In the diagram are several alternative explanations. Taking a couple that lie quite close to each other:
• I’m not getting a job because the work ethic is a corrupt system designed to crush those at a disadvantage.
• I’m not getting a job because I’m too clever and that scares those ignorant bastards who post recruitment ads.
Ideas like that can be quite addictive: the more you believe them, the more evidence you find to confirm their truth. If our hero ignores my advice and opts for explanations like that, it could be his undoing, but it also could work very well. He might, for example, build up such a level of protest that he is driven to express it in violent punk music, or to write a scathing first novel.
Even the most negative ideas on the diagram can lead to success in their own terms. For example: “the reason I can’t get a job is that I’m just a fucking loser” could lead to a downward spiral towards self immolation and suicide that looks from the outside like an outright failure but is actually a superb victory over pompous attitudes in an arrogant, self righteous family—”get them where it really hurts” stuff.
Either way, a tempting thought grows into an addiction where it can lead to ruin or it can lead to triumph. More properly, as we shall see, it can lead to both. The loser gets revenge on his proud father, but sacrifices his life. The protest singer soars to fame, but will be particularly vulnerable to the other temptations of that lifestyle—including drugs.
So you don’t have to follow my advice in order to succeed. Does this weaken my case? Does it mean that demonising is just an alternative psychological trick to solve problems?
My answer is instead to extend the principle from therapeutic technique to broad life principle, by claiming that all those alternative explanations are simply demons in their own right. That is what makes them so addictive. We do not see them as demons, we insist that “I’m a loser” is just an explanation, rather than a parasitic life-form that is seeking a niche in the ecology of our minds. As a result “I’m a loser” gets a foothold, becomes a demonic partner to us and begins to manipulate our behaviour to confirm its validity and strengthen its hold. This is an example of a demon preferring not to be recognised and named, and thus it can grow without interference.
So the analysis has shifted. Instead of a choice between demons or not demons, I present a choice between two sorts of demonic pact. In one case we name, shame and co-operate. In the other we deny and are taken over.
Actually, it’s a little more complicated than that.
TOUGH AND TENDER APPROACHES
If I said to our hero “you have a demon” he might reply “don’t be soppy, it’s just a run of bad luck” or “just the fault of the narrow minded British approach to work” or whatever. Many people would say this reply is being “tough-minded” or “hard-headed” relative to my approach.
There is something in that. Working with demons can be a bit like Alice Through The Looking Glass— a topsy turvy world where you sometimes make better progress by walking backwards. Politicians are very aware of this and often say the exact opposite to the truth, and it is a very effective technique. In this example, people who go along with the herd and meekly bow to establishment values by insisting “it’s just coincidence” or “the government’s fault” are called “tough-minded”, while those who champion a revolutionary diagnostic technique are called “soppy”. Fair enough. It’s no worse than insisting that people are being tough when in reality they are so feeble that they pine for “strong leaders”.
Nowadays you follow the herd by denying that demons exist. In religious times, like the Middle Ages, you did it by insisting that demons are evil. In either case it is forbidden to make a pact with them. The following is an extract from The Grimoire of Pope Honorius4, a medieval book on demonic magic, and gives an idea of their approach to the subject.
“I .... conjure thee Spirit ...., by the Living God, by the true God, by the blessed and omnipotent God... etc. etc.
In the Name of Jesus Christ, by the power of the Holy Sacraments and the Eucharist...” etc. etc. for another 6 lines.
I conjure thee into this circle, O accursed Spirit, by thy judgement, thou who hast dared to disobey God. I exorcise thee, Serpent, and I order thee to appear immediately in human form, well shaped in body and soul, and to comply with my commands without deception of whatsoever kind, and without either mental reservation: and this by the great names of God ...” etc. etc. for another 7 lines
I conjure thee, O evil and accursed Serpent, to appear at my wish and pleasure, in this place and before this Circle, immediately, alone and without any companion, without any ill-will, delay, noise, deformity or evasion. I exorcise the by the ineffable names of God ...” etc. etc. ad nauseam...
The whole thing reads very much in the style of a heavy handed legal summons or warrant for arrest, and is a far cry from the tender negotiations I am recommending. The fact is that there are other approaches than the one I recommend, but they are more risky.
In the example given earlier, I suggested that the hero might deny that he has a demon, insist that his failure is the fault of society, and get so worked up about the idea that it leads to a brilliant career as a revolutionary rock singer. Although this looks like a denial of the demonic diagnosis, it actually confirms it, by suggesting that the notion “society is at fault” is itself a demon that has taken him over and used him as a vector for spreading its message into the youth culture.
As an alternative way of working with demons it has definite advantages. Following my prescription he might overcome his resistance to work and end up with a safe job in Dad’s firm. The other way he becomes a folk hero. I know which I would prefer.
The problem is that, the way he did it, he denied the existence of the demon and so became its vehicle. Great benefits could result, but the position is very dangerous because people who succeed because of being driven by a demon are people who have made a career out of addiction and are therefore very vulnerable to the addictive qualities of success itself.
If instead he had realised he had a demon in the form of deep contempt for certain elements in our society, and he had made a more conscious pact with that demon by allowing it to drive him to the top, then he would have a greater chance of handling the situation when he became a teen idol. It is still a risky choice, because the better you control a demon, the less powerful it is. The more you allow it to control you—for example by insisting there is no demon, the more freedom it has to grow.
I associate this division between tough and tender demonic contracts with the right/left division in politics. Consider this: what does a politician do with its criminal or unpopular elements?
The left wing approach is to communicate with them and try to assimilate them back into society: a murderer who genuinely repents and wishes to make amends is not just another honest citizen, he is an honest citizen with extra insight into the mind of the murderer and can therefore make an even bigger contribution to our society.
The right wing approach is to punish them, alienate them in order to make them strong and to use their strength. This is typified by Adolph Hitler’s approach: put your thugs into uniforms and use them to increase your political power. Or by Margaret Thatcher’s approach: the more underdogs become re-classified as criminals, the more the middle classes will be terrified into voting for her government.
The right wing approach is certainly effective, but the trouble is that it depends upon increasing the strength of the demons and you can end up with a demon too strong to handle.
We are talking about two different forms of demonisation. My type of demonisation begins with a recognition that demons exist, and then studies how best to handle them. The other approach is to deny that there is any such thing as a demon, then to give some problem all the supposed characteristics of a demon—evil cunning, base motives, social outcasting etc..
In these terms,