“It is impossible to see reality except by looking through the eyes of the Party”–Nineteen Eighty-Four”
Ideological Inversion and Ideological Self-Deception
Lisa, thank you for ‘making the darkness conscious’ by examining the root system of slavery. I especially love your powerful and prescient comment, “In considering how perspective – especially the perspectives of the powerful – shape social structures that reinforce beliefs, it is further reasonable to assume that women and slaves, whose rational facilities were assumed to naturally “lack authority,” would be denied the educational and leisure opportunities that would enable them to effectively counter these assertions – if indeed those in power would listen, given that women and slaves “naturally lack authority.”
Why prescient? Because you reference two dimensions of thralldom that I believe parallel our modern experience: 1) Parasitism and 2) Ideological inversion of reality. Your canine companions will especially relate to threat from parasites-like fleas!
Slavery, says Patterson, is a relation of domination, a relation of “parasitism.” Patterson has much to say about parasitism. I’ll now attempt to encapsulate his treatment. I believe parasitism is one of the most important issues you and I will explore.
PARASITISM
In parasitism:
-Dependence may or may not entail destruction of the host
-The host may be dependent on the parasite
-The parasitism may be only a minor nuisance
As a parasite, the slaveholder camouflaged his dependence, his parasitism, by 1) ideological inversion of reality, and 2) ideological self-deception. This former technique, says Patterson, camouflages a relation by defining it as the opposite of what it really is. Isn’t that profound? Ideological inversion of reality camouflages a relation by defining it as the opposite of what it really is.
Who was responsible for creating the ideological inversion of reality? The slaveholder class. Were almost all masters insincere? No. “They genuinely believed that they cared and provided for their slaves and that it was the slaves who had been raised to depend on others.”
“Southern slaveholders,” says Patterson, “were hardly exceptional in their ideological self-deception. The same inversion of reality was to be found among slaveholders everywhere:
“We use other people’s feet when we go out, we use other people’s eyes to recognize things, we use another person’s memory to greet people, we use someone else’s help to stay alive-the only things we keep for ourselves are our pleasures” Pliny the Elder, a slaveholder (quoted in Patterson).
I’ll now attempt to epitomize the relation of parasites and their hosts.
SLAVEHOLDER
The slaveholders (as parasites):
-defined the slave as dependent
-genuinely believed that they cared and provided for their slaves
-held that it was the slaves who had been raised to depend on them and others (this is ideological self-deception)
-believed (along with the community) that the slave existed only through the parasite holder, who was called the master
-fed on the slave to gain the very direct satisfactions of power over another, honor, enhancement, and authority
-rendered the slave the ideal human tool due to natal alienation and genealogical isolation (i.e., separated from family and kin).
“The slave, losing in the process all claim to autonomous power, was degraded and reduced to a state of liminality” (a marginal status) p.337. Parenthesis mine.
SLAVE
How did the slave resist her desocialization and forced service? By:
-striving for some measure of regularity and predictability in her social life
-yearning for dignity
-becoming acutely sensitive to the realities of community.
The slave’s zest for life and fellowship confounded the slaveholder class. The slave’s existential dignity of the slave belied the slaveholder’s denial of its existence.
Patterson sketches the covert antagonism between the classes thus:
SLAVEHOLDER
-“retaliated ideologically by stereotyping the slave as a lying, cowardly, lazy buffoon devoid of courage and manliness,
SLAVE
-retaliated existentially: by refusing to be among his fellow slaves the degraded creature he was made out to be,
-fed the parasite’s timocratic character with the pretence that she was what she was supposed to be. She served while concealing her soul and fooling the parasite. “play fool, to catch wise.”
MASKS
“All slaves, like oppressed peoples everywhere, wore masks in their relations with those who had parasitized them. Occasionally a slave, feeling he had nothing to lose, would remove the mask and make it clear to the slaveholder that he understood the parasitic nature of their interaction.”
PUNISHMENTS AND REWARDS
“However firm their belief in their ideological definition of the slave relation, slaveholders simply could not deny the stark fact that their slaves served under duress: a combination of punishments and rewards was essential.”
CAUSE
Slaveholders knew that incentives were better than punishments to promote efficient service.
EFFECT
“The well-looked-after slave redounded to the generosity and honor of the slaveholder.” The slave’s response “emphasized the slave’s apparent “dependence” and gave credence to the paternalism that the parasite craved.”
Patterson’s discussion of parasitism is provocative, is it not Lisa? As always, I look forward to your comments. Thank you for including the neglected dimensions (e.g., feminism).
Bye for now,
Carman
I hear the sea gulls squawking outside my kitchen window. I wonder what’s bothering them? It’s raining here today. I guess I better wear my Wellingtons (gum boots) on the sea wall. I could just write an ode to my boots. Though they cost less than $10, they’ve been a godsend. “Adventure in ideas.” I like the sound of that!
Carman, Your analysis is simply stunning, as always.
Gaining clarity on the dynmaics of an overt dominator relationship (such as slavery) is a very helpful way of making the invisible visible.
I sometimes imagine that some readers might interpret the elaboration of these ideas as demonization (or projection) to label “bad guys” dominator and “good guys” partnership. In case there is any question, my view is that we are all shaped by our culture, so rather than pointing to a particular group of people and saying “the problem lies there,” my goal is to nod towards the cultural water in which we swim, to say “the problem is in us and all around us” and let’s find a way towards something healthier and more functional.
Thank you so much for contributing substantially to that end.
Lisa
Hi Lisa,
Thank you for clarifying your position. I, too, believe that thralldom is ubiquitous. In fact, in an earlier entry I clearly stated that all human beings exist in a “web” of servility, a “web of thralldom.” Here is the comment: “Middle class educators reading this blog might bristle at my suggestion that we humans exist within a web of thralldom. Freire predicted such reaction when he spoke about the middle class’s “fear of freedom” which “leads them to erect defense mechanisms and rationalizations which conceal the fundamental (i.e., the conditions of oppression) emphasize the fortuitous (i.e., let’s be “positive”) and deny concrete reality” (the misery of the oppressed) p.85. (parentheses mine). Freire was clear that praxis meant reflection and action upon the world in order to transform it.”
Because my so-called Theory of Thralldom is a work in progress, it may be tempting for some readers to judge the theoretical edifice by its ideational scaffolding. And for some, awakening to the darkness of the cave might prove alarming.
Like you and Freire, I prefer praxis: “reflection and action upon the world in order to transform it.” However, I will not claim neutrality. Words like “transformation” and “change” are neutral; I am not. Rather, I would say that I am hold up in Eleanor Roosevelt’s vision where “All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood”—Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Article 1.
I also would remind conservative Christian readers that, while they might consider themselves “free,” “the sinner, strictly speaking was not emancipated, but died anew in Christ, who became his new master. Spiritual freedom was divine enslavement” to quote Patterson.
In practical terms, the documents we retain in our purses and wallets are much more than sentimental. They spell out our basic freedoms as legitimated by the State: Are you a citizen? (immigration documents), Where were you born? (birth certificate as State acknowledged identity), Are you legally entitled to work? (social security number), Are you legally entitled to operate a business? (business licenses), Are you legally entitled to operate a motor vehicle? (drivers license), and so on.
I hope this assuages the anxiety of some readers. I invite their patience as I undertake the slow slog of meaning making. Many adult educators understand that disturbance and development are often intertwined. I would request that we spend some time defining the problem before we attempt to solve it.
Bye for now,
Carman
Hi Carman,
Thank you for your thoguhtful post. Yes, you are very clear in your intent as well.
I was personally moved to restate this position, because the “us-them” dichotomy (which makes another the “other” and supports projection, demonization and blame) is so foundational to dominator psychology. I suspect it has hampered some liberatory movements by perpetuating the dynamic it seeks to overcome (which is insidious). For this reason, I think self-searching and transformation are foundational to our collective “recovery” and shift to a real ethic of Partnership. Because the habit of projection and blame is so pervasive, I feel it is helpful to add this clarification from time to time for readers who have not read all of our earlier posts.
I appreciate your quoting Eleanor Roosevelt. I admire her very much as well and share your lack of neutrality. I seek to be on the side of life 🙂
Yes, disturbance and development are very intertwined in my experience. I look forward to your continuing your courageous undertaking of making the darkness conscious!
Lisa