As life during the 1960's and 1970's in the United States was a hectic one with the many movements that were going on, there was one movement that dealt with the manipulation and the mindless following of willing people. This type of movement had to do with religious cults such as the Manson Family and Jonestown. These cults were run by leaders who were very good at persuasion and manipulation. The end to these cults resulted in jail time for Charles Manson and his followers and a mass suicide for the Jonestown community.
 |
| Charles Manson, law.umkc.edu |
Jim Jones and Charles Manson were both men believed that the world was going to go into a frenzy, Charles Manson through race riots, and Jim Jones due to nuclear proliferation. Both men were able to get a following through their rhetoric.
Charles Manson was more influential due to drug trips with his followers.
Jim Jones ran a religious temple called the "People's Temple" where all people were welcomed and was based off of his communist ideals.
 |
| Not this Jim Jones, radioplanet.tv |
Charles Manson came from a rough childhood and went in and out of prison as a young kid and when he got older. Charles Manson was also involved in the hippie movement when he moved to San Francisco at a young age. Through the movement he was able to manipulate many young girls and some men to join his movement. In his movement he stressed that there was a social uprising coming where the black people will rise up and kill the white people and it was up to them to start the social uprising. He named his idea
Helter Skelter after the famous Beatles song. Through his ideas to his followers, he manipulated them through drug use, sex, and his rhetoric that influenced people to follow him into the killing of Sharon Tate and five other people before they were all caught and charged with murder.
Jones tried to look good through his image as a philanthropic man who always gave his time to help people and was all about equality. Through his temple, people were supposed to abstain from sex, but Jim Jones was known to manipulate and break his own rules when he engaged with other men and women inside of his church. Jim Jones moved his church from his home in Indiana to San Francisco, California in the 1960's and then finally to Guyana in South America. By the time where he instructed a mass murder/suicide for all his followers including a Senator who was a bystander, he had 918 people killed.
 |
| Jim Jones, variety.com |
Both men were notorious for their manipulation, especially during a time in the 1960's where there was fear of nuclear warfare, the summer of love, and a fight for civil rights. These men preyed on innocent men and women who were either lost in the world and were alone, or needed something to be a part of. They manipulated the minds of many and compromised them for their greater good. Due to Kantian ethics,
Immanuel Kant would believe that the followers of these men were immature and not Enlightened due to the fact that they willingly listened and obeyed men who were essentially mad and did not use reason to make their own decision and leave the group at any time. While these people were in a vulnerable state, Immanuel Kant would disagree that this gives them the right to mindlessly follow someone without trying to reason for themselves and realize that they are making the wrong decision.
These men were like the pastor that Kant mentions when the pastor says, "Do not argue, Believe!" and these men willingly believed these preachers of their gospel which ended badly for the followers who chose not to think for themselves. Their lack of reason lead to their guilt of murder or their demise in Guyana through mass suicide.These followers operated through private reason, believing their leader and even if they questioned what was going on, they still willingly followed their leader because they had the authority. They did not use their public reason to make an informed decision about what was going on was wrong and they either needed to stop it, inform others, or leave. These followers were not informed, therefore were immature about their decision and in the end lost their right to freedom and life due to their lack of freedom of the mind in order to make an informed decision. Even though this is not a political problem, this is a problem where the ruled do not make an informed decision for themselves and end up in the hands of the ruler where they are like puppets. Kantian ethics can apply to all aspects of especially when it comes to a religious group where reason does not win out to belief.
Matt, this was a great approach to expressing the points of Kant's enlightenment theory. When we first learned about this topic in lecture, I thought about cults and radical religious groups too. Yet, I do believe there are other forms of 'immaturity' that we can see in our society today. People are so impressionable, especially when it comes to the world of politics. Many people do not form their own ideas and succumb to immaturity, which is especially true when a person grows up in an environment that is favorable towards a certain political faction. Additionally, we can look at history and see that there have been countless examples of people lacking enlightenment. A prime example of this would be German citizens during the 1940s, under Hitler and the Nazi regime. Majority of the people just "went along" with Hitler and followed his orders, despite knowing how immoral his actions were. They were afraid to think for themselves, and atrocities followed. I also believe that another motivating factor for the immaturity of cult members and people in general is peer pressure. When a person's friends are all drinking, smoking, etc., then they are likely to conform due to peer pressure. An enlightened person would either resist or partake only based on their personal ideas, not be persuaded by others just "for the sake of doing something." FInally, I do think that there was another reason for why the members of Jim Jones's and/or Charles Manson's cults followed them to death: they were simply uneducated. We see this theme time and time again. Uneducated individuals are certainly more susceptible to harmful ideas that bring them together. They need a sense of belonging, and this can contribute to pluralistic ignorance and the concept of 'groupthink." Education is the key to enlightenment.
ReplyDeleteMatt, I have to admit, when I first was exposed to Kant's views of enlightenment, it never really crossed my mind about all these cults, but it makes sense. People are constantly searching for their own identities, and the moment that another person busts in with these grand ideas of glory, happiness, prosperity - whatever - often times, they automatically believe them. There is no research, no discussion, and very little questioning from those who decide to join these cults. They hold on to the idea that they will be able to reach this sense of happiness just by what one person tells them, and this is so far from enlightenment. They probably thought that these cults were a safe haven, too, but they weren't. They lead to death and imprisonment. Thinking about the recent election, I can't help compare it to the young voters' opinions on the candidates. I know that a lot of people basically took their parents' ideas and mimicked them without doing any actual research. It's sort of like a bandwagon approach; once the election rolls around, all these people are suddenly "political experts" and all that jazz. Either that, or they think "oh, I'm a (political party), and (candidate) is also a (political party); I'll vote for him." I can't tell you how often I see that. These people don't have any knowledge about what they're voting on, and their willing ignorance is just completely spread. An enlightened person would be able to look at the candidates and propositions, do their research, further their knowledge, and make well-educated decisions. Unfortunately, I don't think this is going to happen anytime soon. For me, (Obama woohoo!) I actually did research on Obama's policies and their effects on the American economy, and I was able to construct a well-informed opinion, something I am more proud of than if I were to just go "my parents are Democrats, so I am too" (which is untrue, actually; while most families just talk about their days at school/work over the dinner table, we often find ourselves having political debates, which can get a little... ugly, to say the least).
ReplyDelete