- 5 months ago
- #thetrap
- #documentary
- #adamcurtis
Documentary, The Trap Part 1 FYou Buddy (Adam Curtis)
#TheTrap #Documentary #AdamCurtis
#TheTrap #Documentary #AdamCurtis
Category
🗞
NewsTranscript
00:00Ten, nine, eight, seven, six, five, four, three, two, one, see you.
00:13The ultimate political goal at the heart of our age is the idea of individual freedom.
00:19I believe that freedom is the future of all humanity.
00:23In Britain, our government has set out to create a revolution that will free individuals from the control of old elites and bureaucracies.
00:32A new world where we are free to choose our lives, not be trapped by class or income into predestined roles.
00:42To liberate Britain from all the old class divisions, old structures, old prejudices.
00:49To liberate the individual.
00:54And abroad, in Iraq and Afghanistan, Britain and America have set out to liberate individuals from tyranny.
01:02For those leading it, it is just a first step in a global revolution for democracy.
01:08But if one steps back and looks at what has resulted, it is a very strange kind of freedom.
01:14The attempt to liberate people from the dead hand of bureaucracy has led to the rise of a new and increasingly controlling system of management, driven by targets and numbers.
01:25While governments, committed to creating freedom of choice in all areas, have actually presided over a rise of inequalities and a dramatic collapse in social mobility.
01:37The consequence has been a return of the power of class and privilege.
01:42And abroad, the attempt to create democracy has led not just to bloody mayhem, but a rejection of the American-led campaign to bring freedom.
01:51And it has summoned up an anti-democratic authoritarian Islamism.
02:04And this, in turn, has helped inspire terrorist attacks in Britain itself.
02:09In response, the government has dismantled long-standing laws designed to protect our freedom.
02:17This is a series of films about how this strange, paradoxical world came to be created.
02:24It begins in the dark and frightening days of the Cold War.
02:28And it will show how what we have today is a very narrow and peculiar idea of freedom that was born out of the paranoia of that time.
02:37It is based on an image of human beings as selfish, isolated and suspicious creatures who constantly monitor and strategize against each other.
02:47The films will show how politicians and scientists came to believe that this idea of human nature could be the basis of a new type of free society.
02:58But what none of them would realize was that within this dark and distrustful vision lay the seeds of a new and revolutionary system of social control.
03:08It would use the language of freedom, but in reality it would come to entrap us and our leaders in a narrow and empty world.
03:17freedom, freedom, freedom.
03:47America and American films celebrated not just victory, but what many believed would be the dawning of a new era.
03:58Back then, freedom meant not just liberation from the Nazis, but also from the economic chaos and uncertainty that had caused the depression of the 1930s.
04:07governments now believe that their role was to manage and control the economy and protect society from the dangerous self-interest at the heart of capitalism.
04:16No longer did we worship at the shrine of no-holds-barred capitalism, no.
04:26We had been through the depression of the 1930s, we had been through World War II, now we were talking about the need for government to be the major balancing element in the economy.
04:39The individual was still important, but government would make sure that we would never slide into a deep depression again.
04:47In the following years, the bureaucracies at the heart of the state grew enormously.
04:53Their job was to regulate capitalism for the benefit of everyone.
04:57In an age of optimism, there were few who challenged this new vision.
05:01But one man, on the margins, was convinced it would lead to disaster.
05:08He was an Austrian aristocrat called Friedrich von Hayek, who had fled the Nazis and now taught at the University of Chicago.
05:15Hayek was convinced that the use of politics to plan society was far more dangerous than any problems produced by capitalism,
05:23because it inevitably led to tyranny and the end of freedom.
05:27The terrible example that Hayek pointed to was the Soviet Union.
05:32In their search for a utopia, the Soviet leaders had tried to plan and control everything.
05:38But this had led them into tyranny and dictatorship.
05:42The same would now inevitably happen to the West, he said.
05:47It was on what he called the road to serfdom.
05:50The only way of avoiding disaster is to go back into the past, back to a golden age of the free market,
06:01where individuals followed their own self-interest.
06:04Government played little or no role.
06:07Out of this would come what Hayek called a self-directing automatic system,
06:13a spontaneous order created by millions of people pursuing their own game.
06:18We will benefit our fellow men, Moose, if we are guided solely by the striving for gain.
06:26For this purpose, we have to return to an automatic system which brings this about,
06:31self-directing automatic system which alone can restore to liberty and prosperity.
06:37That is my fundamental conception.
06:39Isn't it a philosophy based essentially on selfishness?
06:43What about altruism? Where does that come in?
06:46It doesn't come in.
06:48Hayek's ideas were dismissed by politicians and economists.
06:52The notion that one could create social order in a modern complex world
06:56simply by unleashing individual self-interest was seen as a failed and discredited idea.
07:03But proof that he might be right was about to emerge from the most unlikely of sources,
07:08from scientists struggling with the new, terrifying uncertainties of the Cold War.
07:13This is the heart of a giant, glass-proof bunker, 30 miles north of New York.
07:22Built in the late 50s, it housed the largest computer in the world,
07:26linked to a system of radars around the world,
07:28which constantly watched the Soviet Union.
07:32Every second, thousands of pieces of information poured into this room
07:35to be analysed for signs of danger.
07:41The nuclear strategists who had designed this system
07:43knew they were dealing with a completely new type of conflict.
07:47Neither side could let it get out of control
07:49because of the terrifying consequences.
07:51So the strategists wanted to find a way of using the information
07:56to anticipate what the Soviets might be about to do.
08:00And to do this, they turned to a new idea called game theory.
08:08Game theory had been developed as a way of mathematically analysing poker games.
08:13It looked at the game as a system where the players are locked together,
08:17each trying to work out what the other thinks they will do.
08:20From that, game theory showed rationally
08:24what the best moves were for each of the players.
08:28This is a type of war that had never been fought before.
08:30And, of course, as we all know, it would be so devastating
08:33that it's almost impossible to consider all of its consequences.
08:36They still wanted to say that there was a rational way
08:40to approach such a virtual war.
08:43And game theory seemed to offer that to them,
08:45that you could, in a sense, incorporate your enemy into your own thinking.
08:50That you could mathematically understand what your enemy would do
08:55to the point where you and your enemy will play the exact same set of strategies.
09:01The Centre for Developing Nuclear Strategy
09:03was a military think tank called the Rand Corporation.
09:06And the strategists at Rand used game theory to create mathematical models
09:11that predicted how the Soviets would behave in response to what they saw the Americans doing.
09:17Out of this came the fundamental structure of the nuclear age.
09:21Hundreds of missiles protected in silos underground.
09:25And fleets of bombers in the air 24 hours a day.
09:27Just as in a game, they were strategic moves to convince the Soviets
09:32that if they attacked, America would always have enough missiles
09:36to destroy them in return.
09:39And in the rules of this game,
09:42fear and self-interest stopped the Russians from attacking.
09:46And it created a stable equilibrium
09:48called the delicate balance of terror.
09:50Recommending missiles underground, missiles in submarines and all that
09:58was a way of making that much more stable.
10:02Sometimes the way I used to explain it is
10:04we're trying very hard to reduce the likelihood of nuclear war
10:08by creating powerful incentives for the Russians
10:12not to start a nuclear war.
10:14because we're trying to give them incentives not to attack
10:19either with a nuclear attack or with a conventional attack.
10:24Yeah, so incentives are important in that.
10:29Underlying game theory was a dark vision of human beings
10:32who were driven only by self-interest,
10:35constantly distrustful of those around them.
10:39And there was a mathematician at the Rand Corporation
10:41who would take this dark vision much further.
10:44He set out to show that one could create stability
10:47through suspicion and self-interest,
10:50not just in the Cold War,
10:51but in the whole of human society.
10:54He was the mathematical genius, John Nash.
10:57Nash was portrayed in the Hollywood film A Beautiful Mind
11:00as a tortured hero.
11:03In reality, Nash was difficult and spiky.
11:07He was notorious at Rand for inventing a series of cruel games.
11:11The most famous he called Fuck You, Buddy,
11:13in which the only way to win
11:15was to ruthlessly betray your game partner.
11:20Nash took game theory
11:21and tried to apply it to all forms of human interaction.
11:25To do this, he made the fundamental assumption
11:28that all human behaviour was exactly like that
11:31involved in the hostile, competitive world
11:34of the nuclear standoff.
11:35That human beings constantly watched and monitored each other.
11:39And to get what they wanted,
11:41they would adjust their strategies to each other.
11:45In a series of equations for which he would win the Nobel Prize,
11:49Nash showed that a system driven by suspicion and selfishness
11:53did not have to lead to chaos.
11:56He proved that there could always be a point of equilibrium
11:59in which everyone's self-interest
12:01was perfectly balanced against each other.
12:03The equilibrium, this equilibrium which is used,
12:11is that what I do is perfectly adjusted
12:16in relation to what you are doing.
12:19And what you're doing,
12:21or what any other person is doing,
12:22is perfectly adjusted to what I'm doing
12:24or what all other people are doing.
12:27They are seeking separate optimizations,
12:29just like poker players.
12:32Is each player alone?
12:38That's the idea,
12:40that they are alone,
12:41they're separate.
12:44Doing something that's very non-cooperative,
12:48but very selfish.
12:53And then what all of them do,
12:56works together,
12:57and there's,
12:59deriving from that,
13:00that there is a payoff to all the players.
13:04That is the equilibrium.
13:07But it's understood not to be a cooperative idea.
13:12But the stability,
13:13the equilibrium,
13:14would only happen if everyone involved behaved selfishly.
13:18Because if they cooperated,
13:20the result became unpredictable and dangerous.
13:22A famous game was developed at Rand
13:25to show that in any interaction,
13:28selfishness always led to a safer outcome.
13:32It was called the Prisoner's Dilemma.
13:34There are many versions,
13:35but all of them involve two players
13:37having to decide whether to trust or to betray each other.
13:40Imagine you have stolen the world's most valuable diamonds.
13:54You have agreed to sell it to a dangerous gangster.
13:57He offers to meet you to exchange the diamond for the money.
14:00But you think he may kill you.
14:03So instead,
14:04you tell him you will take it to a remote field and hide it.
14:07While at the same time,
14:09he must go to another field hundreds of miles away
14:11and hide the money.
14:13Then you will call him,
14:15and each will tell the other the hiding place.
14:18But just as you were about to make the call,
14:21you realise you could betray him.
14:22You keep the diamond,
14:25and then you go and get the money,
14:26while the gangster searches fruitlessly in an empty field.
14:30But at the very same moment,
14:32you realise that he is probably thinking the same thing,
14:35that he could betray you.
14:38You have no way of predicting
14:40how the other person will behave.
14:42That is the dilemma.
14:44But what Nash's equation showed
14:47was that the rational choice
14:48was always to betray the other person,
14:51because that way,
14:52at the worst,
14:53you got to keep the diamond,
14:55and at the best,
14:56you got both the diamond and the money.
14:59But if you trusted the other person,
15:01you ran the risk of losing everything,
15:03because he might betray you.
15:05It was called the sucker payoff.
15:09What the prisoner's dilemma expressed
15:11was the strange logic of the Cold War.
15:15The optimum solution,
15:17offering to get rid of all your weapons,
15:19provided the Russians did the same,
15:20could never happen,
15:22because you couldn't trust them not to cheat.
15:25So instead,
15:26you went for stability,
15:28created by a balance of dangerous weapons on both sides.
15:33And what Nash had done
15:34was to turn that
15:35into a theory of how the whole of society worked.
15:40It had enormous implications for politics,
15:43because it proved that one could have a society
15:45based on individual freedom
15:47that wouldn't degenerate into chaos.
15:51But the price of that freedom
15:52would mean a world in which everyone
15:54would have to be suspicious
15:56and distrustful
15:57of their fellow human beings.
15:59The Nash equilibrium is important
16:08because one of the great fears of politics
16:11is that self-interest would lead to utter chaos.
16:14And what the Nash equilibrium suggests
16:16is that a rational pursuit of self-interest,
16:20even in the face of implacable hostile enemies,
16:23will lead to a kind of an order
16:26in which all players agree
16:29upon the strategies that they're playing
16:31and that those strategies make sense to them.
16:36But at the same time,
16:37it's also paranoid
16:38because it's the idea of a human being
16:41sitting alone in a room,
16:44being able to totally reconstruct their opponent.
16:47Their opponent is totally implacable,
16:49totally hostile,
16:50and bent on their destruction.
16:55But there was a small problem
16:56with Nash's equations.
16:58They didn't seem to correlate
17:00with how human beings actually behave
17:02towards each other in the real world.
17:05When the Prisoners' Dilemma game
17:06was tested out on the secretaries
17:08of the Rand Corporation,
17:10none of them played the rational strategy.
17:12Instead of betraying each other,
17:14they always trusted each other
17:16and decided to cooperate.
17:17And what no-one realised
17:20was that John Nash himself
17:22was suffering from paranoid schizophrenia.
17:25He had delusions
17:26in which he believed
17:27that those around him
17:28who wore red ties
17:29were communist spies
17:30and that he was part
17:32of a secret organisation
17:33that could save the world.
17:34You don't want to admit
17:39that you are crazy.
17:41You see the other people
17:42as crazy,
17:44but you like to think
17:45of yourself as not crazy,
17:47as rational.
17:49So I thought there were
17:50some secret organisations
17:51of humans
17:52or secret beliefs
17:56among some categories
17:59of humans,
18:00and I thought
18:02I had some relation to that.
18:04I heard voices
18:05and I ultimately realised
18:09that I didn't hear anything
18:11but something
18:12that I created
18:13in my own mind.
18:15I was talking
18:15to myself mentally.
18:18In 1959,
18:20Nash was forcibly committed
18:21to a mental hospital
18:22and he would spend
18:24the next ten years
18:24battling schizophrenia.
18:26But despite the obvious problems
18:29with Nash's theories,
18:31the young technocrats
18:32at Rand
18:32were convinced
18:33that in them
18:34lay the seeds
18:35of a new form
18:35of ordering society
18:36based on the free individual.
18:39Because the equations
18:40provided a scientific basis
18:42for the alternative vision
18:44that Friedrich von Hayek
18:45had called for.
18:46But for the moment,
18:49these ideas
18:50remain confined
18:51to a few thinkers
18:52at the heart
18:53of the nuclear establishment.
18:58But Nash's ideas
18:59are about to spread
19:00in the most surprising way.
19:06Thousands of miles away,
19:08there was a radical psychiatrist
19:09who had a vision.
19:11He wanted to make people free
19:12of all the constraints
19:14that he believed
19:15controlled their minds
19:16without them realising.
19:19And to make them free,
19:20like Nash,
19:21he would fundamentally question
19:23and undermine
19:24the old ideas
19:25of trust and love.
19:31Is love possible?
19:33Is freedom possible?
19:35Is the truth possible?
19:37Is it possible
19:37to be one's actual self
19:38and another human being?
19:40Is it possible
19:41to be a human being
19:42any more?
19:43Is it possible
19:44to be a person?
19:45Do persons even exist?
19:51R.D. Lange
19:52had begun work
19:53as a psychiatrist
19:54in the mental hospitals
19:55in Glasgow
19:55in the 1950s.
19:58It was a violent,
19:59frightening world
19:59in which the doctors
20:01tried to manage
20:01and control schizophrenics
20:03as best they could.
20:06Lange had noticed
20:07that the psychiatrists
20:08hardly ever spoke
20:09to the schizophrenics.
20:10so as an experiment
20:12he took 12 women
20:14and spent months
20:15talking to them
20:16about themselves
20:17and their lives.
20:20The results
20:21were dramatic.
20:22After just a few months
20:23all 12 were well enough
20:25to leave the hospital.
20:30Within a year
20:31Lange discovered
20:32that all of them
20:33had returned to the hospital.
20:34his attempt at a cure
20:36had failed completely.
20:41After this experiment
20:45these women left hospital
20:47and after another year
20:49they were all back again.
20:51No one knew
20:52why they'd come in
20:53in the first place
20:54and no one knew
20:55why they had to come back again.
20:57So that shifted
20:59my focus
21:00of attention
21:02and interest
21:03and research
21:04interest
21:05out into
21:06the actual
21:07circumstances
21:08where
21:09this
21:10thing called
21:12madness
21:12is incubated.
21:14Lange began
21:15to investigate
21:16the families
21:17of the schizophrenics.
21:19His research
21:20led him
21:20into a hidden
21:21closed world
21:22where he studied
21:23how the members
21:23of the families
21:24behaved towards
21:25each other
21:25in private
21:26and he became
21:28convinced
21:28that the roots
21:29of this madness
21:30lay concealed
21:31in this unexamined
21:32world.
21:34The doctors
21:34and nurses
21:35who used chemicals
21:36and ECT
21:37to try and return
21:38the patients
21:39to their families
21:40were making
21:41a terrible mistake.
21:43They were sending
21:43them back
21:44to the private horror
21:45that had first
21:46created the madness.
21:48If this were true
21:49then the doctors
21:50although they believed
21:52that they were doing
21:52their public duty
21:53and what was best
21:54for the patient
21:55were in reality
21:57violent agents
21:58of oppression.
22:00I think it's very
22:01important that a doctor
22:02remember his duty
22:03to give the patient
22:06what is best for them
22:08in their long-term interest
22:10which isn't always
22:11what the patient
22:12asks for.
22:17If you want to go home
22:19to your relatives
22:20the relatives
22:21the relatives
22:21have got to be
22:23reasonably sure
22:24that you will fit in
22:26reasonably well
22:27in their home
22:28so that they can go on
22:30living a normal life.
22:33In the early 60s
22:34Lang set up a psychiatric
22:35practice in Harley Street
22:37in London.
22:38He offered radical new
22:40treatments for schizophrenia
22:41and quickly became
22:42a media celebrity
22:43but his research
22:45into the causes
22:46of schizophrenia
22:47had convinced him
22:48that a much wider
22:49range of human problems
22:50were caused by
22:51the pressure cooker
22:52of family life.
22:56Lang decided
22:56to investigate
22:57how power and control
22:59were exercised
23:00within the world
23:01of normal families
23:02and to do this
23:04he would use
23:05the techniques
23:05of game theory.
23:08Lang had learned
23:09about game theory
23:10when he visited
23:10the Mental Research Institute
23:12in Palo Alto
23:13in California.
23:15A group of research
23:15scientists there
23:16were trying to use
23:17game theory
23:18as a way of analysing
23:19human interaction
23:20and Lang saw in this
23:22the perfect tool
23:23to dissect
23:24what went on
23:25between the members
23:26of families in Britain.
23:29Lang used game theory
23:31in his analysis
23:32of families.
23:32He was concerned
23:33with games
23:35not in the sense
23:35of fun
23:36but games in the sense
23:37of people playing
23:38by rules
23:38some of which
23:39were explicit
23:40and some of which
23:41they were unaware of
23:42and which in a sense
23:43were secret.
23:45He thought he'd
23:46uncovered a fresh way
23:48of looking at
23:49human relations
23:51those secret games
23:52that people had.
23:55This was a way
23:56in which it could
23:58be subject to
23:59some sort of
24:00scientific
24:01investigation
24:02it could be
24:03quantified
24:04you could give
24:05people questionnaires
24:06oh it was very much
24:07the application
24:08of game theory
24:09that's exactly
24:09what it was.
24:11Lang took
24:12twenty couples
24:12in Britain
24:13and using a complex
24:15series of questionnaires
24:16he analysed
24:17how each of them
24:18saw the other
24:19moment by moment
24:20in their daily life
24:21continually asking
24:23them what they
24:24secretly thought
24:25the other
24:25really intended.
24:26following game theory
24:28he then coded
24:29the responses
24:30and had them
24:31analysed by computer
24:32out of that
24:34Lang produced
24:35matrices
24:35which showed
24:36how just as
24:37in the cold war
24:38couples used
24:39their everyday
24:39actions as
24:40strategies
24:41to control
24:42and manipulate
24:43each other
24:43his conclusions
24:45were stark
24:46that what were
24:47normally seen
24:48as acts
24:48of kindness
24:49and love
24:50were in reality
24:51weapons
24:51used selfishly
24:53to exert power
24:54and control.
24:55Lang really
24:57did feel
24:58that the family
24:59was an arena
25:00for strategising.
25:02Love was a way
25:03in which one person
25:05tried to dominate
25:06another person.
25:09I love you
25:10but I'm making
25:12a condition
25:12for that love
25:13which is impossible
25:14for you to fulfil
25:15and so there's
25:17nothing you can do
25:18to earn my love
25:19even though I'm
25:20telling you
25:21you have to earn
25:21my love.
25:23From this research
25:24Lang argued
25:25that the modern family
25:26far from being
25:27a caring
25:28nurturing institution
25:29was in reality
25:31a dark arena
25:32where people
25:32played continuous
25:33selfish games
25:34with each other.
25:36Out of this struggle
25:37came stability
25:37in society
25:38but a bleak
25:39and limited existence
25:41for all the
25:42individuals involved.
25:44The so-called
25:46normal families
25:47that I studied
25:48in the course
25:49of this work
25:49it was like
25:51walking into
25:52carbon monoxide
25:54gas chambers.
25:57People induced
25:59their children
26:00to adjust
26:01to life
26:02by poisoning
26:04themselves
26:04to a level
26:08of subsistence
26:10existence
26:11that they called
26:12life.
26:13Lang was radicalised
26:15by his findings.
26:16He believed
26:17that the struggle
26:18for power and control
26:19that he had uncovered
26:20in the family
26:21was inextricably linked
26:22with the struggle
26:23for power and control
26:24in the world.
26:26In a violent
26:27and corrupt society
26:28the family had become
26:29a machine
26:30for controlling people.
26:33Lang believed
26:34that this was
26:34an objective reality
26:35revealed by his
26:37scientific methods
26:38above all
26:38by game theory.
26:39But these very methods
26:42contained within them
26:43bleak, paranoid assumptions
26:45about what human beings
26:46were really like.
26:48Assumptions
26:48born out of the hostility
26:50of the Cold War.
26:53And what Lang
26:53was actually doing
26:54was helping spread
26:56these bleak, paranoid ideas
26:58into other areas
26:59of society.
27:00Into the very way
27:01we thought about ourselves
27:02and our relationships
27:04to each other.
27:06He gave a message
27:07of I have seen
27:09things that you can
27:10hardly imagine.
27:12A bleak, cold
27:14landscape out there
27:16that I'm going to
27:17do my best
27:18to armour you against
27:20and we will walk
27:21into there together
27:22and we will protect
27:23each other back out there
27:24in this cold, bleak
27:25landscape.
27:26But don't you ever
27:26bullshit yourself
27:27that it's anything
27:28more or better than that
27:30because that's
27:31where it is.
27:34Lang wrote a series
27:35of books
27:35with titles like
27:36The Politics of Experience
27:38that became
27:39huge by sales
27:40and he became
27:41one of the leaders
27:42of the new
27:42counterculture movement.
27:45I'm still in here.
27:47The aim of the movement
27:48was to make people realise
27:49that none of the
27:50state institutions
27:51of the post-war world
27:52could be trusted.
27:54Those that claimed
27:56to be motivated
27:56by public duty
27:57and a desire to help
27:59were really part
28:00of the system
28:01that was trying
28:02to control your mind
28:03and destroy your freedom.
28:05Their whole mind
28:06was like a cabbage.
28:07They're suppressed.
28:08They can't do
28:08exactly what they want.
28:09They haven't got
28:10any freedom.
28:11They haven't got
28:11any freedom
28:11to do exactly
28:12what they want
28:13under the system.
28:14One had to be
28:15constantly on guard,
28:16never trusting anyone,
28:18even those
28:19who said they loved you.
28:21A lot of people
28:21are caught in the trap
28:22that they feel
28:23that they ought
28:23to trust
28:24or believe
28:25the person they love
28:26because they love them.
28:30But I don't see
28:32that that follows
28:33at all.
28:37What Lang
28:37and the counter-cultural
28:38movement were doing
28:39was tearing down
28:41Britain's institutions
28:42in the name of freedom.
28:44And they were about
28:45to find the most
28:46unexpected allies.
28:48They would be joined
28:49by a group of economists
28:50from the political right
28:52who had exactly
28:53the same aim
28:54and who would become
28:55immensely powerful.
28:56This group
28:58were all inspired
28:59by the ideas
29:00of Friedrich Hayek
29:01and most of them
29:03had also worked
29:04at the Rand Corporation
29:05and they brought
29:07with them
29:07the sophisticated
29:08mathematical techniques
29:09like game theory.
29:12They would use
29:13these techniques
29:13to prove scientifically
29:15that the idea
29:17of public duty
29:18which had underpinned
29:19British public life
29:20for generations
29:21was a sham
29:23and a corrupt hypocrisy.
29:24Their ideas
29:27would begin
29:27to demolish
29:28the old institutions
29:29of the British state.
29:31They would also
29:32introduce
29:33the paranoid assumptions
29:34of the Cold War
29:35ever further
29:36into the heart
29:38of British society.
29:48In the early 70s
29:50the government bureaucracies
29:51in Britain
29:51began to collapse.
29:52those around them
29:54blamed a growing
29:55economic crisis
29:56but it was clear
29:57that something
29:58much more fundamental
29:59had gone wrong.
30:00What were supposed
30:01to be institutions
30:02to help people
30:03had become destructive.
30:05Those around them
30:06seemed to have turned
30:07against the very people
30:08they were supposed
30:08to serve.
30:11Financial restrictions.
30:13Well, can you get in
30:14for a minute?
30:16Well, it's urgent this.
30:17I can't tell you that.
30:18I'm not allowed
30:19to disclose that.
30:20We don't deal
30:21with that sort of thing.
30:22It's not available.
30:26A group of right-wing
30:27economists in America
30:28now put forward
30:29a theory
30:30that they said
30:31explained why
30:32this was happening.
30:34At the heart
30:35of their idea
30:35was game theory.
30:37They said
30:38that the fundamental
30:39reality of life
30:40in society
30:40was one of millions
30:41of people
30:42continually watching
30:43and strategizing
30:44against each other
30:45all seeking
30:46only their own advantage.
30:49An assumption
30:49had become a truth.
30:51The self-interested model
30:53of human behavior
30:54that had been developed
30:55in the Cold War
30:56to make the mathematical
30:57equations work
30:58had now been adopted
31:00by these economists
31:00as a fundamental truth
31:02about the reality
31:04of all human
31:04social interaction.
31:05We're always trying
31:07to infer the intentions
31:09of the other.
31:10We're always trying
31:12to convey
31:13our intentions
31:15either deceptively
31:16or truthfully.
31:18We're always trying
31:19to find ways
31:20to make believable promises
31:22and sometimes
31:24to make believable threats.
31:26Threatening the Soviet Union,
31:28threatening
31:28a misbehaving animal,
31:30threatening a child,
31:32threatening a neighbor.
31:34I think what we're doing
31:35is what we call
31:36strategizing.
31:38What does he think
31:39that I think he thinks
31:40that I think he's going to do?
31:41It has to come
31:43to some kind of equilibrium.
31:45What is it
31:46that we can both recognize
31:47is the obvious thing to do?
31:49What this meant,
31:50the economists argued,
31:51was that the politicians
31:53and the bureaucrats' belief
31:54that they were working
31:55for what they called
31:56the public good
31:57was a complete fantasy.
31:59Because to do that
32:00depended on creating
32:01shared goals in society
32:03based on self-sacrifice
32:05and altruism.
32:07But in a world
32:08that was really driven
32:09by millions of suspicious,
32:11self-seeking individuals,
32:12such concepts
32:13could not exist.
32:16Out of this
32:17came a theory
32:17called public choice
32:19and a group of economists
32:21who were determined
32:22to destroy
32:23the politicians' dream
32:24that they were working
32:25for the public interest.
32:27Their leader
32:28was called
32:29James Buchanan.
32:31There's certainly
32:32no measurable concept
32:33that's meaningful
32:34that could be called
32:36the public interest
32:37because how do you weigh
32:40different interests
32:41of different groups
32:42and what they can
32:43get out of it?
32:44the public interest
32:46as a politician
32:47thinks it does not
32:48mean it exists.
32:49It's what he thinks
32:51is good for the country.
32:53And if he would come out
32:55and say that,
32:56that's one thing.
32:57But behind this hypocrisy
32:58of calling something
33:00the public interest
33:01as if it exists,
33:02that's what I was
33:04trying to tear down.
33:04In 1975,
33:08Mrs Thatcher
33:09became leader
33:09of the Conservative Party
33:10and Buchanan's ideas
33:12had a powerful influence
33:14on her
33:14and the group of radicals
33:16gathered around her.
33:18A right-wing think tank
33:19advising Mrs Thatcher
33:20brought James Buchanan
33:22to London
33:22for a series of seminars
33:24and he explained starkly
33:26why the British state
33:27was failing.
33:28It was pure game theory.
33:30Because there was
33:31no agreed version
33:32of the public good,
33:33the bureaucrats
33:34and the politicians
33:35schemed and strategised
33:37in their own self-interest,
33:39building up their power
33:40and their own empires.
33:42They claimed to be
33:43helping others.
33:44In fact,
33:45it was the very opposite
33:45and the result
33:47was economic chaos
33:48and a breakdown
33:49of society.
33:50It was chaos.
33:52There is no other word
33:53for it.
33:54And then public choice theory
33:55came along
33:56and told us why.
33:57It's because
33:58the self-interest
33:59of the groups
33:59that have managed
34:00to acquire control
34:01of the process
34:02is such that
34:03they're directing
34:04these activities
34:05to their own advantage
34:06at the expense
34:07of the rest of society.
34:09When public servants
34:10and politicians
34:11say they're pursuing
34:12the public interest,
34:13the words
34:14are those of public service,
34:16the actions
34:17are those of self-interest,
34:19maximising personal advantage.
34:21Now, this is certainly
34:23not true
34:24because contrary
34:24to popular belief,
34:26both myself
34:27and my staff here,
34:28we take a very,
34:29very great
34:30personal interest
34:30in individual people.
34:32I think you're scared.
34:33I think because
34:34there won't be
34:34so much opposition,
34:35you don't know
34:35whether you're doing
34:36the right thing or not.
34:37If you don't want me
34:38to answer,
34:39I'll go home.
34:39It's a lovely evening.
34:40I don't need to be here.
34:41But if you do want me
34:42to answer,
34:43I will stay.
34:44Please,
34:45will you give the...
34:46As the British economy
34:48spiralled out of control,
34:50the political
34:51and bureaucratic elite
34:52who had dominated Britain
34:53since the war
34:54found themselves
34:55under attack
34:56from both the right
34:57and the left.
34:58Where once they had been
34:59heroic figures
35:00who would create
35:01a new world,
35:02now they were accused
35:03of being agents
35:04of control,
35:05not freedom.
35:07We've been ruled
35:08by men
35:09who live by illusions.
35:11The illusion
35:12that you can have freedom
35:14by government decree.
35:16And I don't give back.
35:17And these new theories
35:18began to spread
35:19into the public imagination.
35:21The writer
35:22who was part of the group
35:23advising Mrs. Thatcher
35:24began to write a sitcom
35:25that explicitly
35:26put forward the theories
35:28of public choice.
35:30As well as being funny,
35:31it was ideological propaganda
35:33for a political movement.
35:37Humphrey,
35:37we have got to slim down
35:38the civil service.
35:40How many people
35:41have we got
35:42in this department?
35:43Two thousand?
35:45Three thousand.
35:46About twenty-three thousand,
35:47I think, Minister.
35:47Twenty-three thousand?
35:50In the Department
35:51for Administrative Affairs,
35:52twenty-three thousand
35:53people just administering
35:54other administrators?
35:56We'll have to do
35:56a time and motion study,
35:57see who we can get rid of.
35:59We did one of those
36:00last year, Minister.
36:00And?
36:01It transpired we needed
36:02another five hundred people.
36:05The fallacy
36:05that public choice
36:07economics took on
36:09was the fallacy
36:10that government
36:10is working entirely
36:11for the benefit
36:12of the citizen.
36:12and this was reflected
36:15by showing that
36:16in the programme,
36:18in the US Minister,
36:19we showed that
36:20almost everything
36:21that the government
36:21has to decide
36:22is a conflict
36:23between two lots
36:24of private interest,
36:26that of the politicians
36:26and that of the civil servants
36:28trying to advance
36:29their own careers
36:30and improve
36:30their own lives.
36:31And that's why
36:32public choice economics,
36:34which explains
36:36why all this was going on,
36:37was at the root
36:38of almost every episode
36:39of yes minister
36:40and yes prime minister.
36:46At the same time,
36:48R.D. Lang
36:48was continuing
36:49his assault
36:50on what he saw
36:51as the corrupt elites.
36:54He was about
36:55to use his growing power
36:56to attack
36:57one of the most
36:58powerful professions
36:59in America,
37:01the medical
37:01and psychiatric
37:02establishment.
37:03The results
37:08would be dramatic,
37:09but the outcome
37:10would be very different
37:11from what Lang intended.
37:13His ideas
37:14would undermine
37:15the all-controlling
37:16medical elite.
37:18But far from
37:19liberating people,
37:20what would actually
37:21emerge
37:21would be a revolutionary
37:23new system
37:23of order and control,
37:26driven by the objective
37:27power of numbers.
37:29It's a space
37:30where you can meet
37:31with her,
37:32where she's not
37:33going to be frightened
37:33that you're going
37:34to put her away
37:35or that you're
37:36going to do anything
37:37to her.
37:37Lang was now
37:38a celebrity in America
37:39and was one of the
37:40leaders of what was
37:41called the
37:41anti-psychiatry movement.
37:44Psychiatry, Lang said,
37:45was a fake science,
37:46used as a system
37:47of political control
37:48to shore up
37:49a violent,
37:50collapsing society.
37:52Its categories
37:52of madness
37:53and sanity
37:54had no reality.
37:56Madness was simply
37:56a convenient label
37:57used to lock away
37:59those who wanted
37:59to break free.
38:02Hundreds of young
38:03psychiatrists
38:04came to Lang's talks
38:05and one of them
38:07was inspired
38:07and decided to find
38:09a way of testing
38:10whether what Lang said
38:12was true or not.
38:14Could psychiatrists
38:15in America
38:15distinguish
38:16between madness
38:17and sanity?
38:20He was called
38:20David Rosenham
38:21and he devised
38:22a dramatic experiment.
38:24He assembled
38:25eight people,
38:26including himself,
38:26none of whom
38:28had ever had
38:28any psychiatric
38:29problems.
38:31Each person
38:32was then sent
38:32across the country
38:33to a specific
38:34mental hospital.
38:36At an agreed time,
38:37they all presented
38:38themselves at their
38:39hospital
38:39and told the
38:41psychiatrist on duty
38:42they were hearing
38:43a voice in their
38:44head that said
38:45the word
38:46thud.
38:48That was the only
38:49lie they should tell.
38:51Otherwise,
38:51they were to behave
38:52and respond
38:53completely normally.
39:01And then what happened?
39:03They were all
39:04diagnosed as insane
39:05and admitted
39:07to the hospital.
39:10All of them?
39:12All of them.
39:14And were any
39:15of them insane?
39:16No.
39:17There was nobody
39:18who could have
39:18judged these people
39:19as insane.
39:21But I told friends,
39:22I told my family,
39:23I get out
39:23when I can get out.
39:25That's all.
39:26Be there for a couple
39:27of days
39:27and then I get out.
39:29Nobody knew
39:30I'd be there
39:30for two months.
39:32Once admitted,
39:33all eight fake
39:34patients acted
39:35completely normally.
39:36Yet the hospitals
39:37refused to release
39:38them.
39:39And diagnosed
39:40seven as suffering
39:41from schizophrenia
39:42and one from
39:43bipolar disorder.
39:45They were all
39:46given powerful
39:46psychotropic drugs.
39:48They found there
39:49was nothing they
39:50could do to convince
39:51the doctors
39:51they were sane
39:52and it quickly
39:53became clear
39:54that the only way
39:55out would be
39:56to agree
39:56that they were
39:57insane and
39:58they would pretend
39:59to be getting
39:59better.
40:01The only way
40:02out was to
40:03point out
40:04that they're
40:04correct.
40:07They had said
40:08I was insane,
40:08I am insane,
40:09but I'm getting
40:10better.
40:12That was
40:13an affirmation
40:15of their view
40:16of me.
40:17When Rosenhan
40:18finally got out
40:19and reported
40:20and reported
40:20the experiment,
40:21there was an
40:21uproar.
40:22He was accused
40:23of trickery
40:23and deceit
40:24and one major
40:26hospital challenged
40:27him to send
40:27some more fakes
40:28to them,
40:29guaranteeing that
40:30they would spot
40:31them this time.
40:33Rosenhan agreed
40:33and after a month
40:35the hospital proudly
40:36announced that
40:37they had discovered
40:3841 fakes.
40:40Rosenhan then revealed
40:41he had sent no one
40:42to the hospital.
40:43The effect
40:48of the Thud
40:49experiment was
40:49a disaster
40:50for American
40:51psychiatry.
40:52It destroyed
40:53the idea
40:53that they were
40:54a privileged
40:55elite with
40:55specialist
40:56knowledge.
40:57But those
40:58in charge
40:59realised that
41:00psychiatry could
41:00not just give
41:01up.
41:02Another way
41:03had to be found
41:03of understanding
41:04and managing
41:05people's inner
41:06feelings in
41:07modern society.
41:09And like
41:09Arby Lang,
41:10they turned
41:11to the objective
41:11purity of
41:13mathematical
41:13analysis.
41:15They set out
41:15to create
41:16a scientific
41:16system of
41:17diagnosing
41:18people's
41:19inner mental
41:19states in
41:20which all
41:21human judgement
41:22would be
41:22removed and
41:23replaced instead
41:24by a system
41:25based on the
41:26power of numbers.
41:28They gave up
41:29on the idea
41:29that they could
41:30understand the
41:31human mind
41:31and cure it.
41:33Instead,
41:34American psychiatry
41:35created a new
41:36set of measurable
41:37categories that
41:39were only based
41:40on the surface
41:40behaviour of
41:41human beings.
41:43Many were
41:44given new
41:44names like
41:45attention deficit
41:46disorder and
41:47obsessive compulsive
41:48disorder.
41:49Psychiatry says
41:50we don't know
41:51the causes for
41:52any of these
41:52conditions and
41:53then just said
41:54this is what
41:55they look like.
41:56This is what
41:57depression looks
41:59like.
41:59This is what
42:00ADHD looks like.
42:02This is what
42:02PTSD looks like.
42:04This is what
42:04multiple personality
42:05looks like.
42:06Whether they
42:07exist in any
42:08particular way or
42:09they exist in
42:10the same way or
42:11if they are the
42:12same kinds of
42:13things didn't
42:14matter.
42:14This is just
42:15what they look
42:16like.
42:16What mattered was
42:18that these
42:18disorders could be
42:19observed and
42:20thus recorded.
42:22The psychiatrist
42:22created a system
42:23in which the
42:24diagnosis could
42:25literally be done
42:26by computer.
42:28The observable
42:28characteristics of
42:30each of the
42:30disorders were
42:31listed precisely.
42:33And questionnaires
42:33were then designed
42:34that asked people
42:36whether they had
42:37those characteristics.
42:38The answers were
42:39simply yes and
42:40no.
42:41So they could be
42:42asked by lay
42:42interviewers, not
42:44by psychiatrists.
42:46The computer would
42:47then decide whether
42:48people were normal
42:49or abnormal.
42:52The lay
42:53interviewer asks
42:55specific questions
42:56and notes them.
42:58That person is not
42:59making the diagnosis.
43:01That data is fed
43:02into a computer.
43:04The computer program
43:05then looks at the
43:06pattern and makes
43:08the diagnosis.
43:09So the diagnosis
43:10was made by the
43:11computer.
43:12There was no
43:13clinical judgment
43:14required.
43:16The psychiatrists
43:17then decided to
43:18test the system.
43:19And at the end
43:20of the 1970s,
43:21they sent
43:21interviewers out
43:22across America
43:23with the
43:23questionnaires.
43:25Hundreds of
43:26thousands of
43:26people selected
43:27at random were
43:28interviewed.
43:30Up to this
43:30point, psychiatrists
43:31had only dealt
43:32with individuals who
43:33felt they needed
43:34help.
43:36This was the first
43:36time that anyone
43:38had gone out and
43:39asked ordinary
43:39people how they
43:40thought and felt.
43:42And the results,
43:43when processed by
43:44the computers,
43:45were astonishing.
43:47More than 50% of
43:48Americans suffered
43:49from some type of
43:51mental disorder.
43:52These studies
43:53revealed very high
43:55rates of mental
43:55disorder.
43:57There are very,
43:59very high rates of
43:59disorders out there.
44:00Half the population
44:01has a mental
44:02disorder at some
44:02point, 17% of the
44:04population has a
44:05depressive episode at
44:06some point.
44:06Figures like that.
44:07These rates astonish
44:08people.
44:09They're enormous
44:10rates.
44:11And the general
44:12conclusion was there
44:14is a hidden
44:15epidemic.
44:17More surveys were
44:18done, and yet
44:19again the computers
44:20returned the same
44:21disturbing data.
44:23The surveys showed
44:24that underneath the
44:25surface of normal
44:26life, millions of
44:27people, who never
44:28before would have
44:29been thought of as
44:30mentally ill, were
44:31secretly living with
44:32high levels of
44:33mental anxiety.
44:35The psychiatrists
44:36began screening
44:37programs across the
44:38country.
44:39For many people, the
44:41checklists were a
44:42liberation.
44:43Their private
44:43suffering was finally
44:45being recognized.
44:46I actually heard on
44:47the radio they were
44:48having a national
44:49anxiety screening day.
44:51They asked me a bunch
44:52of questions, and if
44:53you had these
44:53symptoms, which there
44:55was like 50 symptoms,
44:56and I had probably
44:5749 of them, they
44:58said, well, what
44:59your experience is
45:00common, and actually
45:01when I showed up to
45:02these meetings, I
45:03seen firemen there
45:04and construction
45:05workers.
45:05It was relieving to
45:07see that, you know,
45:08I wasn't, you know,
45:09making this stuff up.
45:10These new categories
45:12of disorders spread
45:12quickly in society, and
45:14terms like borderline
45:15personality disorder and
45:17obsessive-compulsive
45:18disorder took hold of
45:20the public imagination.
45:22But as this happened,
45:24it had unforeseen
45:25consequences.
45:26Millions of people
45:28began to use the
45:29checklists to monitor
45:30and diagnose themselves.
45:32They used them to
45:33identify what was
45:35aberrant or abnormal
45:36in their behavior and
45:37feelings.
45:39But by definition,
45:40this also set up a
45:42powerful model for them
45:43of what were the
45:44normal behavior and
45:45feelings to which they
45:46should aspire.
45:48And psychiatrists
45:48began to find more
45:49and more people
45:50coming to them,
45:51demanding to be made
45:52normal.
45:53It was just a matter of
45:58asking people a couple
45:59of questions, checking
46:00the boxes in the
46:02diagnostic formula, and
46:04say, there you are,
46:05you have this disease,
46:06or I have this
46:08disorder, I better go to
46:09my doctor and tell them
46:10what I need.
46:11And it was an amazing
46:13experience, and a great
46:15change.
46:16most people do not,
46:18previously at any rate,
46:19want to see themselves as
46:21in some way
46:22psychiatrically injured.
46:24But now, they tell me
46:27that they have an ideal
46:28in their mind about what
46:30the normal person is.
46:32I don't fit that model.
46:35I want you to, um,
46:38polish me down so that I
46:40fit.
46:41This new system of
46:43psychological disorders
46:44had been created by an
46:46attack on the arrogance
46:47and power of the
46:48psychiatric elite, in the
46:49name of freedom.
46:51But what was beginning to
46:52emerge from this was a
46:54new form of control.
46:56The disorders and
46:57checklists were becoming
46:58a powerful and objective
47:00guide to what were the
47:01correct and appropriate
47:03feelings in an age of
47:04individualism and emotion.
47:07But this was a very
47:08different system of order.
47:10No longer were people
47:11told how to behave by an
47:13elite.
47:14Instead, they now used
47:16the checklists to monitor
47:17their feelings and police
47:19their own behaviour.
47:21They were reassured that
47:22these new categories were
47:23scientific and could be
47:25checked by the power of
47:26numbers.
47:31For they are the party of
47:38yesterday and tomorrow is
47:41ours.
47:45In 1979, Mrs. Thatcher had
47:47come to power in Britain.
47:49What she promised to create
47:50was a society based on the
47:52dream of individual freedom.
47:54People would be liberated from
47:56the arrogant elites and state
47:58bureaucrats of the past.
48:00But Mrs. Thatcher knew she
48:01would have to find a new way
48:03of managing and controlling
48:05these free individuals in a
48:07complex society in order to
48:08avoid chaos.
48:11And to do this, just like the
48:13psychiatrist in America, she
48:15would turn to systems based on
48:16the objective power of numbers.
48:20But underlying the new
48:21mathematical models would yet
48:23again be the dark and
48:24suspicious vision of human
48:26beings that the Cold War
48:27strategists had assumed.
48:30This vision would now
48:31penetrate to the very heart
48:33of the British state.
48:45The Thatcher government had
48:46begun in the early 80s by
48:47selling off many of the
48:48state-owned industries.
48:50But it soon became clear that
48:52in the modern world, there
48:53were large areas of the state
48:55which would have to remain
48:56under government control.
48:58Yet Mrs. Thatcher was
48:59determined to free them too
49:00from the old forms of
49:02management.
49:03To do this, she would bring
49:05in a system no longer run by
49:07ideas of public duty.
49:09Instead, public servants would
49:11be encouraged by incentives
49:12to follow their self-interest.
49:15It was all in keeping with
49:17the ideas of the inventor of
49:18public choice, James Buchanan.
49:20He believed that it was those
49:22politicians and bureaucrats who
49:24preached the idea of public
49:26duty that were the most
49:27dangerous, who he called the
49:29zealots.
49:30They had to be got rid of.
49:33We're safer if we have
49:35politicians who are a bit
49:37self-interested and greedy than
49:40if we have these zealots.
49:43The greatest danger, of course,
49:44is the zealot who thinks that
49:46he knows best or she knows best
49:48for the rest of us, as opposed
49:51to being for sale, so to speak.
49:56So in that sense, you can then
49:57use incentives, is that right?
49:59Yeah, exactly.
49:59Can you just explain that?
50:00Exactly, exactly.
50:01The zealot is not nearly as
50:03readily influenced by monetary
50:06incentives or incentives of
50:08office or rents as the non-zealot.
50:11So you don't want too many
50:13zealots in there.
50:16If our success depends on the
50:19goodness of the politicians and
50:21bureaucrats, then we're in real
50:23trouble.
50:24It was a dark and pessimistic
50:27vision of human motivation, but
50:29it was about to become the basis
50:30for a new system of managing the
50:33British state.
50:33The proposals represent the most
50:38far-reaching reform of the National
50:40Health Service in its 40-year
50:42history.
50:43They offer new opportunities and
50:45pose new challenges for everyone
50:47concerned with the running of the
50:49service.
50:50In 1988, Mrs. Thatcher announced a
50:52complete reform of the way the
50:54National Health Service was run.
50:56The fundamental aim was to overthrow
50:58the power of the medical
50:59establishment and replace it with a
51:01new efficient system of management.
51:04To do this, Mrs. Thatcher turned to a
51:07man who had been one of the nuclear
51:08strategists at the Rand Corporation
51:10at the height of the Cold War.
51:14He was called Alan Enthoven.
51:16Back in the 50s, Enthoven's job had
51:19been to think the unthinkable, to plan
51:21how to fight and win a nuclear war.
51:25To do this, he had designed a
51:26mathematical system which would use
51:28nuclear weapons as rational
51:30incentives to manipulate the other
51:32side.
51:33Enthoven had designed charts that
51:36showed how many megatons of bombs to
51:38drop on which cities and how many
51:40people it would be necessary to kill
51:42to prove to the Russians that it was
51:44in their self-interest to come to the
51:46bargaining table.
51:47Enthoven had developed a technique he called systems analysis.
51:58It was a technique of management that he believed could be applied to any type of human organisation.
52:04Its aim was to get rid of all the emotional and subjective values that confused and corrupted the system and replace them by rational, objective methods,
52:14mathematically defying targets and incentives.
52:17Enthoven had first tried to apply this system back in the 1960s when he was still in the
52:23country.
52:25The Secretary of Defense.
52:26The Secretary of Defense, Robert McNamara asked him to help transform the way the Pentagon
52:30was run.
52:31Enthoven began by getting rid of the idea that patriotism should be the guiding force
52:37of America's defense and replacing it with a rational system based on numbers.
52:45The approach we brought to the Pentagon was one based on rational behavior.
52:50Previously, that had been, at that high level, it was kind of a political thing and we were
52:55trying to make it more an analytical thing.
52:58In defense, most people thought it ought to be done on the basis of patriotism.
53:04There was quite a bit of that emotion, feeling, are you patriotic and so forth.
53:11But I was there with my slide rule, you know, my geeky sort of MIT style.
53:15Airborne.
53:16All the way, sir.
53:18Sit down, please.
53:19What did the military think of it all?
53:22Well, I think that, um...
53:24They hated it, didn't they?
53:25They hated it, yeah.
53:28What replaced patriotism and notions of public duty were mathematically measurable outcomes.
53:34But McNamara's experiment had ended in disaster when he had tried to run the Vietnam War in
53:40a rational, mathematical way, through performance targets and incentives.
53:45The most infamous example had been the body count.
53:48It had been designed as a rational measure of whether America was winning the war.
53:52But in fact, troops simply made it up or even shot civilians to fulfil their performance targets.
54:00And in 1967, McNamara had resigned.
54:05But Enthoven was undaunted.
54:08And next, he applied his systems to design a rational way of managing healthcare.
54:13He began this in America.
54:16But in 1986, Mrs Thatcher had asked him to come and do the same for the NHS in Britain.
54:22Just as he had challenged the power of the generals in the Pentagon, now he would do the same for
54:30the doctors in Britain.
54:31I think in both cases, with the military and the defence department, and with the doctors
54:36both here and in Britain, that you have the power of organised elites, of authority and hierarchy.
54:44The system needed to be reconfigured in such a way as to give incentives to do a better
54:49job.
54:50And it was a matter of how would you rewire the incentives to motivate the self-interest,
54:57to create proper incentives to reward efficiency, and can we measure it?
55:04So that was a challenge to the power of organised medicine.
55:09What Enthoven proposed for the NHS, he called the internal market.
55:14In fact, what it was, was a mathematical simulation of the free market.
55:19Numbers were used to create measurable outputs and performance targets at all levels, while
55:24competition was created, driven by a system of incentives.
55:28All of this mimicked the pressures of the free market on public servants.
55:33To those who set out to create it, it was the engineering of a new freedom.
55:38They were liberating millions of public employees from the arrogant control of the old elites.
55:44Instead, a new and objective method, based on numbers, set the targets which individuals
55:49were then free to achieve any way they wanted.
55:53It basically set free their talents.
55:56Before, they had simply been instruments doing what they were told.
56:00Now, suddenly, they were creative minds allowed to examine and say, why don't we do this?
56:06And that sense of freedom that comes in thinking these were their targets, not something that had been wished on them from on high.
56:14And that was a very important part of motivation, for they felt they owned their targets.
56:19But it was a very narrow and specific type of freedom.
56:23It meant shedding all ideas of working for the collective or public good, and becoming instead
56:29an individual constantly calculating what would be to one's advantage in a system driven and defined by numbers.
56:37But the root of this were the simplified, self-interested creatures that John Nash had created back in the 1950s to make his game theory equations work.
56:46But now, the aim of the system of targets and incentives was to transform public servants into just these simplified beings.
56:56Individuals who calculated only what was best for them and did not think any longer in wider political terms.
57:05There is this vision of these individual, isolated humans, that they are only information processors, there's no emotion involved,
57:13that people don't get some of their motives for participating in politics from, you know, emotional feelings of being part of something larger than themselves.
57:24None of that is allowed in this particular theorem.
57:28And so what we have is we have this image of these little information processors who might possibly care about their family or whatever.
57:34But, I mean, you know, the idea that they have the interests and the welfare of the whole at heart is thought to be naive.
57:44This is the middle of the checkpoint. The gates have been opened. The police are making no attempt to stop people as they go through and come back.
57:50Come back. I have never seen such a lesson.
57:53I have never seen such a lesson.
58:02I watched the scenes on television last night and again this morning.
58:06You see the joy on people's faces and you see what freedom means to them.
58:10It makes you realize that you can't stifle or suppress people's desire for liberty.
58:15What do you think of tonight?
58:17It's wonderful.
58:19It's wonderful.
58:21It's wonderful.
58:22In November 1989, the Berlin Wall collapsed and the Cold War is finally over.
58:27A new era of freedom had begun.
58:29But the shape that freedom was going to take would be defined by the victors, the West.
58:35And as this program has shown, the idea of freedom that had now become dominant in the West was deeply rooted in the suspicion and paranoia of the Cold War.
58:46Next week's film will show how this idea spreads to take over politics itself, because it seemed to offer a new and better alternative to democracy.
58:57What it actually leads to is corruption, growing rigidity and the dramatic rise of inequality.
59:04And we will come to believe that we really are the strange, isolated beings that the Cold War scientists had invented to make their models work.
59:16This bleak vision, far from liberating us, will become our cage.
Comments