We said good-bye, and I made an effort to thank Mrs. Nash, but she seemed to be puzzled by that too, and Frazier frowned as if I had committed some breach of good taste.

«I think Mrs. Nash's puzzlement?* said Frazier, as we left the building, «is proof enough that our children are seldom envious or jealous. Mrs. Nash was twelve years old when Walden Two was founded. It was a little late to undo her early training, but I think we were successful. She's a good example of the Walden Two product. She could probably recall the experience of jealousy, but it's not part of her present life*.

«Surely that's going too far!* said Castle. «You can't be so godlike as all that! You must be assailed by emotions just as much as the rest of us!»

«We can discuss the question of godlikeness later, if you wish*, replied Frazier. «As to emotions—we aren't free of them all, nor should we like to be. But the meaner and more annoying—the emotions which breed unhap-piness—are almost unknown here, like unhappiness itself. We don't need them any longer in our struggle for existence, and it's easier on our circulatory system, and certainly pleasantry, to dispense with them*.

«If you've discovered how to do that, you are indeed a genius*, said Castle. He seemed almost stunned as Frazier nodded assent. «We all know that emotions are useless and bad for our peace of mind and our blood pressure « he went on. «But how arrange things otherwise?* «We arrange them otherwise here*, said Frazier. He was showing a mildness of manner which I was coming to recognize as a sign of confidence.

«But emotions are — fun!» said Barbara. «Life wouldn't be worth living without them*.

«Some of them, yes», said Frasier. «The productive mid strengthening emotions—joy and love. But sorrow wild hate—and the high-voltage excitements of anger, fear, and rage are out of proportion with the needs of modern life, and they are wasteful and dangerous. Mr. (IflHlle has mentioned jealousy, a minor form of anger, I think we may call it. Naturally we avoid it. It has served \{н pu rpose in the evolution of man; we've no further use Nr It. If we allowed it to persist, it would only sap the llfci on t of us. In a cooperative society there's no jealousy linriiiiMe there's no need for jealousy*.

«That implies that you all get everything you want», said Castle. «But what about social possessions? Last night you mentioned the young man who chose a particular girl or profession. There's still a chance for jealousy there, isn't there?»

«It doesn't imply that we get everything we want», said Frazier. «Of course we don't. But jealousy wouldn't help. In a competitive world there's some point to it. It energizes one to attack a frustrating condition. The impulse and the added energy are an advantage. Indeed, in a competitive world emotions work all too well. Look at the singular lack of success of the complacent man. He enjoys a more serene life, but it's less likely to be a fruitful one. The world isn't ready for simple pacifism or Christian humility, to cite two cases in point. Before you can safely turn out the destructive and wasteful emotions, you must make sure they're no longer needed*.

«How do you make sure that jealousy isn't needed in Walden Two?» I said.

«In Walden Two problems can't be solved by attacking others* said Frazier with marked finality.

«That's not the same as eliminating jealousy, though* I said.

«Of course it's not. But when a particular emotion is no longer a useful part of a behavioral repertoire, we proceed to eliminate it».

«Yes, but how?»

«It's simply a matter of behavioral engineering*, said Frazier.

«Behavioral engineering?*

«You're baiting me, Burris. You know perfectly well what I mean. The techniques have been available for centuries. We use them in education and in the psychological management of the community. But you're forcing my hand* he added. «I was saving that for this evening. Hut let's strike while the iron is hot*.

We had stopped at the door of the large children's building. Frazier shrugged his shoulders, walked to the shade of a large tree, and threw himself on the ground. We arranged ourselves about him and waited.

Chapter 14

«Each of us*, Frazier began, «is engaged in a pitched battle with the rest of mankind*.

«A curious premise for a Utopia*, said Castle. «Even n pessimist like myself takes a more hopeful view than l.hat*.

«You do, you do», said Frazier. «But lets be realistic. Much of us has interests which conflict with the interests of everybody else. That's our original sin, and it can't be helped. Now, «everybody else* we call «society». It's n powerful opponent, and it always wins. Oh, here and there an individual prevails for a while and gets what he wants. Sometimes he storms the culture of a society and changes it slightly to his own advantage. But society wins m the long run, for it has the advantage of numbers and 11Г age. Many prevail against one, and men against ababy. Society attacks early, when the individual is helpless. It enslaves him almost before he has tasted freedom. The lologies* will tell you how its done. Theology calls it building a conscience or developing a spirit of selfless, i' yeliology calls it the growth of the super ego.

♦ Considering how long society has been at it, you'd i poet a better job. But the campaigns have been badly ttlnnncd and the victory has never been secure. The 1 11a v ior of the individual has been shaped according to ' I volutions of «good conduct*, never as the result of experimental study. But why not experiment? The questions are simple enough. What's the best behavior for the individual so far as the group is concerned? And how can the individual be induced to behave in that way? Why not explore these questions in a scientific spirit?

«We could do just that in Walden Two. We had already worked out a code of conduct — subject, of course, to experimental modification. The code would keep things running smoothly if everybody lived up to it. Our job was to see that everybody did. Now, you can»t get people to follow a useful code by making them into so many jack-in-the-boxes. You can't foresee all future circumstances, and you can't specify adequate future conduct. You don't know what will be required. Instead you have to set up certain behavioral processes which lead the individual to design his own «good» conduct when the time comes. We call that sort of thing «self-control». But don't be misled, the control always rests in the last analysis in the hands of society.

«One of our Planners, a young man named Simmons, worked with me. It was the first time in history that the matter was approached in an experimental way. Do you question that statement, Mr. Castle? »

♦I'm not sure I know what you are talking about», said Castle.

«Then let me go on. Simmons and I began by studying the great works on morals and ethics — Plato, Aristotle, Confucius, the New Testament, the Puritan divines, Machiavelli, Chesterfield, Freud — there were scores of them. We were looking for any and every method of shaping human behavior by imparting techniques of self-control. Some techniques were obvious enough, for they had marked turning points in human history. «Love your enemies* is an example—a psychological invention for easing the lot of an oppressed people. The severest trial of oppression is the constant rage which one suffers at the thought of the oppressor. What Jesus discovered was how to avoid these inner devastations. His technique was to practice the opposite emotion. If a man can succeed in loving his enemies and «taking no thought for the тог-row», he will no longer be assailed by hatred of the oppressor or rage at the loss of his freedom or possessions. He may not get his freedom or possessions back, but he's less miserable. It's a difficult lesson. It comes late in our program*.

«I thought you were opposed to modifying emotions and instinct until the world was ready for it», said Castle. «According to you, the principle of love your enemies' should have been suicidal*.

«It would have been suicidal, except for an entirely unforeseen consequence. Jesus must have been quite astonished at the effect of his discovery. We are only just beginning to understand the power of love because we are just beginning to understand the weakness of force and aggression. But the science of behavior is clear about all that now. Recent discoveries in the analysis of punishment —- but I am falling into one digression after another. Let me save my explanation of why the C> ristian Virtues — and I mean merely the Christian techniques of ielf-control — have not disappeared from the face of the •arth, with due recognition of the fact that they suffered a narrow squeak within recent memory.

«When Simmons and I had collected our techniques Of control, we had to discover how to teach them. That was more difficult. Current educational practices were fa little value, and religious practices scarcely any bet-tar. Promising paradise or threatening hell-fire is, we Hsumed, generally admitted to be unproductive. It is

Part III

Based upon a fundamental fraud which, when discovered, turns the individual against society and nourishes the very thing it tries to stamp out. What Jesus offered in return for loving one's enemies was heaven on earth, better known as peace of mind.

«We found a few suggestions worth following in the practices of the clinical psychologist. We undertook to build a tolerance for annoying experiences. The sun shine of midday is extremely painful if you come from a dark room, but take it in easy stages and you can avoid pain altogether. The analogy can be misleading, but in much the same way it's possible to build a tolerance to painful or distasteful stimuli, or to frustration, or to situations which arouse fear, anger or rage. Society and nature throw these annoyances at the individual with no regard for the development of tolerances. Some achieve tolerances, most fail. Where would the science of immunization be if it followed a schedule of accidental dosages?

«Таке the principle of «Get thee behind me, Satan», for example*, Frazier continued. «It's a special case of self-control by altering the environment. Subclass A 3,1 believe. We give each child a lollipop which has been dipped in powdered sugar so that a single touch of the tongue can be detected. We tell him he may eat the lollipop later in the day, provided it hasn't already been licked. Since the child is only three or four, it is a fairly diff—-»

«Three or four!» Castle exclaimed.

«А11 our ethical training is completed by the age of six», said Frazier quietly. «A simple principle like putting temptation out of sight would be acquired before four. But at such an early age the problem of not licki n/; the lollipop isn't easy. Now, what would you do, Mr. Caa tie, in a similar situation?*

Наши рекомендации