People or puppets?; Who's conforming now?

Are you always trying to do what people expect of you or are you trying even harder to be different. Does conformity mean that we are acting as people or puppets. This series people are puppets is produced by the Union Theological Seminary in cooperation with the National Association of educational broadcasters under a grant from the educational television and radio center on today's program entitled Who's conforming now. You will hear the views and voices of critic Martin Dworken and theologians John Bennett and Ralph Hislop. These are the men who will analyze some of the concepts created by our modern mass media and compare them with our traditional moral religious values. Here is the commentator for people or puppets. The president of the Union Theological Seminary in New York Dr. Henry Pitney even perhaps the most exciting view of conformity and non-conformity in recent

years was set forth by William H White Jr. in his bestselling book The organization man. We have picked out some of the introduction to the organization as the starting point for our discussion today. Collectivism the corporation man particularly abhors it. And when he makes his ritualistic attack on welfare statism it is in terms of the Protestant Ethic undefiled by change the sacredness of property the enervating effect of security the virtues of thrift hard work and independence. Thanks b he says that there are some people left for example businessmen who defend the American dream. He is not being hypocritical only compulsive only by using the language of individual ism to describe the collective. Can he stave off the thought that he himself is in a collective as pervading as any ever dreamed of by the reformers the intellectuals and the utopian visionaries he so regularly

warns against. The older generation may still convince themselves the younger generation does not. When a young man says that to make a living these days you must do what somebody else wants you to do. He states it not only as a fact of life that must be accepted but is an inherently good proposition. If the American dream deprecates this for him it is the American Dream that is going to have to give whatever its more elderly guardians may think. As more and more lives have been and compassed by the organization way of life the pressures for an accompanying illogical shift have been mounting. The organization or conforming man seeks a redefinition of his place on earth and slowly almost imperceptibly a body of thought has been coalescing that does that. I'm going to call it a social ethic with reason that could be called an organization ethic or a bureaucratic ethic

man's obligation is in the here and now his duty is not so much to the community in a broad sense but to the actual physical one about him. And the idea that in isolation from it or active rebellion against it he might eventually discharge the greater service is little CONSIDERED. In practice those who most eagerly subscribe to the social ethic worry very little over the long range problems of society. They tend to assume that the ends of organization and morality coincide and on such matters as social welfare they give their proxy to the organization. In his book The organization man William H White Jr. more than implies that there are some fundamental ethical or at least conformist similarities between the organization and the collectivist. Is it possible that the American businessman and the Russian Communists believe in a common social ethic.

As white stated of himself a man is isolated meaningless only as it collaborates with others does he become worthwhile for by sublimating himself in the group. He helps produce a whole that is greater than the sum of its parts. There should be then no conflict between man and society. If this is the view of the enlightened organization on the one hand and the communist on the other where does this view differ from our traditional moral religious concept. Do these concepts carry any weight or is the alternative an anti religious or scientific individual ism so dramatically expressed by Ayn Rand in her novel Atlas Shrugged. The world you desire can be won but to win it requires your total dedication and a total break with the world of your past with the doctrine that man is a sacrificial animal who exists for the pleasure of others. Fight for the value of your person. Fight for the virtue of your pride.

Fight for the essence of that which is man for his sovereign rational mind. You will win when you are ready to pronounce the oath I have taken at the start of my battle. I swear by my life and my love of it that I will never live for the sake of another man nor ask another man to live for mine. How do you feel about the views expressed here. Are there any powers in life greater than pattern habit or custom and conformity. Is there really any value to uncommitted individual ism. Do you conform. These are the questions our producer Philip galv asked of our guest authorities Dr. John Coleman Bennett is professor of Christian theology and dean of the faculty at the Union Theological Seminary. Dr. Bennett is the author of Christianity and communism and

Christian ethics and social policy. Dr. Bennett do you try to do what people expect of you. Well I've been wondering about this because I have a suspicion that probably one does tend to conform within the particular group with which one lives. The difference is that some of us have chosen the group as other people seem to have to conform to whatever group surrounds them. I just spoke to a personnel psychologist just the other day one of our largest corporations and he was telling me about the what can I call fidelity or loyalty that the. Executives within that organization have to the organization that they really believe in it. And I sort of facetiously said it just doesn't compare to he belief an allegiance that a communist might have for the Communist Party. And again carrying it one step farther

that a teenager or a delinquent would have to his gang. I think the last ration that you offer indicate that the man is by nature a social being and that we must we must live in close relations with our fellows. Now these these various examples that you give of course are extremely different. And it seems to me that one of the secrets of. The freedom of the person is for him to be involved in more than one group and that anyone who tends to be controlled wholly by the gang or by the corporation or by a political party is is giving up essential human freedom however he may belong to various groups which to some extent correct each other and his freedom comes from

this situation. Mutual correction among the groups he belongs to. Martin as Dworkin lectures on the philosophies of education at the Teachers College of Columbia University. Mr Dworkin is the film critic for a progressive magazine and a freelance writer for many publications. Mr. Dworkin first was asked to comment on the apparent similarities between communist Dick and capitalistic forms and ideals. The materialism that is involved in both cases and we can say that they are dedicated to the to the same idea of both societies. The Soviet and the American are both material. Towards the same goal. Materialism being defined there as a principle. Of establishing the kingdom of God or

utopia. If you want to state it in secular terms in the here and now it is up trainable here and now. And therefore the ultimate standards of behavior are judgement as well as of rewards and punishment can be located in the here and now are putting the emphasis and Tiley. On these material standards makes for. What we would call conformity. The older Western idea Judaeo-Christian idea if you like is that man is on earth for a time. But with respect to or with reference to a timelessness a timeless order within which.

The material criteria have to be located and according to which the material criteria have to be judged. The materialism of both Russia and the United States is the materialism of a belief in progress and a belief not simply in the progressive states of progress but that. The ultimate is possible here and our standards of behavior ought to be measured with respect to that the highest standards are possible now. In the finding possibility this way we inevitably narrow it to mean the approval of our fellows. This is me now that the Cold War of this so-called competition between the east and the West is simply a competition that might be comparable to that between two

corporations between two businesses. I don't know what is exactly to be gained by trying to blur the differences between the two cultures. One at least has an ideal of individual as I'm. As confused as it may be. The other deliberately and expressly in terms of its philosophy in terms of the statements of its great men and of its ideals. OBE Literates the individual talks about the modern notion of the individual which we have in the West as a sentimental delusion. Now we mustn't blur this difference even as we may be pointing out that certain expressions or operations of the capitalist mechanism of the bureaucratic mechanism in the West may be or blitter aiding the individual in quite the same way or in an in a way analogous to that of the Soviet Union. The ideals are different and the ideals make a

great deal of difference. It makes possible for example a type of criticism. We are engaged in now right at this moment. I cited an example from Rand's novel Atlas Shrugged which heard a long philosophical explanation kind of a modern Sermon on the Mount ends up with the idea that God forbid if there is a God that I should ever do anything for anyone else or that anyone should ever feel they should do anything for me. Is this rugged kind of individual ism which I think is being expressed today in novels such as Atlas Shrugged. Does this have a it seems to have a very realistic and practical application and yet on the other hand it doesn't recognize this factor that you mentioned briefly which I'd like to have you expand upon that we are

or you didn't where's the use the word obligated but we are involved somehow or other and having to do certain things and with others. Where does this Atlas Shrugged philosophy fit in. While I don't know where it fits in really except describing it in. On a scale in which it ends up at one end of a spectrum. Unfortunately I would say it is very unfortunate that. The argument for. A coherent individual ism seems to end up with a spokesman like Ayn Rand. Who are not the finding individuals at all but anomalies. She tries to describe her society in terms only of people who are not social. You can't describe a society in antisocial terms. You can't

establish an ethic on ethical principles. The basic point in defining individual ism I would say which is fundamental of course to any notion of what we mean by conformity is to understand that individual ism does not mean license. If those who think of themselves as rugged individualists are fooling themselves in the morning light and realize they have to work with others. The sort of summary question that we have is are there therefore any powers or any activities in life that are greater than pattern custom and conformity pattern. Well. I'll lives. I very much made up of patterns of habits habits for example especially the good ones save a lot of time. It's necessary for

freedom. To free ourselves to free ourselves our consciousness. To do a great many things unconsciously. The point is that something should be fried however and that I will have bit you will actions. Should liberate us so ought to liberate us. For a custom custom also can lubricate a lot of abrasive abrasiveness. In social relations. And if we want to define conformity in this sense. It doesn't end up being a bad thing at all but ends up as that notion of flying tailoring wherein. The man is so well dressed that his clothes do not appear at all. Only his personality obtrude if I can offer an image at this

point. I once knew a man in Greenwich Village whose idea of non-conformity and great polemic against the terrible strictures of bourgeois society. Was expressed in his making for himself about once a week an entire suit out of craft paper out of wrapping paper. His point being that we were all slaves to all kinds of traditions at the clothing we were wearing was on impractical and unsanitary. The only thing to do is to wear the spose of all paper clothing. He was very skillful in making himself a suit of clones. Now this became very suspicious because of one thing. As you walk down the street crinkling along he was not only the sin is sure of all I say but literally all it is.

And we began one could see that the value that he was seeking was demonstrative in us. And not anti conformity not self-expression but exhibitionism. And there is quite a difference between non-conformist and exhibitionism. This problem comes up all the time in discussing so-called Bohemianism. Really the real issue is the liberation of whatever one wants to liberate. And our literature our culture is full of instances of members of the Bohemian avant garde or culturally advanced group who found that they could do their best work in some quiet middle class apartment ultimately. The issue is the work. The issue is the self-expression. The issue is the freedom of statement of what one wants to express. The form of

behavior is not so important and it was NEVER be made into a chain. There are forms and forms and forms in other words of conformity and many of the reactions to conformity like the teenagers are like this man with the wrapping paper actually are a different form of enslavement altogether. We should really be talking about freedom and self-expression. And defining conformity in quite conditional turns. So that individual behavior is measurable in terms of what is really the intention and what is produced that is worthwhile out of the behavior. Dr Rel is nor Dame Congregational minister professor of ecumenical studies and director of the program of advanced religious studies at the Union Theological Seminary.

I think that the. Necessity of going against the tide in any particular area of life is a stimulating experience and it's one that everyone ought to be prepared to have and to recognise that is there are possibilities that don't occur to us unless we are alive to them and imaginative. Now where the power comes for this kind of action against the current tendency is is very interesting. I would say that it does not as we might assume who are preachers or teachers it does not always come from religious conviction or from superior

education that it may in some cases come just from the stubborn determination on the part of a person. That he or she is not going to go along with the group. Now usually there is moral and ethical insight involved but I think the most obvious end is the present. Preservation of one's individual character. I would think that it's worthwhile even to be a bit eccentric if necessary to preserve individuality. I'm always pleased to encounter an eccentric provided he doesn't give evidence of being one just in order to make an impression on people. Because I realize that here is a person who is refusing to just slip back into the mass and and be like everybody else.

And as to the ways in which we. Keep our individuality and maintain freedom in the midst of the pressure to conformity. I should say that at least in the development of our interests outside and beyond the immediate tasks that we have to do in society so that in addition to being a businessman or a teacher or a worker in history we have some ideas about art and politics and literature and are able to express an individuality here that gives us a sense of being free from the imposed order that is part of our life. I may be haunted

by this idea that we can't expect in all of our life to be completely completely free and therefore we have to find areas in which this freedom is is real and gives us a sense of relief from the pressure of conformity. I may be suggesting a kind of divided life here but I think that that may be more realistic than to press on the one hand for complete freedom. No one is completely free are on the other hand to say well we might as well just give up and conform. I mean what value is individual is in for a man who lives in a highly social world. Here again is the dean of the faculty at the Union Theological Seminary Dr. John Bennett. Well I think the development of a culture in which the citizen

has a world outlook in which he also has a personal understanding of the ethical and social heritage of democracy just such as our own and which he also has a religious tradition. The oppression appropriation of the ethical goals so they become sources of criticism of the particular practices of any one group P belongs to. It would seem to me to be the important thing. It seems to me that one of the functions of the church in a community is to make people accustomed to the idea that every group they belong to should be under under criticism from

beyond itself. And offer a commentary on today's program. Here is the Roosevelt professor of systematic theology and president of Union Theological Seminary Dr. Henry Pitney even during this discussion has moved almost entirely between two POWs. The first was defined by William H White Jr. a striking portrait of the organization of the typical American man of business or industry or government or the professions today whose attitudes and habits of life are determined for him by the particularly organisation or group of which he is a member. A thoroughgoing conformist. He on the one hand and on the other hand. The hero of Ayn Rand's novel Atlas Shrugged who is controlling principle is I will never live for the sake of another or ask another to live for me. That is the

radical individualists. Both are extreme types. More important each is strictly this worldly one makes the interest of the human group absolutely determine ative of the views and behaviors of the individual person. The other makes the interests and desires of each individual person irrespective of social relations and obligations. Absolutely. What is the right resolution of these alternatives. Practically speaking it might be some middle course. A degree of social conformity which preserves some measure of individual initiative a kind of individual self-determination which did not is to all social obligation. The profounder solution is suggested in Dean Bennett's final common reference to a set of principles and loyalties which stand on a higher plane above both social demand and personal caprice and

legislate between the conflicting claims of the group and the person. Precisely this is the function of high and sound religion in this situation. A religious perspective and faith which passes judgement upon both the extravagant pressures to social conformity and the exorbitant demands for self-realization a religious outlook and loyalty which will give us citizens who accept as part of their responsibility a measure of conformity to essential social standards and expectations. Persons who claim to by the higher Divine Order refuse unthinking acquiescence to all existing man made orders in society. Is there really any other solution of the dilemma of conformism and individual ism. That was Dr Henry Pitney even to you isn't the president of the Union Theological Seminary and the

commentator for this series people or puppets. Next week at this same time people or puppets will bring you an authoritative analysis and dramatic presentation on the tabloid newspaper. Are you just getting the facts ma'am. The guest authorities discussing this topic will be critic Martin and novelist Jeffrey Waggoner theologian John Bennett and Doctor them Jewish. People or puppets moderated and directed by Philip Caleb for the Union Theological Seminary in New York City executive producer for the seminary professor John W. Bachmann. Music by Alfred Brooks your announcer. Dean Lyman. This series is made possible by a grant from the Educational Television and Radio Center for distribution by the National Association of educational broadcasters. Join us again next week for an exciting analysis of the tabloid newspaper or are you just

getting the facts ma'am. People are public. This is the end of the Radio Network.