CONTENTS
West Point’s Motto – 24 Marc h 2011
Stability through Equilibrium (StE) - 30 March 2008
Addendum - 31 March 2008
Civil-Military Relations – 11 May 2006
On Behavior - 23 October 2005
West Point’s Motto
24 March 2011
Dr. Sam Holliday
West Point graduates universally revere the timeless motto of
the United States Military Academy: Duty – Honor - Country.
For them it is not an issue of intellect, academics, or rules—it
is a matter of convictions. Yet there is little understanding of
how that motto relates to Secular Authority and Sacred
Authority.
Most people have never heard of Secular Authority as
contrasted with Sacred Authority. Authority to most people is
something those in a hierarchy use to control others. That is
Secular Authority, which is necessary for all organizations
even if it is not sufficient. But what is Sacred Authority? With
regard to authority, ‘sacred’ means that which must not be
violated or disregarded. What is the connection between
Sacred Authority and the motto of Duty – Honor – Country?
1
Both Secular and Sacred Authority can be found throughout
history in all cultures; however, they are given many different
names. Secular and Sacred Authority are the terms used by
the ancient Greeks. Secular Authority is specified in rules,
regulations and laws. Sacred Authority is the beliefs and
civic virtues that shape the inner compass of individuals.
Secular Authority
West Point cadets have always been taught the importance of
Secular Authority through a myriad of dos and don’ts: how to
make beds, shine shoes, how to stand, when to go where and
do what, when and how to speak, how to march or perform in
class, and much more. Compliance with these rules brought
rewards, but noncompliance insured punishment.
Secular Authority is essential for the efficient and effective
functioning of any organization. It is rational knowledge. It
discriminates, compares, and categorizes. Without rational
rules, regulations and laws there is no organization, there is
only the chaos of a mob. Secular Authority is usually written
as a key part of a legal system, but it might partially be
unwritten laws based on custom and tradition.
Sacred Authority
The inner compass allows individuals to make their own
judgments between right and wrong, and to discriminate
between good and bad. What shapes the inner compass of
each individual? Sacred Authority. Sacred Authority is
intuitive, and is often called belief or civic virtues. Sacred
Authority allows individuals to value behaviors that are
virtuous and to shun behaviors that are sinful. Sacred
Authority surpasses feelings and requires moral individuals to
be judgmental.
Prior to the 1960s Sacred Authority was just as important as
Secular Authority. Then cadet chapel was mandatory, and it
was expected that this would enhance belief. However, it was
2
from the concepts of Duty, Honor, and Country that cadets
were expected to understand civic virtues. Sacred Authority is
not taught in an academic sense; it is intuitive knowledge, not
intellectual, or rational, knowledge. It is the ultimate reality
arising from the experience of enlightenment. It just is.
Whenever someone speaks about Sacred Authority, that
person has strayed from its essence. It is the outcome of
experience, regardless of the rationale developed to justify its
meaning.
Throughout most of West Point’s history the concepts of Duty,
Honor, and Country were ill-defined civic virtues, which cadets
were expected to internalize. They were not to be questioned,
or subjected to logical analysis. It was expected that they
would guide overall behavior, which everyone would recognize
as virtuous.
Belief and civic virtues do not meet the standards which
academics, scientists, and lawyers demand. They are too
vague and too imprecise to be scientific theories or to be
resolved by a legal system. Their truth is not determined by
logic. They are based on intuitive knowledge resulting from
experience. They are unchallengeable absolutes. They are
convictions—not rules.
Civic Virtues
Civic virtues have motivated many throughout history. The
actions of Horatius at the bridge, the Spartans at
Thermopylae, the five good emperors of ancient Rome, our
founders who pledged their lives and sacred honor, those who
remained in the Alamo, the soldiers in Pickett’s charge and the
cavalrymen of the Light Brigade, brave P.O.W.s, and many
others were guided by civic virtues.
Duty, Honor, and Country are meaningless if they are merely
flamboyant words. Only when internalized as civic virtues do
they gain significance. The intent of these words is not the
3
expression of an intellectual idea; rather they are to influence
and shape behavior.
 Duty is an obligation to do what ought to be done in
accordance with your position and the ethics of your
profession.
 Honor means honesty, virtue, and conscience; it might
be called rectitude, moral sense, or the moral faculty.
 Country is simply a pledge to insure the security and
interests of your nation against all enemies foreign and
domestic.
Prerequisites of Sacred Authority
Sacred Authority becomes merely an adjunct to Secular
Authority without belief in the free will of individuals. In that
case it would support submission to those in a hierarchy.
However, West Point cadets prior to the 1960s understood
Duty, Honor, and Country to be the convictions of individuals
with free will. These civic virtues provided the basis for
individuals to make the judgments needed to do the harder
right rather than the easier wrong.
History has repeatedly demonstrated an important reality
about the relationship of Secular Authority and Sacred
Authority: each must be kept strong enough to check and
balance the other.
 If Sacred Authority dominates Secular Authority the
outcome is a theocracy like Iran today.
 If Secular Authority dominates Sacred Authority the
outcome is a totalitarian regime like those in Italy,
Germany, and the Soviet Union before World War Two.
Changes at West Point
In the 1980s and 1990s the Superintendents had to make
changes in order to meet challenges from outside of the
Academy that resulted from the Countercultural movement of
the 1960s. Duty, Honor, and Country had to be defacto “legal”
4
enough to withstand assaults from those who would question
their utility and fairness in courts, yet still retain their
significance as means for shaping the inner compass of each
cadet. This required cadets to accept personal responsibility
for Duty, Honor, and Country. How well this has been
accomplished is the key question that must be answered.
Those in the classes of the 1980s, 1990s, and 2000s must
reflect on their experiences to find the answer.
Nevertheless, one thing is clear. These changes have the
potential of converting Duty, Honor, and Country from Sacred
Authority to Secular Authority. If they were converted they
would no longer be civic virtues. They would no longer shape
the inner compass of individuals with free will. They would
just be additional rules to be obeyed.
A goal of the Duty – Honor – Country motto is to integrate the
truths of West Point into a quest for a way of life. The motto is
the basis for a common identity known as the Long Grey Line.
All graduates of West Point, alive and dead, form the Long
Gray Line; yet one can spiritually depart this ghostly
assemblage. The Long Gray Line links the past, present, and
future with shared beliefs, values and attitudes. A common
understanding of Duty, Honor, and Country is needed to
provide the necessary linkage.
Questions each graduate of West Point should explore:
1. How did you learn about Sacred Authority?
2. As a cadet did you consider Duty, Honor and Country
unchallengeable absolutes?
3. Do cadets now internalize the civic virtues of Duty,
Honor, and Country?
4. How do cadets now learn about the distinction between
Secular Authority and Sacred Authority?
Conclusions
LEARN THE DISTINCTION BETWEEN SECULAR AUTHORITY
AND SACRED AUTHORITY.
5
REALIZE
THAT
MORAL
INDIVIDUALS
MUST
BE
JUDGEMENTAL AND DISCRIMINATE BETWEEN RIGHT AND
WRONG.
UNDERSTAND WHY DUTY, HONOR, AND COUNTRY MUST
BE CIVIC VIRTUES—NOT RULES OR LAWS TO BE OBEYED.
REALIZE THAT WEST POINT CANNOT FULFILL ITS MISSION,
REGARDLESS OF ITS ACADEMIC EXCELLENCE, IF CADETS
DO NOT INTERNALIZE THE CIVIC VIRTUES OF DUTY,
HONOR AND COUNTRY.
Copyright © 2011
Armiger Cromwell Center, 3750 Peachtree Road, NE, Suite 374, Atlanta, GA 30319-1322. 404-201-7374.
Permission is granted to forward this article by e-mail to friends or colleagues on a fair use basis. For
reprint permission, contact Armiger Cromwell Center at armigercc@comcast.net
Back to Contents
STABILITY THROUGH EQUILIBRIUM (StE)
30 March 2008
Dr. Sam Holliday
Stability Through Equilibrium (StE) originated in 1968 in an effort to define and
describe the commonality of the Aristotelian Golden Mean, Chinese Yin-Yang,
the stable state of physics, and the homeostatic equilibrium of systems
management. It was initially used to explain the prerequisites for development in
irregular warfare and to counter the view that stability means permanence or
preservation of the status quo. In 1999 it became a focus for the activities of the
Armiger Cromwell Center. It is now presented as a guide for decision-making
and an alternative to the adversarial approach based on the dialectic.
We are unaware of how postmodern thought, and the adversarial approach,
shapes our perceptions, influences our decisions and controls our behavior. We
do not recognize them as outcomes of interpretations of Hegel’s dialectic theory
and his utopian vision. Yet we are drifting toward centralization—the “whole” of
which Hegel speaks—and endless self-perpetuating conflict.
6
An Alternative to the Hegelian Dialectic
An alternative is needed for decision-making. The theory of Stability through
Equilibrium (StE) presented in this essay seeks self-regulating systems of
conflict/cooperation that maintain a stable system through coordinated responses
of its parts. Also StE would encourage decentralization and greater freedom. The
theory of Stability through Equilibrium (StE) is presented here in nonacademic
language in the hope it will improve the decisions of those concerned with public
policy. However, it will not challenge Hegel’s dialectic theory as philosophy.
Hegel’s place in philosophy is established; however, in the art of decision making
the dialectic has serious limitations. It injects continual conflict when
conflict/cooperation as a whole more accurately reflects reality. It always
visualizes some utopian future when stability through equilibrium might be
more desirable.
The Hegelian dialectic often shapes policy. Perhaps this is because it accurately
describes human behavior, or perhaps it has been learned. After Hegel’s death in
1831, Metternich of Austria and the czars of Russia used his ideas to justify
authoritarian rule. Since then many very different, and contradictory,
movements have claimed Hegel’s philosophy as their inspiration—including the
totalitarian passions of fascism, Nazism and communism. The only things these
movements have in common are his theory of dialectic, his glorification of
centralized authority, and his vision of perpetual progress. Perhaps this is
because Hegel’s writing is so abstract and unintelligible people can read into it
whatever they want.
Today political, economic, security, and social issues are argued from extreme
ideological positions (Hegel’s thesis and anti-thesis) in search of a synthesis.
Most lawyers, politicians, members of media, and professors of the humanities
depend on this adversarial approach. Debates, spin, conscious raising,
intimidation, bribery, and compromise are tools used in progress toward utopian
visions. However, utopias assume that all humans are the same, an assumption
refuted by the facts. All of this can be traced back to the Hegelian dialectic--so
can postmodern thought.
In politics feelings, emotions, and self-interests often triumph over thought,
reason and the common good. We need to remember that the end of the
Hegelian road—progress toward his “World Spirit”--would be world
government with the power to enforce “the rule of law” in every corner of this
planet. Who is going to decide what is to be enforced?
7
If people were aware of how the Hegelian dialectic shapes their thoughts, the
odds are they would want to replace such rhetorical arguments with analysis
and comparison of alternatives. Rather than an ideological outcome as specified
by some utopian vision, they might be satisfied with merely a climate of order
and satisfaction resulting from thought and reason seeking the common good.
Rather than moral relativism, they might want a way to differentiate good and
evil since one person’s good might appear to be another person’s evil. They
might want to avoid both the status quo and chaos. Surely they would prefer
self-regulating (homeostatic) stable systems involving conflict/cooperation as a
whole to endless conflict. Surely they would want continual feedback in order to
insure efficiency and effectiveness.
It does no good to seek Hegel’s intentions and motivations, or even to debate his
philosophy. However, it is necessary for people to recognize how Hegelian
dialectic shapes public affairs. Hegel’s views support the argument of Hobbes
that in order to achieve peace people must surrender to absolute rulers; this
requires force capable of enforcing decisions made by those with secular
authority. This has caused ideology to replace thought and reason, allowed
demagogues to spin perceptions, and distort reality, in ways to increase their
power. Capable, intelligent, people with Free Will have been turned into narrow
minded, xenophobic slaves of governmental authority. Hegel’s views have
insured perpetual conflict. They teach that the only way to spiritual satisfaction
is through conflict. They ignore the need for individuals to have an inner
compass to guide their behavior.
Postmodern Thought
Since the 1960s Hegel’s views have been the foundation of postmodern thought,
in its pursuit of a utopian vision of a nonjudgmental, equalitarian,
nondiscriminatory world, and in which disagreements are resolved by
discussion, compromise, and law--but never by the use of force. Postmodernism
has pushed aside much of the modernism developed by Western Culture to
prevent chaos, and to achieve both order and a climate of satisfaction.
Postmodernism attempts to deconstruct the concepts, institutions, roles, rules,
and standards associated with Western Culture. It claims that objectivity is an
illusion (created by “dead, white, Western men”) used to maintain patriarchal
societies and to oppress females, the disadvantaged, and people in less
developed countries. The philosophy behind postmodern thought is an
intoxicant that resonates across generational lines. It is a philosophy of
8
redemptive self-esteem that calls for collective action to recognize, address and
resolve oppression. It glorifies “progress, hope, change and struggle” to be
realized through centralized secular authority.
Postmodernism attempts to
eliminate or modify many of the roles, rules, standards, and character that were
accepted as proper, good, and right prior to the 1960s.
In the past decade postmodernism has become the ally of the Third Jihad--a
global religiously inspired movement based on an ideology that teaches that it is
every Muslim's duty to use any means necessary to compel the world's
submission to “the way of the Prophet.” Postmodernists in Europe and American
have lost sight of the fact that we are engaged in a centuries old struggle between
the cross and the crescent.
The current conflict pits Western culture, as it has developed since 1500, against
Islamic ideas of a proper society, from the 7th Century, which claims the sanction
of God. The ideal of Western culture is a balance between freedom and unity,
between individual self worth and a sense of common identity, between sacred
and secular authority, and between principled convictions of individuals and
respect for diversity. This balance is represented in the theory of Stability
through Equilibrium (StE). Postmodernists have lost touch with the deepest
sources of the Western cultural commitments to belief, nationalism, patriotism,
freedom, tolerance and the scientific method. In the strategic communications
campaign against the Third Jihad the West must be able to convince everyone
that Western culture is superior to Islamic culture, and that the struggle against
the Third Jihad is a noble quest worthy of sacrifice.
Many might accept that the way to Truth is through thesis, anti-thesis, and
synthesis, but it cannot be proven that this is better than other ways (scientific
method, sacred authority, and secular authority) to determine Truth. No matter
how the Hegelian dialectic is defined, or the arguments make to support its
validity, it remains an unproven theory that leads to conflict, uniformity of
thought, a lack of freedom, and centralization of power. The merging and
reconciliation of thesis and anti-thesis does produce change, but not necessarily
the higher, more complex, and better whole that Hegelianism assumes. The
change might be decline and decay. What is difficult to understand about
Hegelianism is that after repeated failures it is still advocated as the way to
Truth. Are today postmodernists unaware of the history of fascism, Nazism and
communism?
Why Stability Through Equilibrium?
9
Probably the greatest weakness of the Hegelian dialectic, as used by Marxists
and postmodernists, is its lack of feedback. No human system is inherently
stable. The maintenance of stability requires some negative feedback that will
identify, and allow compensation for, any lack of equilibrium. While negative
feedback is common to physical systems, feedback is often weak in human
systems. They are often governed by emotions and self interests. Hegel
recognized this when he stated: “Nothing great in the world has been
accomplished without passion;” and “The history of the world is not the theater
of happiness; periods of happiness are blank pages in it, for they are periods of
harmony.” Lacking adequate negative feedback accelerates extreme behavior
and the well-known cycle of rise and fall. The dialectic theory does not provide
adequate feedback for human systems. The theory of Stability through
Equilibrium (StE) provides for the necessary feedback.
With all of the limitations of Hegel’s dialectic theory there is certainly reason to
seek an alternative in decision-making. But what is the theory of Stability
through Equilibrium (StE) and why is it a better theory for the art of decisionmaking? What is conflict/cooperation?
Stability is a code for a complex condition that is as old as history. Yet probably
no condition is more misunderstood and misused. In Western culture the word
stability refers to the Golden Mean: the pragmatic approach that avoids extremes.
In Chinese culture it is Yin-Yang: self-adjustment among opposites. In physics it is
a stable state: a condition of continual change within an overall state that is not
changed. In systems theory it refers to a homeostatic system: a system that
maintains balance among its parts through continual adjustments. Unfortunately
many people still think of stability as permanence, or preservation of the status
quo, as the French did in the 17th century under absolutism.
Equilibrium is a means of self-regulation (homeostasis) to maintain the internal
stability of any system through coordinated responses of its parts to any internal
disruptions or inputs from its external environment. In human affairs
equilibrium involves conflict/cooperation, it requires negative feedback, it
requires thought and reason, and it requires judgments to correct imbalances
between good and evil, right and wrong. Equilibrium is achieved through
responsiveness to reciprocal and endless interactions resulting from negative
feedback. Stability is not a sub-set of equilibrium; stability is an outcome, or end,
while equilibrium is a means.
10
Conflict/Cooperation is a dynamic whole with at least two interacting parts. Its
unity is achieved through:
 Struggling for dominance: Each party attempts to satisfy its interests,
regardless of the impact on others, through various means.
 Co-opting: one party adopts all or part of the agenda of an opponent in
exchange for a trade-off.
 Collaborating: Parties seek to satisfy the concerns of others in order to
advance their own interests.
 Creating interdependence: Parties make changes in order that no party
loses any interests and all parties "maintain face."
 Compromising: Some parties are willing to give up some interests.
 Avoiding: A party desires to withdraw from or suppresses conflict.
 Accommodating: Parties are willing to give priority to the interests of
others and accept loss of some interests or “face”.
In summary, it is necessary for decision makers to apply the theory of Stability
through Equilibrium (StE) in a way that minimizes the gap between theory and
practice. StE holds that there is objective reality (existence), and thus it includes a
moral component. It must be seen as a tool to explore and explain the real world.
It must be used as a reality check against ideological fallacy. It must replace the
semantic language games of postmodernists. To ensure maximum credibility,
conflict/cooperation appropriate to each threat is needed. Frivolous or
meaningless threats need to be identified and minimized in order to achieve the
greatest benefits and the lowest possible costs. Success is improved when the
application of conflict/cooperation is predictable and profitable.
Just as with the Hegelian dialectic, Stability through Equilibrium (StE) can be
applied to all human affairs. Stability through Equilibrium (StE) would be a
useful alternative in many spheres of human activity: (1) peace - irregular
warfare - war, (2) secular - sacred authority, (3) centralization – decentralization
governance, (4) indivisible unity - freedom/liberty. It is suggested that Stability
through Equilibrium (StE) would be a better tool for decision-making than
Hegelian dialectic in all of these activities.
Conclusion
The theory of Stability through Equilibrium (StE) would be better than Hegel’s
dialectic theory in the shaping of our perceptions and in determining how to
conduct human affairs. This is not said in anger or with pride, but simply in an
attempt to improve decision making in public affairs. Hegel’s theory, as
11
interpreted by Marxists and postmodernists, causes endless conflict in attempts
to achieve utopian visions in the future, and it provides inadequate negative
feedback. It assumes that “hope, change and progress” will always result in
improvement, yet it might bring about decline. The theory of Stability through
Equilibrium (StE) uses conflict/cooperation in attempts to achieve order and a
climate of satisfaction in the present and future as the result of negative feedback
and judgments between good and evil, right and wrong.
Copyright © 2008
Armiger Cromwell Center, 3750 Peachtree Road, NE, Suite 374, Atlanta, GA 30319-1322. 404-201-7374.
Permission is granted to forward this article by e-mail to friends or colleagues on a fair use basis. For
reprint permission, contact Armiger Cromwell Center at armigercc@comcast.net
Back to Contents
ADDENDUM FOR STABLITY THROUGH EQUILIBRIUM (StE)
31 March 2008
Dr. Sam Holliday
This paper outlines the reasoning behind the theory of Stability through
Equilibrium (StE), as presented in the essay of that name dated 30 March 2008. It
is suggested that StE is more useful for decision makers than the Hegelian
dialectic. However, StE certainly cannot replace Hegel’s philosophy. This article
is only an attempt to answer legitimate philosophical questions that those
familiar with the views of Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel (1770-1831) might ask.
Hegel was one of the thinkers of German Idealism that challenged
Enlightenment thought of the 17th and 18th centuries. If you ignore the tendency
of philosophy to slight the virtues of faith, duty, and group identity in favor of
reason and thinking, there is much to be learned from German Idealism of the
17th, 18th and 19th centuries in general, and from Immanuel Kant (1724-1804) in
particular. Kant attempted to counter the excesses of the French Enlightenment
of the 16th, 17th and 18th centuries: Michel de Montaigne (1533-1592), Rene
Descartes (1596-1650), Charles de Secondat, baron de Montesquieu (1689-1755),
and Francois-Marie Arouet de Voltaire (1694-1778). He also attempted to counter
the extreme anti-rational collectivist views of Jean-Jacques Rousseau (1712-1778).
Kant
Kant’s aim was to provide a balance between belief and science, to have both
religion and reason, and to prevent feelings and skepticism from causing
12
extremes. Kant realized that how people think about God shapes how they
related to others and how they make decisions. He wanted the benefits of the
reason, science, technology, and individualism of the Enlightenment and
also to prevent a fragmented, godless, passionless, amoral society. He
wanted what we now call modernism. However, Hegel and Johann Fichte
(1762-1814) corrupted Kant’s thoughts. And then others corrupted Hegel’s
thoughts: Friedrich Schleiermacher (1768-1834), Arthur Schopehauer (1788-1860),
Soren Kierkegaard (1813-1855), Karl Marx (1818-1883), Friedrich Nietzsche (18441900), and Martin Heidegger (1889-1976). The outcome is today’s postmodern
thought.
To understand how German Idealism has been corrupted it is necessary to
outline Kant views. Kant argued that people are both controlled and control
themselves--that both internal will (volition) and external knowing (cognition)
influence the actions of individuals. He conceptualized a duality: unique
idiosyncratic individuals with Free Will and members of many groups each
having norms, constraints, roles, rules and standards. This established a sound
basis for decision-making. And when combined with the ideas of the
Enlightenment this was the intellectual basis for the modern era of Western
Culture (1715-1965).
Kant’s views were not deterministic since he gave greater importance to the
inner compass and will of individuals than to external controls. For Kant the will
(volition) of individuals is something that can be observed (man is a
phenomenon) since will is the cause of behavior. “We learn,” according to Kant,
“what this empirical character is only from phenomenal effects and from the rule
of these which is presented by experience.” (Kant, Pure Reason, 1901, p. 309) For
Kant, behavior results from the interaction of will and desire (optative). “All the
matter of practical rules rests on subjective conditions, which give them only a
conditional universality (in case I desire this or that, what I must do in order to
obtain it), and they all turn on the principle of private happiness.” (Kant,
Practical Reason, 1909, p. 123). In other words, for individuals freedom is a
prerequisite for autonomy.
Accordingly Kant establishes two causes for action. One is experience and the
other is an individual’s inner compass. Experience is external to individuals and
controls choice and behavior as a result of group norms, rules, roles and laws
that can be social, commercial, or governmental. Ancient Greek thinkers
(Thucydides, Plato, and Aristotle) referred to such external controls as secular
authority. Today secular authority is often called “the rule of law”. Moral,
13
ethical and religious belief interacting with will provides the internal controls of
choice and behavior. The ancient Greeks referred to this as sacred authority. For
Kant it is not either secular authority or sacred authority, it is both—as parts of a
whole. For him there was no direct cause and effect relationship. Control and
choice were the results of knowledge (cognition), experience, self-interest
(desire), and will. “Complete unity, in conformity with aims, constitutes absolute
perfection.” (Kant, Pure Reason, p. 389). In other words, Kant claims that the goal
is not the superiority of anything over other things, but an equilibrium that
resulted in stability.
Reason according to Kant cannot be explained solely in terms of mental
operations on sensation data. This contrasted with Schopenhauer “form and
rules for thinking operations” (Schopenhauer, Sufficient Reason, 1891, p. 136).
Kant introduced control through a “mere idea” that lies “beyond the sphere of
possible experience…. if we desire to see, not only those objects which lie before
us, but those which are at a great distance behind us; that is to say, when, in the
present case, we direct the aims of the understanding, beyond every given
experience, towards an extension as great as can possibly be attained.” (Kant,
Pure Reason, 1901, p200)
However, Kant did visualize an end as a result of conflict/cooperation, i.e. he had
a teleological vision. This was one of the reasons many of the outcomes of
German Idealism have been so tragic.
One of the advantages of the theory of Stability through Equilibrium (StE) is that
it made it unnecessary to engage in philosophical arguments over the meaning of
reason, reality, skepticism, subjectivism, objectivity, metaphysics, epistemology,
rationality, phenomena, noumenal, competence, necessity, and universality.
Hegel
Hegel presented his views as a refinement of Kant’s views. However, his writing
and the lecture notes of his students are confusing. Since Hegel’s death, in 1831,
very different, and contradictory, movements have claimed his philosophy as
their inspiration. Perhaps this is because his writing is so obtuse, abstract, and
unintelligible it can mean many things to many people. However, all of these
movements have adopted his theory of dialectic, his glorification of centralized
governance, and his vision of progress as endless unfolding motion and turmoil
toward some utopia.
14
Hegel’s glorification of the state results in him claiming that the citizen’s life and
property should be used to further state ends, and that the state was a “higher
being.” Individual freedom was turned upside down by the unique view that
“Only that which obeys law is free.” This created an association between the
dialectic and “rule of law.” The adversarial approach used by lawyers is
essentially the process of a thesis being challenged by an antithesis resulting in a
solution through a synthesis. Secular authority (the rule of law) is one way to
control behavior. That is it specifies certain kinds of human conduct that is no
longer optional, and is in some sense obligatory. Law, and the legal procedures
to enforce compliance, is the way someone specifies what others should do and
specifies the unpleasant consequences if they refuse.
Also Hegel’s glorification of the state diminished the importance of sacred
authority. Sacred authority is another way to control behavior. It provides an
inner compass to individuals (from moral, ethical or religious belief), which
imposes obligations and withdraws certain behavior from the free option of
individuals. Therefore, through reliance on the procedures and processes of legal
systems and through ignoring sacred authority, postmodern thought shows its
Hegelian origin.
Hegel's romantic vision of all-powerful central governance and a utopian
“World Spirit” had little impact on the English liberalism of David Hume (17111776), Jeremy Bentham (1748-1832) and John Stuart Mills (1806-1873) in the 18th
and 19th centuries. However, both English liberalism and the hierarchy of
knowledge have influenced postmodern thought in the 20th century.
Nevertheless, Hegel’s views are the foundation of postmodern thought in
Europe and America today.
Modernism
Modernism refers to the progressive economic and administrative
rationalization and differentiation of societies that evolved in Europe from
1500 to 1914. It was built on the ideas of Francis Bacon (1561-1626), Rene
Descartes (1596-1650), John Locke (1632-1704), and Isaac Newton (1642-1727).
The result was the modern era of Western Culture from 1715 until 1965. The
fundamental aspects of modernism (belief, group identity, loyalty, and science)
are means developed during this period to achieve order and prevent chaos.
Modernism evolved from Hebrew-Christian, Greco-Roman, and Germanic roots
and the striking cultural growth during the European Renaissance. The ensuing
three hundred year struggle between belief (accepted thoughts) and science
15
resulted in significant advances in both science and theology. Today science is
given credit for most of this progress.
After the death of Louis XIV in 1715 the Old Regime in France failed to make the
adjustments needed to reflect the struggles between belief and science during the
Age of Reason (18th century). This was the start of the modern era. During this
evolution of Western Culture change was commonplace and repeatedly some
‘answers’ proved to be no solution at all, while the dignity and creativity of the
individual grew rapidly. By the early 19th century that struggle had profoundly
weakened the influence of religion on shared civic virtues, and for some science
became a secular God.
Modernism continued to evolve during the 19th and 20th centuries as long as it
maintained the Golden Mean, i.e. equilibrium among the four fundamentals.
1. Belief provided individuals with the Free Will and inner strength to
control their behavior, to be creative, to enjoy freedom, to have selfesteem, and to be responsible for their actions. It provides an inner
compass, which Christians call the Holy Spirit. It prevented the individual
from being subservient to either the state or nation.
2. Group (national) identity provided a community with a sense of kinship
and a unique intellectual, creative, technological, and artistic culture.
3. Loyalty (patriotism) supported the structure for a state of political unity, a
democratic polity, and economic success.
4. The scientific method established an objective means for determining
what is correct by uncovering falsehoods.
Modernism flourishes when these four fundamentals are all vibrant and in
equilibrium. However, whenever, one is take to the extreme, and dominant the
others, the evolution of modernism is slowed or cut short. Such extremism and
lack of balance is what current modernists want to prevent in their struggles with
postmodernists.
Modernism continued to evolve during the industrialization of the 19 th Century.
By this time the nation-state with the people, rather than a King, as sovereign
became the dominant actor in international relations; this necessitated the social
contract, group identity and loyalty. In turn a cohesive, formidable nation-state
16
required shared civic virtues (based on moral, ethical, or religious beliefs). Many
abstract moral concepts from the past, such as Virtue, Sin, Good, Evil, Right,
Wrong, Country, Duty, Glory, Honor, Beauty, and Truth, were retained—and
sometimes redefined--during the Victorian era by the efforts of the ruling class.
Belief in such moral concepts is one of the four fundamentals of modernism. It
provides an inner compass for individuals. However, during this period
rigorous, mathematical thinking and reliance on mathematical logic were
introduced. This was another of the four fundamentals, i.e. the scientific method
as the criterion for establishing what is correct by uncovering falsehoods. Europe
in the 19th century was a time of hope and optimism for most people (‘the many’)
with a good balance (a kind of Yin-Yang) between belief and science; this was
maintained until the start of World War I. It is true that the optimism of the 19 th
century was challenged by the fears and anxieties among a few intellectuals who
looked to the past (Hegel) or looked to the future (Nietzsche).
From Modernism to Postmodernism
Optimism among the people vanished after World War I and there were
attempts to eliminate or modify the four fundamentals of modernism—we can
now recognize this as the birth of postmodern thought. Until 1947 this challenge
to modernism had no name, but we can accurately refer to it as anti-modernism.
Many of those who witnessed the chaos, death, destruction, and horror of World
War I, sought ways to achieve a better world. This was the breeding ground of
anti-modernism. The youth of the 1930s had been shaped by what they
considered the failure of science, liberal politics, democracy, the nation-state,
reason, and Christian belief. They wanted to end the world as a lawless jungle
ruled by money and power, with conflict of ‘every man against every man’. As
always this despair had its philosophical and psychological underpinnings. In
1923 Albert Schweitzer referred to a disastrous imbalance between material and
spiritual development, which would result in a loss of freedom for the
individual. This fatalistic, pessimistic outlook eroded belief in the dignity and
creativity of the individual and in ‘reason’ as the supreme arbiter. Traditional
belief was replaced by ideology, with both ‘true believers’ and the disillusioned.
One aspect of blurring the concept of the nation-state was advocacy of a
‘community of nations’ governed by mutual consent under the rule of law in
which legalistic diplomacy and law enforcement paradigms would prevail for
the whole world. This gave life to The League of Nations. Another aspect was the
prophetic voice of ‘progress’. This facilitated the spread of Marxism and nihilism.
17
Nietzsche declared that “God is dead” and put the nation-state as the focus of
belief. The League of Nations failed before World War II, and Marxism failed
during the Cold War. By the end of the 1950s many of the ideologies had lost
their vigor and had become artifacts of the past. Yet the sentiments behind these
legacies of the post World War I period were to reemerge in the Counter Culture
movement of the 1960s and in postmodern thought.
Between the two World Wars the revolt against absolutes by ‘the few’ was
expressed in the literature of Jean Paul Sartre (1905-1980), Andre Malraux (19011976), and Albert Camus (1913-1960). They were reacting to the contradictory or
hypocritical interpretations by politicians who often appealed to some abstract
‘right’ in order to conceal selfish motives, to individuals using absolute ‘truth’ in
the support of partisan and irrational opinions, and to claim change and progress
as the road to some utopia. Their thoughts reflected changing moral beliefs, the
emergence of psychology, a focus on feelings and emotions, and the questioning
of the scientific criteria of reality among ‘the few’. However, their words had
limited impact on ‘the many’ because they were presented in intellectual and
esoteric terms. For example in 1938 Camus wrote in Noces: “The most repellent
form of materialism is not what is usually thought of as such but the kind that
wants to make dead ideas masquerade as living realities and to divert towards
sterile myths that obstinate and lucid concern which we have with what is mortal
in ourselves”. While such intellectual arguments might have been limited to ‘the
few’, between the two World Wars there were widespread emotional reactions
among ‘the many’ to the tragic events of World War I and the economic
depression that followed.
The primary actor in international relations under modernism—the nationstate—depended on abstractions such as duty, social contract, honor, civic
virtues, country, moral code, and patriotism being considered absolutes. Antimodernism undermined these abstractions with its emphasis on concrete
situations, the subjective, feelings, and an individual’s personal response to his
environment. While many people still attended religious services, shared
religious beliefs no longer shaped behavior as they had in the past. For an
increasing number of people the source of all behavior was the unconscious, and
moral, ethical and religious beliefs were only projections of the unconscious—
making the idea of Free Will a dangerous myth, and the Holy Spirit foolishness.
Without the unifying absolutes which a more self-confident age was ready to
affirm, common identity was lost. The ideal of a rational, responsible,
consciously motivated individual was seriously damaged. Many analogies
appeared of man as a machine. This was in a time of industrial societies, the
18
expendable man, economic depression, instability, anxiety, violence, and deceit.
In response the leaders of nation-states had to offer ideological certainty,
Realpolitik, and the adventure of power, as answers to the emotional reaction to
the apparent senselessness of existence felt by ‘the many’. The result was World
War II.
Following the chaos, death, destruction, and horror of World War II a new
generation followed the path of the post World War I generation. This generation
wanted to create a new culture that would be a break from the past. They did not
want an evolution of modernism; they wanted a paradigm shift in Western
Culture. They found their answer in sentiments for multilateral governance,
socialism, self esteem, feelings, compassion for the disadvantaged, and ‘new age
religions’—actually they were putting old wine into the new bottles of
postmodern thought. They turned patriotism upside down by making dissent a
key element of patriotism; they weakened national identify by stressing
multiculturalism and diversity; and they ridiculed Christianity as childish
superstition. Basically they did not want to seek a balance between shared belief,
national identity, patriotism, and the scientific method as the arbiter of truth.
They sought ‘progress’ toward their vision of an ideal world. They rejected
Imago Dei (that humans are created in God’s image) and they made people
superior to ideas with all ideas equal, rather than all people being equal before
God with ideas being either right or wrong.
Postmodern Thought
The term postmodernism was first used in 1947 with regard to architecture, from
there it move to art. By the end of the 1950s the term had spread to the inner
circles of most academic disciplines where there were endless debates to define
postmodern thought. Today those debates continue.
Although the term postmodern did not spread throughout society with the
Counter Cultural movement of the 1960s, the ideas in a revised form did. During
the 1960s postmodern ideas were expressed in terms of the rights of females and
blacks, compassion for the disadvantaged and people in less developed
countries, resentment of the ‘oppression’ of Christian churches, and how to avoid
getting killed in some distant land. This remains the heart of postmodern
thought today.
The extremes and violence of all movements based on Hegel’s philosophy (i.e.,
Communism, National Socialism, and Postmodernism) flow from an emphasis
19
on logic and thought, to the exclusion of existence (being), and on a
consciousness (mind) that creates its own version of reality. In other words there
is no objective reality. This means there is no objective right and wrong. There is
no Truth. The atheists of these movements have simply replaced the God of
religion with a supreme being in a state, nation, nature, leader, ethic group, or
social class. Since they ignore existence (being) these movements lack the benefits
of moral, ethical, or religious belief. It is this belief that provides individuals the
Free Will and inner strength to control their behavior, to be creative, to enjoy
freedom, to have self-esteem, and to be responsible for their actions. This belief,
not reason or thought, provides an inner compass, which Christians call the Holy
Spirit. It prevents the individual from being subservient to a state, nation, or
leader, but belief can also cause evil when carried to the extreme. To correct this
deficiency there must be a balance between belief and the scientific method.
Postmodern thought accepts some questionable premises:
1. Humans are mere mammals with large brains.
2. The mind (consciousness) is either identical with brain activity or
existentially dependent upon brain activity (materialism).
3. Freedom (and Free Will) is an illusion since all behavior is predetermined.
4. Change is application of the dialectic in order to achieve progress toward
a utopian vision.
5. The world consists of relatively fixed, static, discreet material particles.
6. Humans think in terms of space. Humans are the most intelligent adaptive
organisms on earth.
7. Human behavior is the automatic resultant of pre-existent forces as
motive flows into action, i.e. it is deterministic.
The theory presented here (StE) is based on alternative premises:
1. Humans are not mere animals with sensations. Human are distinctive
because they have an inner compass, which influences their behavior. The
belief of an individual, that person’s inner compass, might be God given
(the Holy Spirit), or the outcome of survival instincts.
2. Humans act upon both what they perceive from their external
environment and from their internal compass (affections).
3. Humans have Free Will since choice is experienced directly by the whole
person (both external perceptions and the inner compass), and the
behavior is only deterministic (mechanical responses) when the person
lacks an inner compass.
4. Change can be either good or bad depending on decisions made to affect
the rise and fall of groups. Humans are the creative force of change.
20
5. The world reflects continual adjustments of thought and action of life
within functional wholes made up of coordinated parts. Life is a matter of
time, change and quality, not of space, position and quantity. The flow
and essence of life can be visualized by the theory of Stability Through
Equilibrium (StE).
6. Humans think in terms of time and space. Time is fundamental to change
whether it is building, growth and improvement or declining, fall and
decay. The past, present and future are all aspects of the reality of living
but the future can never be the same as the past.
7. Human behavior involves choice, which is difficult when it requires effort
to overcome laziness, custom, tradition, feelings and emotions. Humans
can be creative because consciousness is the selection of images and choice
of reactions to those images.
Good and evil are terms that have emotions and political utility, but no true
meaning. They depend on desires and ends. One person’s, or group’s, good is
often other’s evil. For example, there is no agreement on the meaning of freedom,
responsibility, honesty, duty, or honor. The saying of Confucius “What you do
not like when done to yourself do not do to others” comes as close as anything to
being a universal value. Although most of the Ten Commandments have wide
acceptance, they certainly do not define good and evil for all humans. Evil is
complicated by the fact it is tied to religious beliefs in the goodness and power of
God. As the atheist Spinoza has noted (Ethics, IV, pref.) “As far as the terms good
and bad, they indicate nothing positive considered in themselves…. For one and
the same thing can at the same time be good, bad, and indifferent”. The history
of Ethics is evidence that this is an issue of continuing interest, yet to be resolved.
Good and evil are words that will always be disputed; they are too subjective.
Therefore, the solution in StE is to keep the subjective and the objective in
balance—to seek Truth through belief, the adversarial method, and the scientific
method. This solution might not satisfy the requirements of philosophy, yet it
provides a useful tool for the art of decision-making.
Since 1965 there has been a struggle between modernism and postmodernism.
Michel Foucault advocated raw power solutions to determine who gets what
when and how. Jacques Derrida advocated the deconstruction of language since
no language can describe reality. Richard Rorty advocated subjective agreement
within members of competing ‘tribes’ to challenge realism and thus resolve
conflict.
21
Under modernism people were expected to think in terms of equality of
opportunity, to think that through ambition, skill and personal effort individuals
can be successful, that society should merely remove artificial barriers and then
judge everyone by the same standards. However, postmodernists see these
values as oppressing some people, which makes them racism and sexism—the
greatest of evils. Therefore, they consider it moral to deconstruct such “obsolete“
views through de-stabilization of the core values (inner compass) of individuals.
(Kate Ellis, Socialist Review 91:2, 1989, pp, 39-42) This is why postmodernists often
use ad hominem attacks, set up straw men, make absurd moral equivalences, and
attempt to silence anyone who questions their views. (Stanley Fish, Free Speech,
1994, pp 68-69 and Andrea Dworkin, Intercourse, 1987, pp. 123-126)
Language is the key to how postmodernists want us to investigate the origin,
nature, methods and limits of knowledge. They claim that language concerning
interpersonal relations is a way to manipulate, and that it is really only an
expression of the unquestioned assumptions of the author. For postmodernists
words do not have a specific meaning; they can only be “unmasked”, i.e. to
determine different interpretations. Language, according to postmodern thought,
has been a means used by those in authority to manipulate others--the way that
authoritarian, patriarchal societies of Western Culture have kept women
and "others" in their place. Therefore, for postmodernists language never ends in
reality. Language is always a self-referential system for each individual.
Language only reveals more language. Deconstruction is, therefore, a neverending process. Fortunately StE allows such postmodern rhetoric to be ignored
since decision-makers can agree in advance on the meaning of words by using
objective standards and thus come to a shared awareness of reality.
We have not yet reached the era of postmodernism sought by Michel Foucault,
Jean-François Lyotard, Jacques Derrida, Richard Rorty and Stanley Fish.
However, since postmodernists reject many aspects of the modern era (17151965) this struggle has caused a decline and decay of Western Culture.
Stability Through Equilibrium
The theory of Stability through Equilibrium (StE) is an attempt to challenge how
today’s postmodernists misuse the ideas that after 1500 evolved into the modern
era of Western Culture (1715-1965). It is an attempt to link theory and practice, to
recognize that decisions should reflect both the freedom of individuals and the
22
need for common identity and cooperation, to take into consideration that there
is no utopia, and to recognize that all groups first rise and then fall.
Today there are at least three reasons why postmodern thought is an inadequate
tool for the art of decision-making:
1. It relies of moral relativism.
2. It does not reward performance.
3. It undermines Western Culture.
According to postmodern thought there is no existence (being), and individuals
can create their own personal versions (narratives) of reality. Therefore, shared
belief does not exist: what is good according to one narrative is evil to another.
This is moral relativism. Without moral, ethical, or religious belief there is no
way to differentiate between good and evil. Therefore, there can be no right or
wrong. Hegelian dialectic keeps the violent struggle going. It is self-perpetuating.
Postmodern thought redistribution rewards without regard to merit or
performance. Without objective truth postmodern thought attempts to eliminate
or modify many of the roles, rules, standards, and character that were accepted
as proper, good, and right prior to the 1960s. The result is that postmodernists
want to takes from wealthy, powerful, heterosexual, white males, who were the
cornerstone of the progressive economic and administrative rationalization and
differentiation of societies that evolved in Europe from 1500 to 1914, and to
redistribute rewards to minorities (that is, everyone else). This is why, for many,
multiculturalism has replaced the modern era ideal of the melting pot. And why
postmodernists consider Christianity evil, but understand how Islam serves the
human need for religion, and consider all cultures and ethnicities equally
valid. Postmodernists will never give this up. It is the fuel that keeps their
ideology alive: no struggle, no theme of oppressors versus oppressed. It is the
very basis of their nonjudgmental, nondiscriminatory ideology, in which the
elitists and ideas are equal, and in which disagreements are resolved by
discussion and compromise--but never by the use of force.
Ever since the invention of this challenge to modernism, by the anti-modernists
after World War I, the entire Western Culture has been reduced to a shadow of
its former self. All vestiges of masculinity have been diminished. This includes
fatherhood, father figures (authorities), fathers being responsible for their family
unit, and the sanctity of marriage; as well as changes in education (all levels), the
military, the church, journalism, and with regard to sexual relations.
Postmodernists using “political correctness” have perverted all of Western
23
Culture. Paradoxically, many postmodernists in Europe and America have
embraced Muslims as a tool of violence to destroy Western Culture.
For some it is difficult to understand the theory of Stability through Equilibrium
(StE) and thus easy to ignore or discredit. Here are the six key elements of the
theory:
 First, it is offered only as a helpful tool in the art of decision-making, not
as a contribution to philosophy.
 Second, stability is the condition of a system that maintains balance
among its parts through continual adjustments, not a condition of
permanence or an attempt to preserve the status quo.
 Third, equilibrium is a means of self-regulating (homeostasis) to maintain
the internal stability of the system regardless of any internal disruptions
or input from its external environment.
 Fourth, equilibrium is a dynamic process that relies on feedback in order
to make necessary changes. This process requires both contingency
planning and the ability to recognize, and respond to, random events.
 Fifth, equilibrium requires structures and processes to insure checks and
balances.
 Sixth, Conflict/Cooperation is a dynamic whole with two interacting
parts; the two parts cannot be separated in the theory of Stability through
Equilibrium (StE).
As with all theories Stability through Equilibrium (StE) is subject to revision.
Although it certainly has implications for philosophy, there is no intent to
describe, or explain, it in the technical, academic terms used in the study of
philosophy. If the words used do not accurately describe reality they need to be
changed, or defined better, so as to insure effective communication. If the theory
is shown to be lacking as a tool for the art of decision-making, it needs to be
modified.
Conclusion
The adversarial approach, as practiced by lawyers, politicians, and academics, is
the outcome of interpretations of Hegel’s dialectic theory and his utopian vision.
As a result secular authority is drifting toward ever-greater centralization—the
“whole” of which Hegel speaks—and endless self-perpetuating conflict. An
alternative is needed for decision-making. The theory of Stability through
Equilibrium (StE) seeks self-regulating systems of conflict/cooperation that
maintain a stable system through coordinated responses of its parts. Also this
24
theory would encourage decentralization and greater freedom. StE should
replace the adversarial approach for decision-making in public affairs, both
foreign and domestic.
Copyright © 2008
Armiger Cromwell Center, 3750 Peachtree Road, NE, Suite 374, Atlanta, GA 30319-1322. 404-201-7374.
Permission is granted to forward this article by e-mail to friends or colleagues on a fair use basis. For
reprint permission, contact Armiger Cromwell Center at armigercc@comcast.net
Back to Contents
CIVIL-MILITARY RELATIONS
11 May 2006
Dr. Sam Holliday
SYNOPSIS: The military instrument must be effective in the application of force,
and it must be directed against appropriate threats. These can be achieved
through professionalism. In a representative democracy it must also provide
security for the interests of the whole nation. This is achieved through the selfdiscipline of those in the military establishment and the concept of civilian control
of the military. The growth of this concept has been slow, halting, and blundering:
it takes its embryonic form in many places at many times, to die in some, but to
grow in others. Since this term has many meanings, there is a need for a
conceptual framework that can be a useful guide in civil-military relations.
************************************************************
PREFACE
Civil-military relations are so broad that no brief essay can hope to touch all pertinent
aspects. Concern for practical details often obscures the basic assumptions. Some writers
start from the premise that the military is to be regarded with suspicion. Some would
prevent those in uniform from being assigned to positions outside of the armed forces.
For those seeking the precision and clarity of science or law the mystical nature of civilmilitary relations causes frustration. This essay attempts to avoid these pitfalls.
The aim of this essay is to describe the concept of civilian control of the military and to
present a conceptual framework, which will be a practical and useful guide.
25
SYMBOL OR SUBSTANCE
It is necessary for leaders to select symbols that elicit the desired behavior. -SCH
The phrase civilian control of the military has inevitably produced more emotion
than thought. Like all political symbols, it can have many meanings and serve
many purposes; but as with all such symbols, it has a basic legitimacy. While
the term is used most often by one civilian group in some bureaucratic struggle
with another civilian group, its continuing significance rests on a firm
foundation of freedom subverted by the military at many times and in many
places.
The military is but an instrument used to apply force. The military instrument must be
available, sharp, strong, and suited to whatever task national security might require. The
military instrument provides the means of applying force in order to sustain, protect, and
defend certain things, ideas, and conditions from threat. The nature of the threat would
determine the nature of the instrument.
The civilian control that the authors of the Constitution of the United States had
in mind was congressional control, and Congress remains the seat of sovereign
authority under the Constitution. Even inclusion of the role of Commander-inChief for the President was a hotly debated subject. But it was finally agreed
that in time of War someone had to head the armed forces. Today, however,
many claim that civilian control stems from the office of the Commander-in
Chief. At times some in the Executive Branch other than the Department of
Defense (particularly the State Department) claim that the principle of civilian
control justifies supremacy of their point of view. Each of these three
interpretations considers civilian control as the authority of a specific group
over others. It is thus not surprising that each group defines civilian control as
its control over “the military”.

There is a fourth interpretation of civilian control. This concept applies without
regard to groups or personalities; it is the existence of sufficient constraints to
prevent the use of force except to protect the value preferences of the whole
nation. This concept prevents an exact statement of who controls the military,
but it does require an exact statement of how that control is maintained. The
following conclusions regarding these four interpretations of civilian control
can be made:
None of the four interpretations of civilian control is by itself correct.
26


Civilian control is exercised by, or under the authority of, the elected members of
the federal government.
Supreme authority over the military rests not with any individual or group, but
with the Constitution.
Civilian control of the military is a symbol, but it is meaningless unless it also has
substance. It gained that substance from a history of trial and error, victory and
defeat, freedom and servitude.
THE REQUISITES
The nation state, large armed forces, and technology presented the challenge of how to
make armed forces effective and efficient while insuring that they served the interests of
the whole nation.--SCH
Effectiveness, responsiveness, and representativeness are the requisites of
civilian control of the military. Effectiveness is implicit. The military instrument
must be able to accomplish whatever purpose is set for it, and it must succeed
with a reasonable loss of life and a reasonable expenditure of money, material
and time. Responsiveness is implied by control. The word civilian implies
representativeness. When the military instrument is used in the interests of the
whole nation, representativeness has been achieved.
Effectiveness
Whenever armed forces are not actively engaged in conflict, there is a danger
their purpose will be forgotten. The routine of peacetime, the sensitivity of
prestige, the reveries of past glories, the restrictions of false economy, and the
distraction of more immediate tasks all may sap conflict effectiveness.
The worth of any military is measured first by its ability to keep conflict at the
lowest useful level of violence, and secondly by victory in conflict with
minimum losses.
It must be remembered that the force needed in conflict is not solely physical. It
is not just the impact of steel, flesh, fire, and blood. These are the superficial
qualities of force. Force is fundamentally an expression of a clash of wills.
Violence is tied to force only because it is a common currency that is able to
measure will.
27
Effectiveness means a strong military—strong in will, strong in weapons,
strong in organization, strong in capable leadership at all levels.
Effectiveness also means an informed military. Informed of the changing
nature of conflict. Informed of all threats. Informed of the goals for which it
must apply force. Informed of the techniques of applying force.
Effectiveness also means an efficient military. In both its development and use,
it must achieve a maximum of the nation’s goals at a reasonable cost in lives,
dollars, materiel, and time.
In the United States, the role of the military in providing internal security is
often overlooked. The ability to maintain order, if not loyalty, within its own
ranks has always been a necessity for the existence of any community—family,
clan, city, empire, church, or nation-state. The form of the military instrument
appropriate for the application of force against an internal threat is usually very
different from that appropriate to meet an external threat.
Responsiveness
Over the centuries three methods, which mutually support each other, have
been used to insure the responsiveness of armed forces: (1) separating, (2)
checking, and (3) gentling.
The separation of powers between the executive, legislative, and judicial
branches of our government has the same basic purpose as separation of the
various parts of the military instrument. This separation places portions of
authority in different hands, requiring for action joint consensus of those
holding authority. The result is a balanced system. There is an assumption that
the pressure of necessity will bring some consensus, but that extremes will be
less likely. There are two types of balancing. Armed forces can be balanced
against other armed forces. Or the legal authority over the military can be
balanced by its separation.
Checking of the military has primarily been accomplished through legality, i.e.
the lack of the title to govern. Provisions for checking the military are to be
found in the US Constitution that provides a place for policy direction,
remedying of abuses, and safeguards against misuse of force by any group.
28
Gentling of the military can be accomplished through fear, political
indoctrination, and restricted entry. These are methods more suitable for an
authoritarian regime than for a representative democracy. A nation such as the
United States must place its primary emphasis on another method of gentling:
an ethic that will cause the military to be among the strongest supporters of
civilian control. Such an ethic should provide the inner strength for selfregulation.
One of the most vivid examples of gentling is the chivalric system of the
Middle Ages. From it came the manners and behavior that would make life
interesting and agreeable: the mode of the gentleman to soften barbarism and
cruelty for the mutual benefit of all. The code of Duty, Honor, Country is the
contemporary version of this ancient standard of conduct. To the extent that it
is only a flamboyant phrase, it has no practical value. To the extent it is used to
demand saint-like behavior, it can defeat its purpose.
Responsiveness, like the other two requisites, is an ideal. In the extreme, it
would mean no action without direction from a higher authority and also
immediate, full, and unquestioning obedience to all orders. When considered
with the other two requisites, it is obvious that the ideal cannot, and should
not, even be reached. Responsiveness comes from discipline, dedication, and
loyalty, together with reasoned initiative.
Representativeness
Throughout history for the military to represent the interests of an individual, a
political party, an ideology, a social class, or a region, has not been rare. In fact,
for the military to represent such interests has been far more common than for
the military to represent the interests of the whole nation and to provide
security equally for the interests of all.


For this essay, representativeness is taken to mean the exercise of control of the
military instrument by, or under the authority of, the elected members of
government. This avoids the argument that some elite group might better
represent the true interests of the nation than those given authority through an
elective process. Therefore, representativeness includes:
The structuring (lines of authority and communication) and the procedures within
the government to provide a national strategy to direct the military instrument.
Procedures to insure the faithful implementation of the national strategy by the
military instrument.
29
Often structuring alone is, incorrectly, how civilian control of the military is
viewed. In management theory structuring is most often called organizing, and
addresses departmentation, line and staff authority relationship, span of
control, decentralization of authority, and specialization of labor. Through this
prism some attempt to specify how civilians and those in uniform should fit
within an organizational structure. They erroneously attempt to restrict the
assignment of those in uniform, or to suggest that they should not be involved
in “policy or political” decisions. Or they erroneously attempt to restrict the
involvement of the civilian leadership in “military” matters. This view misses
the true significance of civilian control of the military. Representativeness is far
more than structuring.
Since authoritarian regimes can, and most often do, have armed forces that are
effective and responsive, it is representativeness that makes civilian control of the
military peculiar to a representative democracy.
Blending
Responsiveness makes the military but an instrument. Effectiveness makes that
instrument strong and useful in the application of force. Representativeness
determines the purposes for which that useful instrument will be used. All
three of these requisites must be in harmony. The critical part of civil-military
relations in a representative democracy is the judgment used to blend, and
balance, these requisites into a whole. The difficulty in obtaining just the right
blend is intensified by the fact that there is no absolute and universal formula
for the best mixture.
How do you get the right blend? Part of the answer can be found in an
understanding of the three requisites themselves. Part of the answer can be
found in an ethic held by the military that provides self-discipline.
THE SOLDIER’S ETHIC
In protracted asymmetrical Warfare the harder right and easier wrong are often
difficult to determine and the choices are indeed problematic, but this is when the
soldier most needs self-discipline and sound judgment. --SCH
30
The Soldier’s Ethic is a means of self-discipline to obtain a blending of the three
contradictory requisites. It provides a form of professionalism that is
specifically tailored for a representative democracy.
Military professionals provide an effective and responsive instrument, but the
blows struck are beyond the concern of these professionals. At this point
professionalism meets the practical needs of an authoritarian regime, but it has
serious shortcomings for a representative democracy. How is the dignity of the
individual to be protected? How are the values of peaceful and prosperous free
individuals to be reconciled with the disciplined cohesiveness of an effective
combat unit? Within the value system of the military professionals of
representative democracies certain distinctive qualities developed in attempts
to harmonize these contradictions. These distinctive qualities became the
Soldier’s Ethic.
It is a mistake to consider the Soldier’s Ethic a portrait of the norm of the officer
corps of any nation. It is not a norm; it is an ideal, a goal for the military to seek.
Knights often failed to live up to their code of chivalry, but that did not lessen
its importance or its valuable contribution to progress and civilization.
The Soldier’s Ethic should not be limited to those in uniform; it is appropriate
for both civilians and those in uniform in the military establishment.
Experience to date suggests that the vast majority of the civilians in the military
establishment either arrive with the Soldier’s Ethic or absorb it during their
tour. Hopefully, it becomes a part of the character of all of those in uniform
during their service as they strive to live up to the Duty, Honor, Country code.
Outstanding ability as a conflict-manager, excellence as a warrior, superiority
in technical skills, or time in service does not in themselves mean an individual
will accept the Soldier’s Ethic. Or use it as a guide. It requires an extensive
complex of customs, traditions, screening, and indoctrination to maintain the
Soldier’s Ethic. To some these rituals might seem strange and outdated, but it is
through them that the nation’s survival is insured.
EVOLUTION OF THE CONCEPT
History suggests that, as a society of men grows more orderly, the application of force
tends to become better ordered. – John W. Hackett
31
The growth of the concept of civilian control of the military has been slow,
halting, and blundering: it takes its embryonic form in many places at many
times, to die in some, but to grow in others. It has been an integral part of the
cycle of groups. In the initial stage the survival instinct brings out the ferocity
and ambition in humans; this creates strong leaders able to build and defend
the group. Later there is an accumulation of surplus, the development of new
technology, and new ways to do things. In this stage there are attempts to
obtain control of the military instrument—usually struggles between those
seeking centralization and those seeking decentralization. This ends in either
some form of representative democracy—and civilian control of the military—or
an authoritarian regime—or military dictatorship -- consolidates its control
over the military instrument.
Europe Before the 19th Century
From the universal melee following the collapse of the Roman imperial system,
monarchs emerged in Europe. Or rather, certain men became the focus of
authority because they could control the use of force. However, as early as the
12th century the aristocratic knights lost their arm-bearing monopoly, and
between 1450 and 1550 there was a conspicuous transformation of attitudes
and institutions. But it was not until the end of the 18th century that the wealthy
aristocracy, which was the product of the Middle Ages, and mercenaries lost
their dominance of organized violence.
Out of the irrational slaughter of the 16th and 17th centuries came a universal
conviction that there must be some way to control violence. Also the
professional soldier was the result of the identification of military expertise.
However, the nation-in-arms and human nature, as depicted by Hobbes, was to
make professionalism an incomplete answer. It was still necessay to find a way
to reconcile the dilemma of effectiveness, responsiveness, and
representativeness.
Growth of Professionalism
During the 19th century, the aristocrats and mercenaries became professional
soldiers. This was partly the consequence of an increase in the complexity of
military affairs. It was no longer possible for an individual to know what he
had to know about the use of violence and still follow another occupation. It
was partly the result of narrowing the concerns of the professional solder to the
state’s external security, thus lessening the chance of militarism. With a
32
declaration of War, the professional soldier would come forth to champion the
interests of his state in a duel of arms.
Professionalism alone was never able to provide a solution to another problem-the narrow, selfish interests of factions coming forth to challenge the interests
of the whole nation. Professionalism could not insure that the military
instrument was actually used in the best interest of all. For example, Hitler
make the military take their oath to the Head of State rather than the people of
Germany. Nor was professionalism any guarantee of success in battle. Nor was
professionalism any guarantee the military would not be drawn into politics.
An integral part of all professions is the claim to know better than anyone else
the matters related to their profession. However, no representative democracy
has been—or is ever likely to be—willing to grant the license of professionalism
to any specific group for the security of the nation. Alone professionalism is an
insufficient answer for a representative democracy— the Soldier’s Ethic is also
needed.
Civil-Military Relations in America
In the United States, civil-military relations have turned on attempts to enhance
the effectiveness of the military forces through centralized control on the one
hand and fear of the Man on Horseback on the other. When the Constitution
was written, emotional opposition to a permanent regular army was very
strong. The Constitution divides authority to control the military
establishment. However, by 1813, even Thomas Jefferson, a leading opponent
of the permanent army and all things military, came to the realization that a
nation required the capability to maintain order and defend itself with force.
Over the years the actual power of the President to control the military
instrument has continually increased in relation to the power of Congress. Of
necessity there is a degree of vagueness in the structure specifying the lines of
authority and communication.
General Andrew Jackson’s actions in Florida in 1818 are of special interest to
anyone studying civil-military relations. Jackson was instructed to conduct a
campaign to capture escaped slaves and quiet hostile Indians—which he did. In
the process, he raised his own army, awarded commissions in the United States
Army to militiamen and Indians, executed some British officers, and drove the
Spanish out of Pensacola. While the rewards or consequences of these acts were
33
to rest with the country, Jackson made the decisions. The War Department and
the President only heard of them after they occurred.
With the military establishment of 1898 the United States might have fought a
good War of 1812—but not more. As an aftermath of this awakening, Secretary
of War Elihu Root was able to centralize control of the military to a degree that
would have been seen as a sure road to military despotism in the first years of
the republic. It can be said that Root introduced into the military establishment
peacetime management as a substitute for the previous policy of fighting wars.
Root wanted to be able to develop those armed forces the United States was
most likely to need in meeting future threats.
The most aggressive of Root’s opponents during the year of hearings before the
Military Affairs Committee was General Nelson A. Miles. As the Commanding
General of the Army, he was the country’s senior professional soldier. One of
Miles’ main arguments was the need for safeguards to forestall the possibility
of one staff to plan and direct the development and use of all armed forces.
While seeking ever-greater influence in the name of security, such a staff could,
General Miles argued, endanger the interests of the governed.
In United States it is now recognized that the military instrument is more than
combat units and their leaders, and the name changed from the military to the
military establishment. It consists of those in uniform and civilians, of which
some are retired from active duty, some are veterans, and some never served
on active duty. Both those in uniform and civilians provide leadership. Civilian
leadership is a function of the elected members of the Federal Government and
is exercised by actions of both the President and Congress, through those
individuals, both civilian and military, appointed and approved by the
President and Congress to positions of authority in the military establishment.
There is no general category with which to identify those suitable for
leadership of the military establishment. The desired qualities can be found
among the military—whichever definition is used—as well as among civilians.
For these reasons in is incorrect to visualize control of the military in
organizational terms.
Since the days of General Jackson there has been no serious threat to civilian
control in the United States. The issues have been: Control by which civilians?
How is control accomplished? Yet, the danger of the military instrument being
controlled solely by the Head of State always reminds – making the Soldier’s
Ethic essential for a representative democracy.
34
PRACTICAL APPLICATIONS
American politicans have often been wary of the Man on Horseback. They imagine a
military man waiting in the wings to take over. Following George Washington’s
example there has never been such a person, and it is the self-discipline of those in
uniform that will prevent it in the future.--SCH
While an understanding of civil-military relations requires knowledge of the
basic assumptions underlying the subject and its history, it is the practical
applications regarding the behavior of individuals that should most concern us.
How should those on active duty and retirees behave in keeping with civilian
control of the military?
Those on active duty have a responsibility to state their views on military
matters as clearly and forcefully as possible. This includes both questions of
policy and the viability of the military as an institution. Policy decisions require
consideration of all contending positions. Those who have the courage to
sacrifice their lives for their country should also have the courage to sacrifice
their careers for their country. This means, “speaking truth to authority”—be
that authority military or civilian superiors.
Yet “speaking truth to authority” does not mean going public with military
matters. In fact it is best that such matters not become involved in patrician
politics. The military should remain apolitical. Civilian leaders are best
qualified to take such debates public. However, there are times when it is
appropriate for the military to go public: when testifying before Congress or on
issues involving the combat effectiveness of the military. On this issue, there is
never an absolute right or wrong. It is always a matter of judgment regarding
what is in the best interests of the nation. However, Duty, Honor, Country is
the best guide.
Retirees have another set of challenges. They should participate actively in the
governance of our country. Their experience, knowledge, patriotism, and
dedication are much needed. However, they should present themselves as
citizens or patriots, not as members of the military. There is an invisible line
they should not cross. It is not that they need hide their military service, just
that they should not attempt to use it to gain acceptance or political advantage.
35
They must not use their military background as a springboard in patrician
politics.
The concept of civilian control of the military requires retirees to recognize the
distinction of being in the military establishment and being a civilian. The line
they should not cross is not always clear, but it can be found if they use the
Soldier’s Ethic as a guide. To use military pedigree to gain points in partisan
politics does the military a disservice. To offer advice on present and future
policy based on their experience is one thing, to find fault with the past
decisions of others, or to make personal attacks, is something else. Retirees
should not wear their uniform, or use pictures of themselves in uniform, when
they participate in partisan politics. Nor should they use their military titles.
They can just use their name, or if a title is appropriate they should use a
civilian title.
It is often difficult for retirees to insure that their words and actions do not go
over the line. This is even more difficult for a warrior who believes strongly in
his institution, ideas or cause. But it can be done. Retirees can make a great
contribution if they would look forward, rather than backward. Our country
needs those with experience to think out side of the box of conventional
wisdom and to suggest future polices for the structuring and use of the
military. It does not need retirees finding fault with the leadership style or
decisions of the leaders (civilian or military) of the military establishment.
A CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK
True bravery lies somewhere in between being a coward and being foolhardy. – Miguel
Cervantes
The purpose of this essay is to provide much needed conceptual order to the
complex and confused subject of civil-military relations in a representative
democracy. Hopefully, the conceptual framework will be useful in ordering the
future, by providing hypotheses that suggest things to look for and
relationships to think about and compare. To that end the following definitions
and hypotheses are offered:
1. The phrase civilian control of the military has been, and will continue to be, used by
various civilian groups to elicit emotional support in efforts to enhance their power.
36
2. The phrase civilian control of the military is another way to say those organizations
capable of applying force should be only instruments, but effective instruments,
which are controlled by, and on behalf of, the whole nation.
3. Civilian control of the military provides a concept that is fundamental to civil-military
relations in a representative democracy and serves to blend effectiveness,
responsiveness, and representativeness into a continuous whole.
4. The Soldier’s Ethic is the professional standard of conduct for the military in a
representative democracy; thus, the Soldier’s Ethic is instrumental in strengthening
civilian control of the military when it becomes an integral part of the values and
attitudes of individuals, both civilian and military, in the military establishment.
5. Civilian leadership of the military establishment is a function of the elected members of the
Federal Government and is exercised by actions of both the President and Congress,
through those individuals, both civilian and military, appointed and approved by the
President and Congress to positions of authority in the military establishment.
6. Civilians in the military establishment other than the appointees are specialists hired
for some skill or service; these individuals are not part of the civilian leadership of the
military establishment.
7. Civilians in other departments of the Federal Government are not part of the civilian
leadership of the military establishment.
8. Merit and experience should be the bases for the assignment of individuals to
positions of responsibility in the military establlishement, as well as in other parts of
the government, and those in uniform, or retired from military service, should not be
excluded from consideration for any position.
AFTERWORD
This essay is based on ideas first presented in The Tao of Thor (Army War College,
Carlisle Barracks, PA, January 1968). The title The Tao of Thor reflects the point of view of
that manuscript and this essay. Tao, the key to an ancient Chinese philosophy, is best
translated as “The Way”, and was selected to recognize the need for the judgment used to
blend, and balance, several qualities into a whole. Thor is the Norse god of war, and was
selected over War, Warfare, and conflict to recognize the mystical nature of the subject.
The original manuscript presents the history from which the ideas in this essay were
developed.
Copyright © 2006 Armiger Cromwell Center, 3750 Peachtree Road, NE, Suite 374, Atlanta, GA
30319-1322. Permission is granted to download this essay, or to forward it to friends or
colleagues, on a fair use basis. For reprint permission contact Armiger Cromwell Center.
armigercc@comcast.net
BACK TO CONTENTS
37
ON BEHAVIOR (Draft of 28 Nov 05) by Dr. Sam Holliday
Action/Warrior
Thinking/Sage
Stability/Equilibrium
Balance/Pragmatist
The four paintings "Action/Warrior”, "Thinking/Sage", “Stability/ Equilibrium”,
and "Balance/Pragmatist” are an attempt to describe behavior in art rather than
in words. Does the pursuit of happiness or flight from fear shape an individual's
personality? Is personality created by nature or nurture? It makes little
difference, since we can only observe behavior. And it is in behavior, not in
personality, that we must seek understanding. Yet how a person pursues
happiness does shape behavior. And how a person takes flight because of fear
also shapes behavior. Does the person seek happiness, or take flight, through
Action, interaction with others, dreaming, or Thinking--or through some
combination of these four behaviors? Two of the paintings represent the
extremes of Action and Thinking, and two represent the “Golden Mean”.
38
Action is only the reverse side of
Thinking, and both are necessary for
the existence of the other just as the
tropics must burn and the arctic
must freeze in order that there may
be a temperate zone. In this model
there is no attempt to eliminate
extremes, instead the aim is to
achieve a synthesis of two extreme
behaviors (Action and Thinking) to
form another type of behavior
(Balance). It is suggested that the
“Golden Mean” of behavior is
Balance, which combines Action and
Thinking and also includes two
other forms of behavior: interaction with others and dreaming.
These four paintings and this short essay are no more than an intuitive concept
(artistic contemplation). They use both art and language, as complementary
media to express meaning about a complex topic on which there is limited
consensus: human behavior. They express the mutual relationship of feeling and
thought, of emotion and ideas. They are an attempt to objectify behavior in
language and visual form. They recognize that nothing is simple, nothing static,
and that everything impinges in some way on everything else. In the past
William Blake was one of the few who combined writing and art. Yet this
combination is a worthy attempt, because both the visual form and language
have unique possibilities and limitations to symbolize and to conceptualize.
The aim of this conceptual framework is to recognize and analyze behavior
through art so that anyone can understand this complex topic. It attempts to
bring order to a conglomeration of irrational continua (frequent recurring
patterns of observable phenomena). It is the result of research that gathered
evidence, describes human behavior, and could be considered a hypothesis. It
certainly is not presented as ultimate truth. If this effort is to ever be anything
more than a useful conceptual framework, it will require extensive verification
and revision—that is, testing of the hypothesis
.
Action/Warrior
39
Action is necessary to achieve goals. Reputations are made through Action.
Action can result in either success or failure, and it is this fact that produces a
high--and thus the most visible form of behavior. But happiness through Action
is short lived. It lasts no longer than the action. Happiness from Action is only
possible when there is stress--the higher the stress the greater the exhilaration.
The success of any group--family, shop, school, community, church, club,
company, village, profession, association, party, state, nation, or religion-requires Action to achieve group goals. Therefore, all groups reward Action. It
should be no surprise that most myths extol the virtue of Action, and it should be
no surprise that many people believe that Action is the best way to achieve
happiness.
Action is bright, dramatic, chaotic, and exciting. However, Action alone can
produce great unhappiness, and when carried to the extreme it leads to selfdestruction. The Warrior will surely die during his fighting.
Thinking/Sage
Thinking is the
rarest form of
behavior. It is the
opposite
of
Action.
Most
behavior is related
to experience, not
to Thinking. We
do what we have
been taught to do,
or have learned
from experience, or in accordance with "common sense"--which is learning used
to advance self-interest. However, if you are to do the harder right rather than
the easier wrong, you must think. Thinking is difficult, which might be why it is
the least common way to pursue happiness or to seek protection. Thinking starts
with ideas, but Thinking itself is the processing, dissecting, refining, and original
application of those ideas. Ideas can come from listening or viewing, but new
ideas usually come from reading. Thinking can be done in the mind alone, but
usually it takes place during writing. Not all reading results in Thinking, since
reading can be a way to escape the reality of the present -- in which case it is a
40
form of dreaming. The exhilaration that comes from Thinking can be as strong as
that from Action, but since it only takes place in a person’s mind others do not
recognize it. To gain recognition the thinker must resort to Action and interaction
with others -- things the true thinker does not do readily.
Thinking provides openings to creativity, yet it is orderly, brooding, and lacks
emotion. Therefore, Thinking taken to the extreme results in extinction through
atrophy. The Sage will surely die in the fetal position with endless thoughts.
Action and Thinking are extremes, and lasting happiness and productive lives
are achieved through Balance—the “Golden Mean”.
Stability/Equilibrium
Rather than limiting behavior to either Action or Thinking, the aim should be to
combine these two behaviors. The aim should be homeostatic equilibrium, or
stability, between Action and Thinking. Such equilibrium is composed of
reciprocal and endless interactions; it is a complex system maintaining itself
through responses of its parts to any disruptive situation or provocation.
Stability seeks to avoid the extremes of inaction (Thinking) and chaos (Action); it
provides for an endless process of change and adjustments to the environment.
Whenever Action is perceived Thinking arises, and whenever inaction is
perceived chaos exists. All perception involves opposites: long and short oppose
in distance; reality and fantasy are opposing thoughts; high and low oppose in
41
height; shrill and deep oppose in tone; before and after oppose in sequence;
difficult and simple oppose in degree. As so it is with Action and Thinking.
Moreover there is danger in extremes: fill your home with valuables and you
invite burglars; be arrogant over your success and your downfall is sure to
follow; eat and drink all you desire and prepare to die. Whoever is self-righteous
cannot gain respect; whoever is self-centered cannot be loved; whoever seeks
glory cannot lead. Those who strive to shape everything as they see fit will never
succeed. Therefore, the truly wise avoid the extremes of Action and Thinking.
They do all they can do, they accept what they cannot do, and they are wise
enough to know the difference.
Stability does not attempt to eliminate extreme behavior; in fact it accepts
extreme behavior as a necessity. It only seeks to insure that one extreme behavior
does not eliminate other extreme behaviors. The aim is a system that is selfregulated (homeostatic). Stability is not permanence (an absence of change) or
firmness in position. It is not preservation of the status quo. Nor does it seek
ideological conformity, predictability, or a specific outcome. Balance is pragmatic
behavior that preserves stability.
Goals
Having specific goals is the greatest obstacle in the pursuit of happiness, yet
having specific goals is also essential to the realization of happiness. Too often
individuals set goals that can be defined in terms of fame, fortune, status, and
rectitude. The pursuit of such goals can bring happiness; in fact, if you have no
such goals you will probably never achieve happiness. Nevertheless, such goals
can also be the cause of great unhappiness, because they can rarely be achieved.
Anytime any level of fame, fortune, status, or rectitude is reached there is
another higher level. Therefore, each individual must learn to be thankful,
content, and happy with whatever level of fame, fortune, status, or rectitude they
have achieved through his or her own efforts—in the pursuit of his or her bliss.
For individuals to be responsible for their behavior they must at times reflect on
why they behave as they do. If an individual is to be happy in the long run, he or
she needs to be aware of the advantages and disadvantages of the different ways
to pursue happiness. Too often an individual finds happiness, or protection from
threats, through a specific behavior, and will then keep repeating that behavior
without realizing that he or she can achieve happiness through other behaviors.
When this repetitive behavior is linked with dreams and desires the result is
addiction. Also it is easy for an individual to believe that his or her way of
42
achieving happiness is in some way superior to how others achieve happiness-this results in a "true believer". All "true believers" are extremists who have
difficulty accepting those who do not think or act as they do.
Two Other Behaviors
Interaction with others is most often combined with Action since human beings
usually identify themselves as members of specific groups. Moreover, most
actions require the cooperation and support of others. Therefore, groups give
their rewards to those who interact effectively with others. It should be no
surprise that those who are successful in politics, business, and other
organizational activities usually find happiness and protection through a
combination of action and interaction with others. The behavior of those who
pursue happiness, or flee from danger, through interaction with others have five
things in common; they:
1. Make each person they interact with believe he or she is an important
individual, with unique interests, strengths, and opinions.
2. Are genuinely interested in other people.
3. Are good listeners who encourage others to talk about themselves and
their interests.
4. Discuss the other person's interests in a way that convinces that person
there is agreement.
5. Are happy, positive persons who smile and laugh a lot—they are not
grouches.
Dreaming is accomplished in the mind of an individual; therefore, any person
can pursue happiness, or seek protection, through dreaming at any time and for
any length of time. A person can dream about the past (what might have been)
the future (what might be) the next world (what heaven and hell will be)
romance, sports, careers, family, and friends. Although an individual
accomplishes it, dreaming can be done with others--as it often is in churches,
theaters, concert and lecture halls, stadiums, and counseling centers. Dreaming
lessens stress; it can bring contentment, acceptance of whatever fate has brought,
and bliss. Alone, and carried to the extreme, dreaming results in atrophy;
however, when combined with Thinking the result is creativity, and when
creativity is combined with Action and interaction with others the result is
change.
43
Balance/Pragmatist
The behavior of pragmatists is dedicated to the never-ending struggle to achieve
the most effective and efficient Balance of Action/Thinking and of
force/knowledge. In this struggle he/she must also balance good/bad and
virtue/evil. Throughout history Balance has been the key to success, if it has also
recognized the necessity of the extremes of Action and Thinking and the
inevitability of good, bad, virtue, and evil.
Many have sought this Balance but none more that the Roman emperor Trajan
(53-117 A.D.). In general, the Romans at their best were successful because they
frequently achieved the “Golden Mean” between Action and Thinking. Also
Rome’s decline and fall came when Balance was neglected. Balance is somber,
simple, disciplined, and dedicated which is best illustrated by bas-relief—an art
form popular among the Romans at their best.
Balance is often behavior in the service of others. Yet as stated by Goethe: “Wer
nicht für andre thut, thut nichts für sich” (He who does nothing for others does,
by that very token, nothing for himself). Each individual that is striving for any
goal, by the limitations of all humans, also falls short of perfection. Endowed
with infinite aspirations, but with only limited ability, individuals cannot but fall
short. While Action and Thinking are behaviors which strive for perfection—or a
utopia—Balance strives for the best under the circumstances. Balance is the art of
the possible, yet it requires struggle as much as the extremes of Action and
Thinking. Decline and decay comes only when there is no struggle. To struggle
44
and fall short of aspirations is to be expected, but failure comes when the fire of
struggle is extinguished.
Pragmatists do the best they can, and then move on without second thoughts.
Conclusions
While happiness and protection can be achieved through all four behaviors, the
greatest happiness and the greatest protection over the long run comes from a
balance of all four. The danger of neglecting one or more of them is great. In our
youth we tend to repeat that which has brought us happiness, protection,
recognition, and success. Whatever we repeat eventually becomes a habit, which
in turn becomes part of our character or personality. Whenever we neglect one or
two of the four behaviors, there is the danger we will look with disfavor on those
who gain their happiness and protection from the behaviors we neglect.
As with all hypothesis, the conceptual framework presented here is subject to
revision. If the words do not accurately describe reality they need to be changed,
or defined, so as to insure communication of the concept. No words are perfect;
words are only tools that help or hinder communication. The words must be
sufficiently well defined to achieve clear communication, yet accurately describe
what happens in the real world. Is the reality described by the concept presented
here such a mystery it is best understood through art rather than words?
It is suggested that we can best approach this subject with the mind of an artist
rather than the mind of a scientist. It is too dynamic and complicated to fit within
the current requirements of scientific theory. The fog is too thick for us to
establish meaningful categories, variables, and matrixes. Even the best of minds
know too little, our understanding is too limited, and there is too little consensus.
Yet the average person much decide between the contending positions on matter
affected by human behavior. The indecision and procrastination of a Hamlet is
not a wise choice, nor is the blindness of certainty on something that is not
understood. Therefore, it is suggested that the hypothesis presented here is the
best choice, since it is a simplified model of the phenomena involved. It is
presented as the “Occam’s razor” of this topic.
How should these four paintings be displayed? Action might be on the left, with
Thinking on the right, and Balance between them. This would represent a linear
continuum with polar extremes—how many see behavior. In such a display
Stability would be placed above Balance. However, this would be an inaccurate
45
representation. More accurate would be two circles with the inner circle shaped
like the Yin-Yang symbol. Thinking would be the feminine, red Yin, and Action
would be the masculine, blue Yang. The ring between the two circle would be
purple (a combination of red and blue) and contain Balance, Stability, Interaction
with others, and Dreaming. Interaction with others should be placed close to
Action (Yang), and Dreaming should be placed close to Thinking (Yin). Balance
should be placed at one end of the “S” between Yin and Yang, and Stability
should be placed at the other end of that “S”.
The conceptual framework presented here will surely not receive academic
acclaim. It does not focus on the narrow, the specific, and documented evidence.
Yet, it provides a way to analyze behavior and to communicate with others about
behavior; it helps explain what has happened and helps foretell what will
happen. Hopefully, this set of four paintings and the description of those
paintings will help anyone to better understand behavior.
What can we learn from this set of four paintings? First, that attempting to
achieve happiness or protection from any one of the four behaviors alone will
result in unhappiness and destruction from taking that behavior to the extreme.
Second, that each of the behaviors has its advantages and disadvantages. Third,
which we will tend to repeat those behaviors that have brought us happiness or
provided us protection in the past, and to neglect other behaviors. Fourth, that
the best chance of achieving happiness and being protected in the long run
comes from using all four behaviors in balance, selecting that which is
appropriate for the situation. Fifth, that happiness or protection should not be
defined in terms of the fame, fortune, status, or rectitude. (28 Nov 05)
Copyright © 2005
Armiger Cromwell Center, 3750 Peachtree Road, NE, Atlanta, GA 30319
Permission is granted to forward this article by e-mail to friends or colleagues on a fair use basis. For
reprint permission, contact Armiger Cromwell Center at armigercc@comcast.net
Back to Contents
46