Through the Looking Glass

Photo by Jenna Hamra from Pexels

In 1532, Niccolò Machiavelli published The Prince, convincing a generation of powerful leaders that the only way to maintain control over the masses is through violence, fear and manipulation. According to Machiavelli, men and women are simple-minded beings who are bound to accept whatever reality is presented to them as an absolute truth; bound to crave whatever guidance is offered to them, even if said guidance fails to line up with logic or agree with his or her own personal experience. After all, by the mid-16th century, the Church was already a well-established, pervasive part of every day life. And there isn’t an institution on Earth more notorious for convincing millions of people that the only path to salvation is through blind obedience and unquestioning submission than the Church. In fact, when Christianity first became a fact of life for mainstream society (in Rome, c. 13th century), women and the poor were the most attracted to its cause. Ironically, those were the very people groups the elite sought control over the most.

“He who seeks to deceive,” writes Machiavelli, “will always find someone who will allow himself to be deceived.” And thus, The Prince justified what has proven to be the most reliable cause of societal downfall in human history: unfettered dominance through manipulation, exploitation and fear for the purpose of power.

The human drive to conquer and create is what has lifted us out of the jungles and fields and into our cities and neighborhoods. We are the only animal species that has the ability to not only survive, but also thrive. We are able to transcend our physical selves through ideation and creation. But consciousness is a double-edged sword. After our urge to conquer the environment around us was satisfied, we evolved to wanting to conquer each other for personal gain. And when it comes to human beings, what better to conquer than the mind?

In an attempt to justify their barbaric treatment of the Native Americans, White men convinced their flocks that the “Injuns” were murderous savages who deserved to be slaughtered in the name of self-defense and Manifest Destiny. And that’s how a race of people who were once 100% of the population was dwindled to 1%. It was through that same logic that every human rights catastrophe in the history of our species was justified. The Jews in Europe were the cause of every bad day any German ever had. The Blacks in America had to be subjected to slavery and Jim Crow because they were violent, sex-crazed brutes who were hungry for pure White women. Women have to be subordinated and controlled by their husbands and fathers, because they are simply too emotional and weak to be trusted with their own power and freedom. And the cycle continues.

The human mind can and should be applauded for its complexity and efficiency. However, I can’t help but point out our destructive tendency to accept faulty logic that “helps explain” the reality around us, even when what’s being paraded as the truth doesn’t sit right with our souls. And therein lies the struggle.

Homo sapiens occupy a peculiar position that other animals never have to consider. We exist upon two planes: one physical, one spiritual. We are a physical animal leading a spiritual existence, which is why we require so many justifications for destructive behavior or ideologies. Our animalistic brain, prone to fear, hardly ever aligns with our Higher Self that is driven first and foremost by love. We can find examples of this conflict between man and God, or ego and Spirit, everywhere we look: politics, history, science, religion, or even in the relationship dynamics between parent and child. But nowhere is this dichotomy—this struggle between what we’ve been taught by those seeking to control us versus what we intuitively know to be real—than what we witness in the relationship we have with ourselves.

As Above, So Below

As without, so within. I think, therefore I am. The macrocosm is the microcosm. If the entire world seems to be in a constant state of fear and unrest, and the world is run by humans, doesn’t that suggest humans are in their own personal states of fear and unrest? It’s only natural that the majority of our world is walking around in a state of perpetual angst. After all, Machiavelli’s teachings never quite went away, did they? According to him, power is “the implementation of diplomacy, flattery and bribery, sprinkled with charisma and charm, that enables the individual to ensconce himself in a position of lasting power and control.” The moment he proposed politics be approached as a sort of science was the moment he gave societal leaders the blueprint on how to manipulate you. Ever since, happiness and contentment have become moving targets. You can never quite reach them, though they always seem to be close by. Just not close enough. Hence the angst and frustration.

The Prince was written for politicians, and it’s easy to see how it has influenced them. It’s a little more difficult, though, to spot what impact it’s had on all of us, and harder still to discover how Machiavellianism has personally impacted you. For the majority of the developed, Western world we are living in an era of abundance beyond our ancestors’ wildest dreams. Education, healthcare, hygiene products, food, water and housing abound. Why, then, are so many people convinced there isn’t enough? Because we’ve been led to believe just that. The less you feel you have—regardless of what your reality actually is—the more you’ll be inclined to hand over your money, your vote, your self-agency, your body and even your life to those who promise to replenish what you lack. As a consequence, your resources deplete while their power multiplies indefinitely.

The easiest example of this dynamic is women versus traditional social standards. Beauty titans like L’Oréal, Covergirl, Spanx and Maybelline have done fantastic jobs of convincing everyday women that no matter what they do, they will never be enough. Aside from the flawed logic that youth is synonymous with beauty, the ever-shifting beauty standards inspired by the elite are proof enough that women are playing a losing game. In just 100 years, beauty ideals have evolved from the long, overly thin eyebrows and petite lips of the 1900s; to the pale face, full dark hair and regal aura of Snow White and Hedy Lamarr; to the voluptuous, sexual, whispery bombshells of the 60s; to the blonde, tanned, impossibly thin models of the 90s; all the way to the racially ambiguous, surgeon-achieved, heavily contoured Kardashian-like beauties of today. In the early 20th century, the advertisements’ messaging around beauty expectations seemed to fluctuate wildly depending on what individual was writing the copy at the time.

Add in the effect of Disney movies and romantic comedies, mix that with religious teachings, and you’ve got 52% of the population perfectly primed and ready to be deceived by promises of fairy tales that never deliver.

With the help of this cultural messaging, both subliminal and overt, girls and women become convinced that their looks are their most valuable asset and a diamond ring is the ultimate prize. So they forego serious education. leave the adventurous paths for someone else and spend their entire lives trying to hit that ever-elusive target of happiness. They spend money on the brands that promise to make them look like whomever is the standard of beauty at the current moment, making L’Oréal and Kylie Jenner obnoxiously richer. They take the diet pills, get the botox, wear the clothes, eat the salad. They marry the same man with the same job, all in an effort to hit that target. And they never once stop to consider how ironic it is that so many other women are doing, eating, reading, wearing the exact same things to get the same result that seems to elude them all. Only after decades of wasting precious energy, foregoing true satisfaction in the name of tradition, do they realize that the target was a carrot on a string all along.

It is difficult to point out the makings of this trap to the very women who walk into it, though. Many of them are told from birth they need this well-worn structure to make life as a woman worth living. It isn’t the structure or the traditional lifestyle that’s the issue, but rather how it’s posited as a one-size-fits-all requirement for a happy life. In her revolutionary novel The Second Sex, Simone de Beauvoir points out how woman’s place in society came to be solidified by those who wished to dominate her entirely:

“[Women] must be denied training and culture, forbidden to develop their individuality, forced to wear uncomfortable clothing and encouraged to follow a debilitating dietary regime. The bourgeoisie follows this program exactly, confining women to the kitchen and to housework, jealously watching their behavior; they are enclosed in daily life rituals that hindered all attempts at independence. In return, they are honored and endowed with the most exquisite respect. ‘The married woman is a slave who must be seated on a throne,’ says [Honoré de] Balzac…women must not carry heavy burdens as in primitive societies; they are readily spared all painful tasks and worries: at the same time this relieves them of all responsibility. It is hoped that, thus duped, seduced by the ease of their condition, they will accept the role of mother and housewife to which they are being confined…It is easier to put people in chains than to remove them if those chains bring prestige, said George Bernard Shaw.”

So when 53% of White women helped usher in the era of Donald Trump in 2016, despite limitless proof of his disdain for, disregard of and abuse of women, it should’ve hardly taken anyone by surprise. This has been an exceptional case of Stockholm Syndrome centuries in the making. Remember the blueprint? First diplomacy, flattery and bribery, then charisma and charm to solidify the power play. The brilliant ways in which society at large has played puppet master to women’s existence would’ve made Niccolò himself burst with pride.

But it isn’t just women who have fallen into this dark web of scarcity propaganda. How many times a day do we tell ourselves we aren’t enough in a million different ways? And how many times do we follow these beliefs up with justifications for why they must be true? These thoughts often adhere to the following diabolical structure: “I am not [fill in the blank] enough for [fill in the blank] because [fill in the blank]. Therefore, I should [fill in the blank].”

“I am not masculine enough for my father to accept me, because I don’t like sports and competition as much as I enjoy the arts. Therefore, I should repress my passions and adopt an air of stoicism to get the validation I seek from Dad.”

“I’m not skinny enough to fit into my wedding dress because my thighs are too big. Therefore, I should starve myself in the months before my wedding and count every single calorie I eat.”

“I’m not white enough for society to see me as beautiful and acceptable, because my nose is too big, my hair is too curly and my culture is too loud. Therefore, I must mute everything about myself in order to be able to assimilate as much as possible.”

Each of these hypothetical situations has a cause—societal expectation—and effect—the betrayal of self for the commands of society—relationship that could be directly linked to the struggle between what the world wants and what the individual needs. As human beings, we are biologically wired for love and connection. We need it to survive. But as a society, we frequently find ourselves ripped apart by xenophobia and paranoia. This helps no one but those who profit off your fear.

When White, Christian Americans are duped into believing the liberals, the foreigners, or the brown people are threatening their way of life, what happens? That demographic becomes more isolated, more violent, less likely for connection with others and more likely to seek out someone to protect their misguided interests. People like Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell and Alabama Governor Kay Ivey get elected; media outlets like Fox News and right-wing radio pundits are allowed to flourish with high ratings. Never mind the fact that GOP politicians never pass laws in their constituents’ best interests, or that lies on Fox News are repeatedly exposed and debunked. “He who seeks to deceive will always find someone who will allow himself to be deceived.” There comes a point in mass manipulation when no amount of logic can undo the damage that’s been done by direct propaganda. The sheep learn to find comfort and familiarity in the embrace of barely-disguised wolves. And similar to the way Trump’s base remains steadfast regardless of any number of inexcusable deeds he’s committed in plain sight, women rarely leave their abusive husbands and religious zealots hardly ever admit to the massive contradictions inherent in their faith.

On a more personal level, the negative beliefs we’ve bought into about ourselves are hardly every fully eradicated. We go on believing, perhaps subconsciously, that we are too much of one thing and not enough of the other. And these beliefs permeate every aspect of our lives. They affect how we dress and style our hair, how we conduct romantic relationships with other people, what kind of jobs we seek out and the values we teach our children. Whether you believe it or not, the Butterfly Effect is a very real phenomenon. What you choose to believe about yourself is what you will manifest in your immediate reality, which includes your kids, your partner, your job and your community.

Contrary to popular belief, we are not the products of the environment around us. With the exception of the very young or the mentally disabled, the environment around us is the product of whomever we choose to be. Whereas polar bears grew white fur to adapt to life in the arctic tundra, or whales developed a thick blubber to adapt to life in the frigid seas, humanity’s single greatest triumph has been our ability to alter the world around us to better suit what we want to be and aspire to become. For better or worse, we’ve been blessed with the gift of choice. The choice to be whomever we decide to be, so long as we can think it up first.

Starting today, you can choose to reject the things this Machiavellian society told you you needed—a thinner nose, a bigger house, a diamond ring, a slimmer waist—and decide to be content with what you have. This isn’t to say have no ambition or drive, because things can always be better. But rather, it’s an urge to make sure your next step is driven by a desire for personal fulfillment instead of external validation or the pleasing of others. The moment you accept that you are, always have been and always will be enough, just by nature of being you, is the moment you take your power back from those who stole it. And because of you, society at large will be exponentially better off.