John Lennon and RD Laing – two individuals who worked in entirely different cultural fields; the one a singer, songwriter and pop star, the other a psychiatrist (perhaps experimental psychiatrist), writer and radical thinker of the left. What they had in common, was arguably the fact that they were both utopian visionaries, and both were radical in their thinking.
Take Lennon’s song, Imagine, for instance. On the face of it, it might seem an innocent bit of daydreaming, but on closer inspection it turns out that it is a radical questioning of the way human beings live, and have lived, for generations. Here are the lyrics of the song (and imagine you can hear Lennon singing it in his inimitable way):
“Imagine there’s no heaven
It’s easy if you try
No hell below us
Above us only sky
Imagine all the people living for today
Imagine there’s no countries
It isn’t hard to do
Nothing to kill or die for
And no religion too
Imagine all the people living life in peace
You, you may say
I’m a dreamer, but I’m not the only one
I hope some day you’ll join us
And the world will be as one
Imagine no possessions
I wonder if you can
No need for greed or hunger
A brotherhood of man
Imagine all the people sharing all the world
You, you may say
I’m a dreamer, but I’m not the only one
I hope some day you’ll join us
And the world will live as one … ”
It is easy to overlook just how radical this song is in its critique of the manifold ideological blindness’s that govern most – fortunately not all – of human life today. In the first verse, as well as the second, the hold that religion has on most people’s lives is implicated. The blind, often fanatical belief in the penalties and retributions meted out to people in hell after death, and the countervailing belief in the rewards and supposed delights (including sexual ones, in some religions, while others seem to rule out all enjoyments of a sensual and sensuous nature) of heaven act as powerful constraints on people’s actions, resulting in indescribable strife and conflict, all of it unnecessary, of course, should one follow Lennon’s sound advice. (Ironically, the word “religion” comes from the Latin “religare”, which means a binding together!) The recent news that Tunisia, so soon after its transition to democracy, is facing the spectre of religious extremists making it impossible for others (tellingly, artists) to practice their newly-won freedoms which, supposedly, result in blasphemy, is a case in point.
Nationalism, implied by the word “countries” (in the second verse), that people, by implication, “kill and die for”, also appears to evaporate before Lennon’s benign, but powerful imagination. For make no mistake: the beginning of all social and political change lies rooted in the imagination, without which no alternative to an unjustifiable or undesirable state of affairs would be thinkable. It was imagination — the ability to imagine an alternative social order — that has been fundamental to the overthrow of many a dictatorship or unjust social order. The ability to generate novel insights through imagination is what Kant had in mind when, in his Third Critique, he wrote of “aesthetic ideas” which generate infinite thought.
Our oft-glorified economic system also comes in for a beating where Lennon invites us, in stanza four, to imagine a world without possessions, where everything is shared, in this way precluding the need for greed, and for deprivation. Perhaps this requires the greatest imaginative effort of all, for nothing appears to be as dear to most people as their cherished possessions. Today more than ever, “having” has eclipsed “being” as that which people desire most. It is probably true that, as many a Western movie had it, a man could more readily be lynched in the Wild West for stealing (especially another man’s horse) than for murder.
The controversial Scottish writer and psychiatrist, RD Laing, who did not hesitate to imagine an alternative society, in which people would not be alienated from their own better selves, makes a compatible companion for Lennon. This is what Laing says in what is probably his best-known book, The Politics of Experience (1967):
“No one can begin to think, feel or act now except from the starting point of his or her own alienation … humanity is estranged from its authentic possibilities … our alienation goes to the roots. The realisation of this is the essential springboard for any serious reflection on any aspect of present inter-human life. Viewed from different perspectives, construed in different ways and expressed in different idioms, this realisation unites men as diverse as Marx, Kierkegaard, Nietzsche, Freud, Heidegger, Tillich and Sartre.”
There are many reverberations of like-mindedness between Laing and Foucault (and also Althusser) when it comes to perceiving the sources of alienation as residing in the very institutions that people cherish – institutions that reduce individuals to what Foucault graphically described as “docile bodies”, or individuals who are discursively constituted as economically productive, but politically impotent. In an intellectual biography of Laing that appeared in 2000 (The Crucible of Experience: RD Laing and the Crisis of Psychotherapy) Daniel Burston phrases this aspect of Laing’s work as follows: “Families, schools, and churches provide us with little more than systematic training in self-estrangement and inauthenticity – a secular equivalent to the Fall.”
Small wonder that Laing believed insanity to be more than just a little the function (and a symptom) of mainstream society’s valorised conventions and practices, or that it is largely socially “constructed”. This explains why his thinking has persistently exercised a fascination on those psychologists, psychiatrists and psychoanalysts who believe that it is imperative to augment their disciplines by thinking sociologically about “mental health” or insanity. This also explains why Laing believed that listening to the language of the insane could reveal an intelligibility that might indicate the sources of their “condition”. After all, in what he believed to be an unjust, irrational society, the supposedly “sane” among us are those who have adapted to such a society, and who perhaps deserve the epithet, “insane” more than those who have failed to adapt to it.
To be sure, there are many aspects of Laing’s life that strike one as bizarre, to say the least (his fascination with LSD, for instance). But the courage he showed in taking a critical stance on the connection between extant society and insanity, as well as the force with which he tried to imagine a different, more humane society, deserves one’s respect, and assures his place among original, imaginative intellectuals. And it places him firmly in the company of Lennon.
This assumes the initial point that people are greedy purely because people have ownership. Get rid of ownership and greed would magically disappear?
But isn’t it envy and greed to want to partake in something that does not belong to you? It seems to me that a lack of possessions and conspicuous consumption are two sides of the same greedy coin.
Something like this then?
Jake: “I’m Human, I don’t have any money.”
Nog replies: “It’s not my fault that your species decided to abandon currency-based economics in favour of some philosophy of self-enhancement.”
Jake: “Hey, watch it. There’s nothing wrong with our philosophy. We work to better ourselves and the rest of humanity.”
Nog: “What does that mean?”
Jake: “It means we don’t need money!”
I believe it is a mistake (and an affront to Lennon) to compare him to Laing. The two are not compatible at all in my opinion. Erich Fromm (who wrote the great “To Have or to Be?”) would be a more appropriate choice. Fromm’s ideas echo yours and Lennon’s in a way that is more compatible than Laing.
The reason I think so, is because of behaviour and treatment of others in public and in his personal life. Laing’s refusal to be a “docile body” lead him to treating his family appallingly and often to displays of extreme antisocial behaviour in public for example on board aeroplanes where he was often drunk and abusive towards staff and passengers. Of course he refused to sit where he was told to. His version of individual freedom and imagination was extremist and radical at the expense of others. His behaviour was often very destructive, unlike Lennon. And unlike Erich Fromm. Lennon’s song about Revolution emphasises the importance of balance and taking the middle path: “If you talkin’ ’bout destruction… you can count me out.”
I believe you do Lennon a disservice by likening him to Laing.
Max, Bert did specify the area where they are similar, viz. as”utopian visionaries”, and acknowledged Laing’s intermittent “bizarre” behaviour. He would probably agree with you about such behaviour being inexcusable, at times. But the “utopian visionary” comparison I, for one, believe to be accurate.
R D Laing was the only psychiatrist who cured schitzophrenics by having patients and doctors live together in the same home.
Which is exactly how Venda and Xhosa sangomas cure schitzophrenia (which they regard as the start of becoming sangoma – being called by the ancestors).
R D Laing and Scott M Peck are the two psychiatrists who impress me the most – and neither are behaviourists!
American psychology is all drugs and behaviorism! No behaviourist has ever been able to answer my question that if it is all stimulus and response – why can they not predict behaviour in advance?
In contrast with Laing, some biologists are more in favour of sociobology as being an overriding factor in behaviour instead of the cultural, ‘nurturing’ influences that prevent man from being his assumed default noble savage:
http://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/Edward-O-Wilsons-New-Take-on-Human-Nature.html
The Trap, a BBC documentary also deals with some of Laing’s ideas:
http://topdocumentaryfilms.com/the-trap/
It misrepresents the ideas of Hayek and mistakenly attributes Game Theory’s origins to John Nash, so I’m not sure how accurately it portrays Laing’s ideas. Classical liberalism actually ensures individual freedom to the extent that you aren’t forced to conform with good indoctrination. Don’t like money? Don’t use it. Don’t like property? Fine, give yours up.
Though, as Bert must guess, I cannot personally go along with this, it is hard to argue with because it is on the side of the angels.
For better or worse, however, angels do not run this world, which rather makes the question – Why do far left ideas enjoy an automatic moral superiority?
Does it not find its roots in Marx’s original revolutionary claim that the triumph of the proletariat is inevitable? – and what follows if that does not work out?
http://www.politicsweb.co.za/politicsweb/view/politicsweb/en/page71619?oid=316302&sn=Detail&pid=71616 .
Max
Scott M Peck also admits to using alcohol as an anti-stress release mechanism himself. It is not surprising R D Laing did the same.
Fromm is another psychiatrist whith good insights into the nature of atrocities – many of which Scott M Peck expanded on.
But I agree with Scott M Peck who says that it is not remarkable how many people are insane, but how many are sane – considering the state of the world.
I believe that Lennon, if he had observed Laing on the aeroplane and also in his family behaviour, would have made a few observations and posed a few questions:
“What in the world are you thinking of? Laughing in the face of love? What on earth are you trying to do? … It’s up to you, yes you!”
And he would have continued:
“You’d better recognize your brothers – EVERYONE YOU MEET… Who on earth do you think you are? A superstar? Well. right you are!”
These are the words John Lennon would very well have used towards the behaviour and attitude of R.D. Laing.
– and also (if i might add) for the attitude of Dave Harris and his fanatical ilk.
I’m more or less from the John Lennon era. (My favourite of the famous four.)
The guy rocks. Yes, posthumously too.
Reading his ‘imagine’ words again opened my eyes somewhat.
Still,while I’m no thinker in the mould of Paul Whelan and Prof Bert, my instinct always whispers ‘naivete’ when it comes to John-o. And I don’t mean it unkindly. Perhaps it was his shop-window bedroom love-in’s, or his bland ‘give peace a chance’ that made me feel there was not much, well….depth. (And, of course, ‘all you need is love,’ and so on.) ‘Applause words’ all. (cf. Paul Whelan’s ‘on the side of the angels.’ Good one. Excuse my ignorance if it’s well known.I know only ‘arms of the angels.’ No, it’s not a pub.)
Anyway, suppose that’s what utopian visionaries do.
I think that this is a brilliant comparison.I have not heard of R.D.Laing but have certainly read Scott Peck and Jung on psychology. Sri Ramakrishna an 19th century saint said that a God intoxicated person is considered mad yet a person intoxicated with worldly greed and lust is really one who is “mad”. I dont agree however that religion as taught by its founding fathers leads to war and strife. It is only through false propagation with an inappropriate intention that religion has come to serve the “pharisees” of this world.I believe that it is this kind of religion that Lennon objected too.Jung, was deeply spiritual and his contribution to psychology emphasized man’s collective mind based on his spiritual unity. Dr Samuel Sandweis in his book” The spriit and the mind” draws similiar conclusions that the mind is a product of life experiences past and present and once under the influence of the Self or Atma becomes an instument of liberation.He was greatly influenced by Sri Satya Sai Baba who taught that love, peace, righteousness and nonviolence will transform the individual and therby society and the world. The counter culture that Lennon espoused is today emerging as the dominant need for peace and love in the world.
A while ago there was a news paper article with the heading ” money is what divides us”. I believe this to be true, especially in our country, where capitalism plays a majour role.
The human species have an undenieble desire to be wanted, needed and loved. By identifying yourself with material posessions and wealth, creates a feeling of belonging and acceptance (within the material society). This sense of “belonging” will, obviously, fade with time, as better, more expensive, more compatible objects, gadgets and trends appear daily ( or hourly for that matter). Sad, but true (as they say), for the super-ego will step in and shower you with feelings of guilt and remorse. You are left naked and broken as you will experience feelings of “not belonging”, not anymore. The super-ego then drives you (again) to fit into society by means of getting you to act in socially acceptable ways i.e material wealth. Once again the cycle begins.
And once again your desire to be wanted, needed and loved (the id) have not been fulfilled. Could this be one of the reasons why people make so much dept? Could money be what divides the people of our “proudly south african” country? And could money be the primary cause for so many of social, personal and political problems? Do we need money?
It’s all too easy to forget – especially from those with their heads in utopia that Lennon’s ‘Imagine’ was written at a time when the writer was mostly to be found nestled amongst crisp changed-twice-a-day Egyptian cotton sheets in a New York hotel, the daily rate of which would’ve fed a family for months. It’s just so easy to ‘imagine no possessions’ when you’ve reached a stage where you don’t need them, you just ring room service for the whim of the day…
What’s the model for a society without possessions?
Recall that even gift economies and barter economies (despite the rather silly claims that there’s no evidence that economies developed from barter to currency to debt) also rely on a notion of possessions. These are usually held as examples of alternatives to our current socio-economic systems.
Also no possessions does not imply no currency. No possessions only means no culpability.
I agree with the Laing and Lennon kindred spirit notion. They both lived in the paradox of trying to use the state to enforce some desired equality. Their politics is similar and their anti-establishment actions too. I also believe they were equally flawed in this regard.
Paul, it should be obvious why far-left ideas enjoy moral superiority: they want to change the world for the better…
@ Rene – I fear it is not obvious. Many people who are by no measure far left want to change the world for the better.
Actually, Paul, Rene is right, and so are you. The apparent contradiction is resolved when you reflect that those on the left want to improve society by way of radically new possibilities actualized (what Lyotard thinks of as radical experimentation), while those on the right want to perpetuate the power status quo (the dominant state of affairs) by “perfecting” it. The two are by no means the same, however.
Rene, a better way to say it would be the ‘far left’ want to change the world to THEIR way. Whether this is better or not is irrelevant to them eg check out USSR/China/Cambodia, just three examples and ± 100 million dead bodies.
Brent
Bert, suggest you read The Rational Optimist by Matt Ridley. Know it is way way lower intellectually than your normal reading but it does offer some simple truths about the development of us humans. For example that way back before anything it was barter (trade) that started it all off and with trade innovation followed which lead to specialisation. These activities being the very start of humans climb to where we are and importantly the very reason why humans climbed to where they are.
Brent
I was also and still remain a big fan of John Lennon. ‘Imagine’ is an epic moment in music and one that Paul McCartney would simply not have been capable of. Simply doing away with possessions though would not do away with greed as possessions are the end factor, the desired goal, in driving greed. A need for status leading to the use and abuse of other human beings and manipulating the system is where the drama starts. These tactics are a means to an end. Possessions become an end result in greed and a measure of status in relation to other human beings.
The term possessions is a non specific one as objects or factors that deliver status and confirm it in the perception of other human beings differ from society to society.
Status can be political power in the ANC or a full quart of beer in the shebeen. Having possessions that one can dispense at will to gain support and breed dependency is what drives the game not the possessions in and of themselves.
The road to hell is paved with good intentions. Seems like the left are good bricklayers.
One other common thread between Laing and Lennon is that they both wrote some pretty profoundly poetic pieces (undoubtedly inspired by LSD):
“a finger points to the moon
Put the expression
a finger points to the moon, in brackets
(a finger points to the moon)
The statement:
‘A finger points to the moon is in
brackets’
is an attempt to say that all that is in the
bracket
( )
is, as to that which is not in the bracket,
what a finger is to the moon
Put all possible expressions in brackets
Put all possible forms in brackets
and put the brackets in brackets
Every expression, and every form,
is to what is expressionless and formless
what a finger is to the moon
all expressions and all forms
point to the expressionless and formless
the proposition
‘All forms point to the formless’
is itself a formal proposition
Not,
as finger to moon
so form to formless
but,
as finger is to moon
so
[all possible expressions, forms, propositions,
including this one, made or yet to be made,
together with the brackets
]
are to
What an interesting finger
let me suck it
It’s not an interesting finger
take it away
The statement is pointless
The finger is speechless”
- R.D. Laing, Knots, Chapter 5
And if you hate the man for the way he treated his family, at least learn a bit about the highly dysfunctional family he grew up with (and which inspired him to write so much about the ills of families).
Garg
I agree! The trouble is that your hell will not be caused by your own good intentions but by another idiot’s!
@Lyndall:
Quite right. That’s the problem with political solutions, politics being the art of minding other people’s business. Society works very well provided that people mind their own business and have institutions in place to ensure that people are left to their own devices with interference with each other being voluntary and based on mutual benefit.
I find it hilarious that the moral high ground is justified by mere intent. Even more hilarious is the revolutionary change in society. When has ‘radical experimentation’ ever resulted in a better society for the average man on the street? More paradoxically, how can ‘radical experimentation’ be morally justifiable when it’s conducted on anyone but yourself?
If Marx was right and the point of philosophy is the change the world, who are the true philosophers? Those mystical misers with their drug-addled sophistry and broad strokes like ‘imagine no possessions’ or people who harness the laws of nature?
@Garg
You insinuate that Lennon was a “mystical miser with drug-addled sophistry and broad strokes like ‘imagine no possessions’ ”
In one swoop you have annihilated the majority of artists and philosophers that ever lived. You might want to narrow your focus a bit. Your mind seems a bit open. I suggest a read of Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance as a way to reconsider your prejudice against sophistry. Then take a look at The Doors of Perception, just as a start. But I love your definition of politics as the art of minding other people’s business. There is a fine line between ‘allowing others the space to take care of their own business’ and ‘just not giving a shit’ though, isn’t there?
Should artists just shut up? What business is it of theirs to comment on the behaviour and business of others?
Oh Garg, how little you understand! Even the scientists you refer to would not have been able to uncover the laws of nature (it is the technologists who “harness” them, by the way), could not do it without imagination. Even Einstein confirmed that when he said that “imagination is more important than knowledge” – meaning “established knowledge”, of course. Ergo…imagination, or experimental thinking, in science, is the way to effect breakthroughs in the history of knowledge-systems (as Foucault might say). You are so “mainstream” in your thinking that every comment of yours on a post like this one immediately distorts it, and, at the same time, signals your incomprehension. Why don’t you do yourself a favour and read something like Lyotard’s “Towards the postmodern”, or (even better) “The inhuman” before trashing his idea of radical experimentation? Only problem is that your all-too-conventional, pre-judgmental categories would prevent you from understanding a thing…
@ Maria – As you say, they are not the same. The one is millenarian, the other plodding earthbound feet on ground. Both have a role and choices have always
to be made. There is nothing wrong in Mr Laing’s poetic reflections, or what prompts them, as long as they are not made compulsory.
@Maria:
You don’t need a drug-addled mind to be imaginative. You don’t even need to study humanities, as your examples show. You also confuse adjectives with arguments. Thanks for the recommendations but I’d rather spend my valuable free time exploring the rest of the well of wisdom of the likes of Einstein and Poincaré, if they are the ones who set the imaginative standard.
By the way, it is not my peanut gallery view which is mainstream. Rather, it is the input from the humanities department performers which is so vapidly mainstream. Like they say…
@Max:
Yes, but that’s another broad stroke. I base my assertion on Lennon’s FBI files, which reveal that while they were watching him, they didn’t rate him as a notable threat to the status quo because he was too drug-addled to make a valuable contribution towards burning down Babylon. In other words, his strokes were too broad to paint a clear enough picture to make anyone take up his stethoscope and walk. People have to catch your jokes, otherwise you’re just eccentric.