[1995ut:83]

This question <103|102> overall <82-1|85> Tripper: <32|129>.

Question 90: Have we gotten away from this personality cult in a modern democracy?

[83] Tripper: The straightforward answer to this question is no! We as a society have not done away with this particular personality cult in a modern democracy.

I was recently given an example of this very thing by a close friend of mine. She attends one of the local churches here in the Salt Lake area, where she has been a life time member. For the past fifteen years the same minister has presided over the congregation. One year ago a new minister was installed in the others place. For the past year, she, along with at least one-third of the congregation have struggled to accept this man as their new minister. He holds the same education and church ministry requirements as others of the same profession. Largely because of the age difference between the former and the new minister, and personality conflicts it has been a huge adjustment for most of the members of this particular congregation.

We as a society formulate in our minds the epitome of such people, others would include coaches and political leaders. We experience emotions of doubt and uncertainty when changes occur, thus not doing away with that particular personality cult within our democracy.

I wanted to interject a small comment just for thought before I sign off. I found it interesting that the word democracy was used in the conclusion of this question instead of another word such as society as a whole. Do we see this happen more because we are a democracy? To a certain extent we have a greater freedom to express our doubts or insecurities when changes take place. I am not saying that only people who live in democracies are able to have this personality cult, all people have the ability to feel this. I am suggesting that in other cultures where feelings and thoughts are generally suppressed, evidence of this might not so widely exist.

Hans: The following is not a typical example of personality cult. The people in the congregation know their ministers personally, and they may well have good reasons to be more satisfied with one than the other.

I was recently given an example of this very thing by a close friend of mine. She attends one of the local churches here in the Salt Lake area, where she has been a life time member. For the past fifteen years the same minister has presided over the congregation. One year ago a new minister was installed in the others place. For the past year, she, along with at least one-third of the congregation have struggled to accept this man as their new minister. He holds the same education and church ministry requirements as others of the same profession. Largely because of the age difference between the former and the new minister, and person- ality conflicts it has been a huge adjustment for most of the members of this particular congregation.

Coaches and political leaders are better examples of personality cult: these are people whom we don't know personally but to whom we attach emotions -- not only those of doubt and uncertainty. But even if they are critical feelings: criticisms of our leaders (that Reagan was really too dumb to be president) can be conservative because they take the system for granted.

What follows now is a good observation. You have the right instinct that personality cult and democracy belong together.

But now you are trying to turn this into an advantage of democracies. As I said above, these cannot be genuine feelings. These are displaced emotions, which, if they were focused on their real reasons, might be dangerous to the system.

To a certain extent we have a greater freedom to express our doubts or insecurities when changes take place. I am not saying that only people who live in democracies are able to have this personality cult, all people have the ability to feel this. I am suggesting that in other cultures where feelings and thoughts are generally suppressed, evidence of this might not so widely exist.