respect to the power process. The 搈id-life crisis� also is such a symptom. So is the lack of interest in having children that is fairly common in modern society but almost unheard-of in primitive societies.
75. In primitive societies life is a succession of stages. The needs and purposes of one stage having been fulfilled, there is no particular reluctance about passing on to the next stage. A young man goes through the power process by becoming a hunter, hunting not for sport or for fulfillment but to get meat that is necessary for food. (In young women the process is more complex, with greater emphasis on social power; we won抰 discuss that here.) This phase having been successfully passed through, the young man has no reluctance about settling down to the responsibilities of raising a family. (In contrast, some modern people indefinitely postpone having children because they are too busy seeking some kind of 揻ulfillment.� We suggest that the fulfillment they need is adequate experience of the power process梬ith real goals instead of the artificial goals of surrogate activities.) Again, having successfully raised his children, going through the power process by providing them with the physical necessities, the primitive man feels that his work is done and he is prepared to accept old age (if he survives that long) and death. Many modern people, on the other hand, are disturbed by the prospect of physical deterioration and death, as is shown by the amount of effort they expend trying to maintain their physical condition, appearance and health. We argue that this is due to unfulfillment resulting from the fact that they have never put their physical powers to any practical use, have never gone through the power process using their bodies in a serious way. It is not the primitive man, who has used his body daily for practical purposes, who fears the deterioration of age, but the modern man, who has never had a practical use for his body beyond walking from his car to his house. It is the man whose need for the power process has been satisfied during his life who is best prepared to accept the end of that life.
76. In response to the arguments of this section someone will say, 揝ociety must find a way to give people the opportunity to go through the power process.� For such people the value of the opportunity is destroyed by the very fact that society gives it to them. What they need is to find or make their own opportunities. As long as the system GIVES them their opportunities it still has them on a leash. To attain autonomy they must get off that leash.
HOW SOME PEOPLE ADJUST
77. Not everyone in industrial-technological society suffers from psychological problems. Some people even profess to be quite satisfied with society as it is. We now discuss some of the reasons why people differ so greatly in their response to modern society.
78. First, there doubtless are differences in the strength of the drive for power. Individuals with a weak drive for power may have relatively little need to go through the power process, or at least relatively little need for autonomy in the power process. These are docile types who would have been happy as plantation darkies in the Old South. (We don抰 mean to sneer at the 損lantation darkies� of the Old South. To their credit, most of the slaves were NOT content with their servitude. We do sneer at people who ARE content with servitude.)
79. Some people may have some exceptional drive, in pursuing which they satisfy their need for the power process. For example, those who have an unusually strong drive for social status may spend their whole lives climbing the status ladder without ever getting bored with that game.
80. People vary in their susceptibility to advertising and marketing techniques. Some are so susceptible that, even if they make a great deal of money, they cannot satisfy their constant craving for the the shiny new toys that the marketing industry dangles before their eyes. So they always feel hard-pressed financially even if their income is large, and their cravings are frustrated.
81. Some people have low susceptibility to advertising and marketing techniques. These are the people who aren抰 interested in money. Material acquisition does not serve their need for the power process.
82. People who have medium susceptibility to advertising and marketing techniques are able to earn enough money to satisfy their craving for goods and services, but only at the cost of serious effort (putting in overtime, taking a second job, earning promotions, etc.). Thus material acquisition serves their need for the power process. But it does not necessarily follow that their need is fully satisfied. They may have insufficient autonomy in the power process (their work may consist of following orders) and some of their drives may be frustrated (e.g., security, aggression). (We are guilty of oversimplification in paragraphs 80- 82 because we have assumed that the desire for material acquisition is entirely a creation of the advertising and marketing industry. Of course it抯 not that simple. [11]
83. Some people partly satisfy their need for power by identifying themselves with a powerful organization or mass movement. An individual lacking goals or power joins a movement or an organization, adopts its goals as his own, then works toward those goals. When some of the goals are attained, the individual, even though his personal efforts have played only an insignificant part in the attainment of the goals, feels (through his identification with the movement or organization) as if he had gone through the power process. This phenomenon was exploited by the fascists, nazis and communists. Our society uses it too, though less crudely. Example: Manuel Noriega was an irritant to the U.S. (goal: punish Noriega). The U.S. invaded Panama (effort) and punished Noriega (attainment of goal). Thus the U.S. went through the power process and many Americans, because of their identification with the U.S., experienced the power process vicariously. Hence the widespread public approval of the Panama invasion; it gave people a sense of power. [15] We see the same phenomenon in armies, corporations, political parties, humanitarian organizations, religious or ideological movements. In particular, leftist movements tend to attract people who are seeking to satisfy their need for power. But for most people identification with a large organization or a mass movement does not fully satisfy the need for power.
84. Another way in which people satisfy their need for the power process is through surrogate activities. As we explained in paragraphs 38-40, a surrogate activity is an activity that is directed toward an artificial goal that the individual pursues for the sake of the 揻ulfillment� that he gets from pursuing the goal, not because he needs to attain the goal itself. For instance, there is no practical motive for building enormous muscles, hitting a little ball into a hole or acquiring a complete series of postage stamps. Yet many people in our society devote themselves with passion to bodybuilding, golf or stamp-collecting. Some people are more 搊ther-directed� than others, and therefore will more readily attach importance to a surrogate activity simply because the people around them treat it as important or because society tells them it is important. That is why some people get very serious about essentially trivial activities such as sports, or bridge, or chess, or arcane scholarly pursuits, whereas others who are more clear-sighted never see these things as anything but the surrogate activities that they are, and consequently never attach enough importance to them to satisfy their need for the power process in that way. It only remains to point out that in many cases a person抯 way of earning a living is also a surrogate activity. Not a PURE surrogate activity, since part of the motive for the activity is to gain the physical necessities and (for some people) social status and the luxuries that advertising makes them want. But many people put into their work far more effort than is necessary to earn whatever money and status they require, and this extra effort constitutes a surrogate activity. This extra effort, together with the emotional investment that accompanies it, is one of the most potent forces acting toward the continual development and perfecting of the system, with negative consequences for individual freedom (see paragraph 131). Especially, for the most creative scientists and engineers, work tends to be largely a surrogate activity. This point is so important that it deserves a separate discussion, which we shall give in a moment (paragraphs 87-92).
85. In this section we have explained how many people in modern society do satisfy their need for the power process to a greater or lesser extent. But we think that for the majority of people the need for the power process is not fully satisfied. In the first place, those who have an insatiable drive for status, or who get firmly 揾ooked� on a surrogate activity, or who identify strongly enough with a movement or organization to satisfy their need for power in that way, are exceptional personalities. Others are not fully satisfied with surrogate activities or by identification with an organization (see paragraphs 41, 64). In the second place, too much control is imposed by the system through explicit regulation or through socialization, which results in a deficiency of autonomy, and in frustration due to the impossibility of attaining certain goals and the necessity of restraining too many impulses.
86. But even if most people in industrial-technological society were well satisfied, we (FC) would still be opposed to that form of society, because (among other reasons) we consider it demeaning to fulfill one抯 need for the power process through surrogate activities or through identification with an organization, rather than through pursuit of real goals.
THE MOTIVES OF SCIENTISTS
87. Science and technology provide the most important examples of surrogate activities. Some scientists claim that they are motivated by 揷uriosity� or by a desire to 揵enefit humanity.� But it is easy to see that neither of these can be the principal motive of most scientists. As for 揷uriosity,� that notion is simply absurd. Most scientists work on highly specialized problems that are not the object of any normal curiosity. For example, is an astronomer, a mathematician or an entomologist curious about the properties of isopropyltrimethylmethane? Of course not. Only a chemist is curious about such a thing, and he is curious about it only because chemistry is his surrogate activity. Is the chemist curious about the appropriate classification of a new species of beetle? No. That question is of interest only to the entomologist, and he is interested in it only because entomology is his surrogate activity. If the chemist and the entomologist had to exert themselves seriously to obtain the physical necessities, and if that effort exercised their abilities in an interesting way but in some nonscientific pursuit, then they wouldn抰 give a damn about isopropyltrimethylmethane or the classification of beetles. Suppose that lack of funds for postgraduate education had led the chemist to become an insurance broker instead of a chemist. In that case he would have been very interested in insurance matters but would have cared nothing about isopropyltrimethylmethane. In any case it is not normal to put into the satisfaction of mere curiosity the amount of time and effort that scientists put into their work. The 揷uriosity� explanation for the scientists� motive just doesn抰 stand up.
88. The 揵enefit of humanity� explanation doesn抰 work any better. Some scientific work has no conceivable relation to the welfare of the human race梞ost of archaeology or comparative linguistics for example. Some other areas of science present obviously dangerous possibilities. Yet scientists in these areas are just as enthusiastic about their work as those who develop v
原文地址： INDUSTRIAL SOCIETY AND ITS FUTURE
The Unabomber Trial: The Manifesto
Editor's Note: This is the text of a 35,000-word manifesto as submitted to The Washington Post and the New York Times by the serial mail bomber called the Unabomber. The manifesto appeared in The Washington Post as an eight-page supplement that was not part of the news sections. This document contains corrections that appeared in the Friday, Sept. 22, 1995 editions of Washington Post. The text was sent in June, 1995 to The New York Times and The Washington Post by the person who calls himself 揊C,� identified by the FBI as the Unabomber, whom authorities have implicated in three murders and 16 bombings. The author threatened to send a bomb to an unspecified destination 搘ith intent to kill� unless one of the newspapers published this manuscript. The Attorney General and the Director of the FBI recommended publication.
Return to our special report.
INDUSTRIAL SOCIETY AND ITS FUTURE
Introduction
1. The Industrial Revolution and its consequences have been a disaster for the human race. They have greatly increased the life-expectancy of those of us who live in 揳dvanced� countries, but they have destabilized society, have made life unfulfilling, have subjected human beings to indignities, have led to widespread psychological suffering (in the Third World to physical suffering as well) and have inflicted severe damage on the natural world. The continued development of technology will worsen the situation. It will certainly subject human beings to greater indignities and inflict greater damage on the natural world, it will probably lead to greater social disruption and psychological suffering, and it may lead to increased physical suffering even in 揳dvanced� countries.
2. The industrial-technological system may survive or it may break down. If it survives, it MAY eventually achieve a low level of physical and psychological suffering, but only after passing through a long and very painful period of adjustment and only at the cost of permanently reducing human beings and many other living organisms to engineered products and mere cogs in the social machine. Furthermore, if the system survives, the consequences will be inevitable: There is no way of reforming or modifying the system so as to prevent it from depriving people of dignity and autonomy.
3. If the system breaks down the consequences will still be very painful. But the bigger the system grows the more disastrous the results of its breakdown will be, so if it is to break down it had best break down sooner rather than later.
4. We therefore advocate a revolution against the industrial system. This revolution may or may not make use of violence; it may be sudden or it may be a relatively gradual process spanning a few decades. We can抰 predict any of that. But we do outline in a very general way the measures that those who hate the industrial system should take in order to prepare the way for a revolution against that form of society. This is not to be a POLITICAL revolution. Its object will be to overthrow not governments but the economic and technological basis of the present society.
5. In this article we give attention to only some of the negative developments that have grown out of the industrial-technological system. Other such developments we mention only briefly or ignore altogether. This does not mean that we regard these other developments as unimportant. For practical reasons we have to confine our discussion to areas that have received insufficient public attention or in which we have something new to say. For example, since there are well-developed environmental and wilderness movements, we have written very little about environmental degradation or the destruction of wild nature, even though we consider these to be highly important.
THE PSYCHOLOGY OF MODERN LEFTISM
6. Almost everyone will agree that we live in a deeply troubled society. One of the most widespread manifestations of the craziness of our world is leftism, so a discussion of the psychology of leftism can serve as an introduction to the discussion of the problems of modern society in general.
7. But what is leftism? During the first half of the 20th century leftism could have been practically identified with socialism. Today the movement is fragmented and it is not clear who can properly be called a leftist. When we speak of leftists in this article we have in mind mainly socialists, collectivists, 損olitically correct� types, feminists, gay and disability activists, animal rights activists and the like. But not everyone who is associated with one of these movements is a leftist. What we are trying to get at in discussing leftism is not so much movement or an ideology as a psychological type, or rather a collection of related types. Thus, what we mean by 搇eftism� will emerge more clearly in the course of our discussion of leftist psychology. (Also, see paragraphs 227-230.)
8. Even so, our conception of leftism will remain a good deal less clear than we would wish, but there doesn抰 seem to be any remedy for this. All we are trying to do here is indicate in a rough and approximate way the two psychological tendencies that we believe are the main driving force of modern leftism. We by no means claim to be telling the WHOLE truth about leftist psychology. Also, our discussion is meant to apply to modern leftism only. We leave open the question of the extent to which our discussion could be applied to the leftists of the 19th and early 20th centuries.
9. The two psychological tendencies that underlie modern leftism we call 揻eelings of inferiority� and 搊versocialization.� Feelings of inferiority are characteristic of modern leftism as a whole, while oversocialization is characteristic only of a certain segment of modern leftism; but this segment is highly influential.
FEELINGS OF INFERIORITY
10. By 揻eelings of inferiority� we mean not only inferiority feelings in the strict sense but a whole spectrum of related traits; low self-esteem, feelings of powerlessness, depressive tendencies, defeatism, guilt, self- hatred, etc. We argue that modern leftists tend to have some such feelings (possibly more or less repressed) and that these feelings are decisive in determining the direction of modern leftism.
11. When someone interprets as derogatory almost anything that is said about him (or about groups with whom he identifies) we conclude that he has inferiority feelings or low self-esteem. This tendency is pronounced among minority rights activists, whether or not they belong to the minority groups whose rights they defend. They are hypersensitive about the words used to designate minorities and about anything that is said concerning minorities. The terms 搉egro,� 搊riental,� 揾andicapped� or 揷hick� for an African, an Asian, a disabled person or a woman originally had no derogatory connotation. 揃road� and 揷hick� were merely the feminine equivalents of 揼uy,� 揹ude� or 揻ellow.� The negative connotations have been attached to these terms by the activists themselves. Some animal rights activists have gone so far as to reject the word 損et� and insist on its replacement by 揳nimal companion.� Leftish anthropologists go to great lengths to avoid saying anything about primitive peoples that could conceivably be interpreted as negative. They want to replace the world 損rimitive� by 搉onliterate.� They seem almost paranoid about anything that might suggest that any primitive culture is inferior to our own. (We do not mean to imply that primitive cultures ARE inferior to ours. We merely point out the hypersensitivity of leftish anthropologists.)
12. Those who are most sensitive about 損olitically incorrect� terminology are not the average black ghetto- dweller, Asian immigrant, abused woman or disabled person, but a minority of activists, many of whom do not even belong to any 搊ppressed� group but come from privileged strata of society. Political correctness has its stronghold among university professors, who have secure employment with comfortable salaries, and the majority of whom are heterosexual white males from middle- to upper-middle-class families.
13. Many leftists have an intense identification with the problems of groups that have an image of being weak (women), defeated (American Indians), repellent (homosexuals) or otherwise inferior. The leftists themselves feel that these groups are inferior. They would never admit to themselves that they have such feelings, but it is precisely because they do see these groups as inferior that they identify with their problems. (We do not mean to suggest that women, Indians, etc. ARE inferior; we are only making a point about leftist psychology.)
14. Feminists are desperately anxious to prove that women are as strong and as capable as men. Clearly they are nagged by a fear that women may NOT be as strong and as capable as men.
15. Leftists tend to hate anything that has an image of being strong, good and successful. They hate America, they hate Western civilization, they hate white males, they hate rationality. The reasons that leftists give for hating the West, etc. clearly do not correspond with their real motives. They SAY they hate the West because it is warlike, imperialistic, sexist, ethnocentric and so forth, but where these same faults appear in socialist countries or in primitive cultures, the leftist finds excuses for them, or at best he GRUDGINGLY admits that they exist; whereas he ENTHUSIASTICALLY points out (and often greatly exaggerates) these faults where they appear in Western civilization. Thus it is clear that these faults are not the leftist抯 real motive for hating America and the West. He hates America and the West because they are strong and successful.
16. Words like 搒elf-confidence,� 搒elf-reliance,� 搃nitiative,� 揺nterprise,� 搊ptimism,� etc., play little role in the liberal and leftist vocabulary. The leftist is anti-individualistic, pro-collectivist. He wants society to solve everyone抯 problems for them, satisfy everyone抯 needs for them, take care of them. He is not the sort of person who has an inner sense of confidence in his ability to solve his own problems and satisfy his own needs. The leftist is antagonistic to the concept of competition because, deep inside, he feels like a loser.
17. Art forms that appeal to modern leftish intellectuals tend to focus on sordidness, defeat and despair, or else they take an orgiastic tone, throwing off rational control as if there were no hope of accomplishing anything through rational calculation and all that was left was to immerse oneself in the sensations of the moment.
18. Modern leftish philosophers tend to dismiss reason, science, objective reality and to insist that everything is culturally relative. It is true that one can ask serious questions about the foundations of scientific knowledge and about how, if at all, the concept of objective reality can be defined. But it is obvious that modern leftish philosophers are not simply cool-headed logicians systematically analyzing the foundations of knowledge. They are deeply involved emotionally in their attack on truth and reality. They attack these concepts because of their own psychological needs. For one thing, their attack is an outlet for hostility, and, to the extent that it is successful, it satisfies the drive for power. More importantly, the leftist hates science and rationality because they classify certain beliefs as true (i.e., successful, superior) and other beliefs as false (i.e., failed, inferior). The leftist抯 feelings of inferiority run so deep that he cannot tolerate any classification of some things as successful or superior and other things as failed or inferior. This also underlies the rejection by many leftists of the concept of mental illness and of the utility of IQ tests. Leftists are antagonistic to genetic explanations of human abilities or behavior because such explanations tend to make some persons appear superior or inferior to others. Leftists prefer to give society the credit or blame for an individual抯 ability or lack of it. Thus if a person is 搃nferior� it is not his fault, but society抯, because he has not been brought up properly.
19. The leftist is not typically the kind of person whose feelings of inferiority make him a braggart, an egotist, a bully, a self-promoter, a ruthless competitor. This kind of person has not wholly lost faith in himself. He has a deficit in his sense of power and self-worth, but he can still conceive of himself as having the capacity to be strong, and his efforts to make himself strong produce his unpleasant behavior. [1] But the leftist is too far gone for that. His feelings of inferiority are so ingrained that he cannot conceive of himself as individually strong and valuable. Hence the collectivism of the leftist. He can feel strong only as a member of a large organization or a mass movement with which he identifies himself.
20. Notice the masochistic tendency of leftist tactics. Leftists protest by lying down in front of vehicles, they intentionally provoke police or racists to abuse them, etc. These tactics may often be effective, but many leftists use them not as a means to an end but because they PREFER masochistic tactics. Self-hatred is a leftist trait.
21. Leftists may claim that their activism is motivated by compassion or by moral principles, and moral principle does play a role for the leftist of the oversocialized type. But compassion and moral principle cannot be the main motives for leftist activism. Hostility is too prominent a component of leftist behavior; so is the drive for power. Moreover, much leftist behavior is not rationally calculated to be of benefit to the people whom the leftists claim to be trying to help. For example, if one believes that affirmative action is good for black people, does it make sense to demand affirmative action in hostile or dogmatic terms? Obviously it would be more productive to take a diplomatic and conciliatory approach that would make at least verbal and symbolic concessions to white people who think that affirmative action discriminates against them. But leftist activists do not take such an approach because it would not satisfy their emotional needs. Helping black people is not their real goal. Instead, race problems serve as an excuse for them to express their own hostility and frustrated need for power. In doing so they actually harm black people, because the activists� hostile attitude toward the white majority tends to intensify race hatred.
22. If our society had no social problems at all, the leftists would have to INVENT problems in order to provide themselves with an excuse for making a fuss.
23. We emphasize that the foregoing does not pretend to be an accurate description of everyone who might be considered a leftist. It is only a rough indication of a general tendency of leftism.
OVERSOCIALIZATION
24. Psychologists use the term 搒ocialization� to designate the process by which children are trained to think and act as society demands. A person is said to be well socialized if he believes in and obeys the moral code of his society and fits in well as a functioning part of that society. It may seem senseless to say that many leftists are oversocialized, since the leftist is perceived as a rebel. Nevertheless, the position can be defended. Many leftists are not such rebels as they seem.
25. The moral code of our society is so demanding that no one can think, feel and act in a completely moral way. For example, we are not supposed to hate anyone, yet almost everyone hates somebody at some time or other, whether he admits it to himself or not. Some people are so highly socialized that the attempt to think, feel and act morally imposes a severe burden on them. In order to avoid feelings of guilt, they continually have to deceive themselves about their own motives and find moral explanations for feelings and actions that in reality have a non-moral origin. We use the term 搊versocialized� to describe such people. [2]
26. Oversocialization can lead to low self-esteem, a sense of powerlessness, defeatism, guilt, etc. One of the most important means by which our society socializes children is by making them feel ashamed of behavior or speech that is contrary to society抯 expectations. If this is overdone, or if a particular child is especially susceptible to such feelings, he ends by feeling ashamed of HIMSELF. Moreover the thought and the behavior of the oversocialized person are more restricted by society抯 expectations than are those of the lightly socialized person. The majority of people engage in a significant amount of naughty behavior. They lie, they commit petty thefts, they break traffic laws, they goof off at work, they hate someone, they say spiteful things or they use some underhanded trick to get ahead of the other guy. The oversocialized person cannot do these things, or if he does do them he generates in himself a sense of shame and self-hatred. The oversocialized person cannot even experience, without guilt, thoughts or feelings that are contrary to the accepted morality; he cannot think 搖nclean� thoughts. And socialization is not just a matter of morality; we are socialized to conform to many norms of behavior that do not fall under the heading of morality. Thus the oversocialized person is kept on a psychological leash and spends his life running on rails that society has laid down for him. In many oversocialized people this results in a sense of constraint and powerlessness that can be a severe hardship. We suggest that oversocialization is among the more serious cruelties that human beings inflict on one another.
27. We argue that a very important and influential segment of the modern left is oversocialized and that their oversocialization is of great importance in determining the direction of modern leftism. Leftists of the oversocialized type tend to be intellectuals or members of the upper-middle class. Notice that university intellectuals [3] constitute the most highly socialized segment of our society and also the most left-wing segment.
28. The leftist of the oversocialized type tries to get off his psychological leash and assert his autonomy by rebelling. But usually he is not strong enough to rebel against the most basic values of society. Generally speaking, the goals of today抯 leftists are NOT in conflict with the accepted morality. On the contrary, the left takes an accepted moral principle, adopts it as its own, and then accuses mainstream society of violating that principle. Examples: racial equality, equality of the sexes, helping poor people, peace as opposed to war, nonviolence generally, freedom of expression, kindness to animals. More fundamentally, the duty of the individual to serve society and the duty of society to take care of the individual. All these have been deeply rooted values of our society (or at least of its middle and upper classes [4] for a long time. These values are explicitly or implicitly expressed or presupposed in most of the material presented to us by the mainstream communications media and the educational system. Leftists, especially those of the oversocialized type, usually do not rebel against these principles but justify their hostility to society by claiming (with some degree of truth) that society is not living up to these principles.
29. Here is an illustration of the way in which the oversocialized leftist shows his real attachment to the conventional attitudes of our society while pretending to be in rebellion against it. Many leftists push for affirmative action, for moving black people into high-prestige jobs, for improved education in black schools and more money for such schools; the way of life of the black 搖nderclass� they regard as a social disgrace. They want to integrate the black man into the system, make him a business executive, a lawyer, a scientist just like upper-middle-class white people. The leftists will reply that the last thing they want is to make the black man into a copy of the white man; instead, they want to preserve African American culture. But in what does this preservation of African American culture consist? It can hardly consist in anything more than eating black-style food, listening to black-style music, wearing black-style clothing and going to a black- style church or mosque. In other words, it can express itself only in superficial matters. In all ESSENTIAL respects most leftists of the oversocialized type want to make the black man conform to white, middle-class ideals. They want to make him study technical subjects, become an executive or a scientist, spend his life climbing the status ladder to prove that black people are as good as white. They want to make black fathers 搑esponsible,� they want black gangs to become nonviolent, etc. But these are exactly the values of the industrial-technological system. The system couldn抰 care less what kind of music a man listens to, what kind of clothes he wears or what religion he believes in as long as he studies in school, holds a respectable job, climbs the status ladder, is a 搑esponsible� parent, is nonviolent and so forth. In effect, however much he may deny it, the oversocialized leftist wants to integrate the black man into the system and make him adopt its values.
30. We certainly do not claim that leftists, even of the oversocialized type, NEVER rebel against the fundamental values of our society. Clearly they sometimes do. Some oversocialized leftists have gone so far as to rebel against one of modern society抯 most important principles by engaging in physical violence. By their own account, violence is for them a form of 搇iberation.� In other words, by committing violence they break through the psychological restraints that have been trained into them. Because they are oversocialized these restraints have been more confining for them than for others; hence their need to break free of them. But they usually justify their rebellion in terms of mainstream values. If they engage in violence they claim to be fighting against racism or the like.
31. We realize that many objections could be raised to the foregoing thumbnail sketch of leftist psychology. The real situation is complex, and anything like a complete description of it would take several volumes even if the necessary data were available. We claim only to have indicated very roughly the two most important tendencies in the psychology of modern leftism.
32. The problems of the leftist are indicative of the problems of our society as a whole. Low self-esteem, depressive tendencies and defeatism are not restricted to the left. Though they are especially noticeable in the left, they are widespread in our society. And today抯 society tries to socialize us to a greater extent than any previous society. We are even told by experts how to eat, how to exercise, how to make love, how to raise our kids and so forth.
THE POWER PROCESS
33. Human beings have a need (probably based in biology) for something that we will call the 損ower process.� This is closely related to the need for power (which is widely recognized) but is not quite the same thing. The power process has four elements. The three most clear-cut of these we call goal, effort and attainment of goal. (Everyone needs to have goals whose attainment requires effort, and needs to succeed in attaining at least some of his goals.) The fourth element is more difficult to define and may not be necessary for everyone. We call it autonomy and will discuss it later (paragraphs 42-44).
34. Consider the hypothetical case of a man who can have anything he wants just by wishing for it. Such a man has power, but he will develop serious psychological problems. At first he will have a lot of fun, but by and by he will become acutely bored and demoralized. Eventually he may become clinically depressed. History shows that leisured aristocracies tend to become decadent. This is not true of fighting aristocracies that have to struggle to maintain their power. But leisured, secure aristocracies that have no need to exert themselves usually become bored, hedonistic and demoralized, even though they have power. This shows that power is not enough. One must have goals toward which to exercise one抯 power.
35. Everyone has goals; if nothing else, to obtain the physical necessities of life: food, water and whatever clothing and shelter are made necessary by the climate. But the leisured aristocrat obtains these things without effort. Hence his boredom and demoralization.
36. Nonattainment of important goals results in death if the goals are physical necessities, and in frustration if nonattainment of the goals is compatible with survival. Consistent failure to attain goals throughout life results in defeatism, low self-esteem or depression.
37, Thus, in order to avoid serious psychological problems, a human being needs goals whose attainment requires effort, and he must have a reasonable rate of success in attaining his goals.
SURROGATE ACTIVITIES
38. But not every leisured aristocrat becomes bored and demoralized. For example, the emperor Hirohito, instead of sinking into decadent hedonism, devoted himself to marine biology, a field in which he became distinguished. When people do not have to exert themselves to satisfy their physical needs they often set up artificial goals for themselves. In many cases they then pursue these goals with the same energy and emotional involvement that they otherwise would have put into the search for physical necessities. Thus the aristocrats of the Roman Empire had their literary pretensions; many European aristocrats a few centuries ago invested tremendous time and energy in hunting, though they certainly didn抰 need the meat; other aristocracies have competed for status through elaborate displays of wealth; and a few aristocrats, like Hirohito, have turned to science.
39. We use the term 搒urrogate activity� to designate an activity that is directed toward an artificial goal that people set up for themselves merely in order to have some goal to work toward, or let us say, merely for the sake of the 揻ulfillment� that they get from pursuing the goal. Here is a rule of thumb for the identification of surrogate activities. Given a person who devotes much time and energy to the pursuit of goal X, ask yourself this: If he had to devote most of his time and energy to satisfying his biological needs, and if that effort required him to use his physical and mental faculties in a varied and interesting way, would he feel seriously deprived because he did not attain goal X? If the answer is no, then the person抯 pursuit of goal X is a surrogate activity. Hirohito抯 studies in marine biology clearly constituted a surrogate activity, since it is pretty certain that if Hirohito had had to spend his time working at interesting non-scientific tasks in order to obtain the necessities of life, he would not have felt deprived because he didn抰 know all about the anatomy and life-cycles of marine animals. On the other hand the pursuit of sex and love (for example) is not a surrogate activity, because most people, even if their existence were otherwise satisfactory, would feel deprived if they passed their lives without ever having a relationship with a member of the opposite sex. (But pursuit of an excessive amount of sex, more than one really needs, can be a surrogate activity.)
40. In modern industrial society only minimal effort is necessary to satisfy one抯 physical needs. It is enough to go through a training program to acquire some petty technical skill, then come to work on time and exert the very modest effort needed to hold a job. The only requirements are a moderate amount of intelligence and, most of all, simple OBEDIENCE. If one has those, society takes care of one from cradle to grave. (Yes, there is an underclass that cannot take the physical necessities for granted, but we are speaking here of mainstream society.) Thus it is not surprising that modern society is full of surrogate activities. These include scientific work, athletic achievement, humanitarian work, artistic and literary creation, climbing the corporate ladder, acquisition of money and material goods far beyond the point at which they cease to give any additional physical satisfaction, and social activism when it addresses issues that are not important for the activist personally, as in the case of white activists who work for the rights of nonwhite minorities. These are not always PURE surrogate activities, since for many people they may be motivated in part by needs other than the need to have some goal to pursue. Scientific work may be motivated in part by a drive for prestige, artistic creation by a need to express feelings, militant social activism by hostility. But for most people who pursue them, these activities are in large part surrogate activities. For example, the majority of scientists will probably agree that the 揻ulfillment� they get from their work is more important than the money and prestige they earn.
41. For many if not most people, surrogate activities are less satisfying than the pursuit of real goals (that is, goals that people would want to attain even if their need for the power process were already fulfilled). One indication of this is the fact that, in many or most cases, people who are deeply involved in surrogate activities are never satisfied, never at rest. Thus the money-maker constantly strives for more and more wealth. The scientist no sooner solves one problem than he moves on to the next. The long-distance runner drives himself to run always farther and faster. Many people who pursue surrogate activities will say that they get far more fulfillment from these activities than they do from the 搈undane� business of satisfying their biological needs, but that is because in our society the effort needed to satisfy the biological needs has been reduced to triviality. More importantly, in our society people do not satisfy their biological needs AUTONOMOUSLY but by functioning as parts of an immense social machine. In contrast, people generally have a great deal of autonomy in pursuing their surrogate activities.
AUTONOMY
42. Autonomy as a part of the power process may not be necessary for every individual. But most people need a greater or lesser degree of autonomy in working toward their goals. Their efforts must be undertaken on their own initiative and must be under their own direction and control. Yet most people do not have to exert this initiative, direction and control as single individuals. It is usually enough to act as a member of a SMALL group. Thus if half a dozen people discuss a goal among themselves and make a successful joint effort to attain that goal, their need for the power process will be served. But if they work under rigid orders handed down from above that leave them no room for autonomous decision and initiative, then their need for the power process will not be served. The same is true when decisions are made on a collective basis if the group making the collective decision is so large that the role of each individual is insignificant. [5]
43. It is true that some individuals seem to have little need for autonomy. Either their drive for power is weak or they satisfy it by identifying themselves with some powerful organization to which they belong. And then there are unthinking, animal types who seem to be satisfied with a purely physical sense of power (the good combat soldier, who gets his sense of power by developing fighting skills that he is quite content to use in blind obedience to his superiors).
44. But for most people it is through the power process梙aving a goal, making an AUTONOMOUS effort and attaining the goal梩hat self-esteem, self-confidence and a sense of power are acquired. When one does not have adequate opportunity to go through the power process the consequences are (depending on the individual and on the way the power process is disrupted) boredom, demoralization, low self-esteem, inferiority feelings, defeatism, depression, anxiety, guilt, frustration, hostility, spouse or child abuse, insatiable hedonism, abnormal sexual behavior, sleep disorders, eating disorders, etc. [6]
SOURCES OF SOCIAL PROBLEMS
45. Any of the foregoing symptoms can occur in any society, but in modern industrial society they are present on a massive scale. We aren抰 the first to mention that the world today seems to be going crazy. This sort of thing is not normal for human societies. There is good reason to believe that primitive man suffered from less stress and frustration and was better satisfied with his way of life than modern man is. It is true that not all was sweetness and light in primitive societies. Abuse of women was common among the Australian aborigines, transexuality was fairly common among some of the American Indian tribes. But it does appear that GENERALLY SPEAKING the kinds of problems that we have listed in the preceding paragraph were far less common among primitive peoples than they are in modern society.
46. We attribute the social and psychological problems of modern society to the fact that that society requires people to live under conditions radically different from those under which the human race evolved and to behave in ways that conflict with the patterns of behavior that the human race developed while living under the earlier conditions. It is clear from what we have already written that we consider lack of opportunity to properly experience the power process as the most important of the abnormal conditions to which modern society subjects people. But it is not the only one. Before dealing with disruption of the power process as a source of social problems we will discuss some of the other sources.
47. Among the abnormal conditions present in modern industrial society are excessive density of population, isolation of man from nature, excessive rapidity of social change and the breakdown of natural small-scale communities such as the extended family, the village or the tribe.
48. It is well known that crowding increases stress and aggression. The degree of crowding that exists today and the isolation of man from nature are consequences of technological progress. All pre-industrial societies were predominantly rural. The Industrial Revolution vastly increased the size of cities and the proportion of the population that lives in them, and modern agricultural technology has made it possible for the Earth to support a far denser population than it ever did before. (Also, technology exacerbates the effects of crowding because it puts increased disruptive powers in people抯 hands. For example, a variety of noise- making devices: power mowers, radios, motorcycles, etc. If the use of these devices is unrestricted, people who want peace and quiet are frustrated by the noise. If their use is restricted, people who use the devices are frustrated by the regulations. But if these machines had never been invented there would have been no conflict and no frustration generated by them.)
49. For primitive societies the natural world (which usually changes only slowly) provided a stable framework and therefore a sense of security. In the modern world it is human society that dominates nature rather than the other way around, and modern society changes very rapidly owing to technological change. Thus there is no stable framework.
50. The conservatives are fools: They whine about the decay of traditional values, yet they enthusiastically support technological progress and economic growth. Apparently it never occurs to them that you can抰 make rapid, drastic changes in the technology and the economy of a society without causing rapid changes in all other aspects of the society as well, and that such rapid changes inevitably break down traditional values.
51. The breakdown of traditional values to some extent implies the breakdown of the bonds that hold together traditional small-scale social groups. The disintegration of small-scale social groups is also promoted by the fact that modern conditions often require or tempt individuals to move to new locations, separating themselves from their communities. Beyond that, a technological society HAS TO weaken family ties and local communities if it is to function efficiently. In modern society an individual抯 loyalty must be first to the system and only secondarily to a small-scale community, because if the internal loyalties of small-scale communities were stronger than loyalty to the system, such communities would pursue their own advantage at the expense of the system.
52. Suppose that a public official or a corporation executive appoints his cousin, his friend or his co- religionist to a position rather than appointing the person best qualified for the job. He has permitted personal loyalty to supersede his loyalty to the system, and that is 搉epotism� or 揹iscrimination,� both of which are terrible sins in modern society. Would-be industrial societies that have done a poor job of subordinating personal or local loyalties to loyalty to the system are usually very inefficient. (Look at Latin America.) Thus an advanced industrial society can tolerate only those small-scale communities that are emasculated, tamed and made into tools of the system. [7]
53. Crowding, rapid change and the breakdown of communities have been widely recognized as sources of social problems. But we do not believe they are enough to account for the extent of the problems that are seen today.
54. A few pre-industrial cities were very large and crowded, yet their inhabitants do not seem to have suffered from psychological problems to the same extent as modern man. In America today there still are uncrowded rural areas, and we find there the same problems as in urban areas, though the problems tend to be less acute in the rural areas. Thus crowding does not seem to be the decisive factor.
55. On the growing edge of the American frontier during the 19th century, the mobility of the population probably broke down extended families and small-scale social groups to at least the same extent as these are broken down today. In fact, many nuclear families lived by choice in such isolation, having no neighbors within several miles, that they belonged to no community at all, yet they do not seem to have developed problems as a result.
56. Furthermore, change in American frontier society was very rapid and deep. A man might be born and raised in a log cabin, outside the reach of law and order and fed largely on wild meat; and by the time he arrived at old age he might be working at a regular job and living in an ordered community with effective law enforcement. This was a deeper change than that which typically occurs in the life of a modern individual, yet it does not seem to have led to psychological problems. In fact, 19th century American society had an optimistic and self-confident tone, quite unlike that of today抯 society. [8]
57. The difference, we argue, is that modern man has the sense (largely justified) that change is IMPOSED on him, whereas the 19th century frontiersman had the sense (also largely justified) that he created change himself, by his own choice. Thus a pioneer settled on a piece of land of his own choosing and made it into a farm through his own effort. In those days an entire county might have only a couple of hundred inhabitants and was a far more isolated and autonomous entity than a modern county is. Hence the pioneer farmer participated as a member of a relatively small group in the creation of a new, ordered community. One may well question whether the creation of this community was an improvement, but at any rate it satisfied the pioneer抯 need for the power process.
58. It would be possible to give other examples of societies in which there has been rapid change and/or lack of close community ties without the kind of massive behavioral aberration that is seen in today抯 industrial society. We contend that the most important cause of social and psychological problems in modern society is the fact that people have insufficient opportunity to go through the power process in a normal way. We don抰 mean to say that modern society is the only one in which the power process has been disrupted. Probably most if not all civilized societies have interfered with the power process to a greater or lesser extent. But in modern industrial society the problem has become particularly acute. Leftism, at least in its recent (mid- to late-20th century) form, is in part a symptom of deprivation with respect to the power process.
DISRUPTION OF THE POWER PROCESS IN MODERN SOCIETY
59. We divide human drives into three groups: (1) those drives that can be satisfied with minimal effort; (2) those that can be satisfied but only at the cost of serious effort; (3) those that cannot be adequately satisfied no matter how much effort one makes. The power process is the process of satisfying the drives of the second group. The more drives there are in the third group, the more there is frustration, anger, eventually defeatism, depression, etc.
60. In modern industrial society natural human drives tend to be pushed into the first and third groups, and the second group tends to consist increasingly of artificially created drives.
61. In primitive societies, physical necessities generally fall into group 2: They can be obtained, but only at the cost of serious effort. But modern society tends to guaranty the physical necessities to everyone [9] in exchange for only minimal effort, hence physical needs are pushed into group 1. (There may be disagreement about whether the effort needed to hold a job is 搈inimal�; but usually, in lower- to middle- level jobs, whatever effort is required is merely that of OBEDIENCE. You sit or stand where you are told to sit or stand and do what you are told to do in the way you are told to do it. Seldom do you have to exert yourself seriously, and in any case you have hardly any autonomy in work, so that the need for the power process is not well served.)
62. Social needs, such as sex, love and status, often remain in group 2 in modern society, depending on the situation of the individual. [10] But, except for people who have a particularly strong drive for status, the effort required to fulfill the social drives is insufficient to satisfy adequately the need for the power process.
63. So certain artificial needs have been created that fall into group 2, hence serve the need for the power process. Advertising and marketing techniques have been developed that make many people feel they need things that their grandparents never desired or even dreamed of. It requires serious effort to earn enough money to satisfy these artificial needs, hence they fall into group 2. (But see paragraphs 80-82.) Modern man must satisfy his need for the power process largely through pursuit of the artificial needs created by the advertising and marketing industry [11], and through surrogate activities.
64. It seems that for many people, maybe the majority, these artificial forms of the power process are insufficient. A theme that appears repeatedly in the writings of the social critics of the second half of the 20th century is the sense of purposelessness that afflicts many people in modern society. (This purposelessness is often called by other names such as 揳nomic� or 搈iddle-class vacuity.�) We suggest that the so-called 搃dentity crisis� is actually a search for a sense of purpose, often for commitment to a suitable surrogate activity. It may be that existentialism is in large part a response to the purposelessness of modern life. [12] Very widespread in modern society is the search for 揻ulfillment.� But we think that for the majority of people an activity whose main goal is fulfillment (that is, a surrogate activity) does not bring completely satisfactory fulfillment. In other words, it does not fully satisfy the need for the power process. (See paragraph 41.) That need can be fully satisfied only through activities that have some external goal, such as physical necessities, sex, love, status, revenge, etc.
65. Moreover, where goals are pursued through earning money, climbing the status ladder or functioning as part of the system in some other way, most people are not in a position to pursue their goals AUTONOMOUSLY. Most workers are someone else抯 employee and, as we pointed out in paragraph 61, must spend their days doing what they are told to do in the way they are told to do it. Even people who are in business for themselves have only limited autonomy. It is a chronic complaint of small-business persons and entrepreneurs that their hands are tied by excessive government regulation. Some of these regulations are doubtless unnecessary, but for the most part government regulations are essential and inevitable parts of our extremely complex society. A large portion of small business today operates on the franchise system. It was reported in the Wall Street Journal a few years ago that many of the franchise-granting companies require applicants for franchises to take a personality test that is designed to EXCLUDE those who have creativity and initiative, because such persons are not sufficiently docile to go along obediently with the franchise system. This excludes from small business many of the people who most need autonomy.
66. Today people live more by virtue of what the system does FOR them or TO them than by virtue of what they do for themselves. And what they do for themselves is done more and more along channels laid down by the system. Opportunities tend to be those that the system provides, the opportunities must be exploited in accord with rules and regulations [13], and techniques prescribed by experts must be followed if there is to be a chance of success.
67. Thus the power process is disrupted in our society through a deficiency of real goals and a deficiency of autonomy in the pursuit of goals. But it is also disrupted because of those human drives that fall into group 3: the drives that one cannot adequately satisfy no matter how much effort one makes. One of these drives is the need for security. Our lives depend on decisions made by other people; we have no control over these decisions and usually we do not even know the people who make them. (揥e live in a world in which relatively few people梞aybe 500 or 1,000梞ake the important decisions敆Philip B. Heymann of Harvard Law School, quoted by Anthony Lewis, New York Times, April 21, 1995.) Our lives depend on whether safety standards at a nuclear power plant are properly maintained; on how much pesticide is allowed to get into our food or how much pollution into our air; on how skillful (or incompetent) our doctor is; whether we lose or get a job may depend on decisions made by government economists or corporation executives; and so forth. Most individuals are not in a position to secure themselves against these threats to more [than] a very limited extent. The individual抯 search for security is therefore frustrated, which leads to a sense of powerlessness.
68. It may be objected that primitive man is physically less secure than modern man, as is shown by his shorter life expectancy; hence modern man suffers from less, not more than the amount of insecurity that is normal for human beings. But psychological security does not closely correspond with physical security. What makes us FEEL secure is not so much objective security as a sense of confidence in our ability to take care of ourselves. Primitive man, threatened by a fierce animal or by hunger, can fight in self-defense or travel in search of food. He has no certainty of success in these efforts, but he is by no means helpless against the things that threaten him. The modern individual on the other hand is threatened by many things against which he is helpless: nuclear accidents, carcinogens in food, environmental pollution, war, increasing taxes, invasion of his privacy by large organizations, nationwide social or economic phenomena that may disrupt his way of life.
69. It is true that primitive man is powerless against some of the things that threaten him; disease for example. But he can accept the risk of disease stoically. It is part of the nature of things, it is no one抯 fault, unless it is the fault of some imaginary, impersonal demon. But threats to the modern individual tend to be MAN-MADE. They are not the results of chance but are IMPOSED on him by other persons whose decisions he, as an individual, is unable to influence. Consequently he feels frustrated, humiliated and angry.
70. Thus primitive man for the most part has his security in his own hands (either as an individual or as a member of a SMALL group) whereas the security of modern man is in the hands of persons or organizations that are too remote or too large for him to be able personally to influence them. So modern man抯 drive for security tends to fall into groups 1 and 3; in some areas (food, shelter etc.) his security is assured at the cost of only trivial effort, whereas in other areas he CANNOT attain security. (The foregoing greatly simplifies the real situation, but it does indicate in a rough, general way how the condition of modern man differs from that of primitive man.)
71. People have many transitory drives or impulses that are necessarily frustrated in modern life, hence fall into group 3. One may become angry, but modern society cannot permit fighting. In many situations it does not even permit verbal aggression. When going somewhere one may be in a hurry, or one may be in a mood to travel slowly, but one generally has no choice but to move with the flow of traffic and obey the traffic signals. One may want to do one抯 work in a different way, but usually one can work only according to the rules laid down by one抯 employer. In many other ways as well, modern man is strapped down by a network of rules and regulations (explicit or implicit) that frustrate many of his impulses and thus interfere with the power process. Most of these regulations cannot be dispensed with, because they are necessary for the functioning of industrial society.
72. Modern society is in certain respects extremely permissive. In matters that are irrelevant to the functioning of the system we can generally do what we please. We can believe in any religion we like (as long as it does not encourage behavior that is dangerous to the system). We can go to bed with anyone we like (as long as we practice 搒afe sex�). We can do anything we like as long as it is UNIMPORTANT. But in all IMPORTANT matters the system tends increasingly to regulate our behavior.
73. Behavior is regulated not only through explicit rules and not only by the government. Control is often exercised through indirect coercion or through psychological pressure or manipulation, and by organizations other than the government, or by the system as a whole. Most large organizations use some form of propaganda [14] to manipulate public attitudes or behavior. Propaganda is not limited to 揷ommercials� and advertisements, and sometimes it is not even consciously intended as propaganda by the people who make it. For instance, the content of entertainment programming is a powerful form of propaganda. An example of indirect coercion: There is no law that says we have to go to work every day and follow our employer抯 orders. Legally there is nothing to prevent us from going to live in the wild like primitive people or from going into business for ourselves. But in practice there is very little wild country left, and there is room in the economy for only a limited number of small business owners. Hence most of us can survive only as someone else抯 employee.
74. We suggest that modern man抯 obsession with longevity, and with maintaining physical vigor and sexual attractiveness to an advanced age, is a symptom of unfulfillment resulting from deprivation with respect to the power process. The 搈id-life crisis� also is such a symptom. So is the lack of interest in having children that is fairly common in modern society but almost unheard-of in primitive societies.
75. In primitive societies life is a succession of stages. The needs and purposes of one stage having been fulfilled, there is no particular reluctance about passing on to the next stage. A young man goes through the power process by becoming a hunter, hunting not for sport or for fulfillment but to get meat that is necessary for food. (In young women the process is more complex, with greater emphasis on social power; we won抰 discuss that here.) This phase having been successfully passed through, the young man has no reluctance about settling down to the responsibilities of raising a family. (In contrast, some modern people indefinitely postpone having children because they are too busy seeking some kind of 揻ulfillment.� We suggest that the fulfillment they need is adequate experience of the power process梬ith real goals instead of the artificial goals of surrogate activities.) Again, having successfully raised his children, going through the power process by providing them with the physical necessities, the primitive man feels that his work is done and he is prepared to accept old age (if he survives that long) and death. Many modern people, on the other hand, are disturbed by the prospect of physical deterioration and death, as is shown by the amount of effort they expend trying to maintain their physical condition, appearance and health. We argue that this is due to unfulfillment resulting from the fact that they have never put their physical powers to any practical use, have never gone through the power process using their bodies in a serious way. It is not the primitive man, who has used his body daily for practical purposes, who fears the deterioration of age, but the modern man, who has never had a practical use for his body beyond walking from his car to his house. It is the man whose need for the power process has been satisfied during his life who is best prepared to accept the end of that life.
76. In response to the arguments of this section someone will say, 揝ociety must find a way to give people the opportunity to go through the power process.� For such people the value of the opportunity is destroyed by the very fact that society gives it to them. What they need is to find or make their own opportunities. As long as the system GIVES them their opportunities it still has them on a leash. To attain autonomy they must get off that leash.
HOW SOME PEOPLE ADJUST
77. Not everyone in industrial-technological society suffers from psychological problems. Some people even profess to be quite satisfied with society as it is. We now discuss some of the reasons why people differ so greatly in their response to modern society.
78. First, there doubtless are differences in the strength of the drive for power. Individuals with a weak drive for power may have relatively little need to go through the power process, or at least relatively little need for autonomy in the power process. These are docile types who would have been happy as plantation darkies in the Old South. (We don抰 mean to sneer at the 損lantation darkies� of the Old South. To their credit, most of the slaves were NOT content with their servitude. We do sneer at people who ARE content with servitude.)
79. Some people may have some exceptional drive, in pursuing which they satisfy their need for the power process. For example, those who have an unusually strong drive for social status may spend their whole lives climbing the status ladder without ever getting bored with that game.
80. People vary in their susceptibility to advertising and marketing techniques. Some are so susceptible that, even if they make a great deal of money, they cannot satisfy their constant craving for the the shiny new toys that the marketing industry dangles before their eyes. So they always feel hard-pressed financially even if their income is large, and their cravings are frustrated.
81. Some people have low susceptibility to advertising and marketing techniques. These are the people who aren抰 interested in money. Material acquisition does not serve their need for the power process.
82. People who have medium susceptibility to advertising and marketing techniques are able to earn enough money to satisfy their craving for goods and services, but only at the cost of serious effort (putting in overtime, taking a second job, earning promotions, etc.). Thus material acquisition serves their need for the power process. But it does not necessarily follow that their need is fully satisfied. They may have insufficient autonomy in the power process (their work may consist of following orders) and some of their drives may be frustrated (e.g., security, aggression). (We are guilty of oversimplification in paragraphs 80- 82 because we have assumed that the desire for material acquisition is entirely a creation of the advertising and marketing industry. Of course it抯 not that simple. [11]
83. Some people partly satisfy their need for power by identifying themselves with a powerful organization or mass movement. An individual lacking goals or power joins a movement or an organization, adopts its goals as his own, then works toward those goals. When some of the goals are attained, the individual, even though his personal efforts have played only an insignificant part in the attainment of the goals, feels (through his identification with the movement or organization) as if he had gone through the power process. This phenomenon was exploited by the fascists, nazis and communists. Our society uses it too, though less crudely. Example: Manuel Noriega was an irritant to the U.S. (goal: punish Noriega). The U.S. invaded Panama (effort) and punished Noriega (attainment of goal). Thus the U.S. went through the power process and many Americans, because of their identification with the U.S., experienced the power process vicariously. Hence the widespread public approval of the Panama invasion; it gave people a sense of power. [15] We see the same phenomenon in armies, corporations, political parties, humanitarian organizations, religious or ideological movements. In particular, leftist movements tend to attract people who are seeking to satisfy their need for power. But for most people identification with a large organization or a mass movement does not fully satisfy the need for power.
84. Another way in which people satisfy their need for the power process is through surrogate activities. As we explained in paragraphs 38-40, a surrogate activity is an activity that is directed toward an artificial goal that the individual pursues for the sake of the 揻ulfillment� that he gets from pursuing the goal, not because he needs to attain the goal itself. For instance, there is no practical motive for building enormous muscles, hitting a little ball into a hole or acquiring a complete series of postage stamps. Yet many people in our society devote themselves with passion to bodybuilding, golf or stamp-collecting. Some people are more 搊ther-directed� than others, and therefore will more readily attach importance to a surrogate activity simply because the people around them treat it as important or because society tells them it is important. That is why some people get very serious about essentially trivial activities such as sports, or bridge, or chess, or arcane scholarly pursuits, whereas others who are more clear-sighted never see these things as anything but the surrogate activities that they are, and consequently never attach enough importance to them to satisfy their need for the power process in that way. It only remains to point out that in many cases a person抯 way of earning a living is also a surrogate activity. Not a PURE surrogate activity, since part of the motive for the activity is to gain the physical necessities and (for some people) social status and the luxuries that advertising makes them want. But many people put into their work far more effort than is necessary to earn whatever money and status they require, and this extra effort constitutes a surrogate activity. This extra effort, together with the emotional investment that accompanies it, is one of the most potent forces acting toward the continual development and perfecting of the system, with negative consequences for individual freedom (see paragraph 131). Especially, for the most creative scientists and engineers, work tends to be largely a surrogate activity. This point is so important that it deserves a separate discussion, which we shall give in a moment (paragraphs 87-92).
85. In this section we have explained how many people in modern society do satisfy their need for the power process to a greater or lesser extent. But we think that for the majority of people the need for the power process is not fully satisfied. In the first place, those who have an insatiable drive for status, or who get firmly 揾ooked� on a surrogate activity, or who identify strongly enough with a movement or organization to satisfy their need for power in that way, are exceptional personalities. Others are not fully satisfied with surrogate activities or by identification with an organization (see paragraphs 41, 64). In the second place, too much control is imposed by the system through explicit regulation or through socialization, which results in a deficiency of autonomy, and in frustration due to the impossibility of attaining certain goals and the necessity of restraining too many impulses.
86. But even if most people in industrial-technological society were well satisfied, we (FC) would still be opposed to that form of society, because (among other reasons) we consider it demeaning to fulfill one抯 need for the power process through surrogate activities or through identification with an organization, rather than through pursuit of real goals.
THE MOTIVES OF SCIENTISTS
87. Science and technology provide the most important examples of surrogate activities. Some scientists claim that they are motivated by 揷uriosity� or by a desire to 揵enefit humanity.� But it is easy to see that neither of these can be the principal motive of most scientists. As for 揷uriosity,� that notion is simply absurd. Most scientists work on highly specialized problems that are not the object of any normal curiosity. For example, is an astronomer, a mathematician or an entomologist curious about the properties of isopropyltrimethylmethane? Of course not. Only a chemist is curious about such a thing, and he is curious about it only because chemistry is his surrogate activity. Is the chemist curious about the appropriate classification of a new species of beetle? No. That question is of interest only to the entomologist, and he is interested in it only because entomology is his surrogate activity. If the chemist and the entomologist had to exert themselves seriously to obtain the physical necessities, and if that effort exercised their abilities in an interesting way but in some nonscientific pursuit, then they wouldn抰 give a damn about isopropyltrimethylmethane or the classification of beetles. Suppose that lack of funds for postgraduate education had led the chemist to become an insurance broker instead of a chemist. In that case he would have been very interested in insurance matters but would have cared nothing about isopropyltrimethylmethane. In any case it is not normal to put into the satisfaction of mere curiosity the amount of time and effort that scientists put into their work. The 揷uriosity� explanation for the scientists� motive just doesn抰 stand up.
88. The 揵enefit of humanity� explanation doesn抰 work any better. Some scientific work has no conceivable relation to the welfare of the human race梞ost of archaeology or comparative linguistics for example. Some other areas of science present obviously dangerous possibilities. Yet scientists in these areas are just as enthusiastic about their work as those who develop v
3 ) E08：A Big Win?（Finale观后更）
Discovery这算是紧跟国家地理频道的步伐嘛~~~ 这部基于真实案件改编的新剧采用双时间线的推进形式，冷静地还原这段尘封历史： A）1995年，校航炸弹客案件重启2年之时，做了10年巡警的菲茨刚成为FBI侧写员，炸弹客是其参与的第一个案子； B）1997年，菲茨已经隐居山野不问江湖，但炸弹客卡钦斯基被捕入狱后，要求只与通过“语言鉴证学”追捕自己的菲茨见面，FBI高层想借菲茨拿到卡的认罪书。
E08 A ：Big Win?期待中的双男主法庭斗智没有上演，这部剧挺有意思，套路有，反套路也有。 这场针对卡钦斯基的预审，卡反而不是主角，决定他性命的是舆论、法官、卡的律师。舆论绝不希望卡逍遥法外，法官希望保住自己的职业生涯，卡钦斯基的律师希望保住卡的性命，站在各自立场都没毛病。 当然，不得不说到菲茨，在这一过程中终于进化成功，找对了卡钦斯基的命门：他不怕死，不怕终身监禁，但无法接受以自己精神失常为辩护理由，无法忍受自己变成他所鄙夷的庸俗之辈一样。所以当菲茨带他到自己的木屋前，告知卡的律师已然背叛他，并向他描绘精神失常者受治疗的日常，以及“正常化”回归社会后的日常，你能感觉到志得意满的卡钦斯基的安全圈不断缩小，不断退却，一直退入自己的木屋，最后的庇护所。这一次对谈很重要，因为此时卡的心理防线已经开始崩塌， 菲茨还说对了一件事，就是卡钦斯基对于世界的理解很深刻，可是对于人的判断却总是错误： 这回首当其冲是他的律师，这位律师也算是人际关系操纵高手了，可参见她每次为卡带来的巧克力，东西不贵重，但胜在投其所好，并且强调我可是每次冒了风险偷带进来的哦；我和你是一国的哦，我在看了你的生平后更加深刻理解你了云云。大约卡的生平遇见的“理解”遇见的友善实在太少了，在这样的糖衣炮弹下，卡渐渐走入迷魂阵，在没有察觉的情况下被律师摆了一道。 另外一点，卡钦斯基信心满满地希望用制度漏洞击败制度，但他漏算了一点，就是1995年辛普森一案判决对于美利坚的余威犹在。卡钦斯基一案的主审法官誓要与伊藤划清界限，因而先是驳回卡提出的质疑搜查令的动议，其次拒绝卡提出换律师的申请，或者配合律师以精神失常为辩护理由走完庭审程序，或者去精神病院待一段时间证明自己没疯。卡又一次感到了绝望，他希望自我了结却被救下，所以只剩下一条路直接认罪避免庭审，勉强保住了宣言这份遗产，他最后在庭上的发言简直连不成句。 这是一场胜利，吗？ 从FBI角度看，简直是大胜，完美，Don和几个主理人都得以再度走上康庄大道； 从法官角度看，职业生涯没有因此沾上黑点，平安度过； 从卡钦斯基的律师看，她保住了卡的性命，目标达成； 从受害人家属看，生活不可能回到从前，但卡没有逃脱制裁是一点安慰，家属在庭上的陈词很有力度，我记得有一句说给卡的：“愿你的死和你的生一样，孤独一人”； 那么菲茨呢？菲茨因为卡的认罪，重回FBI核心圈，可以参见之前他庭审的座位以及最后一次的座位，FBI的大佬握着他得手保证今后菲茨的职业道路将一帆风顺，菲茨的脸上却看不到表情。他的眼睛始终盯着卡钦斯基，隔着铁丝网那段凝望简直了。 到最后这件案子也彻底改变了菲茨，从此他看到信号灯就会有异样情绪产生，他也不想当绵羊，然后也不得不压抑这些，伪装成一只绵羊活着吧。
E06-E07 ：The CabinE07结尾很妙，菲茨走进了卡钦斯基建造的小木屋，关上了门，一如曾经的卡钦斯基一般隔绝了世间。 这两集都在具体揭示哪些人哪些事将卡钦斯基和菲茨推进了小木屋，E06讲卡钦斯基，E07讲菲茨。 E06看完五味杂陈，卡钦斯基选择成为炸弹客主要原因还是在他自己，但一个人不会无缘无故反社会：他的同学、哈佛心理学教授以及他亲弟弟都有意无意地扮演了助推的角色。 卡钦斯基前半生因为天资聪颖，永远都处于一个比他实际年龄成熟的求学环境中，并且没有朋友，同样聪慧的Doug是第一个走进卡内心的人；可对没有社交障碍的Doug来说，卡只是他的玩伴之一，而当某个玩伴和小女友比起来，孰轻孰重就不言而喻了。于是心智尚未成熟的卡钦斯基在Doug身上实施了他人生第一次“爆炸”实验。 第二个走进卡内心的人哈佛心理学教授Murray，卡形容他是哈佛里的希腊天神，耶稣亲临。 在卡的人生中从没有人问他过得好不好，可是Murray问卡对世界的看法，并认真倾听。 卡钦斯基对于Murray的盲目崇拜和掏心掏肺，真的可以用“desperate”来形容。但前期有多倾慕，后期就有多绝望。卡只是Murray洗脑实验的试验品，而真正的实验过程极为不人性，要知道卡比他的同期更小更脆弱。几十年后卡钦斯基在回忆这段经历还是会落泪，足见伤害之大，这段经历彻底改变了他，我相信也彻底改变了所有的被试者。他们的人生走向如何，没人关心，而毁掉他们人生的人呢，还是继续当他的人生赢家。 第三个人是卡的弟弟，回忆中可以看出两人一直以来关系都不错，我想弟弟小时候应该也是挺崇拜卡钦斯基的，毕竟有个智商超群不满二十就去哈佛的哥哥也是件值得炫耀的事。再长大一些，他们的分歧开始了，弟弟工作恋爱结婚，卡钦斯基则开始为弟弟打工，最终因为恋情受挫公开诋毁女方，导致卡被弟弟开除。这是卡住进与世隔绝小木屋的导火索。 这三个人，Doug只是觉得同学玩闹没有当真，弟弟只是做了寻常老板该做的维护秩序，只有Murray是有意施加伤害，并且作为心理学教授，他知道这样做的严重后果，他也知道卡对他的几乎病态的仰慕，却仍然乐在其中，枉为人师啊。 E07菲茨成为了破案功劳最大同时又是最不知名的功臣，他在媒体给的deadline之前成功运用语言鉴证学说服法官拿到了搜捕令；同时，Cole一人领导了几十人的特警组抵达蒙大拿，在等到搜捕令后，成功通过卡钦斯基的“熟人”，不费一枪一弹诱捕了卡，这没有战术布放和实战经验无法完成，看出来Cole在这方面是有真本事的。 菲茨没有等来他想象中的胜利和荣光，等来的是全世界的背离： Cole捕获卡钦斯基后，FBI内部通过无线听到这一消息，欢呼一片，互相拥抱high-five；菲茨等待着，却没有一个人主动走向他，似乎他与整场搜捕无关；菲茨一人回到办公室试图联系Natalie和妻子告知这一大好消息，没有人愿意倾听。 Cole胜利返还后FBI内部为其举办盛大的庆功宴，也没有人通知菲茨，因为他在切完蛋糕后独自一人来到现场。 在庆功宴上，菲茨从电视上得知，Don和专案组组长领下了所有功劳，所有来源于菲茨日夜颠倒废寝忘食的破案关键全都改头换面成了组长的原创想法，这一幕伴随之前种种彻底击垮了他。 于是他深夜驱车，不顾信号灯，一路来到了卡钦斯基的小木屋，关上了小木屋的门。 我之前在E05评论里说，菲茨性格当中是有缺陷的，这种缺陷会导致他的身边空无一人。可是真看到这一幕，还是受到不小冲击：菲茨败于自己，也败于人情，败于办公室政治。 卡钦斯基曾说过“You can’t eat your cake and have it, too”， 是啊，菲茨，你不能既希望自己是一个聪明的混蛋，又希望所有人接纳并喜欢一个聪明的混蛋。
E04-E05 ：An Artist or An As*hole?E05的信息量很大，一是更多维度地展现了菲茨是个怎样的人；二是慢慢揭示菲茨如何从1995年的意气风发沦落到1997年的与世隔绝，这集已有很多苗头。 这两点可以合并起来看，有因果关系。这集看完估计会多很多菲茨的负性评价，有人为Tabby抱不平，有人为Natalie。 我看下来，菲茨身上有个非常奇怪的特性：真正对他产生影响的人和真正帮助他的人并不是同一批人：真正对他产生影响的人，卡钦斯基算一个，大老板Don算一个；真正帮助他的人，Tabby算一个，Natalie算一个。 延伸出的第二个特性是：真正对他产生影响的人对他的伤害也很大，但他仍然乐此不疲希望赢得认可；而真正帮助他的人，反过来菲茨又有意无意地对她们施加伤害： 真正对菲茨产生影响的人： 1）卡钦斯基不必说，因为这是菲茨一定要破的案子，拿下卡钦斯基之后意味着扬名立万；但是菲茨对于这位炸弹客产生的共鸣也是不一般的，很大原因是因为菲茨也总有一种被困住的感觉，之前当巡警被日常琐碎困住，终于做上侧写员却被FBI的官僚主义困住，被找不到可以对话的人的孤独感困住，所以他对卡钦斯基的侧写极度深刻，甚至把卡钦斯基的弟弟也吓到。 只是卡钦斯基也不是凡人，才不会因为区区嘴炮就缴械；既然菲茨的荣耀是要踏着卡钦斯基的毁灭为代价，那么卡对菲茨自然不会客气。 2）Don的情况要复杂一些，一开始菲茨进FBI是以Don和Cole为标杆的，但菲茨很快发现Cole对炸弹客的分析是B.S., 而且刚愎自用听不进反对意见。但是Don不一样，他虽然不会全盘否定Cole，这就是领导的艺术；愿意给新来的刺头露脸的机会，有情势所逼的原因，也有Don对菲茨能力的信任。我相信Don对于菲茨和Cole业务水平孰高孰低是有判断的，之所以一直倚重Cole是因为，对于所有领导者来说，下属比能力更重要的是忠心，是服管，是合群，是服众，而这四项菲茨统统都败下阵来，而菲茨至今不知道自己败的原因。 Don在E04选择听取菲茨的策略是他职业生涯的一场豪赌，他比菲茨更紧张，因为他是直接面呈司法部长的那个人，是直接领导这支队伍的人，而这场豪赌在他看来输了，极度失望之下他对菲茨说了重话，就是说菲茨自认为是艺术家，其实只是非常容易替换的又一个混蛋罢了。菲茨因为这句话受到严重冲击，一直持续到他回家都无法排解。 真正帮助菲茨的人： 1）我本来以为Natalie在菲茨心里有些地位，因为至少两人可以对话，Natalie对菲茨又是完全接纳的；未曾想菲茨在E05的表现让人大跌眼镜，我觉得菲茨是清楚Natalie对他的好感的，当他需要Natalie的帮助一同查案时，赶到她家第一句话是我和我老婆分居了，这句话要说没有一点诱导性就太白目了。当案情理出眉目，Natalie希望进一步时，菲茨却作无辜状，这就太白莲花了，你要真是一朵白莲花，那就完全谈案情呗，提你和你老婆的关系作甚？所以Natalie才会说原来你只是把我当做接近卡钦斯基的工具。 2）Tabby在E05让人心疼，尤其离开前对菲茨说的那段话“我曾经仰慕你，希望成为你，我想终于有一个人在我身上看到了特别之处，我终于不再是一个困在办公室的外勤人员了，我以为可以做一些很酷的事，我以为可以做得更多。”可是菲茨在利用完Tabby冒着丢掉工作风险查来的线索，自己重回专案组，又亲手把这份珍贵的感情打破。菲茨如果愿意努力一把，完全可以有更好的处理方法，只是Tabby对他也一样，是接近卡钦斯基的另一个工具，在FBI内部的工具，菲茨既然已经重回专案组了，Tabby功效也失去大半了；他也从没有将Tabby视为equal，如果有，Tabby走之后他不会有那带有明显轻蔑的表情。 从感情上来看，菲茨这样的人设犯了观众的忌讳；从人物塑造上来说，编剧是成功的，写出了菲茨的灵性脆弱，也没有回避他的阴暗面：因为菲茨既是一个犯罪分析的艺术家，又是一个冷酷功利的混蛋。 “你会有报应的，走到尽头时你会发现你身边空无一人”。Tabby后来一语成谶~~~
谢谢友邻@jinkie的补充，菲茨对于Tabby和Natalie的不在意也有性别原因这一层，放在上世纪九十年代的背景下看，职业女性所受到的轻视可见一斑；虽然今天很难说有质的改变，但至少在米国大部分正常人得做到政治正确。 至于也有友邻说Tabby出局这件事是Don的决定，菲茨没有决定权，这是事实；但对Tabby来说，我冒着失去工作的风险为你菲茨找来了关键线索，Don决定我出局是一回事，菲茨你有没有为我争取是另一回事，争取不下来的情况下你怎么看待我出局是我最关心的事，菲茨对此的态度很冷淡：你当初给我地址的时候就该想到这个结果了。这是让Tabby和观众觉得齿冷的。
E01-E03：A Kindred Spirit?E02菲茨与卡钦斯基见面之前，FBI高层对菲茨说：我觉得卡钦斯基只要求和你谈，是因为他认出了”A Kindred Spirit”，要利用这一点。 果真如此？卡钦斯基怎么看菲茨？从两人的三次过招，卡并没有将菲茨看作equal，他非常有条不紊、又非常残忍细致地，试图摧毁向自己发起挑战的，菲茨的精神世界： 第一回合： FBI策略：与卡钦斯基建立联系，让他觉得与你菲茨有共鸣，你在帮他免于坐电椅之苦； 卡钦斯基应对： 主动提出交换个人感受——建立联系，不动声色地赢得谈话的主动权； 几次告诉菲茨，你和其他人不同，你我都期望自由，而我只选择了你——共情强化这种联系; 最后调侃地对着镜头说菲茨做得还不错——让FBI错觉渐入佳境，胜利在望 回头想想，这句话带着调笑的意味，像是一个成年人看一个学步的幼童，哎呀，居然还是蹒跚地走起来了，还不错嘛~ 另一个线索，是卡离开审讯室之前，对菲茨说给我带点邮票和纸笔，我要回很多信。估计卡的言下之意这次会面不如给人回信这件事重要。 而菲茨和FBI却认为这次见面向目标迈进了一步，依然摩拳擦掌，尚不知风雨欲来。 第二回合： FBI策略：不带感情，不谈理论，用证据狠狠打击，让卡意识到认罪是唯一选择。 卡钦斯基应对： 让菲茨掌握主动权，静等其呈现FBI掌握的所有证据——再度摸底确认证据链； 说如果认罪是唯一选择，那么我同意——假意放弃抵抗，菲茨与高层开始放松； 然而真正的卡钦斯基碾压才刚开始： 你知道我为什么选择你？所有能指证我犯下罪行的证据都是在我的木屋里搜查的，而这搜查令基于你菲茨独创的语言分析学而来，你在哪里受的这门学科教育?你是拿了博士还是硕士学位？还是你10多年巡警生涯里的涂鸦管制铸就了你的语言学造诣？ 现在你知道我为什么选择你了？应用毒树之果理论，你就是那棵毒树，所有因你语言分析得来的证据都被污染了，都将作废。 这算是很直接地表示出对菲茨的看法了，简直就是一种精神凌迟，你能从菲茨的表情中看到他的尊严在一片片剥落（PS这段萨姆将那种濒临窒息的感觉演得极好，心疼一秒），没有高学历，只能做小镇巡警，还不得不做了10来年，每一件都是菲茨跪求放过的痛处。如果卡将菲茨视为同类，恐怕不会这般釜底抽薪。 FBI迅速将菲茨视作弃子，但菲茨却不愿罢手，这里可以看出菲茨的心理弹性很好，在受到这般重创之后还能调整情绪及策略，并且在没有外援情况下只身赴会。 第三回合： 菲茨策略： 我准备离开了，离开之前我想问你一个问题——假意放弃重现； 我和你一样放弃现代生活，每天枕着你写的宣言入睡，因为我崇拜你——试图引起共情，但那句崇拜，作为旁观者听得有些假； 指出卡钦拒绝认罪等于放弃承认自己是炸弹客，那么所有炸弹客希望带来的变革以及希望留下的遗产都将作废——两难困境，要么承认是炸弹客享受legacy，要么否认成为自由人失去崇拜者的尊重。这招其实不错，有那么一瞬间让卡陷入思考。 卡钦斯基应对： 我只是在技术层面会被宣判无罪，因为我是FBI草率工作的牺牲品，并不会直接否认我是炸弹客；我只不过用制度中的漏洞击败制度。 至于一直说我的legacy，那么菲茨你的legacy呢？你的legacy是我。你穷尽一生都极度渴望尊重，极度渴望证明你比其他人要聪明，有那么一刻，你是的，因为你抓到了炸弹客；可是现在我马上就要自由了，你也马上就要变回那个一事无成的愚蠢巡警，最可悲的是，你对世界一点改变都没有。你这一生最多你只是对我的拙劣模仿而已。 这场攻击更为冷血彻底，第二次大多围绕在菲茨的证据链，这次则完全否定菲茨的价值；并且不无冷酷地戳破，你菲茨不是我的镜像，充其量是我的回声而已。 但是仔细分析，卡钦斯基为何会如此这般人身攻击，是不是也因为他对于菲茨有一些难言的恼怒？ 第一层恼怒，被捕本不在卡的计划之中，因为其脱罪计划是在被捕以后做的。那么卡的恼怒就很好理解了，菲茨的介入打破了自己全能又隐秘的“革命者形象”。 第二层恼怒，即使被捕，卡也没想到自己168智商+博士学位+ UC Berkley最年轻教授这样的高知，会败在一个小镇巡警的手上；所以他坚持一定要面对面这位传说中的菲茨，也许他期待是自己的equal，或者是世外高人，然而却是一个试图以同类甚至崇拜者自居，并不与卡在同一认知水平的，一眼就能看到底的菲茨。 第三层恼怒，菲茨在进化，从策略上他在习得，用子之矛攻子之盾；在应激上，这回菲茨也受到了很大冲击，但是他一直撑到卡视线之外才流露出这一面；这次见面，菲茨的言论其实也击中了卡钦斯基，这可以从卡在菲茨离开后的神情看出。一个在不断进化又不轻易言败的菲茨，对卡而言，他想象中的的脱狱之路将充满未知数。
4 ) 《论工业社会及其未来》
☞You tell yourself that you're the ones in control. They obey you, your technology, your machines. But what would you do without your car, your telephone? What if all the airplanes just stopped? 10 years ago, computers were expensive toys. Today, civilization as we know would fall apart without them. You live in terror of a blackout, a computer crash, a car won't start, a phone doesn't ring. So you construct your lives, your whole society so that won't happen. Everything revolves around their needs, not yours. They buzz, you jump. They beep, you answer. So ask yourself... who's really in control? You or them?
☞I want you to think about the mail for a minute. Stop taking it for granted like some complacent, sleepwalking sheep and really think about it. I promise you, you will find the U.S. Mail a worthy object of your contemplation. A piece of paper can cross a continent like we're passing notes in class.I can send you cookies from the opposite side of the world, And all I have to do is write your name on the box, put some stamps on it, and drop it in. And you see, it only works because every single person along the chain Acts like a mindless automaton. write an address, and they just... Obey. No question. No deviation. No pause to contemplate eternity... or beauty... or death. Even you, for all your protestations of free will, if a box comes with your name on it, you can't even imagine doing anything other... Than obey. it's not your fault. Society made you this way. But you're a sheep, and you're living in a world of sheep. And because you're all sheep, because all you can do is obey, I can reach out and touch anyone anywhere. I can reach out and touch you... Right now
5 ) 《追缉：炸弹客》人物原型及真实背景
这部剧根据真实故事改编
卡辛斯基被捕时的警方档案照片
以下内容引自于维基百科
生平介绍
卡辛斯基是波兰移民的后代，1942年5月22日于美国伊利诺伊州芝加哥出生。他拥有167的高智商，十六岁时被哈佛大学数学系录取，1962年在哈佛大学毕业后转入密歇根大学攻读数学博士学位，卡辛斯基用了数月时间便完成博士学业，他的指导教授说他的博士论文十分深奥。全美只有十几个人能看懂，后来辛斯基在该校从事了四年多的学术研究。二十五岁时被加州大学柏克莱分校聘为助理教授，是该校史上雇用过最年轻的教授，但他对教学并不自在，在两年后辞去。
犯罪背景
卡辛斯基在1978年至1995年间，不断邮寄炸弹给大学教授、大型企业主管及航空公司，造成3人死亡及20多人受伤。1996年4月3日被逮捕，最后被法院判处无期徒刑。
卡辛斯基的绰号：大学炸弹客／隐形炸弹，The Unabomber（University andAirlineBomber）；是指其为针对大学及航空公司的炸弹客。
卡辛斯基在1969年辞去加州大学柏克莱分校的教授职位，并在1971年到蒙大拿州隐居。
1978年5月25日，卡辛斯基进行第一次有记录犯罪：他送出一枚故意写错地址的邮包炸弹到芝加哥大学，该校工作人员收到“寄错地址”的邮包后，便把邮包退回“寄件人”－美国西北大学工程学教授巴克利·克利斯（Buckley Crist）；卡辛斯基的犯罪对象便是巴克利教授。巴克利教授收到“退回邮包”后，感到可疑，因此巴克利教授托一名校警代替打开该邮包；邮包炸弹在打开时发生爆炸，校警当场炸至重伤。事后警方将嫌疑犯锁定为几位学生，卡辛斯基因此并无受警方怀疑。
1979年5月9日，美国航空公司444航班，从芝加哥飞往华盛顿的波音727客机行李舱在飞行时发出巨响，随后冒出浓烟，一名乘客吸入浓烟不适，飞机被迫降落。警方事后调查行李舱，发现一枚“邮包炸弹”。由于计时机制出错，因而防止了炸弹爆炸；当局表示，炸弹威力足以毁灭飞机。
截至1995年，卡辛斯基对不同大学及航空公司寄出共16枚炸弹；共炸死3人，炸伤23人。
1995年4月24日，卡辛斯基给美国多间报社及杂志社发了一封信件，并承诺如果“纽约时报”及“华盛顿邮报”刊登他的三万五千字的学术论文－《论工业社会及其未来》（Industrial Society & Its Future），他便会停止持续十八年的连环炸弹案。美国联邦调查局最终以“阻止炸弹案再次发生”为由，允许刊登其论文。
《论工业社会及其未来》中解释了卡辛斯基的犯罪动机。他认为工业文明使人类丧失自由，科技发展给人类带来灾难。因此他针对推动科技发展的科学家和工程师等高技术人才为目标，以科技倒退的形式达成人类自由的解放。
在发表论文后，不少无政府主义者、少数卢德分子[1]及极端主义者转为支持卡辛斯基。
卡辛斯基的论文在报纸上刊登后，他的弟弟－大卫·卡辛斯基发现论文与其兄的写作风格及信仰极为相似；而在论文发表前，大卫的妻子琳达更曾怀疑泰德是“The Unabomber”，促使大卫向美国联邦调查局提供线索，最终泰德·卡辛斯基在1996年落网。
1996年4月，警方以国内恐怖主义，谋杀、使用及制造炸弹等罪名起诉卡辛斯基。卡辛斯基拒绝了其律师为避免死刑而提出的精神病理由，他亦因此解雇了其法庭指定的律师。
1998年，卡辛斯基主动承认控罪，被判处终身监禁，不得保释。
美国联邦调查局表示，隐形炸弹客案件是FBI历史上最昂贵的调查。
作品
不得不说写的挺有道理的 （捂脸）
工业社会及其未来
（英文版）
引自豆瓣用户： 532EEDC9400A0
原文 http://www.douban.com/note/240140425/PDF http://editions-hache.com/essais/pdf/kaczynski2.pdfEPUB //archive.org/download/IndustrialSocietyAndItsFuture-TheUnabombersManifesto/IndustrialSocietyAndItsFuture-theUnabombersManifesto.epub有声书 //archive.org/stream/IndustrialSocietyAndItsFuture-TheUnabombersManifesto/IndustrialSocietyAndItsFuture-theUnabombersManifesto#page/n1/mode/2up其他 //archive.org/details/IndustrialSocietyAndItsFuture-TheUnabombersManifesto
回（中文版）
http://www.360doc.com/content/14/0919/15/15347270_410709909.shtml
其他
卡辛斯基思想观念是如何形成的，包括CIA是否真的对哈佛大学学生做过心理方面实验，我还没有找到相关新闻，不过在卡辛上大学的那个时间段，CIA确实拿监狱的囚犯做过这种残酷的心理实验。
6 ) 自卑者之歌：他认出风暴而激动如大海
一幕高手过招的缜密心理战，自卑者之歌，英雄和枭雄间的惺惺相惜，不单是凝视深渊过久，自身亦成为深渊，还是“我认出风暴而激动如大海”。
有一场戏，炸弹客终被抓捕，但由于缺乏确凿证据而无法判刑，Fits的两次认罪谈判都被Ted击败，制服与倾倒，控制与反控制，形势胶着。Fits就要放弃了，他去探视Ted，他说Ted你放弃了一切想要改变世界，这是我崇拜你的地方，但你只有认罪，你做的一切才有意义，你的拥趸才能崇拜你的智慧、你的宣言，你才会得到你一直想要的尊重，他们也才能将你视之为领袖，现在如果你说你无罪，你就失败了，你就是一个平庸的凡人，这场游戏就与你无关。Ted很机警，他说Fits，你说的这些都是为了让我屈服，从而证明你的才干实现你的抱负，你又为世界留下了什么呢？Fits说，我的孩子就是我的遗产。Ted说，你错了，他们不是你的遗产，我才是，逮捕我，是你终其一生做的唯一一件有意义的事。
其实Fitz才是Ted真正的遗产。
他参透炸弹客的所有文字，捕捉文本泄露的信息针脚，他与炸弹客进行虚拟对话，他勾出他的心思，剥开他的面纱，认出他的孤独，直到他觉悟到炸弹客的可贵。而这可贵之处正在于，这个高智商罪犯与自己隐秘内心的高度重合。他意识到他们的心理路径，以及所经历所渴求的如此相似。
一天深夜，辗转难眠的Fits，起身用枪对准路灯的刺眼光芒，这时Fits还在警惕自我被同化，他感觉得到自己已经深陷Ted的所思所想，他极力抵御一个看不见的炸弹客的思想高光。
但这种挣扎节节败退。慢慢地，Fits耽溺于解读炸弹客的宣言，自我亦开始被炸弹客的精神深度渗透，Ted的信仰开始了与Fits的洗脑游戏，Fits甚至驱使自己独自钻入Ted匿迹多年的林中小屋，他成为了那个人们闻之色变的炸弹客的肉身遗产，他几乎已经是Ted了。“我认出风暴而激动如大海/我舒展开又蜷缩回去/我挣脱自身/独自/置身于伟大的风暴中。”
结局Ted不忍自己被当精神病人而审判，宁愿认罪也要向世人宣布，自己的所思所为，皆是笃定清醒的结晶。他向社会宣战，双手沾满罪恶，他卑劣如蝼蚁，他必须要让人们看到自己与这个世界多么不对称。他不是在开玩笑在发疯，他让人们忌惮他的恐吓，正视他的存在，听听他的主张。他做到了，准备重新开始人生了。他衣衫褴褛地在幽深密林，随着音乐漫舞，幻想自己是一个慈爱的父亲、体贴的丈夫。但他什么都不是，他就是这个世界的讽刺。
离开法院的路上，Fits直视那盏硕大如巨人之眼的红灯，这些现代文明造就的社会规范、秩序、身份，你被规训、遵守的一切，你渴望被尊重被认同的虚浮之物，就将你定义为一个“正常人”。那只红色之眼，永远高悬于他的心间。
7 ) 他竟然有演技
该剧根据现实故事所改编，故事灵感源于上世纪末FBI罪案里的“大学炸弹客”。短小精悍的剧集，如片名所示，由爆炸案引起的调查契机。不同以往的警匪剧情，利用非传统的调查方法-语言学，使藏匿了近20年的罪犯绳之以法。没有想过萨姆·沃辛顿竟然是有演技的！反派角色保罗·贝坦尼的演技简直开挂，分分钟暴毙在精湛演技下！有一种想站凶手这边的冲动。。。
8 ) EP3说到的沼泽地
“And at the center, it's the Pripyat River Valley.”
而中间则是普里皮亚季河河谷。
“It's just some linguistics humor ——”
只是语言学里的笑话
“You konw, the slavic homeland.”
斯拉夫人的故乡
“You know, it's just this weird, dorky thing.”
就是一个古怪无聊的知识
“Go on.”
继续
“Go on, tell me.”
继续，告诉我
“Ok, so, around the year 600, Slavic people suddenly appeared all over Europe. You know, Germany, Poland, Serbia, Russia. But nobody could figure out where they came from.”
公元600年左右，斯拉夫人突然遍布全欧洲。德国，波兰，塞尔维亚，俄罗斯。但没人能弄清楚他们来自哪里
“The slavic homeland.”
斯拉夫人的故乡
“Right. It was the huge historical mystery, until they started looking at language, and then they realized that proto-Slavic was missing words for certain kinds of trees. You know, they had to borrow words, for oak and beech and pine and ……”
是的，这一直是历史未解之谜，直到他们开始研究语言，然后他们发现原始斯拉夫语中没有几种特定树木的词语，他们得从别的语言借词，来称呼橡树，山毛榉，松树什么的
“The nachos are Europe. The slavs are everywhere, but they don't have a word for Jalapeño, so they can't come form here.”
玉米片就是欧洲。欧洲到处是斯拉夫人，但他么没有墨西哥辣椒这个词，所以他们不可能来自那儿
Exactly.
没错
And they have no word for beans, or salsa or sour cream，which eliminates everywhere but here.
他们也没有豆子，辣酱，酸奶油这些词。所以排除了所有地方，除了这里
The Pripyat River Valley in Ukraine
乌克兰的普里皮亚季河河谷
It's basically this huge swamp. The one place in Europe where there are no tree
那儿基本就是个大沼泽，是欧洲唯一一处没有树的地方
Right
是啊
It was brilliant because, up until then, they had only been looking at the words that they had, and the key was in the words that they didn't have. What they didn't say
这样研究的厉害之处就在于之前他们只分析斯拉夫语中已有的词语，然而关键在于语言中没有的词语。斯拉夫人不说的东西
……what they didn't know how to say
他们不知道怎么说的东西
—— Manhunt:Unabomber S01EP03
电视剧本身一般，但UNAbomber很有意思，美国真是太多这样的high functioning sociopath，所以创造力源源不绝啊。Richard Stallman也是这样的，喜欢玩文字游戏，GNU也是一个递归缩写。某种程度上Elon Musk也是这样的人。还有表现对法律程序的注重，更多体现是活在观念世界里。
2017美剧真是疲软。这部算是很大的惊喜了。往往大量闪回、和现实对照的写法都不讨巧，但是这个故事的叙述方式非常引人入胜。
1、极简的深邃，不炫技的好。2、看演员表才认出保罗贝坦尼，不知道是脸盲症加重还是演技手术刀。第六集教科书。3、孤独是一种状态，寂寞是一种心态。普通人靠烟火气能化解孤独和寂寞，对于绝顶聪明的人反而更难。但他们中有人能去写瓦尔登湖，运气如童话或许能成为谢耳朵，一旦成为恐怖分子，没得辩解
人设太单一，大部分人，你永远知道他们会有什么反应，没有任何惊喜，弃
编剧强大，剪辑色调镜头无可挑剔，再加上演员，五星。最后一集大结局很精彩，场景、镜头切换、内心戏、力度相当到位
社会学必看剧集，不，人文社科类学生必看的剧集，卡钦斯基作为一个新卢德分子，知行合一，地下室地板高于双标白左的阁楼天花板，《宣言》水平高于97.97%的文科论文。本剧双男主都很赞，期待华盛顿的第二春，帮助菲茨的女教师居然是金刚狼的银狐。。。
开始觉得摄制有股说不出的穷相不过一旦投入剧情就忘记这档事了。案件结清后的最后一集别开生面，卡钦斯基在司法系统里的“遭遇”真是讽刺（司法系统真可怕啊哪怕智商167没学过法律也是分分钟被玩弄）
语言学侧写是全剧的精华，至于大段大段不被上司信赖、跟老婆孩子离心离德、男主本身被诱惑，all，bullshit，满满套路，肥肠无聊。
想捉住魔鬼 就得先变成魔鬼 感觉又是一部高手对决相爱相杀的汉尼拔啊！
保罗你又双叒叕演反社会人格了 Orz 包子似乎电影路不太顺利都来演电视剧了 Orz 嫌弃拍摄手法老套的请看右下角 Discovery 台标不谢
国内的作者和编剧们都来学习下，什么才叫侧写师，不是看几本教材和小说，然后靠着想当然就可以创作侧写师题材的文艺作品。
镜头语言好 男一演技跟不上趟
现在看来，Kaczynski说的都没错
【A+】1995年所发布的那篇《论工业社会及其未来》在一定程度上影响了《搏击俱乐部》的创作，而后者在二十多年后又成功影响了这部依据“航校炸弹客”案件所改编的美剧——《追缉：炸弹客》。事实上，无论是叙事节奏、人物塑造，还是视听风格，都精巧的无可挑剔，完全就是大卫·芬奇的调调（尤其是第四集开场信息量极大的交叉剪辑，完美习得其精髓），甚至在整体质量上都不输同年的《心灵猎人》。某种程度上也让我们看见那些最顶级的「罪案剧」应该是什么标准。
一颗看透螺丝命运的螺丝的故事。
一段云淡风轻的反社会独白之后，炸弹突然爆炸。仅仅这个开头，足够抓人且惊艳。
保罗贝坦尼演了个非常神奇的角色，山姆沃辛顿似乎也在期待着职业生涯第二春，剧本身这么优秀的情况下，我觉得不差《真探》。Ted在1993年以F.C.为署名发布《工业社会及其未来》宣言，1995年落网，而1996年恰克·帕拉尼克写出主题相似的《搏击俱乐部》。
精彩度不输《心理神探》。犯罪学真是一门深刻拷问人性的学科，从各种黑暗角落扫出所有人性的蛛丝。追缉的过程不止是一场智力之争，也是把自身人性押上赌局的临渊而立。案件与人物的悲剧性，使你看完后非但无法松一口气，心境反而愈发凝重。自由不是取消所有红灯，而是假如没有红灯，绿灯就成了混乱的象征。
Sam当初阿凡达起点太高, 奈何演技跟不上名声, 结果消失了那么多年, 现在进军美剧总算是挑到了个好剧本, 老实的外表下有股韧劲, 挑战官僚制度和傲慢的高智商罪犯, 算是奉献了合格的表演.
旁白参与叙事，爵士乐腔调的“ 公民凯恩”，节奏见功力，我喜欢的犯罪心理素材