现在连 Discovery 频道都出原创 Drama 剧集了，各个流媒体是要逼死谁。这部仅用了 78 个拍摄日、不足两个月后期+剪辑的犯罪剧系列，第一季基于上个世纪声名昭著的炸弹客 Theodore John Kaczynski 的真实事件改编。第一集我给4颗星。


“The big problem is that people don't believe a revolution is possible, and it is not possible precisely because they do not believe it is possible.

最大的问题是，人们并不相信革命是可能的
而真正导致这一问题的正是他们对这可能性存在的不可信”

原名 Manifesto（《宣言》），《炸弹客》着眼于 FBI 侧写员 Jim Fitzgerald 如何从 Kaczynski 给 New York Times 写的一封信开始着手到将凶手绳之于法的全过程。

Jim Fitzgerald 这个角色是真实存在的，自 2007 年他从 FBI 退休之后，个人舞台慢慢地移向了好莱坞，不仅担任 CBS 长命犯罪剧 Criminal Minds《犯罪心理》的技术顾问，还著有出版 A Journey to the Center of the Mind，同时也是本剧情节设置的来源之一。


或许真实的 Jim 只是一个尽职的 FBI 探员（先不管在真实历史上，最终让 Kaczynski 落网的是其亲生兄弟认出了他行文的风格），但由 Sam Worthington 扮演的 Jim 在《炸弹客》当中，很明显肩负着比破案更重的任务。

首当其冲的当然是 Kaczynski 这位智商 167，获得数学系 PhD 学位的前 UC Berkley 教授成为连环杀手背后的原因。首集对 Kaczynski 的描述不多，除了对邮政系统的独白和一连串从视觉上、从 FBI 口中传达出来的爆炸地面及受害人照片外，对于这一人物没有任何直观的刻画。Jim 在开篇被安排在北加州的森林里隐居并不是受原型影响，而是编剧在某个侧面希望将真实的 Kaczynski 投射在这个角色当中，借以构建起他与 Kaczynski 之间较之历史更强烈的联系。


《炸弹客》将两条时间线反向交叉铺排，一条是 1995 年 Jim 开始参与炸弹案重启，另外一条则是两年后 Kaczynski 被捕要求与他面对面交涉，也即是开篇的时间点。

拥有高智商、获得数学 PhD 学位之后的 Kaczynski，在很长一段时间里隐居在 Montana 郊外，亲手为自己搭建了一座小木屋，远离电和自来水，专心研读了社会学和哲学好几年，这此期间习得了非常多的野外生存技能。这与他抵触工业社会的哲学是相一致的，Jim 的隐居或者是试图走进 Kaczynski 内心世界的一种尝试。

“他们想让你为了薪资、奖章、更大的电视而放弃你的人性和自主权。”

早在第 1 集中通过 Jim 和妻子、朋友之间的简单互动就已经铺垫了他或许是能接近 Kaczynski 心理的最佳人选这一设定：即使是处于自己的 Quantico 毕业聚会上，少言谨慎的 Jim 仍然觉得非常局促，还在在进入 FBI 之后对官僚主义的不满。


编剧希望通过增强剧中 Jim 对 Kaczynski 的同理心来讨论工业革命对社会和环境带来的伤害，但和《炸弹客》的的理性讨论不一样，后者采取了更为激进的态度和方式。

“What worries me is that I might in a sense adapt to this environment and come to be comfortable here and not resent it anymore.

让我忧心的是，我逐渐适应了这个环境并越来越变得舒适自如，而不再对此有所愤恨。”

在片尾完整出现的、他寄给 New York Times 的那一本《论工业社会及其未来》完整叙述了 Kaczynski 对于工业社会的态度和执行这一连串爆炸行为的动机。由预告内容来看，第二集将会更加详细地详述这一本 35,000 字的宣言。

Kaczynski 所坚信的哲学体系全部来源于其所研习的人类心理学模型，并建立起非常分明的针对现代科技的道德评价标准，但这种评价标准又是基于这一种或另一种科技对人类福利的武断、不全面的影响。他所常常讨论的一个话题就是“工业体系成功幸存（经过大量、长期的痛苦）所带来的痛苦并不就见得比完全崩溃来得要少”，为敲响世人警钟，避免更大面积的痛苦和死亡，用于警醒世人的尝试所带来的少量痛苦和死亡也是值得被忽略的。

Kaczynski 对于工业社会带来人类消极影响考虑是非常值得我们继续深入思考的，但这并不能为其的杀人行为正名，任何破坏公共、他人的利益的行为都应该得到制止。

期待后续的发展。

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。

声明：点评剧集，仅是个人爱好，文中观点仅代表个人，本人秉承一千个观众就有一千个炸弹客，影视作品，好与不好，没有绝对，喜不喜欢，您随意。

“大卫，你知道我这些年来，一直很难与他人产生羁绊。我就是不知道他们的感受，他们到底在想什么.我感觉自己一生都在窗户的另一边，观察这个世界。我不知道怎样才能穿过窗户来到另一边,在那里一切都很容易”——泰德.卡钦斯基

David，you know I’ve always had trouble connecting with people.I just can’t tell what they’re feeling,what they’re really thinking about.My whole life,I’ve felt like I’m watching the world from the other side of a window and I just don’t know how to pass through to the other side where everything is effortless”——ted Kaczynski

上集讲到 Fitz 探员终于为我们揭开了炸弹客的身份——泰德卡钦斯基，本集则聚焦了泰德的过往，让我们近距离地观看到他是如何从一个天之骄子走向犯罪的。

Ted的智商很高，说是天才也不为过，因为极其聪明，所以上中学时连跳两级，16岁考上哈佛，毫无疑问，泰德是个天之骄子。然而，因为跳级让他失去了与同龄人交往成长的机会，内向敏感的性格又让他拙于表达且易受伤害。

我觉得Ted选择隐居并不是他不喜欢与人交往、交流。相反，Ted非常渴望像正常人一样，交朋友，有伴侣，组成家庭。从中学时找伙伴，大学时寻求教授的认同，工作后找伴侣可以看出，Ted本身是渴望被爱的，只是敏感的他不知道该怎么去爱。

而在哈佛，Ted被他最认可最信任的Murray教授背叛，并且被当众羞辱，自尊被残酷无情的剥夺，如果说Ted一开始只是较为孤僻，对生活仍保有热情和希望的话，那从此泰德开始变得愤世嫉俗。最终，弟弟David炒掉他，则是压倒Ted的最后一根稻草。没有无缘无故的爱，也没有无缘无故的恨。如果当年没有经历过朋友、师长、兄弟甚至父母有意或无意的忽视和背叛，Ted会变成现在这样吗？

Ted不断的制造炸弹，并非是他嗜好杀戮，他是在表达无尽的愤怒,想得到关注，以及尊重，尽管方式并不恰当。然而，过这样一种生活真的是Ted想要的吗？No，正如他自己所说。But，他却只会过这样一种生活。

本集中最让我触动的一幕是Ted最后来到Timmy屋外，天知道他下了多大的勇气，拿着那个虽然简陋但足以包含他心意的自制礼物，虽然踟蹰了一会儿，但他还是迈开了向前的脚步，他马上就快要进去了，但Ted突然停下了，然后画面切换到佛雷德拿了一个炫目的电子琴，Ted低下头看了看自己手中的寒酸的，甚至有些丑陋的铁东西，然后慢慢转身离开。那一刻，我看到了Ted满腔期待的勇气以及，不堪一击的敏感和脆弱。

本集无论是演员的表演，画面的调度以及台词的精致，都可以说是相当完美，当然，前几集也很棒，但如果选最佳的话，我会毫不犹豫得为本集投上一票。

根据上集剧情，Ted怎么被发现的已经明显了，接下来就是最后的抓捕程序了，这点已没有让人感兴趣的地方了，接下来我很想知道两个问题：第一，菲茨探员为何也跟泰德一样突然去隐居了？第二，Ted最终会怎么选择呢？认罪？Or被释放？

更多影评剧评可关注：

试想：

1122案件- 危害公共安全重大事件办公室

数字证据-项目编号GA／T 1179 - 2022

摘要：“1122”案件嫌疑人在暗网第一次公布其作案动机，送交法医语言学专项组进行分析

《中国文化产业和其未来》

你把屏幕握在你的手里，你决定移动手指，决定点开什么，你看什么，听什么，读什么都是你自己的意愿，自己个性的选择。想想你看到了什么，你看到的东西怎么到达了你手指尖点到的位置，想想那背后有多少人为之工作——有的人负责把好看的数字编织出来，夸大到将将可信的程度；有的负责使用柳叶刀，硅胶和肉毒素，把曾经需要数代人优秀基因组合的结果迅速的制造出来；还有的负责将这些制造品赋予活人的特点，让这些丝毫没有魅力，没有气质，没有灵魂的一具具活体商品，显露出一点人性，让我们更能喜欢他们——仿佛他们也拥有我们拥有的情感，从而获得流量，获得粉丝，实现更好看的数字。因为流量、粉丝和数字意味着，当我们看到这张脸，或者这个封面的时候，我们意识到，听别人说过这件事，所以我们应该看看。

……当你的手指在屏幕上划过来划过去，迟迟不能选择的时候，会不会有种异样的情感挥之不去：仿佛这些东西和你毫无关系。问问你自己，他们究竟活在什么样的世界里，为什么我的世界如此不同？我们试图压抑另一种怀疑：这种持续性的差强人意是否意味着：他们坑害了我们，欺骗了我们，剥夺了我们选择的权力？我们为什么总也选择不了喜欢的东西？我们在自己不喜欢的工作中，勤勤恳恳耕耘，换来的钱，换来的闲暇竟然白白给了他们，因为我们的轻信，我们的糊涂，就这样的被这些假脸，假数据，假故事骗走了。

……我知道这个骗局，因为我也曾经身在其中。这个骗局，叫做文化产业复合体，是由资本，明星，消费终端平台公司组成的利益共同体。这个工业体系的核心目的，就是消灭我们以往的源于生活的审美、文化和思考的愉悦体验，并利用他们可以控制的人员，渠道，和评判标准之下生产的“模拟文化体验”，去取代它。这些模拟文化体验就是你手指尖底下的东西，它不要求你喜欢他，认同它，崇拜他，它只有一个诉求，你点“付款”。因为当你点了付款以后，这个骗局的谎言，所有的假数据，假脸，假戏，都被你证实是真的。而真实的生活，那个你每天睁开眼，呼吸的空气，走过的街道，令你喜欢的，讨厌的，难过的，担心的，也因为你错误的点击，而变得无足轻重。

……我们看到的是包装，是推广，是粉饰，而包装的作用，就是暗示我们，不需要动脑子，不需要思考，不要有自己的判断，相信我们，相信所见。你只需要掏钱。而我不禁要问，凭什么？

……当我意识到我的工作助纣为虐的本质之后，我不仅决定立刻停止，我决定必须要修补我曾经做过的破坏。必须摧毁文化产业复合体造谎的能力，其中一种方法就是必须摧毁那些正在造谎的人。

……如果我的行为成功的实现了我的意图，那么我毋庸置疑的违反了国家法律，违反了社会的道德，如果我的身份被公开，面临被逮捕，面临法律制裁，那么文化产业复合体和其下属的新闻媒体网络会将我描述成一个疯子，神经病，或者一个恐怖分子，这当中只有一个称谓我可以有条件的接受。那就是，任何政治运动在成功之前的参与者，都是被其敌对势力称之为“恐怖分子”。

……一个尽职尽责的恐怖分子的理念还是不可避免的会传达给公众，因此，文化利益一体更有可能说我是一个疯子，因为我所信仰的理念，威胁着他们每一个人的利益，撼动了他们赖以生存的基础，我的行为对文化产业复合体的每一个受益者，每一个帮助其维护谎言的人，都产生了毁灭性威胁，他们会不计一切代价的摧毁我的名誉，构筑关于我的谎言。而真实的我，虽然不明智，但是至少是理智，心态开放，并且清晰地认识到，作为一个中国人，对自己的文化，对自己民族的同胞在世界上的形象和地位，担负着不可推卸的责任。我的行为虽然游离法外，依然是服务于这个古老族群的长久利益，而不是将自己灵魂售卖给一个，心态扭曲，思想犬儒，并且努力摆脱民族身份和集体形象的精英集团。

以上举个例子，如果一个连环杀手以传播上述理念为名，杀掉无数个明星，体会一下这个感觉。写这些，要引出我想到的：

恐怖分子的 what， who，和 why

这部戏的what who why元素分别是，

邮寄炸弹／ 被哈佛科学实验侵犯过的学生，有智慧有能力的数学家／认为自由被科技剥夺 ，改造社会

《追缉炸弹客》的影视故事编写，就是通过侦探查案的情节，告诉我们这几个案件的元素是什么；与普通罪案不一样的地方源于他的作案动机（WHY）。 普通的调查，无论是《L&O》《CSI》还是《The Killing》，随着Who（嫌疑人）的改变，我们要考虑作案的Why（动机）是什么，是金钱利益，复仇，意外死亡隐瞒犯罪事实，等等。

《追》当中，WHY虽然来自于意识形态的理念，“科技剥夺自由”，但是它的核心讲的还是个人的自由被社会剥夺的主题，

能够找到真相，真理，和正确道路的领导者，往往是在人类组织中遭到排斥的。因为组织的目的是维持现状。

一方面这点更加能激发原始情感，我们都体会过被边缘化，或者自己的正确意见没有人重视，这种受挫感是观众立刻能认同的—— 另一方面 也是将侦探和罪犯紧紧链接起来的一个纽带：

为了能更好的理解侦探故事的人物网络构建，可以看一下这视频理解，

1）罪犯、侦探都是敏感有观察力的人，他们共同发现了同样的东西，并且坚信不疑

2）调查中要有和搭档性格对比，我们得以发现侦探深藏的缺陷（人物的ghost，wound，lack）

3）罪犯的诉求也是侦探的欲望，罪犯是侦探的“阴影、极端行为”，是唯一能改变侦探的事物

剧本教室

《追》中，侦探Fitz 是一个在晋升阶梯上爬升极为不顺的人，为什么呢？因为他是反社会的，不屑于遵从政府里的等级文化，一条路堵死以后，他必须通过增加另一方面的竞争力，他学霸的一面才能进步。幸运的，也是不幸的是，这样一个自学成才，成绩优异的新探员得到一个“积极反馈”，加入最重要的项目组，寻找Unabomber。所谓积极反馈，就是社会犒赏了他反社会的行为，允许他继续独立思考，不服从管理。那么后来上司Don一遍遍要他服从，听话，耐心地要他仔细按要求做，不是因为他讨厌这个下属，而是教给他，这就是社会的真相。除了完成组织目标以外，Fitz必须要学会社会组织的另一项关键目标，保证等级阶梯中的各个人员，获得应该得到尊重，给足面子。

这一点，是Ted绝对不可能做到的。

社会第一个真相： 聪明有智慧的人，是社会的敌人。

不要轻信因为你的成绩，才干，能力，IQ等等，你所在的组织真的把你当成资产。无论是什么社会，都有游戏规则，有自上而下的金字塔等级系统，而聪明人眼中看到的是目标，更智慧的人看到的是终极意义，他们根本不care游戏规则，这就是让系统里其他人不爽的地方。当然有更大可能，挑事者其实是自作聪明的自恋者，他们对游戏规则的反叛直接威胁系统的稳定，因为每一个人必须贡献给这个系统，这个系统才能实现目标，合作的代价就是妥协，妥协多了，这些妥协就去除了背后人与人之间交流的人味儿，抽象成为一个可怕的，冷冰冰的规则，当科学技术帮助执行这个规则的时候，就像你打客服电话，机器人叫你“请按1”的时候，你是被边缘化的。因而，我们的炸弹客Unabomber 与其在说自由如何被科技剥夺，不如说是在抱怨这社会集体合谋干掉个性，干掉独立思考。

一个受过高等教育，而且缺乏社会化的人，一定是活得最憋屈，最想发声让人听到的。非暴力的方法就如《荒野生存／into the wild》中克里斯那样在阿拉斯加自给自足，抵抗文明社会，最后自己受苦。另一种则是Ted这样侵犯性的，生活在文明边缘，悄然布局，对社会进行攻击。这两种途径都必须置身在大自然环境中汲取精神力量，原因不是大自然多么美好，多么令人头脑清醒，斗志昂然，而是因为大自然不是人类文明。

社会第二个真相：无论是否有动植物，社会人所在的系统，就是“自然”环境。

大自然是地球给人类的，它十分美好，充满内在的和实用的价值。当Ted抱怨科技摧毁人类自由，控制了我们选择的能力，也抱怨当下社会因为拥抱科技摧毁了大自然，这种理念其实受到了很多环境主义者的追捧。但是大自然只能是地球给人类的么？ 如果你是一个社会人，你必须要接受，树林和海边只是你在法定假期和休息日去的地方，而你的大自然就是人类文明创造出的系统，是你所在的地铁，办公室，候机大厅，220v交流电，5G 手机网络， 802.11 wifi。

以Ted的为代表的告知知识分子，包括许许多多环境主义者都受过高等教育，他们倾向于把人类集体所当成乌合之众，人类集体文明自然需要全盘的否定和批判。在他们看来，既然是人类创造的，一定是有问题的。不然为什么我的正确观点融不到当下人类社会的创造之中。Ted们唯一论据，就是“这不是大自然” 但是大自然并不代表人类集体选择，只有北极圈，亚马逊，亚撒哈拉，所罗门群盗等地方的族群不想用科技能力改造生活环境，大多数人类选择通过放弃某种自由，交换来一些方便的功用，纷纷像羊群一样排队购买。

实际情况很有可能我们人类会毁灭地球，抑或把地球改造成面目全非的样子，这些，作为一个社会人，我们都得把这些“人文”环境，当成是“人”然而然。这也是Ted们鄙视大多数人的原因。

社会第三个真相：没有人有答案，但是我们都知道自己该做什么。

影片中的联邦调查局调查爆炸案走向起初各种歧途，只能怪自己的组织系统没有激励创新想法的机制，没有聪明人作出贡献的渠道。但组织面对危机，在压力下需要改变的时候，组织信任什么人去面对未知世界的挑战呢？

所有的人类体验涉及到的领域可以归纳为：已知世界，未知世界，和求知者。社会正常运行的情况，都是这个稳定安全，十分权威性的已知世界在发挥作用；而到了危机出现，社会维持现状的目标会阻碍其面对未知世界挑战的能力。无论如何，组织委派的人，必须是被组织训练得听话的人，所谓已受训人员。他们已经明白领导要什么，组织要什么，这些目标和这个案子要什么，并不是永远一致的。不要期待有任何大领导代你走向胜利，没有人知道真相是什么，只有靠以往经验，或者靠自己深信不疑的故事。所以，这个社会随时面临崩盘，永远没有足够的聪明人，没有足够的领导力，没有足够的应急预案。那究竟是什么保持这个社会稳定运行呢？

你。你知道什么是对的，什么是社会认可的。你的顺从，你的妥协，在团体当中，你从来不做极端的事情。你是一个已知世界的常驻人员。而当你面对未知世界的时候，你的教育，智力，执行力，社会资源，决定了你是否认可社会教给你的东西，是否认可社会，是否能用行为证明你的信仰。

回到第一个真相，很有可能，面对未知世界的时候，社会会把你当成敌人。

如果我是一个变态

回到我的假设：我有感于中国人的文化被“文化产业复合体”威胁，我制造了恐怖的活动，全世界报道。我发出了《中国文化产业和其未来》被人传播， 我并不是因为有了正确的信仰，令人信服的论据，而得到普通人的同情，认可的，恰恰是因为我做出了极端的行为。并且我成功的付诸行动了。你可能会判断出，道德上，法律上，我是对的还是错的。并且显而易见，任何使用暴力的行为都是挑战这个国家，而必然要受到惩罚。

但是你无法计算和衡量，随机某一个人对我的态度。比如在这个产业中，可能想要改变现状，可能正在对当前状况不满，这个随机人是不是认可我的宣言，对他到底是有好处，还是有坏处，和他是否相信我说的无关。

WHO is the unabomer? 《追缉炸弹客》是所有侦探片中，对恐怖分子刻画的最细腻，最人情味儿的一部，但是我们知道Ted是悲剧的。这种悲剧不是来自结尾他得到应有的惩罚，而是来自他对爱的渴望，他受到的背叛，和他对于普通人交流的向往而不得。这个本来可能拥有一个不错人生的高智商人，选择了与科技人文-与社会你死我活的来个对决。

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

作为全球享有盛誉、拥趸上亿的纪实电视节目公司，美国“探索”频道在今年夏天推了出第一部电视剧作品――“Manhunt：Unabomber”，译名作《炸弹追凶》。

在“寓知识于娱乐”的指导原则下，“探索”频道选择进入电视剧领域并不令人意外。电视剧毕竟是近十年以来大众娱乐节目中最具创新性、艺术性、社会性的表现形式。 美国“历史”频道早在2012年就已经尝试在人文科教频道中播出高制作水准的历史电视剧，各路叫好声一片、收视率一路冲高，“探索”频道的革新步伐似乎还显得缓慢一些。

值得探究的是，为什么选择 “Unabomber”这个在上世纪80、90年代轰动一时、人尽皆知的连环爆炸案作为首部电视剧作品的题材？ 在谜底一开场就被揭晓，新闻报导已多如牛毛的背景之下，如何设置悬念、制造冲突，吸引观众们一周一集地紧紧追剧？ 如何挖掘这起案件中尚不为人熟知却又精彩刺激的科学因素，不违背“拓宽视野、增长见识”的频道宗旨？ 如何紧贴当前社会环境，让这一起20年前旧案能够与时俱进，赋予观众“感同身受”的现实意义？

下周三（9月13日）这部八集电视剧将迎来大结局。大家可以在一个漫长沉闷的假日，不被打扰、酣畅淋漓地看完全剧。 在看剧之前，我们也许要恶补一下背景知识，试着了解一位普通美国观众对“Unabomber”案件的基本观感，才能逐渐领略这部美剧的精妙有趣，引人之胜之处。 　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　谁解救无能的FBI？ Unabomber是一个合成词。 Un指大学（University），A指航空公（Airline），Bomber指炸弹客，译作“校航炸弹客”。从1978年5月25日至1995年4月24日这长达17年的时间，“校航炸弹客”利用各类邮件邮寄了16个包裹，造成23人受伤、共3人死亡，其中大部分是大学校园精英阶层的知识分子，其中一名受害者是一名即将成宇航员的电力工程学硕士。

虽然死伤人数并非触目惊心，但是“校航炸弹案”却成为美国历史上耗时最长，耗资最巨、投入警察力量最多案子。 美国联邦调查局，美国烟酒及枪支管理局、美国邮政检查署三家机构组成百人专案小组，运用一切高科技手段展开调查，包括∶分析炸弹碎片的物理成分以确定零部件来源；检测邮包残留的DNA、指纹等生物线索以确定嫌疑人身份；邀请请犯罪心理学专家进行人物侧写以缩小嫌疑人范围等。 专案组甚至从军方借来了一台超级计算机、建立一个庞大数据库，进行关键词检索与交叉分析，在伊利诺斯州、犹他州、加利福尼亚州等三个案发地区分别列出了数千人的嫌疑犯名单。名单上的每一个人都被彻底调查了一番，每一个人也都被排除了嫌疑。 数十年间，专案组获得的唯一真实可信的线索就是一位目击者对于“校航炸弹客”的外表描述，对于其年龄、身份、背景、教育程度与犯罪意图等核心因素则是一直毫无所知。

1996年案件破获时，新闻媒体将主要功劳归结于罪犯弟弟的举报，认为如果没有这位有识之士的“大义灭亲”之举，“校航炸弹客”仍会逍遥法外，给民众心理上带来极大恐慌。 但是，事实的真相是这样吗？联邦调查局真的如此无能吗？ “探索”频道的剧集简介开门见山指出，将调查从一无所获的泥沼中解救出来的是“法医鉴定语言学”（Forensic linguistics），一种从未被认证也从未被使用的犯罪调查方法，通过罪犯发表信件的语言习惯特征来确定其个人身份。 当时，这种方法被不少专业人士视为“天方夜谭”，认为只是“病急乱投医”罢了，不料却在案件侦破的每一个关键环节成为识别罪犯身份的唯一利器。 第三集中，协助破案的语言学女博士讲一个关于斯拉夫人起源故事，也许第一次让观众对“法医鉴定语言学”产生了信心。

　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　连环爆炸的目的何在？ 上世纪90年代，这名罪犯自己说明制造这些邮包炸弹的动机与图谋，那就是反对工业科技文明对人类自由的伤害。 在寄出邮包炸死平民同时，罪犯还向报纸、学者寄出不少署名为“F.C.”信件，要求正视高度发达的科技文明对于人类自由生活的迫害与剥夺。 其中一封寄给了1993年诺贝尔奖获得者，遗传学家理查·罗伯特和飞利浦·夏普，信中警告两位博士，应该立刻停止他们的基因研究。 还有一封寄给《纽约时报》与《华盛顿邮报》，要求发表他长达35000字的《工业社会及其未来》宣言，否则就要炸掉一架民航客机。 权衡再三之后，美国司法部与联邦调查局违背了“不向恐怖分子妥协”的原则，允许这份宣言的最终公开发表

有人认为，这份“诅咒着高科技环境下现代社会的不自由，工业革命带来的人类灾难、社会的动荡、生命意义的消失”的宣言不过是陈词滥调，但在“探索”频道电视剧集执行制片人安德鲁·索德罗斯基（Andrew Sodroski）眼里，却是一份“先知般的预言”。 “这份宣言中所描绘人与科技关系比20年前还要符合现状。在智能手机普及之前，宣言已经告诉我们，人类生活将如何被科技所绑架、所胁迫，所约束、所决定。当手机响起时，你就必须接听，不管你是不是正在和一个活生生的人对话，不管你是不是认为这事愚蠢而且无关紧要。” 美国媒体报导这部剧集时这写道 “在《炸弹追凶》发布会现场，许多人将听到、看到的信息输入笔记本、平板电脑或手机之中，再通过社交媒体成千上万地传播扩散到世界各地。推特是在《宣言》公布十几后才出现的。然而，这一场景却证明了《宣言》的准确性，即对科技的依赖将主宰人类的日常生活”

2007年中国《新周刊》杂志报导指出，美国阳光微系统公司的首席科学家比利乔伊，曾在《连线》杂志上撰文《为什么未来不需要我们》，他在文中大量援引《宣言》中的段落以此说明科技的危险。 遭到“校航炸弹客”重伤的耶鲁大学计算机科学教授大卫·加勒特也承认，《宣言》推断不无道理，工业文明时代，人类的未来，也许真的险恶重重。 在“911”前，美国国内的恐怖主义活动的主题并非只是 “文明的冲突”，反对工业文明也是恐怖活动的主题之一，包括环保运动、反对堕胎、动物权利保护等等。 一份1998年的美国报纸写道， “ 为了拯救环境而不断升级的破坏行动席卷了美国西部，已经造成了数千万美元的损失并使人们的生命处于危险之中；自1980年以来，至少有100起此类暴力事件发生，造成了4280万美元的经济损失。进入21世纪之后，反对工业文明仍然是恐怖主义意识形态源泉之一。” 2011年7月，32岁的白人男性安德斯·贝林·布雷维克在挪威首都奥斯陆发动恐怖袭击，先是在政府办公区引爆炸弹，炸死了8人；再是前往度假小岛，枪杀了69名参加暑期夏令营的青少年。 这名“独狼式”恐怖主义杀手在网上发布的袭击宣言，很大一部分内容抄袭自1995年的“校航炸弹客”的《工业社会及其未来》。

　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　谁造就连环杀手？ 这名拥有如此精巧高超的爆炸手法，怀抱如此“崇高伟大”人生理想的罪犯，是毕业于哈佛大学的数学天才――泰德·卡辛斯基（Ted Kaczynski）。 1942年5月22日，卡辛斯基出生于伊利诺伊州，智商高达167，16岁被哈佛大学数学系录取，20多岁在密歇根大学用了几个月的时间就获得数学博士学位，因为他解决了导师也没有解决的数学难题，“他的博士论文全美国只有10-12个人能看懂”。

有些观点认为，尽管这位数学天才自幼内向、害羞、不爱与人交流，但并不存在心理疾病，也没有反社会人格，无论是他的高中老师们，还是哈佛当年的新生体检医生，都将他描述为一个正常的孩子。 但是，卡辛斯基在哈佛求学时期参与一项心理学试验则可能对他的心理状态与人生信仰产生了巨大冲击，最终导致他变成一名连环杀手。 这段经历在美国媒体相关报导中鲜有提及，“探索”频道的电视剧集再现了这一过程，让观众们了解美帝国主义的一段极不为光彩的人权污点。

冷战时期，哈佛大学心理学教授亨利·默里（Henry Murray）在美国中央情报局的援助下主持一个“精神控制”实验项目，卡辛斯基与他的同学们在没有被告知的情况下成为了实验对象，测试人们在极端压力下的心理反应，企图以此建立一套从心理上摧毁苏联间谍政治信仰的心理战审讯方法。 “ 默里让他的不知情的学生，接受了密集的审讯。他自己称之为‘激烈的，全面的，辱骂性’的个人攻击，攻击他的学生们的自尊心和最珍视的理想和信仰” “ 被测试的学生进入了地下室，来自内心的声音命令自己必须遵守一切规则。他发现地下室里有一盏足以使人失明的聚光灯对着门口，房间其它部分则陷入一片漆黑，一个讯问者坐在当中，几乎无法被看见。讯问者粗暴地命令他坐下。当他坐下时，他发现椅子被放置得如此精确，以至于聚光灯的全部光亮都集中照射在自己的脸庞上” 这个将学生当作为科学服务的“小白鼠”实验，也许直接导致卡辛斯基高度认同“科技和科学正在破坏自由和自然”的命题。 但是，与此同时，卡辛斯基也变成了另一个亨利·默里，将所谓的理想原则凌驾于普通人性之上。 为一种理念、为了一个原则，为了一种信仰可以牺牲掉无数普通人的性命，这就是卡辛斯基对其炸弹谋杀行为进行合理化的内动力所在。 卡钦斯基的扮演者――Paul Bettany，明确地重申电视剧集绝不是为了同情卡钦斯基，但它确实试图引起你的同情。 “Ted有一部分是孩子，16岁被中央情报局(CIA)做实验，被羞辱，这对任何人来说都是件可怕的事情。这在某种程度上摧毁了他，并以某种方式将他武器化。” Bettany说，这是一个非常有趣的问题，为什么现在孩子，不仅在美国，还包括英国乃至欧洲，对自己的国家觉得如此疏远以至于要跑到叙利亚去？我们如何帮助那些内心深处觉得如此疏离以至于觉得自己不再是社会一分子的人？ 强大演员阵容 这部美剧演员阵容强大，都是赏心悦目、正当壮年、风度迷人的老戏骨真男人，可谓是色艺俱佳。,包括来自电影《阿凡达》的Sam Worthington，来自电影《温布尔登》Paul Bettan——来自美剧《欲望都市》、《傲骨贤妻》的Chris Noth美剧《欢乐合唱团》的恶魔老师Jane Lynch，仅有短短几分钟的出镜却是让人印象深刻，饰演有担当、有魄力的美国首位女性司法部长Janet Reno。 另外，对于在体制内混迹多年的公务人员来说，这部剧集也会深深引起共鸣……在官僚体制内，想要与时俱进、实事求是，做一些前所未有的尝试与努力，将是多么的困难！！！ 参考资料 Harvard and the Making of the Unabomber，the Atlantic Discovery’s “Manhunt Unabomber” Kaczynski as a true, heartless prophet，Salon.com “Manhunt Unabomber” explores the life of murderer Ted Kaczynski ， Fox News

我也不知道怎么说，看完八集好心疼Ted，一个人的自述，一个人在小木屋前跳舞，被捕，被信任的律师出卖，被判终身监禁，我不知道是演员演得太好还是怎样，只觉得好心疼。一个天才，不该被这般对待，如果有如果，如果出生在不一样的时代，如果自幼时便被更良善的对待，如果没有被那么多次的出卖，是不是会有完全不一样的未来？可惜没有如果。总是不经意想起犯罪心理的Spencer，他们其实是一样的人吧，都是那般聪慧，敏感，脆弱。

智商太高的人容易被孤立，因为对世界的理解和看法总是和普通人不一样。正因如此，他们更渴望温暖，信任，关怀，以及爱。可是，终其一生，只有孤独。Ted制造炸弹，因此带来各种无辜人的伤亡，是他的错，完全是不可否认不可弥补不可饶恕的错，可是错误的源头呢？所有人都有错，所有人都有罪。

天才不是怪物，怪咖也不是怪物，愿所有善良的人都能被世界温柔以待。

这部剧根据真实故事改编

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。