Solomon Asch Conformity Experiments explain public brainwashing

17 posts / 0 new
Last post
Choco
Choco's picture

 

Most people are well aware and very concerned about the mass confusion that prevents people from coming together to resolve serious social, economic, environmental and human rights issues. Many believe rightly that part of the problem is manipulation of information presented to the public. Much of this is actually disinformation and misinformation designed to confuse and to establish tribal allegiances and then to foment tribal feuding over alleged differences while the real crimes are being perpetrated on all of us by a group of global elite megalomaniacs.  

We’ve all known about cognitive dissonance for some time and we’ve all been introduced to Edward Bernays the founder of modern day public relations. Ren posted a great link to him and here’s some more. Watch the YouTube version.

 http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Edward_Bernays 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yxvB2PtVb8k 

A few more are familiar with the Manhattan PR firms of Burson Martseller  and Hill and Knowlten. If you are not then get busy doing your research. They’re malicious entities. 

But few have knowledge of the Solomon Asch experiments.  Read below. 

http://www.age-of-the-sage.org/psychology/social/asch_conformity.html 

The above link is the text version of the Solomon Asch experiment on social influence and peer pressure. Below is a video with additional commentary. 

http://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=solomon+asch+youtube&mid=9AA2128B7B9A80A6C86C9AA2128B7B9A80A6C86C&view=detail&FORM=VIRE3 

When people are confronted with physical evidence that runs contrary to an official story, as in the 9/11 mass brainwashing, one has to wonder how so many people can deny what their eyes see and their ears hear. The Solomon Asch experiment together with Cognitive Dissonance explains a lot. But imagine the “confederates” in the Solomon Asch experiment (those in on it and instructed to give false answers) are well known peers of the community instead of just random strangers. The effects and influence of their answers would be even greater than just if they were strangers. So when the corporate-owned media, all five of the outlets, plus venal politicians whose campaigns were paid for by same corporate military, oil, pharma, chemical, intelligence and banksters, all are the confederates in a continual Solomon Asch experiment and all give false answers, it tends to have a great influence on those of weak mind and will who tend toward GROUP THINK. This peer pressure applies well beyond 9/11 to all forms of public brainwashing.

 

 

 

Comments

Choco
Choco's picture
Quote:Solomon Asch experiment

Quote:
Solomon Asch experiment (1958)
A study of conformitySocial Pressure and Perception

 

Imagine yourself in the following situation: You sign up for a psychology experiment, and on a specified date you and seven others whom you think are also subjects arrive and are seated at a table in a small room. You don't know it at the time, but the others are actually associates of the experimenter, and their behavior has been carefully scripted. You're the only real subject.

The experimenter arrives and tells you that the study in which you are about to participate concerns people's visual judgments. She places two cards before you. The card on the left contains one vertical line. The card on the right displays three lines of varying length.

The experimenter asks all of you, one at a time, to choose which of the three lines on the right card matches the length of the line on the left card. The task is repeated several times with different cards. On some occasions the other "subjects" unanimously choose the wrong line. It is clear to you that they are wrong, but they have all given the same answer.

What would you do? Would you go along with the majority opinion, or would you "stick to your guns" and trust your own eyes?

In 1951 social psychologist Solomon Asch devised this experiment to examine the extent to which pressure from other people could affect one's perceptions. In total, about one third of the subjects who were placed in this situation went along with the clearly erroneous majority.

Asch showed bars like those in the Figure to college students in groups of 8 to 10. He told them he was studying visual perception and that their task was to decide which of the bars on the right was the same length as the one on the left. As you can see, the task is simple, and the correct answer is obvious. Asch asked the students to give their answers aloud. He repeated the procedure with 18 sets of bars. Only one student in each group was a real subject. All the others were confederates who had been instructed to give two correct answers and then to some incorrect answers on the remaining 'staged' trials. Asch arranged for the real subject to be the next-to-the-last person in each group to announce his answer so that he would hear most of the confederates incorrect responses before giving his own. Would he go along with the crowd?

Isn't anyone interested in knowing how these tests went? Do people tend to conform to group think or not?

DRC
DRC's picture
And, when you move beyond

And, when you move beyond direct and objective experience into something like, say economics, how easy is it to disagree?  As we see clearly from the trolls and even from the honestly mistaken, crafting believable memes and using fear and narcissism works very well. 

.ren
.ren's picture
Good discussion topic Choco. 

Good discussion topic Choco.  Related experiments from that era (which I think, naturally enough, follows from the Nazi era where fascism and group think of that nature brought us the horrors of WWII, concentration camps, and gas ovens) would be the Milgram and Stanford Prison Experiments.  I did a search and discovered, yes, those are seen by others as closely related:

Quote:

The experiment is related closely to the Stanford Prison and Milgram Experiments, in that it tries to show how perfectly normal human beings can be pressured into unusual behavior by authority figures, or by the consensus of opinion around them.

This also dovetails into discussions of the authoritarian personality, which of course can lead us to nasty discussions about conservatives and evangelical fundamentalists, in particular, who have been correlated with the authoratarian personality characteristics...

Republican Politics and Authoritarianism

Authoritarianism and Polarization in American Politics

...and in particular, related to this topic of conformity, the follower characteristics that Bob Altemeyer identifies in The Authoritarians.  That could be fun intellectual recreation for some here at Thom's!.

Garrett78
Garrett78's picture
Choco wrote:...one has to

Choco wrote:
...one has to wonder how so many people can deny what their eyes see and their ears hear.

Like photos of plane wreckage, dna evidence, etc.

You may want to spend some time reading through this site: http://www.911myths.com/index.php/Main_Page

A sample of what you'll find: http://www.911myths.com/index.php/War_Games

Making up "evidence" and then suggesting those who dismiss it have been brainwashed is a childish and insulting tactic. The same can be said of the tactics taken by the producers of Thrive and its libertarian agenda.

It's one thing to acknowledge that propaganda plays a large role in how people perceive the response to 9/11 and the various reasons given for the attack. I'd certainly agree with that perspective. But let's not cast this as the brainwashed vs. the unbrainwashed. So many of the claims made by the likes of Alex Jones are, in addition to dangerously delusional, simply not true. Propaganda from "truthers" is no more useful than propaganda from government officials.

But, again, let's pretend all of the claims are true. It wasn't blowback. It was an inside job, perhaps brought on by the Bilderberg Group. Then what? All will be right in the world if everyone reaches that conclusion? Peak Oil and Peak Everything Else will disappear? Catastrophic climate change won't occur?

Choco
Choco's picture
Garrett78 wrote: But, again,

Garrett78 wrote:

But, again, let's pretend all of the claims are true. It wasn't blowback. It was an inside job, perhaps brought on by the Bilderberg Group. Then what? All will be right in the world if everyone reaches that conclusion? Peak Oil and Peak Everything Else will disappear? Catastrophic climate change won't occur?

When the world finally woke up to the horrors of Hitler his army was destroyed and he destroyed himself, the rest of his gang of mass murderers were also killed, senteneced to life or went into hiding, some with the help of the Catholic Rat lines, but I digress. So, if people rose up and called out the real perpetrators we would be all but rid of the NeoCons, Karl Rove, the Bush Crime Family, FOX news and all the other parasites and treasoness A-holes that are destroying this country and others.  We would have had a media overhaul and the venal congress critters covering this up and profiting from wars would be in jail too. We would have had a cultural revolution for the better. We would have seized power from the banksters and oil tycoons and restablished government by We the People. We would have subdued the oil lobby and started a green revolution and that would now be almost a decade running.

I'm sure the people of Germany would have balked as you do now had they gotten wind of a bunch of conspiracy theorists suggesting that their own government was exterminating six million jews.  Now do you get it?

You think there is a psychological explanation for conspiracy theories. I'll see your one or two psychologists and raise you a half dozen more: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iGGXae4c3hY&feature=relmfu I think these professionals are talking about you in this video.

Remember as I pointed out in another thread, you voted for a 9/11 Truther for president of the most powerful nation in the world in 2008.  http://www.911truth.org/osamas/mckinney.html

To suggest that 9/11 Truthers are psychologically unstable is "childish and insulting." Watch the video of the psychologists explaining cognitive dissonance in relation to 9/11. I still congratulate you on your 2008 vote--you must have known where she stood on this matter by then.

 

DRC
DRC's picture
We don't need to do

We don't need to do engineering studies or go Bilderburg to see the Neocon PNAC reality.  It is enough to condemn the criminal incompetence/complicity without having to convince all these Americans that the very worst is true.  What does it matter if Cheney believed his paranoia and dreams of glory when they have done so much damage? 

Same about Wall St.  Greedspan may just be another overeducated fool instead of a Rand conspirator to have been as wrong about the "smart guys" of finance.  I would rather organize the opposition and anger on what we can all know and see and let the historians and cultural archaeologists unearth all the sordid details.  End the Empire, bring the troops home and turn them into citizens.  Stop spreading the terror there and it won't be a problem here.  Invest in America, as our global strategy.

 

Choco
Choco's picture
I'm looking for an analogy

I'm looking for an analogy and this might be a stretch but . . . The murderous, lying NeoCon PNAC imperialists, oil, military, chemical juggernaut is the giant bulldozer in Avatar. We know how destructive it is, has been and will continue to be. But instead of dismantling the bulldozer, we decide to run ahead and pull the trees up and carry them under our arms and shoo the forest creatures from the bulldozer's  path.

The citizens of this country have focused on luxury, opulance and have grown accustomed to being coddled for too long. We lack the courage to fight against tyranny that our forefathers had.

Land of the Free, Home of the Brave . . . not so much!

.ren
.ren's picture
The "bull" dozer has a driver

The "bull" dozer has a driver (doncha just love naming machines after animals?).  The bulldozer won't go anywhere if there's no driver unless somebody can make a machine that drives the bulldozer, but someone has to make that machine, and if nobody wants to, then there's no machine to drive the bulldozer.  Of course if people can be programmed to be machines, then no one needs to make a machine to drive the machine because then there will always be a programmed human machine to drive the machine.  People just need to be willing to do the job to make the bulldozer.  But if people can learn to be human again and rediscover how wonderful that really is, then they won't want to become machines, they'd much rather be humans, nor will they want to lose their humanity to become slaves or servants of machines, making machines, tending machines, thus they will not be inclined to allow themselves to become workers who make the machines.  They would rather do human things.

Unfortunately that's a fantasy.  It seems there are always those who don't really like being human, and they are more than happy to be machines.  They love picking up other machines and using them to destroy thngs in the name of progress moving from savagery to civilization.  And then there are those who like being human but who think that the only way to deal with that is to become part of the machinery fighting machines, and they are the "brave" ones because fighting is bravery.

Somehow I think this thread's gone off the rails.

Choco
Choco's picture
And rails are made by

And rails are made by machines, really big machines LOL

.ren
.ren's picture
I like irony.  It's a metal,

I like irony.  It's a metal, isn't it?  Like the old iron horse.

DRC
DRC's picture
Alienation is easy.  Deciding

Alienation is easy.  Deciding that human beings are flawed, frustrating and mired in futility is a way of being cynical about oneself, or of feeling superior but lonely.  When we speak of the "sheeple" and bemoan the attraction of religion, we can also be saying that caring and sharing is futile and that we might as well be the dogs eating he loser dogs.  Or, we can be holding onto our own superior moral world with a few others while the world goes to hell around us.

I look at the aliens invading the earth movies where it takes huge technology and military power to defend us from "invaders" as a mirror of this myth of human futility and impotence.  We need superhumans like John Carter to battle the Titans.  Or, we depend upon worshipping the correct Savior Power and are careful to "obey" the Divine Mandates and Ordinances.  Watch out or homosexuals will make God angry!  Pay homage to Mammon.  Sacrifice to Mars.

Deciding that human life is worth an enthusiastic embrace, worth living and celebrating and worth the risks of love may seem beyond all realism.  I think it is the only realism worth the time and energy.  We do not need to be saved from ourselves by lords and masters or by warriors.  We do not need to close our eyes to the "least of these" and hope against hope that our own 'decency' and hard work will be enough.  We most of all do not need to invent magic technological answers to be able to have human life on earth. 

We are not immortals.  We are not autonomous individuals whose individual success separates the winners from the losers in some preparation for eternity.  We are part of all that has been, is and will be; and the more we enjoy and invest ourselves in this reality, the better.

Sure, propaganda works.  Terror terrorizes and paralyses the soul.  This is why we have to be about more than cynicism or alienation and disgust.  Hedges describes the plight of the treadmill where 'hope' is parceled out in minor increases in wages without any rescue.  Of course magic appeals to the "masses" because being of the mass is a technological reduction of humanity and that reality is grim.  For those who get out of the field work, being a house slave or manager of other slaves is a huge boost, but hardly freedom or dignity.  The Masters like to pretend that they have made it while they build the defences against the slave revolt.

Economic man has taken the idea of being human and commodified it at every level.   It may be that "class warfare" does not work in the sense that appealiing to the peasants to take it from the lords still leaves us as economically defined humans.  I keep coming back to the old question:  "What does it take to make and keep human life human in this world?"  Enjoy.

 

.ren
.ren's picture
Are you familiar with

Are you familiar with Marshall McLuhan, DRC?  I remember touching on his ideas about the time I was building my repertoire of ideas about technology, how we make it, how our interaction with it shapes us -- not deterministically, but sort of at a deeper level where ideas are born on skeletal frameworks, and out of that we create our worlds, our narratives of those worlds.   I found his language cumbersome as a vehicle for riding his ideas in my imagination, and so I didn't take off with him.  But nevertheless he had, still has some interesting mind bending perspectives on the ideas of how we tend to become something like the things -- the tools, the environments -- we create. 

But it takes a truly eloquent wordsmith to bring that out for me, and this good old writer from way back in the fifties and sixties, Lewis Lapham, delves into the process itself by which we become a kind of thought destructive gadgetry in our communication process while we indulge further and further into these techno communication forms (from Word Order: The Internet as the Toy With a Tin Ear).

Lewis Lapham wrote:

McLuhan regarded the medium of television as better suited to the sale of a product than to the expression of a thought. The voice of the first person singular becomes incorporated into the collective surges of emotion housed within an artificial kingdom of wish and dream; the viewer’s participation in the insistent and ever-present promise of paradise regained greatly strengthens what McLuhan identified as “the huge educational enterprise that we call advertising.” By which he didn’t mean the education of a competently democratic citizenry -- “Mosaic news is neither narrative, nor point of view, nor explanation, nor comment” -- but rather as “the gathering and processing of exploitable social data” by “Madison Avenue frogmen of the mind” intent on retrieving the sunken subconscious treasure of human credulity and desire.

A modern day version of Marshall, Lapham notes, has some similar views about the Internet (by which I'm reminded of a comment by someone recently about my being "here" and just what that actually might mean for me in terms of "becoming the technology we create."  I had to pause and think about that for a bit.)

Lewis Lapham wrote:

McLuhan died on New Year’s Eve 1979, 15 years before the weaving of the World Wide Web, but his concerns over the dehumanized extensions of man (a society in which it is the machine that thinks and the man who is reduced to the state of the thing) are consistent with those more recently noted by computer scientist Jaron Lanier, who suggests that the data-mining genius of the computer reduces individual human expression to “a primitive, retrograde activity.” Among the framers of the digital constitution, Lanier in the mid-1980s was a California computer engineer engaged in the early programming of virtual reality.

In the same way that McLuhan in his more optimistic projections of the electronic future had envisioned unified networks of communication restoring mankind to a state of freedom not unlike the one said to have existed in the Garden of Eden, so too Lanier had entertained the hope of limitless good news. Writing in 2010 in his book You Are Not a Gadget, he finds that the ideology promoting radical freedom on the surface of the Web is “more for machines than people” -- machines that place advertising at the “center of the human universe… the only form of expression meriting general commercial protection in the new world to come. Any other form of expression to be remashed, anonymized, and decontextualized to the point of meaninglessness.”

Like Lanier, I too had once entertained hope of limitless good connections with the world through the web, and, to some extent that's been true.  But the "radical freedom" of such meeting points as Facebook and Twitter, and not the least starting here at Thom's over eight years ago now, my first real touchdown in Cyberspace, is not the freedom I find in exploring and revealing my own mind immersed in experience of the real world with the one medium easiest for me to access on the web, and that's language.  I am conscious of that disparity at all times, now, and it makes me very cautious about limits of what I write here.

And I found a sense of camaraderie in this paragraph from Lapham:

Lewis Lapham wrote:

The reduction of individual human expression to a “primitive, retrograde activity” accounts for the product currently being sold under the labels of “election” and “democracy.” The candidates stand and serve as farm equipment meant to cultivate an opinion poll, their value measured by the cost of their manufacture; the news media’s expensive collection of talking heads bundles the derivatives into the commodity of market share. The steadily higher cost of floating the fiction of democracy -- the sale of political television advertising up from nearly $200 million in the presidential election of 1996 to $2 billion in the election of 2008 -- reflects the ever-increasing rarity of the demonstrable fact.

Which brings me back to the subject of this thread, the concern about mass conformity in several studies, one of which was Solomon Asch's, right about the time Marshall Mcluhan and Jacques Ellul were writing about how we become the technology we create....and, I was thinking, alienation.

DRC
DRC's picture
I love the image of "the

I love the image of "the frogmen of the brain," and the moral ambiguity of technology continues.  To warn of its negative capacities to mystify and manipulate us with its wonders can be to forget what it can do for us; but the reverse is even more troubling.  I do not look to technology to solve this question of making and keeping human life human in this world.  I am concerned about what the possession of power does to us, as well as to the feeling of being out of power.  Universal human level participation in "power" is more moral than technical to me.  But, we have to keep on insisting that this is true and be sure that we are not confusing "participation" or "power" with techniques, systems or magic.

I remember the medium being the message before it became the massage.  I think Bill Moyers is also a fine figure to appreciate in his early idealism and eventual maturity to its capture, as PBS had fallen from any mission vision of inclusion or advocacy for those left out of the commercial market.  Even as a counter-example of "non-profit" or "bi-partisan" media, it has been so bought and neutered that we have to laugh when the cons get all bothered about it.  Less to the Left than MSNBC. 

Then there is Colbert who actually has cons thinking he is one of them.  Talk about a will to believe and incorporate cognitive dissonance into the self. 

Living in a world defined by pathology, ambiguity and the inadequacy of paranoia can be disheartening.  The desire to have quick, clear and emotionally satisfying truths is bipartisan.  It sells a lot of bad drugs, religion and wars.  To address the needs of the world, to get busy with what we know is wrong and to do so with a vision of health and healing is what our humanity requires.  It is how our hearts and minds are restored and we recover our sense of humor, compassion and grace.

I think that is where community and relationships of deeper intimacy and bond make all the difference in the world.  There are not a lot of hermit saints around, but they are always welcome as visitors.  I like to think of them as extended community rather than refugees who prefer their own hideouts from the central wasteland and prisons.  Same goes to those who work for "the Man" and live lives of quiet or noisy desperation.  I think the latter do need rescue from the storm, and we need to avoid throwing them overboard while we take on the powers that run amok.

Choco
Choco's picture
We look for and listen to the

We look for and listen to the wise old sages' succinct words to help us make sense of the human chaos all around us. The sages look for guidance from those who are new at seeing, hearing and experiencing life with all their senses because their perceptions are unadulterated and real.

At that time the followers came to Jesus and asked, "Who is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven?" Jesus called a little child to come to him. Jesus stood the child before the followers. Then Jesus said, "I tell you the truth. You must change and become like little children {in your hearts}. If you don't do this, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven. . . .

I think we struggle with trying to be childlike and also to be the sage. We want to absorb all the beauty and fun of life, but we also want others to do so too so we fret as if we can make a difference by fretting.

.ren
.ren's picture
DRC wrote: To warn of its

DRC wrote:

To warn of its negative capacities to mystify and manipulate us with its wonders can be to forget what it can do for us; but the reverse is even more troubling.

C'mon, DRC.  The point is we already know what it can do for us. Modern Western hubris is built on that knowing.  Just slightly imply there might be some problem with what it does for us and watch the reactions, they are predictable and patterned. The problem becomes: we forget what it does to us in the process.  And we need to be reminded of that or "we" become arrogant and want to force upon the rest of the world our completely out of control, planet destroying technologies by creating show case democracies in their havens of savagery and backwards religions so they can join the "civilized" world. The educated experts even call them underdeveloped.  So when someone mentions that you correctively say we forget what it does for us. I call this going around in circles.

DRC wrote:

Living in a world defined by pathology, ambiguity and the inadequacy of paranoia can be disheartening.

More disheartening to me is living in a world where no one bothers to understand each other.  A world where they don't need to because their needs are met through mass marketing and the likes of Walmart, which has everything now, I guess, even groceries.  Never go to one myself.

People don't read closely and they don't need to listen to each other. They  simply don't need to.  Their existence doesn't hinge on it.  They live a life where nothing life and death close at hand really matters. It's all out there, abstract.  Other people are doing it. "Reality" television programs abound I see.  They already know everything before the other person speaks, but it's a kind of programmed knowing in their foggy, busy heads.  That is the medium being the message right her, right now.  Not something that happened fifty years ago and then it passed on to become a meaningless cliche.  Yes, it became that too, I see, but that evolution into meaninglessness is what McLuhan was trying to awaken in people's minds.  Unfortunately that also takes an awakened, conscious language user, not word consumers. 

I know people use less words for themselves out of my actual experience. I have to keep dumbing down what I say or I get quizzical, even condemnatory looks.  Sometimes I'll even get comments that imply I'm an arrogant elitist, even while I'm being apologetic for having difficulty finding the right words.  And get this, I grew up in a family where no one had gone to college. I mean, my family is about as old school conservative as it gets. But we still enjoyed using language with each other and some of them even enjoyed listening to an articulate Wm. F. Buckley, because he was articulate, not because he ranted about how evil liberals are.

DRC wrote:

To address the needs of the world, to get busy with what we know is wrong and to do so with a vision of health and healing is what our humanity requires.  It is how our hearts and minds are restored and we recover our sense of humor, compassion and grace.

In a sort of way off away from it commentary way I can say the same thing.  But I don't put that into a conscious program and act accordingly.  My humor is constant, its in the ironies I find all around me, but much of it can't be shared publicly.  A few intimate friends see some of the ironies I see and we share without much fuss.  I've watched a few but I can't (never could) regularly watch the professional humorists like Colbert and Stewart.  Can't think of any of the conservatives of that model, must be some conservatives who attempt humor a step above Limbaugh's.  I guess what I'm noting here is that humor, compassion and grace don't always come together in a package.  My first brush with that concept was my antipathy towards the Three Stooges as a child while my age mates were enthralled in front of those old black and white 17 inch television sets.  So I guess I don't push the humor part.  But I certainly feel strongly about compassion and grace.

And I'll leave the ministry of the left-outs in your last paragraph to people who are good at it.  It's not my calling.  I don't really know who they aren't.

 

.ren
.ren's picture
Choco wrote: We look for and

Choco wrote:

We look for and listen to the wise old sages' succinct words to help us make sense of the human chaos all around us. The sages look for guidance from those who are new at seeing, hearing and experiencing life with all their senses because their perceptions are unadulterated and real.

At that time the followers came to Jesus and asked, "Who is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven?" Jesus called a little child to come to him. Jesus stood the child before the followers. Then Jesus said, "I tell you the truth. You must change and become like little children {in your hearts}. If you don't do this, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven. . . .

I think we struggle with trying to be childlike and also to be the sage. We want to absorb all the beauty and fun of life, but we also want others to do so too so we fret as if we can make a difference by fretting.

I hope this isn't a stretch, but you've reminded me of Toni Morrison's Nobel acceptance speech in 1993 (I was amused to see the Nobel documenters at the site calling it a lecture -- I mean, that word and her lovely soft voice speaking...), where instead of a speech, or maybe along with, she provides yet another piece of literature -- she can't really help herself, it's her life's work; she calls it "the analogous method of acquiring and holding information" -- in which she tells a story about children who come to a blind old woman and try to trick her, but really what they are looking for are words of wisdom to help them make sense of their world.  In the process she brings out much of what you describe, including the incongruity of childlike and sage, but with a closure of them coming together.

“We die,” Tony Morrison said. “That may be the meaning of life. But we do language. That may be the measure of our lives.”

And this amazing flow of thought in the story:

Quote:

The systematic looting of language can be recognized by the tendency of its users to forgo its nuanced, complex, mid-wifery properties for menace and subjugation. Oppressive language does more than represent violence; it is violence; does more than represent the limits of knowledge; it limits knowledge. Whether it is obscuring state language or the faux-language of mindless media; whether it is the proud but calcified language of the academy or the commodity driven language of science; whether it is the malign language of law-without-ethics, or language designed for the estrangement of minorities, hiding its racist plunder in its literary cheek - it must be rejected, altered and exposed. It is the language that drinks blood, laps vulnerabilities, tucks its fascist boots under crinolines of respectability and patriotism as it moves relentlessly toward the bottom line and the bottomed-out mind. Sexist language, racist language, theistic language - all are typical of the policing languages of mastery, and cannot, do not permit new knowledge or encourage the mutual exchange of ideas