Ralph Borsodi Problem XVI

(Outlined by Rita Jane Leasure,Jan.,2000)

Conservation and Reformation: The Institutional Problem

INTRODUCTION

One of Nine Basic Practical Problems of Man and of Society: Praxiology. These problems deal with the means for realizing purposes and implementing values. How things should be done by rational and humane human beings as opposed to todays development of techniques which profit the group no matter how stupid or injurious the result. Law, Criminology, and Penology are convicting tens and hundreds of thousands of people for pseudo-crimes while millions who are guilty of serious breaches of the Moral Law are utterly ignored.

THE INSTITUTIONAL PROBLEM. When it is necessary or desirable to conserve, reform, abolish, or establish social institutions which will make survival less difficult, the pursuit of happiness possible, and the maintenance of social sanity a fact. The bits and pieces of knowledge about the problem are scattered about in sociology and anthropology, in economics and political science, in history, and in the proposals of social reformers of the past and the present.

I. Facts

1. Social institutions are biologically and psychologically necessary. Man cannot live alone, individualism is not a substitute for gregariousness but an addition to it.

2. Some social institutions help and some are injurious.

3. There are conflicting prescriptions for what should be done about both the good and the bad. Maintenance of existing institutions (conservation); return to changed or abandoned institutions (reaction); establish entirely new institutions (revolution); correction of defects in existing institutions (reformation).

Reformation is the most flexible, it can include elements of each.

4. Whether an institution should be maintained or changed is confused with how it should be reformed or conserved. Whether belongs to the "problem" the institution is addressing. How is the question at hand.

The hows in use range from the most peaceful and nonviolent to the most horrible and violent conceivable. Therefore it is impossible to exaggerate the importance of this problem.

II. Background

Before the "dawn of history", social institutions changed slowly. They evolved, rather than mutated.

Then came the practice of sudden and violent change. Pagan to Christian, Christian to Islamic, Islamic back to Christian, Catholic to Protestant, the Age of Revolution. Perhaps - in the long run - it was worth it all. Perhaps. But untold human anguish could have been avoided if some less bloodthirsty method of changing social institutions had been used.

More modernly, are the proponents of Fascism, Communism and Socialism right to insist that revolution is essential and justifiable as a means of doing away with what they maintain are unendurable social evils? Was Jefferson right (a revolution is needed every twenty years to remind our rulers that liberty is sacred)? Was Gandhi right (means and ends must both be nonviolent)?

Borsodi wrote "A Pan-Humanist Manifesto" as a reply to the "Communist Manifesto" by Marx and Engels. Borsodi's work called for far-reaching changes to educational, political, and economic institutions.

International trade as it is is protectionist, Borsodi would abolish all protective trade institutions gradually but completely and institute free trade. Protection is inconsistent with freedom; free trade is not. All the people of the world are entitled to freedom; freedom should not be restricted by national boundaries; freedom inside of them and authoritarianism across them is in his opinion immoral and inhumane.

III. Evaluating solutions - five facts

1. Institutions vs. Enterprises.

Institutions are sets of inter-related activities practiced long enough and by enough people to be seen as the right way to deal with problems. Enterprises are undertakings which produce goods and services for which the institutional practices create the demand.

2. Survival, Genetic, Cultural and Necrotic Institutions

a. Survival institutions maintain life and cope with threats to life.

b. Genetic institutions maintain the species and cope with the problems of our bisexual nature.

c. Cultural Institutions deal with art and activities other than survival and reproduction.

d. Necrotic Institutions deal with death and other escapes from a life not worth living (suicide, homicide, addiction, aggression, neurosis, psychosis)

3. Social "Orders" or "Systems" vs. Institutional "Structures"

Except among primitive tribes isolated for aeons of time, no society has ever had such a thing as a true social order. All of them are social conglomerates. They are a mixture of institutions often antagonistic to one another. Even when deliberate effort is used as in Communist nations, they break down. this hodge-podge of institutions Borsodi calls an institutional structure. Ideally this would evolve into a rational and humane institutional order but the prospects are not encouraging.

4. Social Orders vs Social Conglomerations

A social order is a structure composed of institutions all of which reflect the system's ethos - its charismatic central telic value - all of which function harmoniously together.

A social conglomerate is a structure composed of institutions some of which act harmoniously together and with the social ethos, some act at cross-purposes with other institutions, and some in conflict with the social ethos itself.

The only historical social orders are those of primitive tribes whose institutions, by a process of endless minute adjustments, has come to work harmoniously and be completely representative of the ethos of the tribe. The Communist structure based on "production according to ability and distribution according to need" has developed antithetical institutions of various kinds.

The institutional structure in the United States ought to implement freedom which is the traditional ethos of the American people is full of institutions which limit freedom or deny it altogether. Borsodi's examples include Trade Unions that limit the workers right to bargain freely and Trusts and Cartels those privileged and monopolistic corporations that limit market competition and fix prices in complete opposition to the ethos of freedom.

5. Violent vs. Non-Violent Reform and Conservatism

Increasingly institutional changes tend to be made either arbitrarily and inhumanely by revolutionary action or equally arbitrarily if somewhat more humanely, by statutory enactments. To the extent to which statutory and constitutional law prevents institutions which should be changed from being changed at all, the tendency to resort to violence and revolution increases.

Both statutory and revolutionary changes involve the use of violence. Other methods are unexplored by the "practical" practitioners of law. They use force as applied by the law, police, and courts if possible, but with resort to military violence if the use of civilian force proves insufficient.

IV. Doctrines of institutional change

1. Conservatism

This doctrine, or state of mind, maintains that the social structure as it is should not be changed either in whole or in part.

That many social institutions are good enough and have proved their value by the test of time is undoubtedly true, but that none of them need change and none radical change is an absurdity belied by every page of history. The simple truth is that we shall probably never arrive at that Utopian state institutionally when no social changes of any kind need ever be made.

2. Reactionism

This doctrine, or state of mind, maintains that the social system should be returned to a previously existing form by restoring all the institutions of which it is composed to the form in which they existed at some time in the past.

Even the worst, the Fascist, the Marxist, the social structure that plunged Europe into the Dark Ages in the name of Christianity, developed institutions which are basically excellent and superior to those which we have been conditioned to like because they are our own. Some new institutions are undoubtedly inferior, but that there ever was a society, the institutions of which were all so perfect that all that is needed is to return to them in toto, is nonsense.

3. Revolutionism

This doctrine, or state of mind, maintains that the social structure as it exists is so corrupt, so unjust, that the structure as whole with all its institutions should be forcibly destroyed and replaced with an entirely new set of institutions which are forcibly imposed upon everybody.

This doctrine is indefensible. There has never been a social system that did not have some institutions which were good. The problem is not whether they are all good or all bad, but how to discriminate between them. This the Revolutionist does not do, he is for Revolution, period.

The cure, with very, very few exceptions, is worse than the disease. The American Revolution is "undoubtedly" an exception, but that is due to the very exceptional nature of its leadership. the French Revolution was followed by such massive slaughter, (the Terror and the Bonapartist wars), as to make the ancient regime seem in retrospect a benevolent tyranny. The fact that Britain, as an example, was able to make similar and even greater institutional improvements without such blood-letting makes it impossible to make out any kind of case for Revolution for the sake of Revolution.

4. Reformism

This doctrine maintains that what is defective in the existing social structure should be corrected by reorganizing its faulty institutions, discarding those which are incurably bad, and establishing new or re-establishing discarded institutions which will tend to perfect the social structure.

Reformism, thus defined, is not a mere state of mind, it is factually and intellectually defensible.

Examples; the Protestant Reformation changed the church and other integrated social institutions; Parlimentarianism was substituted for Monarchical Absolutism in England to change political institutions; Capitalism was substituted for Mercantilism and Feudalism to change economic institutions. These contrast vividly with the imposition of Communism for Capitalism which is taking place wherever a "dictatorship of the proletariat" takes over a State.

Social Innovators and Social Movements

Many institutional changes are the result of slowly evolving social movements and many are the work either intentionally or as by-products of social innovators. (Many examples given.)

V. Solutions

1. Conversional Solutions

All means to effect institutional change which have in common the acceptance and adherence of non-believers or believers in other religions to a proselytized "true faith" fall into the category of Conversional solutions to the institutional problem.

If sufficient numbers are converted the religious and all the other institutions of a society will change.

Doctrinally, the Christian assault upon Pagan institutions and the Mohammedan attempt to substitute Islamic for Gentile institutions were to be by conversion. In practice the substitution was effected almost wholly by the use of fire-and- sword.

Conversional doctrines fall into two groups, nonviolent and violent. Violent ones (Christian, Mohammedan, and anti-religious ones like Communism and National Socialism) have managed to secure a much greater number of believers than nonviolent ones (Buddhism, Humanism, Quakerism). This proves that Terrorism and War are effective means for institutional change. However, nonviolent methods can also be effective as shown by the spread of Buddhism from India to China and Japan

with almost no record of police or military force being used.

a. Nonviolent Doctrines and Practices

Proselytization which includes Missionizing; Revivalism; Ritualism; Denominational Schooling; Sacred Processions; Holy Days; Holy Festivals; Monasticism; and Eremiticism.

Psychic Bribery which offers a future reward of eternal felicity.

Psychic Terrorism which uses threats of damnation and fear of future eternal torment.

b. Overt and Constructively Violent Doctrines and Practices

Excommunication which is the religious equivalent of boycotting.

Sectarianism which makes believers self-sacrificing, but also callous and sadistic about any suffering inflicted by their sect upon heretics and infidels.

Clericalism which maintains that the State should be Clerically run or dominated. This insures that the State will resort to force in dealing with religious recalcitrant.

Religious Fanaticism which promotes the persecution or worse of non-believers.

Religious Terrorism in which non-believers are attacked by mobs or by public officials.

Holy War which is the worst and by no means obsolete.

Conversion is to Borsodi a dubious solution because no matter how effective it is it provides no valid basis for resolving the conflicts between religions about beliefs and exercise of authority.

2. Impositional Solutions

All means to effect institutional change which rationalize and prescribe methods for affecting it either by cheating, deceiving, tricking, or by forcing people (if the necessary power is possessed) to do what is desired, are impositional. Examples include:

a. Sophism <I think this is taken from the word sophisticated - RJ>

This means of change uses a wide variety of methods to "make the worse appear the better reason" including Propaganda, Venal and Deceitful Advertising, and Indoctrination through the school system. A whole spectrum of social institutions are changed in this way.

These subtle impositional methods are so similar to suasional methods it is easy to lose sight of the distinction. Deceitful advertising "persuades" the public in every form of mass advertising to change its buying habits. If wide spread enough this becomes institutionalized and changes the social structure itself. Propaganda provides "information" and "news stories" to the media. This is doubly impositional because Sophisticated arguments are made to appear the work of impartial writers in impartial media. Most of the commercial users of these methods are men who have sold their souls for money, while the ideologically inspired are men who believe that the ends justify the use of even the most corrupt means.

b. Solidaritism

The advocacy of solidarity, as if it were in some sense a virtue, is a favorite of those who seek to impose rather than persuade. This may become powerful enough to regiment not only adherents, but non-adherents and even dissenters.

c. Enthusiasm, Zealotism, and Fanaticism

These impositional methods have tended to be practiced in attacks upon entrenched institutions.

d. Boycotting

With sufficient solidarity and zeal boycotting can be practiced in many forms. Refusal-to-patronize, Land Rent and House Rent Strikes, and Strikes by Workers are some. The General Strike is the most drastic.

e. Impositional Political Practices

If enactment or enforcement of legislation is necessary to impose the change "practical " men and "idealistic" reformers turn to Practical Politics. For enforcement Intimidational Law enforcement or Intimidational Judicial Re-Interpretation may be used. For enactment Lobbying, Intimidation by blocs, and Bribery may be used.

If international institutions and relations are involved Diplomatic Power Politics and Military and Naval Demonstrations are used, unless Fanaticism calls for violence in which case Terrorism is invoked: Tyrannicide, Rioting, Mutinying, Rebellion, revolution, and finally Institutional War in which either an established or a revolutionary government imposes institutions on other people.

There are two kinds of Terrorism, Official Terrorism where a State is defending existing institutions and Revolutionary Terrorism where desperate people seek to abolish or change institutions they abhor. Unfortunately too often when Revolutionary Terrorism succeeds the Revolutionaries may use Official Terrorism to maintain power and force acceptance of the new institutions. The rationalizations for revolutionaries and for Mussolini and Hitler could use almost identical language.

Both Statutory and Revolutionary impositions make use of force to impose or maintain institutions through taxes which support those institutions with legal coercion.

3. Suasional Solutions

"When you have convinced thinking men that it is right, and humane men that it is just, you will win your case. Men lose half of what is gained by violence. What is gained by argument is gained forever." said Wendell Phillips. This is the essence of the Suasional Solutions. Through all time eloquent oratory has reached men emotionally, and the more they moved through suasion, the less need there was for force to effect institutional changes.

Big business in America has transformed the social institutions for which the American way of life calls and at the same time the economic, political, religious, and cultural institutions necessary to them. Examples include: the institutionalization of buying nearly everything that at one time was made at home; the institutionalization of job holding by American women; the institutionalization of going into debt to buy homes, furniture, automobiles, household appliances, and even expensive vacations and touring abroad. This was all done by advertising men of America using persuasion rather than force,but because of the sophisticated nature of the arguments and suggestions it is Impositional rather than Suasional in nature.

Suasional Pluralism

Suasional methods of dealing with institutional injustice will not always work and logic calls for no exclusive reliance upon them.

Suasion did not work for the Christians against the Romans. It did work for the abolition of slavery in the British Empire but not in the United States. It would not have worked against Mussolini, Hitler or Stalin. When social reformers find that every imaginable peaceful and humane method fails to abolish intolerable institutionalized evils, social pluralism justifies resort to almost any other method, no matter how violent. However Social Pluralism cannot justify resort to

any method which is a denial and contradiction of the ultimate purpose for which the method is being used for example a "war to end all war". Social Pluralism cannot justify resort to methods which institutionalize evils worse than the evil which the method is being used to eliminate, for instance resort to statutory laws declaring gambling illegal when that merely results in institutionalizing police-corruption.

Gradualism and Radicalism

These two antithetical methods of dealing with institutional problems are both justifiable rationally and humanely. Gradualism maintains that important social and institutional changes should be made gradually with regard for existing personal interests and the number of people who may be injured by the change. Radicalism maintains that one should go to the root cause of all great evils and make the needed changes (even drastic changes) immediately, since the continuation of the institution means continuation of injuries inflicted upon those suffering from it.

A case by case determination is required to determine the weight of the balance between the injuries caused by immediate change and those inflicted during a period of gradual elimination.

Some of the more important strictly Suasional means of dealing with the institutional problem include:

a. Nonviolence (ahimsa in Hindu) prohibits the use of violence in dealing with social problems, and is the essence of Suasion.

b. Non-Conformism is the mildest form of both demonstrating conviction and breaking the mold of mistaken institutions.

c. Publicity uses the same forms as propaganda but without the use of deliberately biased, sophisticated, deceitful means. Borsodi suggests not using the two terms synonymously.

d. Demonstrations may range from symbolic uses of spinning wheels to gigantic meetings and processions.

e. Agitation is useful to emotionally arouse indifferent and callous people.

f. Metanoia is what takes place when a person who has been indifferent to an important problem decides to do something about it. Suasionists should study and use methods to bring this about for hopelessly biased and prejudiced people.

g. Schooling and Inculcation - systematic exposure in the course of education to what is valid and true about any demand for institutional reform.

h. Civil Disobedience is the most drastic strictly Suasional doctrine for dealing with institutional problems. Examples include non-payment of taxes, conscientious objection to military service, entering places segregated by statute, slaves running away from their masters, and operating the underground railroad for those run away slaves. When civil disobedience is used for a sufficiently long time and on a sufficiently large scale nothing is left but the resort to Impositional methods of dealing with important injustices and breaches of human rights.

VI. Wrap-up

Suasional methods can be used to effectuate the most difficult of institutional changes, as shown by Mahatma Gandhi in the long struggle for Indian Independence. Moral and Promotional genius were combined with a wide variety of Suasional methods to "persuade" the British to grant India independence.

There may be vested interests which can only be dealt with by resort to force, but history has already shown through Gandhi and Martin Luther King Jr. in the fight for civil rights for the negroes in the United States that each success makes it easier to use Suasional methods and therefore less necessary and less justifiable to resort to Impositional methods to realize institutional change.

It is high time for revolutionists and extremists on the right to rejoin the human race. It is high time for social reformers and social scientists to reconsider the use of government action and instead begin to use Suasional methods in dealing with institutional problems. Suasion is more rational, more humane, more enduring and more effective.

If I had my way, I would clap every man in jail who discussed a social problem by prefacing what he had to say with the words "There ought to be a law --." That's how consistent I am.