Men Of Words

 

On Pages 131 to 133 of his book, The True Believer, Eric Hoffer discusses men of words. I quote him and then comment on his content.

 

Hoffer (H after this): “                           105

 

The men of words are of diverse types. They can be priests, scribes, prophets, writers, artists, professors, students and intellectuals in general. Where, as in China, reading and writing is a difficult art, mere literacy can give one status of a man of words. A similar situation prevailed in ancient Egypt, where the art of picture writing was the monopoly of a minority.

 

Whatever the type, there is a deep-seated craving common to almost all men of words which determines their attitude to the prevailing order. It is a craving for recognition; a craving for a clearly marked status above the common run of humanity.”

 

My response: Humans are not born good, and they do not like themselves. To compensate because they are altruistic, group-livers, nonindividuators that gain their status, esteem, and justification by group-identifying, especially if they are popular and have rank in the hierarch above that of the ruled commoners. These humans will do most anything to gain social power and rank, and will do most anything, sacrificing whatever morals guide them in exchange for a seat at the table of the powerful. Men of words are no exception to this craving for social rank and approval.

 

I would counter that one has no self-esteem and is not happy unless one gives up being motivated by schemes to increase one’s popularity and social rank. One is not a good person, or a self-made man or a self-made woman as long as one primary craving is to have rank and hold rank over other human beings. This craving is an addiction and is very unhealthy.

 

H: “’Vanity,’ said Napoleon, ‘made the Revolution; liberty was only a pretext.’ There is apparently an irremediable insecurity at the core of every intellectual, be he creative or non creative.”

 

My response: Hoffer the brilliant psychologist is right here again. No intellectual can be at peace and be contented unless he self-realizes, individual-lives, quits seeking popularity and high rank within the bureaucratic and social hierarchy which he belongs too. It would not hurt if he had a small business on the side to tie him back a bit to the world of reality and everyday people.

 

H: “Even the most gifted and prolific seem to live a life of eternal self-doubting and have to prove their worth anew each day. What de Re’musat said of Thiers is perhaps true of most men of words: ‘he had much more vanity than ambition; and he prefers consideration to obedience, and the appearance of power to power itself. Consult him constantly, and then do just as you please. He will take more notice of your deference to him than your actions.’

 

There is a moment in the career of almost every faultfinding man of words when a deferential or conciliatory gesture from those in power may win him over to their side. At a certain stage, most men of words are ready to become timeservers and courtiers. Jesus Himself may not have preached a New Gospel had the dominant Pharisees taken Him into the fold, called Him Rabbi, and listened to Him with deference. A bishopric conferred on Luther at the right moment might have cooled his ardor for Reformation. The young Karl Marx could perhaps have been won over to Prussiandom by the bestowal of a title and an important government job; and Lassalle, by a title and a court uniform. It is true that once the man of words formulates a philosophy and a program, he is likely to stand by them and be immune to blandishments and enticements.”

 

My response: No one like to be ignored and deprived of a share of society’s say and power. It would behoove conservatives to always keep one ear to the ground, searching for the next new idea, however quirky and ridiculous it may appear to sound.

 

So, conservatives and traditionalists in America can enjoy the status quo, but make some solid effort to bring new and heretical theories and programs into society for adoption or blending with existent culture and myths.

 

Second, where the masses are populated by individuating-supercitizens, it is impossible for men of words to feel superior to the masses because they are proud, independent, and self-sufficient. They are not unpleasant to him, but nor are they overly impressed by men of words, since these supercitizens are intellectuals, artists, scientists, philosophers, and inventors in their own right. Their advice to the new men of words arriving on the social scene is to calm down, live a quiet and productive life of self-realization, and quit worrying about elite status; if these men of words have great concepts to share that they originated, they will receive the status and accolades some time, even posthumously.

 

H: “However much the protesting man of words sees himself as the champion of the downtrodden and injured, the grievance which animates him is, with very few exceptions, is private and personal.”

 

My response: If all become intellectuals, deep intellectuals, and yet are all one-half entrepreneur, and the majority of these intellectuals become self-realizers in the service of the Good Spirits, they will feel blessed, grateful and know how good they have it. Whatever initial animating grievance that propelled them forward now dissipates, and they no longer need to take revenge upon society to compensate for how hurt they feel inside, whether that sense of victim is real or imagined, or is the fault of others in society or not.

 

If we can use Mavellonialist training to aid our men of words to forsake craving power and social status in exchange for solid self-esteem, embedded in a lifetime of spectacular achieving as an artists and thinker, then most of them will come to see how empty and meaningless are sacrificing a life of personal merit and accomplishment to gain social and bureaucratic power, status, and acclimation.

 

H: “His pity is usually hatched out of his hatred for the powers that be. ‘It is only a few rare and exceptional men who have the kind of love toward mankind at large that makes them unable to endure patiently the general mass of evil and suffering, regardless of any relation it may have to their own lives. Thoreau states the fact with fierce extravagance: ‘I believe that what so saddens the reformer is not his sympathy with his fellows in distress, but, though he be the holiest son of God, is his private ail. Let this be righted . . . and he will forsake his generous companions without apology.’ When his superior status is suitably acknowledged by those in power, the man of words usually finds all kinds of lofty reasons for siding with the strong against the weak. A Luther, who, when first defying the established church, spoke feelingly of ‘the poor, simple, common folk,’ proclaimed later, when allied with the German princelings, that ‘God would prefer to suffer the government to exist no matter how evil, rather than allow the rabble to riot, no matter how justified they are in doing so.’ A Burke patronized by lords and nobles spoke of the ‘swinish multitude’ and recommended to the poor ‘patience, labor, sobriety, frugality and religion.’ The pampered and flattered men of words in Nazi Germany and Bolshevik Russia feel no impulsion to side with the persecuted and terrorized against the ruthless leaders and their secret police.”

 

My response: My conclusion is that when men of words are group-oriented, nonindividuating (though some of them may be brilliant), selfless thus self-loathing, favoring and living in accordance with altruist morality, group-identifying and promoting group rights (When the ruling elite includes them, then they are pro-status quo and its oppressors of the masses, and when the ruling elite persecutes or ignores them, they are anti-status quo and seemingly pro-oppressed).

 

 But they are never for the oppressed—they just seek to get the oppressed groups into power so that these revolutionary men of words can join the new elite that will now oppress these once-favored masses, former allies are now betrayed. Men of words will be addicted to and utterly, easily corrupted—give the chance to wield power—by clique and governmental elite power, and their collectivist sharing of the elite power of powerlessness (personal powerlessness for both the oppressors and the oppressed for none are individuating individualists wield the power of powerfulness and love).