- 4 months ago
Documentary, The Trap Part 1 FYou Buddy (Adam Curtis)
Category
š
LearningTranscript
00:00Ten, nine, eight, seven, six, five, four, three, two, one, see.
00:13The ultimate political goal at the heart of our age is the idea of individual freedom.
00:18I 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 a predestined role.
00:41To 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.
01:01For 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,
01:22driven by targets and numbers.
01:24While 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.
01:41And abroad, the attempt to create democracy has led not just to bloody mayhem, but a rejection of the American-led campaign to bring freedom.
01:52Go home, Yankee! Go home, Yankee!
01:55Be here for your fucking freedom!
01:58So back up right now!
02:00And it has summoned up an anti-democratic authoritarian Islamism.
02:05And this, in turn, has helped inspire terrorist attacks in Britain itself.
02:10In response, the government has dismantled long-standing laws designed to protect our freedom.
02:15This is a series of films about how this strange, paradoxical world came to be created.
02:23This episode tells the story of how, in the 1990s, politicians from both the right and the left tried to extend an idea of freedom,
02:32modelled on the freedom of the market, to all other areas of society.
02:36This was something that previously no one, not even the high priest of capitalism, Adam Smith, had thought possible or appropriate.
02:46But now, it was seen as inevitable, because underlying it was a scientific model of ourselves, the simplified robots.
02:55Rational, calculating beings, whose behaviour and even feelings could be analysed and managed by numbers.
03:02But what resulted was the very opposite of freedom.
03:08The numbers took on a power of their own, which began to create new forms of control, greater inequalities and the return of a rigid class structure based on the power of money.
03:32In 1991, the new leader of the Conservative Party, John Major, was searching for what his advisers called the Vision Thing,
03:44a policy that would define his time in office.
03:48Can we turn left into Atlantic Road in a moment, please?
03:51I think I'd like to go down there and have a look.
03:56Is it still there?
04:00It is. It is.
04:02It is. It is. It is still there.
04:04It is. It is still there.
04:08The pattern was set and the world divided.
04:11Not into male and female.
04:13No, no, no, no. That is just a mere superficial division of minor importance.
04:19No, gentlemen, there is another division.
04:22Another dichotomy.
04:25More basic, more profound.
04:26And at that fateful moment, the world was divided into winners and losers, top men and underdogs.
04:36And in July, John Major announced that he was going to make Britain a fairer and more equal society.
04:48And he was going to start with the public services.
04:52The arrogant bureaucrats who had ruled Britain for so long were now going to be made to serve the public.
04:58There would be no them and us any longer.
05:00Nothing less than a revolution in the way in which public services are delivered.
05:05It will be the most comprehensive quality initiative ever launched.
05:10New and tougher standards of services will be set.
05:14The wide range of mechanisms to ensure they're met to the citizens' satisfaction.
05:18Behind John Major's vision was a radical new political theory, which had been born out of the strategic thinking of the Cold War.
05:28As last week's programme showed, it argued that the idea of public duty, which had underpinned British public life for generations, was an illusion.
05:38In reality, public servants were motivated only by self-interest.
05:42When they talked proudly of serving the public good, it was hypocrisy.
05:46What they were actually doing was scheming to build up their empires.
05:50John Major was setting out to create an alternative system that tried to mimic the self-interested drive of the free market.
05:58This would harness the true individualism of public servants in a productive way.
06:04The management consultants who designed the systems explained that this was liberation.
06:10Once public servants were set performance targets, they could achieve them in any way they wanted.
06:16The old bureaucratic rules could be thrown away, and they would become heroic entrepreneurs.
06:23To spell for good our notions of bureaucratic inefficiency and complacency.
06:29These people have visions.
06:31They set goals.
06:32They constantly seek customer feedback.
06:34They beat budgets and pursue innovations with zeal.
06:37The bureaucracy bashing revolution is underway.
06:43It's no longer management by the book.
06:46And in fact, the book has been rewritten, and in some cases, literally thrown out.
06:51And anybody that deals with the public, you can never win.
06:56You can never win when you deal with the public.
06:59Never.
06:59But this radical new theory had an inexorable logic at its heart.
07:09It wasn't going to just attack the old bureaucratic institutions.
07:12It was going to go much further.
07:14It would undermine the very ideals of democratic politics,
07:18and the politicians' belief that they could change the world.
07:21The man who did most to drive through this logic
07:26was one of the most influential economists in the world, James Buchanan.
07:31His ideas had fundamentally shaped the conservative revolution
07:34in both Britain and America.
07:38He argued that politicians, just like the civil servants, were hypocrites.
07:42The idea they promoted, that they were serving the public, was a fiction.
07:48In reality, they too followed their self-interest.
07:55The illusion would be that our politicians are out there
08:00really seeking to do good for us.
08:05Not for themselves, but do good for us.
08:08A kind of an optimistic illusion that he's doing good for the public.
08:12Whereas you believe.
08:15We believe that, for the most part, he's after his own interest.
08:20I mean, that's where we model his behaviors.
08:22But what about idealism?
08:24Well, I don't know what you mean.
08:26You'd have to tell me more about what you mean by the word.
08:29The idea that you're in politics for a greater public good
08:32than something you've gained for yourself.
08:37Well, I don't think that's meaningful.
08:39I don't know how to put any handles on that.
08:41What Buchanan argued was that all politicians followed their self-interest
08:50because the idea that they could interpret and express
08:54the general will of the people was logically impossible.
08:58Behind this view lay not just right-wing ideology,
09:01but a scientific theory called game theory.
09:03As last week's program showed,
09:06game theory had been used in the 1950s by nuclear strategists.
09:10But the idea had then been developed
09:12by the mathematical genius John Nash
09:14as a way of looking at all social interaction.
09:19Individuals lived their lives as a game
09:21in which they pursued only their own self-interest,
09:24constantly adjusting to each other's strategies.
09:26If this were true, the economists argued,
09:30then the very idea of the collective people's will
09:33was mathematically impossible.
09:36You simply cannot add up
09:38the millions of competing individual desires
09:40into one coherent goal.
09:43They called it the impossibility theorem.
09:46And the only system they said that could respond
09:48to what people really wanted in such an atomized world
09:52was the free market, not politics.
09:57In this game theory view of the world,
09:59everyone is out for their own personal advantage.
10:02And then if you take that as given,
10:04then all those individuals want to maximize their pleasure
10:06in this very simplified scheme.
10:09And that's what the impossibility theorem says.
10:11It says they actually do that in the market,
10:14but they don't do that in political situations
10:17like voting situations.
10:19It's a very narrow view of politics.
10:21Very narrow view of politics.
10:23But of course it has to be
10:24because it's a narrow view of the human being.
10:26But what it does is it reduces
10:28what it means to be a human being
10:30to a few relatively mechanical principles.
10:33The individuals are little information processors,
10:36but the market is the best information processor,
10:40and voting, or a democracy,
10:42is a weak information processor.
10:45Inefficient.
10:46Inefficient.
10:47By the early 90s,
10:49this argument had come to dominate
10:50not just economics,
10:52but also the thinking of those who ran the markets.
10:55In 1992, Walter Riston,
10:58the head of Citicorp,
10:59the largest bank in the world,
11:01wrote a bestseller called
11:02The Twilight of Sovereignty.
11:04In it, he predicted the coming triumph
11:06of a new market democracy,
11:09where the market would take over
11:10the responsibility for running much of society
11:13from the politicians.
11:15Markets, he said,
11:16are the only true voting machines.
11:19If they are left untouched
11:21by politicians and regulation,
11:23they will truly come to act out
11:25the people's will
11:26for the first time in modern history.
11:28And the bankers
11:30were about to find a way
11:31of making this happen.
11:35Ohio wants change.
11:37America wants change.
11:40And Ohio cast 144 votes
11:43for the next president.
11:44Yes!
11:44In 1992,
11:46Bill Clinton was running for president.
11:48Under George Bush Senior,
11:50America had slid into depression,
11:51and Clinton promised
11:53that he would use
11:54the political power
11:55of the presidency
11:56to rescue the nation.
11:58It's time
12:00to change America.
12:02George Bush,
12:04if you won't use your power
12:06to help America,
12:07step aside.
12:08I will.
12:12There is no them.
12:14There is only us.
12:17Clinton promised
12:18to use the power of the state
12:19to reform America's health care,
12:22extend welfare,
12:23and invest in jobs.
12:25And above all,
12:26reduce the inequalities
12:27that had risen up
12:28under President Reagan.
12:30And at the end of 1992,
12:31he was triumphantly elected.
12:36But in January,
12:37a few days before
12:38his inauguration,
12:39two leading members
12:40of the financial world
12:41came to see Clinton
12:42in Washington.
12:44One was Alan Greenspan,
12:46the head of the Federal Reserve.
12:47The other was Clinton's
12:48new economic advisor,
12:50Robert Rubin,
12:51the head of Goldman Sachs.
12:53What they told the president
12:55was dramatic.
12:56His political plans
12:57were impossible.
12:59He was inheriting
13:00a huge government deficit.
13:02And if he borrowed
13:03any more money
13:04to pay for his promises,
13:06interest rates would rise,
13:08people would stop borrowing
13:09and spending,
13:10and there would be
13:11an economic disaster.
13:12The single most critical meeting
13:18with President Clinton
13:19with respect to
13:20the economic strategy
13:20of the Clinton administration
13:21was in early January
13:23during the transition,
13:24about two weeks
13:26before the inauguration.
13:27And it was at that meeting
13:28what we were saying
13:29the president was
13:30that we needed
13:30a dramatic change in policy
13:32and it has to be accomplished
13:33as much as possible
13:34by cutting spending,
13:35even though that is
13:36very difficult politically.
13:37It was a dramatic message,
13:40though,
13:40for a Democratic president,
13:42wasn't it?
13:44I think any president
13:45would have found
13:46a dramatic message,
13:47whether Democrat or Republican,
13:49to have to start
13:50his administration
13:51by both reducing programs
13:52and cutting spending.
13:56And that's very difficult
13:57for any politician.
13:58But what both Rubin
14:00and Greenspan
14:00told Clinton
14:01was that there was
14:02an alternative way
14:03to build a better society.
14:05He should let
14:06the market do it.
14:08Instead of seeing
14:09the markets
14:09as a dangerous force
14:11that politics
14:11had to control,
14:13he should give away power
14:14and let them flourish
14:15unrestricted.
14:17The markets, they said,
14:19were now so intertwined
14:20with people's lives
14:21that they could respond
14:22democratically
14:23to people's needs
14:24in all aspects
14:25of their lives
14:26in a way
14:27that politics couldn't.
14:29Alan Greenspan
14:30communicated
14:30a very clear message
14:31to Bill Clinton
14:32that the economy
14:33and people's appetites
14:35as expressed
14:36in the economy.
14:37Their buying,
14:38their ability to buy,
14:40what they buy,
14:40what they prefer,
14:42is a better gauge
14:43of public sentiment
14:45than any other.
14:48The economy,
14:50to that extent,
14:50is superior
14:51to democracy.
14:53In a democracy,
14:55it's less tidy.
14:56People can express
14:57their preferences
14:58only indirectly
14:59through their representatives,
15:00and their representatives
15:01have to express
15:02the preferences
15:03of a lot of people
15:04and sometimes
15:05want to express
15:05their own preferences
15:06rather than
15:07their constituents.
15:08So in that way
15:09of viewing the world,
15:11an economy
15:11is preferable
15:12to a democracy.
15:15Faced with the bankers'
15:16arguments,
15:17Clinton agreed,
15:18and on taking office
15:19began to cut back
15:20on his reforms.
15:22During his first term,
15:23he dismantled
15:24much of the welfare structure
15:25that had been put in place
15:27in the 1930s.
15:29He abandoned
15:29all his health care reforms
15:31and cut government
15:32regulation of business.
15:34It was what
15:35the markets wanted.
15:37As Greenspan had promised,
15:39the economy began to boom.
15:41And in 1996,
15:43Clinton made a speech
15:44that announced
15:45the end of the vision
15:46of liberal politics,
15:48that one could use
15:49the power of big government
15:50to change the world.
15:55We know big government
15:56does not have
15:57all the answers,
15:58and we have worked
15:59to give the American people
16:00a smaller,
16:01less bureaucratic government
16:02in Washington.
16:04And we have to give
16:05the American people
16:06one that lives
16:07within its means.
16:09The era of big government
16:11is over.
16:12It was the triumph
16:14of market democracy.
16:16A belief that anyone
16:17who gave the public
16:17what they wanted
16:18was democratic
16:19and thus good.
16:21As opposed to
16:22the old political elites
16:24who believed that
16:25they knew
16:25what was best for us
16:26and imposed their idea
16:28of what society
16:29should be.
16:31In the process,
16:32businessmen
16:33became transformed.
16:34They might be greedy
16:35and selfish,
16:36but they were also
16:37engineers of a new
16:38kind of freedom.
16:40By responding
16:41to the needs
16:41and desires
16:42of individuals,
16:43they were interpreting
16:44the will of the people
16:45in a way that
16:46politicians couldn't.
16:48If markets
16:52are in fact democracy,
16:54if markets
16:54are a means of consent,
16:56a medium of consent,
16:58which all these people
16:59believe that they are,
17:00there's a very,
17:01very commonplace view
17:02in the United States
17:02these days.
17:03In fact,
17:03this is a consensus view.
17:05It's hard to find someone
17:06at the upper reaches
17:07of broadcasting,
17:08journalism,
17:09business,
17:09whatever,
17:10who doesn't think this.
17:12If markets,
17:13in fact,
17:13are a medium of consent,
17:14then you've got
17:15all sorts of funny things
17:16that CEOs are the people
17:18who the markets
17:19have chosen above all others
17:21are in fact men
17:22of the people.
17:22They're not some kind
17:23of bloodthirsty robber baron
17:25like Americans thought
17:26they were in the 1930s.
17:28When they speak to us,
17:30they say,
17:31you speak,
17:31we listen,
17:32or Fox News,
17:32what is it,
17:33we report,
17:33you decide,
17:34you know,
17:34or any of these slogans.
17:37The promoters
17:37of this idea
17:38of market democracy
17:39portrayed it
17:40as a glorious return
17:41to a golden age,
17:43a time in the 18th
17:44and 19th centuries
17:45when Laissez
17:46Fair Capitalism,
17:47not politics,
17:48had ordered society.
17:50But this was a myth.
17:52The political philosophers
17:53of that time
17:55had made a distinction
17:56between the self-interest
17:57of the marketplace
17:58and other areas
17:59of social and political life
18:01that involved
18:02what Adam Smith
18:03called moral sentiments.
18:06These were sympathy
18:07and understanding
18:08for others,
18:09which were just as important
18:10in the ordering of society.
18:12What was happening
18:15at the end
18:15of the 20th century
18:16was something
18:17that had never
18:18been tried before.
18:20The idea of democracy
18:21was being taken over
18:23by a simplified
18:24economic model
18:25of human beings.
18:27And in the process,
18:28freedom was redefined
18:30to mean nothing more
18:31than the ability
18:32of individuals
18:33to get whatever
18:34they wanted.
18:34If you go back
18:37to the 18th
18:39and 19th centuries,
18:40most political philosophers
18:42and most economists
18:43understood
18:44that there was
18:46a social contract.
18:47People were bound together,
18:49not as individuals
18:51expressing themselves
18:52only through the marketplace,
18:53but as citizens.
18:55We had obligations
18:56to one another.
18:58We were not simply
18:59self-interested individuals
19:00purchasing things
19:01for ourselves,
19:02but we were
19:03a community.
19:05Our very identities,
19:07our moral values,
19:09came from our relationships
19:10in these communities.
19:13The view
19:14that the market
19:14was preferable
19:15to politics
19:16as a means
19:17of giving people
19:18exactly what they wanted,
19:19that notion,
19:20that notion
19:21is a rather new idea.
19:23Behind these new ideas
19:26about how society
19:27should be managed
19:28was a model
19:29of the individual
19:29as a rational,
19:31calculating machine
19:32whose self-interested behaviour
19:34could be analysed
19:35by numbers.
19:37This simplified version of us
19:39had been created
19:40back in the Cold War
19:41by game theorists.
19:43They had made an assumption
19:44that we were like that
19:45simply in order
19:46to make their equations
19:47and their models work.
19:50But what was now rising up
19:52was a powerful scientific proof
19:54that this was not
19:55just an assumption.
19:57It really did describe
19:58the very roots
19:59of our nature.
20:01That everything
20:02human beings did
20:03and felt
20:04had been programmed
20:05into us
20:06by our genes.
20:08And all our actions
20:09were the result
20:10of rational calculations
20:11by that genetic program.
20:14That we really were
20:15computing machines
20:17guided by numbers.
20:18The roots of this idea
20:27go back to the early 1970s
20:29when geneticists
20:31who were studying
20:31the behaviour of animals
20:32made a conceptual shift.
20:35They started to look
20:36at the animals' behaviour
20:37from what was called
20:38the genes point of view.
20:40And they realised
20:41that from this perspective
20:42the animals were
20:43simply machines
20:44that were being used
20:45by the genes
20:46to survive
20:47and replicate themselves.
20:51In effect
20:51we can picture
20:52the body of the chicken
20:53as being a machine
20:55a device
20:56constructed by the genes
20:59to ensure
21:00the production
21:01of more genes.
21:02Now this may seem
21:03a perverse way
21:04of looking at things.
21:06You may think
21:07of reproduction
21:07as your method
21:10of producing children
21:11like yourself.
21:12And I'm asking you
21:13to look at it
21:14in a very different light.
21:16The body
21:16is simply
21:17the genes device
21:18for producing
21:19more genes
21:20like itself.
21:22Behind this new way
21:23of seeing animals
21:24was yet again
21:25game theory.
21:27Game theory
21:27had inspired
21:28the geneticists
21:29because it gave
21:30a powerful framework
21:31for understanding
21:32how the genes
21:33dictated behaviour.
21:35Game theorists
21:36looked at society
21:37as a system
21:38of self-interested
21:39individuals
21:39competing
21:40and strategising
21:41against one another.
21:43And the geneticists
21:44applied exactly
21:45the same model
21:46to genes.
21:48They developed
21:49complicated equations
21:50to show how
21:51all animal behaviour
21:52from violence
21:53to altruism
21:54actually
21:55rational strategies
21:56played by the genes
21:57in a game
21:58of survival.
22:00The geneticists
22:01asserted that the same
22:02must be true
22:03for human beings.
22:05And one scientist
22:06did an extraordinary
22:06experiment
22:07to see whether
22:08our genes
22:09did control
22:10our behaviour
22:10in the same
22:11rational,
22:12mathematical way.
22:21It took place
22:23deep within
22:23the Amazon forests.
22:25The Yanomamo people
22:27were famous
22:27for being one of
22:28the most violent
22:29societies on Earth.
22:31An anthropologist
22:32studying them
22:33decided to see
22:34whether behind
22:35the chaos
22:35of the fighting
22:36there was a hidden
22:37genetic pattern
22:38guiding it
22:39in a mathematical way.
22:41He was called
22:42Napoleon Chagnon
22:43and his first step
22:45was to try and find out
22:46the names of everyone
22:47and who was related
22:48to whom.
22:49I assumed at the outset
22:51that the natives
22:51would be excited
22:53and eager
22:53and thrilled
22:55and flattered
22:56that I was interested
22:57in their culture
22:58and their society
22:59and in their families
23:00and genealogies.
23:02And so I would
23:03innocently ask
23:05what the name
23:05of so-and-so was
23:06and they would
23:07give me a name
23:09and I'd write it down.
23:13And it turned out
23:16that they tricked me
23:17that all of the names
23:19that the people
23:20in the village
23:20I was living in
23:21were not only
23:22incorrect
23:23but they were
23:24derogatory,
23:25vulgar,
23:26false.
23:27Not all of them
23:28were vulgar
23:28and derogatory
23:29but a lot
23:31of them were.
23:31Like what?
23:33Like fart breath,
23:35hairy c**t,
23:36long dong,
23:38things of that sort.
23:41Hairy pussy
23:42as the name
23:43of the wife
23:44of the head man.
23:46But Chagnon persisted.
23:48He spent months
23:48checking and cross-checking
23:50names and relationships.
23:51He also gave out
23:53western goods,
23:54above all the prize machete
23:56in return for information
23:57until he had built up
23:59what he believed
24:00was an accurate database
24:01of the names
24:02and genealogies
24:03of 6,000 yanamami,
24:06which he then stored
24:07on a computer
24:07at his university.
24:09Chagnon then returned
24:10with a film crew
24:11and recorded in great detail
24:13a fight in a village.
24:15Bring your camera
24:16over here.
24:28Chagnon returned
24:29to America
24:29and went through
24:30the film frame by frame,
24:32identifying all
24:33the participants.
24:34On the surface,
24:35there seemed no meaning
24:36to the fight.
24:37Often individuals
24:38who appeared
24:39closely related
24:40attacked each other.
24:42But when Chagnon
24:43fed their details
24:44into the computer
24:45and cross-checked
24:46them with his database,
24:48another reality emerged.
24:50Because of the yanamami's
24:51complex history
24:52of intermarriage,
24:53individuals were related
24:54to each other
24:55in the most surprising ways.
24:57And what the computer
24:58showed was that
24:59the individuals
25:00who took risks
25:01for each other
25:01in the fight
25:02were always more closely
25:04genetically related
25:05than those they attacked.
25:11There was a hidden
25:12pattern in the film
25:13and it was the computer
25:14that proved
25:16and demonstrated
25:17that the pattern
25:19was there
25:19because you can't
25:20possibly remember
25:21everybody's genealogical
25:22relatedness
25:24to everybody else
25:25in the village.
25:25So underneath
25:26all of this chaos
25:27and confusion
25:28and what meets
25:29the eye,
25:30there were people
25:31who shared genes
25:33with each other
25:33and chose sides
25:35to defend
25:36on the basis
25:37of their relatedness
25:38to each other.
25:39Yeah, there is
25:41kind of a hidden
25:41mathematical dimension
25:43to the whole thing
25:44that you have to
25:45really dig forward
25:46to discover.
25:47Chanion's experiment
25:48caused a sensation
25:49within the human sciences
25:51because it seemed
25:52to offer precise
25:53mathematical proof
25:54that genes played
25:55a powerful role
25:56in guiding human behavior.
25:59It became one
26:00of the fundamental
26:00pieces of evidence
26:01underpinning a new
26:02powerful model
26:03of human beings.
26:05They were machines
26:06whose actions
26:07and feelings
26:08were driven
26:08by coded instructions
26:10implanted deep
26:11inside them
26:12millions of years ago
26:13of which they
26:14were unaware.
26:16It was an image
26:17that began to permeate
26:18deep into our culture.
26:21The image
26:22of the organism
26:24including ourselves
26:25as a machine
26:26for passing on genes
26:27to shift the focus
26:28away from the idea
26:29of the organism
26:30as being the agent
26:33in life
26:34to the immortal replicator.
26:36Our DNA is
26:37a coded description
26:39of the worlds
26:40in which our ancestors
26:41survived.
26:42DNA.
26:44It's the computer recipe
26:45for life itself.
26:48Unraveling like a reel
26:49of magnetic tape
26:50on some giant computer.
26:55Back in the dark
26:56and frightening days
26:57of the Cold War,
26:58mathematicians
26:59had developed
27:00a simplified,
27:01machine-like model
27:02of human beings
27:03whose behaviour
27:04could be analysed
27:05and predicted
27:05by numbers.
27:07They had done this
27:08to try and understand
27:09and control
27:10the terrifying uncertainties
27:12of that time.
27:15Now in the 1990s,
27:17the Cold War was over
27:18and its giant defences
27:20lay empty.
27:22But that simplified model
27:23had risen up
27:24and triumphed
27:25as an explanation
27:26of what we truly are
27:28as human beings
27:29on every level,
27:31politically,
27:32economically
27:32and now biologically.
27:35We no longer see
27:36this theory
27:37as having historical
27:39inspiration
27:40in the Cold War.
27:41Instead,
27:42what we see it
27:42as a kind of
27:43quasi-natural
27:45social science
27:46theory of everything.
27:48It applies
27:49to something
27:50as small as a gene
27:51or something
27:52as medium-sized
27:54as a human being
27:55or something
27:56as large
27:56as a nation-state.
28:00The human being
28:02sort of dissolves
28:03in this social theory
28:04that it isn't about
28:05necessarily human beings
28:06anymore.
28:07It's about these
28:08little entities
28:09that are constantly
28:10questing
28:11to reproduce
28:12themselves
28:13and also
28:14find their
28:15maximum advantage.
28:18And with the rise
28:19of this machine
28:20model of human beings,
28:21a new idea
28:22of how to change
28:23society began
28:24to emerge.
28:26Not through politics
28:27any longer,
28:28but by adjusting
28:29how well
28:29the individual
28:30machines functioned.
28:32The technicians
28:33of this new idea
28:34would be the
28:35psychiatrists
28:36and the drug companies
28:37who would free people
28:38from the terrible
28:39anxieties
28:40inside themselves.
28:42But what it would lead to
28:44would be a new form
28:45of order and control,
28:47not defined
28:47by the old
28:48political elites,
28:49but by the objective
28:50power of numbers.
28:53I just found myself
28:54constantly worrying.
28:56I couldn't,
28:57I just couldn't stop.
28:58My hands were shaking
29:00and I was sure
29:01that people were
29:01looking at me
29:02and watching my hands.
29:04These college students
29:05didn't know it then,
29:07but they were each
29:08experiencing the symptoms
29:09of an anxiety disorder.
29:11Panic disorder,
29:12generalized anxiety disorder,
29:15obsessive-compulsive disorder,
29:16social phobia,
29:17and post-traumatic stress disorder.
29:19This year,
29:2023 million Americans
29:21will suffer from
29:22one of these anxiety disorders.
29:24They're the most common
29:24mental illness in the country
29:26and they can attack
29:27anyone at any time.
29:29In the early 90s,
29:30an epidemic of mental disorder
29:32was sweeping America
29:33and Britain.
29:34As last week's program showed,
29:36it had been uncovered
29:37by a new system
29:38for identifying disorders.
29:41Psychiatry had been attacked
29:42for relying on the personal
29:44and fallible judgment
29:45of psychiatrists
29:46and instead,
29:47a new objective method
29:49based on checklists
29:50had been invented.
29:52These listed only
29:53the objective symptoms
29:54and deliberately
29:55did not inquire
29:56into why individuals
29:58felt an anxiety.
30:00In the late 80s,
30:01nationwide surveys
30:02had revealed
30:03an incredible picture.
30:05More than 50% of Americans
30:06suffered from mental disorders.
30:09How do you feel?
30:10I don't know.
30:11I'm just sad.
30:12But at the very same time,
30:17the drug companies
30:17had announced
30:18that they had created
30:19a new type of drug
30:20called an SSRI,
30:22which they claimed
30:23targeted the circuits
30:25inside the brain
30:26that were causing
30:27these malfunctions.
30:28The SSRIs were marketed
30:30under names like Prozac.
30:33What they did
30:34was alter the amounts
30:35of serotonin
30:36that flowed across
30:37the circuit connections
30:38within the brain
30:39and they readjusted
30:40the chemicals
30:41to normal levels.
30:42And then all of a sudden
30:43here comes somebody
30:45that says,
30:45OK, now try these on,
30:46try this Prozac on.
30:48And I tried it on
30:49and for the first time
30:49in my life I went,
30:51whoa, is this the way
30:52reality really is?
30:54This pill can solve
30:55all of your problems.
30:57It's called Prozac
30:58and it may mean
30:58the end of depression
30:59as we know it.
31:01I've been taking Prozac
31:02for two years.
31:03And what difference
31:04has that made?
31:05Brilliant.
31:06Oh, she's smiling.
31:07Eyes lighter.
31:08And I feel as if
31:09I'm back to normal.
31:09You feel normal?
31:10Yeah.
31:11And you feel
31:11a better person?
31:12Yeah.
31:13Yeah.
31:14Through treatment
31:15I learned to function
31:16with my disorder
31:16and now life
31:17is so much more enjoyable.
31:19Life is so much better
31:20now that I've gotten
31:22treatments
31:22and I feel like
31:24I've got my OCD
31:25under control
31:25and it feels
31:27really great.
31:28A better life
31:29is waiting.
31:30What now began
31:31to happen
31:32was that millions
31:32of people
31:33who had been diagnosed
31:34by the checklist
31:35as disorder
31:36went to psychiatrists
31:37to be medicated.
31:39The result
31:40was liberation
31:40from anxiety
31:41on a wide scale.
31:44But in the process
31:45the checklist
31:45became a powerful
31:47and seemingly
31:48objective guide
31:49for people
31:49as to what should
31:50be their normal feelings
31:51and what was abnormal.
31:54And a number
31:54of leading psychiatrists
31:56began to argue
31:56that what they were
31:57actually doing
31:58was creating
31:59a static society
32:00in which human beings
32:01were adjusted
32:02by the medication
32:03so they fitted
32:04to an agreed
32:05normal type
32:06defined
32:07by the checklist.
32:09People come to me
32:10all the time
32:11asking me
32:12to medicate them.
32:14The implication
32:14behind that
32:15was that
32:16human beings
32:17like all other animals
32:19have a particular
32:20ideal model.
32:23It had a machine
32:25like quality to it.
32:26We know
32:27what the model
32:28should be
32:29and they asked
32:30the medications
32:31they asked of me
32:32to give them
32:33medications
32:34that would
32:34push them back
32:36to this particular
32:38model they have.
32:39An unrealistic model
32:41but a very static model
32:42of man as machine.
32:45Has it worked?
32:46You look very dubious
32:47my friend.
32:49Apparently it has.
32:51I can't help
32:52being suspicious of it.
32:53I don't think
32:53she's the woman
32:54I married.
32:55Why?
32:56I think she's changed.
32:57In what way?
32:58I don't know.
32:59I don't know
33:00but there's
33:01there's something
33:01there's something
33:02there that is
33:03that is different.
33:04OK.
33:05She's not the woman
33:05you married.
33:06Is she a better woman?
33:07No.
33:08She's different.
33:10They imagined
33:11that they might
33:12live in a world
33:13where there would
33:14never be
33:15a worry
33:15not even a grief
33:17where
33:18never
33:19did
33:19conflict
33:20concern
33:22debate
33:23or worry
33:27over alternatives
33:28make possible
33:31the kinds of progress
33:33that we've seen
33:34in the past.
33:35but then
33:37the man
33:37who had created
33:38the checklist system
33:39admitted that it might
33:40actually be leading
33:41millions of people
33:42to believe that they
33:43were disordered
33:44when they were not.
33:46The checklist
33:46added up
33:47only observable symptoms.
33:49They deliberately
33:50excluded any understanding
33:51of the patient's life.
33:53Because of this
33:54he said
33:54it confused
33:55genuine psychological
33:56disorder
33:57with normal human
33:58feelings of sadness
33:59and anxiety
34:00and that this
34:02was happening
34:02on a wide scale.
34:05All this
34:05was being said
34:06by one of America's
34:07most powerful psychiatrists
34:08Dr. Robert Spitzer.
34:11What happened
34:12is that we
34:13made estimates
34:15of prevalence
34:16of mental disorders
34:17totally
34:18descriptively
34:19without considering
34:21that many of
34:22these conditions
34:23might be
34:24normal reactions
34:25which are not
34:26really disorders.
34:28That's the problem.
34:29Because we were
34:30not looking at
34:31the context
34:31in which
34:32those conditions
34:33developed.
34:34So you have
34:35effectively medicalized
34:36much of
34:37ordinary human
34:38sadness
34:39fear
34:40ordinary experiences
34:42you've medicalized them.
34:43I think we have
34:45to some extent
34:46how serious
34:47a problem
34:48it is
34:49is not known.
34:52I don't know
34:52if it's
34:5320%
34:5430%
34:55I don't know
34:56but that's
34:56a considerable
34:57amount
34:58if it is
34:5920 or 30%.
35:00What was happening
35:03was that large
35:03parts of normal
35:04human experience
35:05grief
35:06disappointment
35:07loneliness
35:08were all being
35:09reclassified
35:10as medical
35:11disorders.
35:12In the process
35:14a new system
35:15of management
35:15was emerging.
35:17The drugs
35:18took away
35:18those complex
35:19and difficult
35:20feelings
35:20and made
35:21the individuals
35:22happier.
35:22but they
35:24also made
35:24them simpler
35:25beings
35:26more easy
35:27to predict
35:27and manage
35:28and closer
35:30to the machine
35:31like creatures
35:31at the heart
35:32of the economic
35:33models.
35:35By using
35:36checklists
35:37of symptoms
35:37about emotions
35:38you have gone
35:39out
35:40and confused
35:41normal human
35:43responses
35:44to life
35:45with mental
35:46disorder
35:47and therefore
35:47created an illusion
35:48of a vast
35:50epidemic.
35:51a medicalized
35:53illusion
35:53and obviously
35:55a situation
35:55where you
35:56medicalize
35:56is a situation
35:57where your focus
35:58will not be
35:59on social change
35:59it will be
36:00on controlling
36:01individuals
36:02to fit in
36:03properly.
36:04That's the
36:05subtle and
36:06overall danger
36:07here.
36:08That it could
36:08serve our kind
36:09of social
36:09economic
36:10systems needs
36:11in a way
36:12in which we
36:12become more
36:13efficient
36:14but less
36:15human.
36:17What the
36:18psychiatrist
36:18had discovered
36:19was that an
36:20objective system
36:21based on numbers
36:22had led them
36:23into a trap.
36:24The numbers
36:25had imposed
36:26their own
36:26narrow logic
36:27on how we
36:28thought and
36:28felt about
36:29ourselves.
36:32And the
36:32politicians
36:33were about to
36:34find that their
36:34attempts to
36:35manage society
36:36by using
36:36numbers would
36:37also have
36:38the strangest
36:39consequences.
36:40Far from
36:41helping them
36:42achieve their
36:42progressive vision
36:43they would
36:44actually make
36:44society more
36:46rigid and
36:47even harder
36:47to change.
36:50In 1997
36:51New Labour
36:51was elected.
36:53What it
36:53promised was
36:54a society
36:55free of the
36:56arrogance and
36:56prejudices of
36:57the old elites
36:58who had
36:59dominated Britain's
36:59class system
37:00for so long.
37:01It is us
37:07the new
37:08radicals
37:09a Labour
37:10party
37:10modernised
37:11that must
37:12undertake
37:13this historic
37:14mission
37:14to liberate
37:17Britain
37:17from all
37:18the old
37:19class divisions
37:20old structures
37:21old prejudices
37:23old ways
37:24of working
37:24and of doing
37:25things
37:25that will not
37:27do in this
37:27world of
37:28change.
37:29Throughout
37:30their campaign
37:31New Labour
37:31had modelled
37:32themselves on
37:33the Clinton
37:33Democrats
37:34and now in
37:35power they
37:36did exactly
37:36what Clinton
37:37had done.
37:38They gave
37:38power away
37:39to the banks
37:40and the
37:40markets.
37:42Gordon Brown's
37:43first announcement
37:43was to abandon
37:44the politicians
37:45final lever of
37:46control over
37:47the economy.
37:48The new
37:49Chancellor
37:49Gordon Brown
37:50announces a
37:51revolution in
37:51economic policy.
37:53From now on
37:53the Chancellor
37:54will hand
37:54control of
37:55interest rates
37:56to an
37:56independent
37:57Bank of
37:57England.
37:59And in
37:59the management
37:59of society
38:00New Labour
38:01turned to
38:02the mathematical
38:02systems that
38:03John Major
38:04had brought
38:04in but on
38:05a scale
38:06never seen
38:07before.
38:08They believed
38:09that people
38:09actually behaved
38:11in the way
38:11described by
38:12the simplified
38:13economic
38:14model.
38:16Performance
38:16targets and
38:17incentives would
38:18be set for
38:18everything and
38:19everyone.
38:21Even Cabinet
38:22Ministers would
38:23have to fulfil
38:24their performance
38:24targets or be
38:26punished.
38:27300 or so
38:28performance
38:29targets,
38:30over 150
38:31efficiency
38:32targets.
38:33Each public
38:33service agreement
38:34will have a
38:34named minister
38:35who is
38:36responsible for
38:37delivering and
38:38achieving those
38:38targets.
38:39They may not
38:39have to resign
38:40but they will
38:41have to explain
38:42why they haven't
38:43been able to
38:43meet their
38:44targets.
38:45If a department
38:45fails to meet
38:46those targets
38:47then it's only
38:47right and proper
38:48that government
38:49will look seriously
38:50at their ability
38:51to deliver.
38:51The Treasury
38:52under Gordon
38:53Brown created a
38:54vast mathematical
38:55system.
38:56They invented
38:57ways of giving
38:58numerical values
38:59to things that
38:59previously no one
39:01thought could be
39:01measured.
39:02Hunger in
39:03Sub-Saharan
39:04Africa was to
39:05be reduced to
39:06below 48%
39:07while world
39:08conflict was to
39:09be reduced by
39:106%.
39:11And all the
39:12towns and
39:13villages in
39:13Britain were to
39:14be measured for
39:15a community
39:16vibrancy index.
39:17And even the
39:19quality of life
39:20in the countryside
39:20was broken down
39:22into a series
39:22of indices,
39:24one of which
39:24measured how
39:25much birdsong
39:25there should be.
39:26We want a
39:27barometer of the
39:28indicators of the
39:29quality of life
39:30and they're not
39:30simply the
39:31economic ones.
39:32Half of the
39:33Skylarks have
39:33gone since 1970.
39:36Now if you want
39:36to measure the
39:37quality of life
39:38one of the
39:38things is that
39:39dawn chorus.
39:41It's about
39:42indices that affect
39:43everybody in a
39:45quality of life
39:45barometer.
39:46The original
39:47idea behind the
39:48mathematical system
39:49was that it would
39:50liberate public
39:51servants from old
39:52forms of
39:52bureaucratic
39:53control.
39:54Once they were
39:55given the
39:55targets they
39:56were free to
39:56achieve them
39:57any way they
39:57wanted.
39:59But almost
39:59immediately new
40:00labour began to
40:01discover that
40:02people were more
40:02complex and
40:03devious than
40:04the simple
40:04model allowed.
40:06Public servants
40:07began to find
40:07the most ingenious
40:08ways of hitting
40:09their targets.
40:12It's about the
40:12pressure to meet
40:13these targets.
40:15It's causing
40:15some NHS
40:18managers to
40:19game the
40:20system.
40:22Hospital managers
40:23proved to be
40:24particularly devious.
40:26When they were set
40:26targets to cut
40:27waiting lists they
40:28ordered consultants
40:29to do the easiest
40:30operations first like
40:32bunions and
40:33vasectomies.
40:34Complicated ones
40:35like cancers were
40:36no longer
40:37prioritised and
40:39they found other
40:39clever ways of
40:40getting people off
40:41the lists.
40:42patients.
40:43What happened at
40:43this hospital is
40:44truly shocking.
40:46Administrators wrote
40:47to patients asking
40:48them when they'd be
40:49on holiday.
40:50They then used that
40:51information to set
40:52the timing of the
40:53operation knowing that
40:55the patients would be
40:56away.
40:57As a result the
40:58patients did not get
40:59their operations but
41:00the hospital managed to
41:02cut its waiting list.
41:04And when the managers
41:04were set a target to
41:05reduce waiting times in
41:06casualty they came up
41:08with more clever
41:09strategies.
41:09A new job was
41:11invented called the
41:12Hello Nurse who did
41:14nothing to treat the
41:14patient but simply
41:16greeting them meant
41:17they had been seen
41:18and were off the list.
41:20When the government
41:21then tried to set a
41:22target to reduce the
41:23number of patients
41:24waiting on trolleys the
41:25managers took the
41:26wheels off the
41:27trolleys and
41:28reclassified them as
41:29beds and they
41:30redefined the
41:31corridors as walls.
41:33And yet again the
41:34patients were off the
41:35list.
41:36The police were also
41:38under pressure to meet
41:39their targets.
41:40One of the main ones
41:41was to reduce the rate
41:42of recorded crime.
41:44Again inventive
41:45strategies were found.
41:48Lothian police
41:48announced the most
41:49successful crime
41:50figures in 25 years.
41:52But it was later
41:53found that they had
41:54reclassified hundreds of
41:55crimes including
41:56assault, robbery and
41:58fire raising as
41:59simply suspicious
42:00occurrences which
42:02wouldn't be included
42:03in the figures.
42:03We are passionate
42:05about meeting these
42:06targets.
42:07Fiddling.
42:07By the management.
42:08Altered their records
42:09but that's a bit odd.
42:10I mean you're the
42:11consultant.
42:12And started to amend
42:13some of the answers
42:15that the youngsters had
42:15given.
42:16Trolley weights none.
42:17Targets three levels of
42:18targets.
42:19Clear targets.
42:20Targets.
42:20Those targets.
42:21Focus on those targets.
42:23Why they're targets.
42:24Targets.
42:25The government tried to
42:27dismiss these reports
42:28as just a few bad
42:29examples.
42:30But report after report
42:31came out which revealed
42:33that this inventive
42:34gaming of the system
42:35was now endemic
42:36throughout the public
42:37services.
42:38What was supposed to be
42:40a rational system was
42:41instead creating a
42:42strange world in which
42:43no one knew whether to
42:45believe the numbers or
42:46not.
42:47The government's response
42:48was to introduce even
42:49more mathematical levels
42:51of management.
42:52Complex systems of
42:53auditing were created
42:54to monitor workers and
42:56make sure they fulfilled
42:58the targets in the
42:59correct way.
43:01What had begun as a
43:02system of liberation was
43:03turning into a powerful
43:04system of control.
43:09If I don't hit those
43:10targets then I don't get
43:11a pay increase.
43:12It's as simple as that.
43:13They withhold your
43:14increment?
43:14They withhold my
43:15increment.
43:15Not meeting the targets
43:16is really not an option.
43:18It's such an important
43:19target that I get to keep
43:21my job this month because
43:22there's no red on the
43:23screen.
43:23If they don't reach the
43:24target their acts and if
43:25they speak out against
43:26them their acts will here
43:27have a catch-22 situation.
43:29If you get zero star
43:30rated you are being
43:31watched like a hawk.
43:34I think you should go.
43:37But the numbers were also
43:38having a strange and
43:39perverse effect on New
43:41Labour's vision of a
43:42freer and more open
43:43Britain.
43:45They were in fact creating
43:46a more rigid and
43:47stratified society.
43:49At the heart of this was
43:51education and the league
43:52tables for schools.
43:55The tables showed parents
43:56which were the best
43:57performing schools and
43:58which were the worst ones.
44:01The government said that
44:02this would incentivise the
44:03less successful ones to
44:05compete and improve their
44:06services and standards
44:08would then rise across the
44:09country.
44:11In fact the very opposite
44:13happened.
44:14Rich parents moved into the
44:16areas of the best schools
44:17which then caused house
44:18prices to spiral keeping
44:20the poor out.
44:22And nearly all schools
44:23taught their pupils only
44:25those narrow facts they
44:27would need to answer in
44:28exams and so would help
44:30the schools rise up the
44:31league tables.
44:33What was lost was the
44:34wider education that would
44:36help the poorer children
44:37rise up in society.
44:39In 2006 a series of
44:49reports made it clear that
44:51there was a definite link
44:52between the government's
44:53policies in education and
44:54the rise of social
44:55segregation based on
44:57wealth.
44:58This has contributed to a
44:59much wider problem.
45:01Social mobility in Britain
45:02has now ground to a
45:03halt.
45:06The stark fact is that the
45:08children of rich
45:09families in Britain today
45:10are much more likely to
45:11live and die rich than in
45:13the recent past.
45:15While children from poor
45:16families are more likely to
45:18live and die poor.
45:20The country has become more
45:22rigid and stratified than at
45:23any time since the Second
45:25World War.
45:29New Labour had adopted the
45:31market model of freedom
45:32believing that there would be
45:33a trade-off.
45:35They gave up their old
45:36political role of intervening
45:38in the market to reduce
45:39inequality but what was
45:41supposed to follow was a new
45:43openness and fluidity in
45:44society.
45:46In fact they now have the worst
45:48of both worlds.
45:50Society has become more rigid
45:52while the inequalities have
45:54become more extreme.
45:57Under New Labour the country is
46:00even more unequal than it was
46:01under Mrs Thatcher with an ever
46:04increasing share of the wealth going
46:05to a tiny 1% at the top of society.
46:08And the inequalities not only affect how you live but also when you will die.
46:14Across the country differences in life expectancy have increased since 1997.
46:21Inequalities in child mortality by class have also increased.
46:26A baby born in Hackney is now twice as likely to die in its first year as a baby born in Bexley.
46:33Beneath the meritocratic surface the social class divisions in Britain are hardening and deepening.
46:40And in America throughout the 1990s the economic model of democracy was leading not just to the rise of inequality but to financial and political corruption on a huge scale.
46:59America had experienced a spectacular market boom.
47:06But those running the market had realised that the numbers were not telling the truth because the giant accounting firms had become corrupted.
47:14There was a new element afoot.
47:16The very foundation of the market, the numbers that represented the sanctity of the market, the reliability of the market, were becoming unreliable because the accounting
47:28because the accountants had violated the trust the government had placed in them.
47:34I knew that the great accounting firms of America had engaged in practices that were very, very questionable and very often fraudulent.
47:44We were seeing more and more and more of these cases.
47:47How widespread did it become?
47:49Extremely widespread.
47:51Those who ran many of America's corporations were faking profits on an enormous scale.
47:57They did this because it would then increase their personal bonuses.
48:02Come on, they would say.
48:04Isn't there another way of looking at those numbers?
48:07Can we compromise?
48:09Can we spread, for example, this misrepresentation over a number of years?
48:15In all of these cases the effect is one of corruption.
48:20We were trusted.
48:21We had a rational system based on numbers that could not be disputed.
48:26We ended up now with a fictitious irrational system.
48:30The officials, whose job was to regulate the market, tried to persuade politicians in Congress to act and expose this.
48:37But they were blocked at every turn.
48:39They found that all the key politicians were being given millions of dollars in campaign contributions by both the corporations and the accounting firms.
48:49I mean, massive amounts of money were spent in lobbying committees of Congress.
48:54I knew they were motivated by concern for business interests.
48:59You mean they've been bribed?
49:02No.
49:03I wouldn't use that word.
49:05That's your word.
49:07What word would you use?
49:09Seduced.
49:11Despite the growing evidence of corruption, the Clinton administration portrayed the boom as something revolutionary.
49:18It was a genuine democracy of the marketplace in which everyone at all levels of society was benefiting.
49:25But this was completely untrue.
49:28If one compares the incomes of Americans in real terms between the end of the 1970s and the end of the 1990s,
49:36those at the bottom of society saw their income actually fall.
49:40Those in the middle saw a slight increase, while those at the top increased by an extraordinary amount.
49:49If you take income after taxes, you find that the average household cash income in the bottom fifth of Americans went from $9,300 a year to $8,700.
50:03You find that the average household cash income in the middle fifth, the median, went from $31,800 to $33,200.
50:14You take the top 1% in the same time period, you go from $256,000 a year to $644,000 a year.
50:25That to me is the simplest set of numbers I can use to sum it all up.
50:29I have many variations, but those just eat right out of the box at you.
50:35It's just incredible how you can have something like that.
50:38Underlying the political experiments of the 1990s had been a simplified idea of human beings,
50:44that at heart they were just self-seeking individuals whose needs could be best met through the marketplace, not politics.
50:51If left unregulated, the markets would benefit everyone.
50:55In the face of this simple, irresistible argument, politicians had given away much of their power.
51:01But what had actually happened was the return of inequalities and social injustices not seen for a hundred years.
51:08The very thing politicians were supposed to prevent.
51:12Politicians now found themselves weakened and corrupted and without the power to change society.
51:20And millions of individuals were left without representation and even less control over their lives.
51:27Here is the ultimate irony, because as people began to believe they are just self-seeking, acquisitive individuals,
51:34that democratic systems are fundamentally not nearly as good as the market for fulfilling whatever it is you want.
51:44People allowed elites to take over politics and politics to be distorted and corrupted,
51:52so that politics became even less capable of fulfilling people's needs.
51:57And meanwhile, the market did not give people good jobs, secure jobs.
52:03And so, ultimately, the individual cannot be fulfilled either through politics or through the market.
52:10What had given this simplified view of human beings much of its power had been ideas drawn from both mathematics and biology.
52:19As this program has shown, it underpinned a powerful model of ourselves as almost computer-like machines,
52:26whose instincts had largely been encoded within them millions of years before.
52:31But now, questions were beginning to be asked in the scientific world
52:36about whether this was too simple a view of human beings.
52:40In genetics, the idea that the DNA is the all-controlling set of instructions for life
52:46has been replaced by a more complex idea.
52:49Scientists have shown that a cell actually chooses and edits which parts of the DNA to use,
52:55depending on the environmental forces acting on it.
52:58One of the key experiments that showed that the self-interested actions of genes control behaviour,
53:09has also been questioned.
53:12Anthropologists looked into the history of the Yanomamo tribes,
53:16and discovered a pattern to their violence that could be explained by very different causes than genes.
53:21It only seemed to happen when the Yanomamo came into contact with Westerners who gave them goods.
53:28The tribes fought with each other for access to those goods.
53:33What I discovered was that there was a pattern in which the warfare became more intense,
53:43or happened at all, during times of greater Western penetration into the area.
53:48You're not going to get any help by looking at their reproductive striving.
53:53I think what will explain that for you is what is the historical interactions with these powerful outside forces.
54:01That explains when and where they fight.
54:04And those powerful outside forces are what?
54:06The powerful outside forces are predominantly the Westerners who come in
54:10who are sources of these much-desired goods.
54:13Anthropologists have looked again at the film of the Axe Fight.
54:17They argue that what one actually sees is a struggle between two factions.
54:22One, a group who have been given machetes by the filmmaker, Napoleon Chagnon.
54:27The other, a group of visitors to the village who are refusing to leave
54:32because they too want access to these precious gifts.
54:36The real cause of the fight, they say, is not the genes,
54:39but a struggle of politics and power aggravated by the filmmaker himself.
54:44But Chagnon completely disagrees and stands by his experiment.
54:49No, I don't think the Axe Fight happened because I was there.
54:52Are you sure?
54:53Well, are you sure your father is your father?
55:02I think it would be a reasonable presumption that this Axe Fight would have happened whether or not I was there.
55:10And the very fact that I was there and documented it was not the cause of it.
55:14Because Axe Fights or club fights happen in many other villages when I'm not there.
55:21And I've documented these as well through informants who describe them.
55:25So I don't think this particular fight was anything extraordinary
55:30and out of the pattern of Yanomaman violence.
55:34You don't think a film crew in the middle of a fight in a village has an effect?
55:39No, I don't.
55:40That's my idea.
55:43And in mathematics, the man who had created the equations
55:47that lay behind the simplified economic model of society
55:51was also expressing doubts about the assumptions on which his work had been based.
55:56He was the mathematician John Nash.
56:01Nash, who has now recovered from paranoid schizophrenia and still works at Princeton,
56:06has come to believe that the purely rational, calculating creatures in his model,
56:11what he calls the human as businessman,
56:14have little connection with the complexity of real human beings.
56:19I have had some trouble myself on the psychological level.
56:24I've been in mental hospitals, and so I may be developing a pattern of rationality.
56:33I realize that what I had said at some time may have overemphasized rationality
56:40or some type of thinking, and I don't want to overemphasize rational thinking on the part of humans.
56:50Human beings are much more complicated than, like, the human being as a businessman.
57:02Human behavior is not entirely motivated by self-interest of each human.
57:07But the underlying assumption of game theory is that it is.
57:11Game theory works in terms of self-interest.
57:14But it was like the viewpoint that some game theory concept could be unsound.
57:20There's over-dependence on rationality.
57:23That is my enlightenment.
57:26And Nash is not alone.
57:29In economics, the whole idea that the free market is an efficient system is coming under serious attack.
57:35Over the past five years, many of the Nobel Prizes for economics have been awarded for research
57:41that shows that markets do not create stability or order.
57:45That what Adam Smith called the invisible hand is invisible because it isn't actually there.
57:51And politicians do have a powerful role to play in controlling the markets.
57:58And a new discipline called behavioral economics has been studying whether people really do behave
58:04as the simplified model says they do.
58:06Their studies show that only two groups in society actually behave in a rational, self-interested way
58:13in all experimental situations.
58:16One is economists themselves.
58:19The other is psychopaths.
58:23Is that all there is?
58:27Is that all there is?
58:31The final part of the trap is next Sunday at nine.
58:34Next tonight, combat opera do their own personal take on binge drinking here on BBC Two.
58:40And on BBC Four, 70 years on and very little changed,
58:43Design Classics takes a look at the tube map.
58:49If that's all there is.
Be the first to comment