I am posting an article from the March 16, 2007 issue of Voice of Revolution*, which speaks to the issue of peoples’ Right to Conscience which is currently being attacked by the forces and defenders of monopoly capital, and in particular, attacking this right by attacking youth, national minorities, workers and immigrants on the basis of having a “bad attitude” and exhibiting “bad behavior.” The reason I am placing this article and this post under the issue of Adoption issues is to orient the reader to how the world outside of ourselves, independent of our thoughts and feelings affect our thoughts and feelings. For adopted persons, their thoughts and feelings can not be separated from their direct experience. For many parents of adopted children, I hope this article may give some food for thought on how displacement with regard to society, family, social and cultural identity plays a major role in the development of the individual who is adopted, even if one does not agree with the politics of “attitude” and “behavior”.
In general, I feel this discussion article is very important in terms of how we are to organize politically ourselves and that of society. First however we need a definition of what attitude means and how the ruling classes uses this to crush political attitude of the working class and people. - SR]
DISCUSSION
GOVERNMENTS MUST BE HELD RESPONSIBLE FOR THE WELL BEING
OF THE PEOPLE AND ENSURE THEIR BROAD PARTICIPATION IN POLITICS
Reject the Notion of “Attitude Problem” as an Attack
on the Right to Conscience
One of the broadest forms of wrecking now being unleashed by the failed U.S. state is its attack on the notion of social responsibility. Public programs for the health, education, and the cultural well being of the people are being eliminated. Almost the entire social product is being handed over to the monopolies under the banner of “fiscal responsibility.” In an attempt to mask this attack, the ruling circles have stepped up their ideological offensive stating that all social, political and economic problems emanate from individual failings — not the failings of the U.S. state. The people, and particularly the youth, are branded as having an “attitude problem” and exhibiting “bad behavior” when they do not “adapt” to the chaos unleashed by the increased attack on their communities, their schools, their healthcare and cultural centers, their economies. This branding serves not only as a basis for their punishment, as in the past, but now also their civil death, mass detention and imprisonment in ever larger numbers.
The current notion of “attitude problem” promoted by the bourgeois politicians, academicians and monopoly media shows the limits of bourgeois rule for affirming the human person and politically empowering the people. As a class, the bourgeoisie has never been able to affirm the right to conscience or the right to be of either individuals or their collectives, as increasing attacks, especially on minorities and immigrant workers, attests.
As the effects of a failing state tear asunder the social relations that bind people, the ability of the people to unite and contend with the wreckage left in the wake of failure — the violence, the social, cultural and political degradation — is of the utmost importance. Taking up broad discussion on the reactionary essence of the notions of “attitude problem” and “behavior problem” will contribute to a politics that empowers and unifies.
The Notions of Attitude and Behavior
In the course of social living, human beings develop thoughts and feelings towards one another and the work they undertake together. Over time, these thoughts and feelings become stable, reflected in a person’s behavior, even their posture. Today, attitude is defined as the “settled behavior or manner of acting, as representative of feeling or opinion.”
Attitude falls in the domain of conscience. The way that society understands the nature and origin of this dynamic is central to its ability to unleash the human factor/social consciousness for the resolution of problems that emerge in the course of living, in the course of advancing society and the interests of all its members.
Beginning in the seventeenth century, thoughts and feelings that are reflected in an action were named “attitude.” Originally, attitude was the studied object of artistic expression for figures in paintings or statues. Attitude was given as the “posture of the body proper” such that it implied “some action or mental state assumed by human beings.”
The notion of behavior was also emphasized with the rise of the bourgeoisie. It is a conception intrinsically connected to one’s being in public, in that behavior is defined as the “manner of conducting oneself in the external relations of life.” That the word behavior is suggestive of the word manners derives from the bourgeoisie’s need to divide the society into social classes, where etiquette distinguishes the “gentleman” from the “masses.” In this sense, etiquette stands as a symbol of class membership and political rights.
The bourgeoisie originally set limits on participation in governance based on social criteria, such as owning property. The people have fought and won the right to participate in public life and politics irrespective of any consideration other than membership in that body politic.
Like attitude, behavior is thought to reflect the internal life (thoughts and feelings) of the individual, his or her conscience, and in this way, attempts to control behavior are in fact attempts to control thinking. A brief review of twentieth century social science in the U.S. will reveal that the “Orwellian nightmare”, “behavior therapy” and “thought control” are not inventions of communism, but rather “modern” bourgeois psychology! Behavior therapy (commonly used against youth and students) is in fact defined as training an individual to adapt to the status quo or “function in society.”
But, for its time, the bourgeoisie’s emphasis on individual actions, thoughts, and feelings was progressive, and served to create space for the fight for the right to conscience and ultimately for collectives of workers and people to organize in their own social interests. Giving place to individual thoughts and feelings legitimated demands of the people to improve their social, political and economic conditions, and gave place to direct experience in informing their action. It served to counter the medieval arrangements that negated and degraded personhood and it fostered a role for the public and public opinion in governance.
The Logic of Making Attitude the Problem
People express their thoughts and feelings regarding what is right and wrong, what is and what ought to be, when they reject their marginalization, oppression, and exploitation. This is an expression of the right to conscience and serves to advance the social interests, To label the problem as one of attitude is to demand that one separates their thoughts and feelings from their conditions of life, to demand that one change their attitude absent change in their conditions of life. It is tantamount to saying that no one has the right to challenge his or her conditions of misery, of oppression, of exploitation.
Such a notion calls on human beings to deny their direct experience of the operation of cause and effect, of their origin of their misery in the present political and economic arrangement, of rule by monopoly capital. The disinformation of the notion of “attitude problem” is found in its effort to disassociate the conditions of life from the thoughts, feelings and actions of human beings that correspond to those conditions of life and their desire to change those conditions.
Thus the problem rests, not with people’s attitude, but with the conditions of life that spark discontent, frustration, and rancor. In this way, it can be seen that attitude plays a crucial role in advancing the society as it represents the conclusions of human beings stemming from their direct experience, including the experience of the necessity for change.
The Notion of Attitude Problem Negates Rights
and the Aim of the Revolutionary Transformation of Society
The notion of “attitude problem” that emerged during the 1970s signaled the bourgeoisie’s complete rejection of its earlier progressive stand and its counter-revolutionary program, especially targeted at the youth. The notion is consistent with tyranny and fascism, and an outright rejection of individual conscience and the struggle to affirm the rights of all. Underlying the notion of “attitude problem” is the claim that having an attitude that is not supported by the existing authority is a crime. Attitude is increasingly being treated as a crime, as can be seen in the fact that students are routinely punished in schools on the basis solely on their attitude. Who is it that is consistently identified as “having an attitude”? It is those oppressed and marginalized by the present set-up. Who is never identified in this manner? But the real point is that no one, no official, no government has the right to make attitude a crime.
The notion of attitude problem thus works to justify criminalization of youth, national minorities, immigrants, protesters, workers, all those who resist current conditions. This aims to block their fight to improve their conditions of life. It aims to justify the civil death of entire sections of the people and the elimination of a role for public opinion — the general feelings, attitudes and views expressed especially in respect to decision-making in the body politic.
The notion of attitude problem is anti-political. It presumes no legitimate interests of the holder of the attitude and questions on principle the right to conscience, the right to disagree, to resist. it dismisses the claims of members of society to participate in the affairs of society. It challenges the right of individuals and collectives to redress wrongs and participate in developing solutions.
Attitude can never be the source of the problem since it is by definition a response to definite social conditions. How dare the bourgeoisie promote the notion that if only people correct their “attitude problem” all would be fine. On the one hand, their media increasingly promotes the wary iconoclast, the “bad boy,” the individual with an “attitude problem,” and on the other hand, their policies increasingly criminalize any expression of discontent with the present social arrangement. One’s career in Hollywood is advanced by the degree of “attitude” one can muster, while schools outlaw rap music and punish youth for expressing frustration with police attacks, the “war on drugs,” the so-called opportunity of joining the U.S. military.
Youth are often labeled as having an “attitude problem” when they mock, jeer and refuse to respect a social system that offers them no future but that of war and repression. Does reason not call on everyone to join with the youth in opposing such a dire situation? Do not those in positions of authority have the responsibility to defend the youth and represent their interests? Is the youths’ refusal the problem, or the beginning of the solution? Who is served by efforts to criminalize this refusal by fixating on its form without examination of its content?
The Need for Political Attitude
and the Defense of the Right to Conscience
The peoples’ organized forces identify the need to adopt a political attitude as a key ingredient to solving problems and to advancing the political aim of empowering the people. This is evident at demonstrations where people collectively take up their social responsibility for food, transportation, housing, medical support and more. All is done with a spirit of broad participation and taking decisions together.
While it is incorrect and reactionary to identify a person’s attitude as the problem, it is also misguided to ignore the role of attitude in advancing struggle for the new. What is needed is a political attitude toward problems emerging from life. Concretely, this means placing struggle to defend the right to conscience at the center of political work as a main means by which to unite all the political forces in the interests of advancing humanity and averting the dangers ahead.
A political attitude affirms, first and foremost, the right to conscience. It means, on the one hand, working to harmonize all the various interests; on the other hand, it means targeting the class enemy and not the people’s attitudes as the root cause of social problems. Taking a political attitude means assuming that neither the source nor solution of problems is to be found in individuals, but rather in remaking the social relationships human beings enter into the course of living. A political attitude recognizes the rights of all as a basic premise of sorting out conflict and finding solutions.
Getting workers, youth, and so on to adopt a political attitude is an important task, but it must be understood that adoption of this attitude is voluntary and occurs in the course of organizing and conscious ideological struggle. To affirm individuals and their collectives, change in attitudes must coincide with change in their conditions of life and the manner and basis upon which they are brought into solving problems. The use of coercion must be soundly rejected, as it negates the very idea of conscious participation as a basis for solving social problems.
Thus while it is correct to render the absence of a political attitude as a problem to be solved, it must be understood that the presence or absence of any attitude turns on the existing social relations. The political attitude targets the social relations, not individuals, as the source of the problem and the basis for finding solutions. Thus the absence of a political attitude, and in particular, the bourgeoisie’s effort to eliminate political attitude among the people as part of its wrecking of public opinion, is a problem of the absence of attitude.
Just as problems emerge in the course of social living, so too problems emerge in the course of organized political work. The way in which the political forces understand and approach this dynamic is key to their ability to survive in the present period of retreat of revolution and the increasingly fascist character imposed on everyday life.
*Voice of Revolution is a publication of the U.S. Marxist-Leninist Organization
