I Shall Support You -- But I DON”T Think You Can WIN.

"If You Want to Run again, (obviously),

We Shall Support You; 

But We DON'T Think that

You can Win --"

ITN Exclusive: Margaret Thatcher's Dramatic First Interview After Being ...

In June 1991, Former Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher sat down with ITN's veteran political correspondent Michael Brunson for an exclusive interview about her final days in Downing Street. It was the first time Thatcher had given her version of events since her resignation as Prime Minister and leader of the Conservative Party in November 1990. 

In a 25-minute interview, an emotional Mrs Thatcher reflected in detail on the days leading up to her resignation. The former Prime Minister wept as she remembered accepting the loss of her cabinet's support and having the House of Commons after deciding to step down – an event Mrs Thatcher described as "traumatic". 

#MargaretThatcher #Thatcher #UKPolitics 

To search the ITN Archive collection on Getty Images, follow the link below:

hello

[Music]

[Applause]

I hope you have some

thank you very much thank you very much

thank you

Mr Satchel this is the first time you've

spoken to British television since your

resignation so I wonder because we

haven't heard as it were your version of

events and your side of the story you

you've said in the past that you thought

that what happened that what led to your

departure was really because people took

fright at the opinion polls isn't it

really the case that what had happened

was that your cabinet had in a sense

begun to Desert you because they were

worried about the way you were handling

things like Europe and like the poltex

and wasn't that the real reason why

things turned out the way they did

no I don't think it was

and I would say so if I thought it was

there had been some controversy about

the community charge

but everyone agreed it was based upon

the right principles the right

principles but we just got it up too

high and that would have been corrected

by putting in more tax for bigger

proportion of taxpayers money no I think

it genuinely was what I said that

certainly there's some on the back

benches who are getting very alarmed at

the opinion polls but I think we'd

perhaps had fewer people who this time

had had experience of what happened

before and they they demonstrated that

in that they didn't give one a clear run

on the first ballot that was one thing I

thought it would come all right but when

I returned

I thought I simply must speak the

members of my cabinet one or two other

senior ministers and I'm not going to

say who said what but they weren't a

hundred percent

um and they were very concerned

although they said most of them not all

that they would certainly support me

there was just a feeling that I thought

well if we get through we'll probably

gets through

but the things will go on being divided

with this kind of

um little bit of uncertainty

I had just better decide because it

should have come clear on the first

ballot can you just I think that

decision was right may I say so I think

that decision was right although the

letters I had

um

we had over 160

000.

in the end

were marvelous they didn't understand

and they contested

what happened because they said we voted

for you in a general election

and we haven't been asked

nevertheless that was not the position

one was faced with

I was faced with a position where I only

got 204 votes and it really should have

been more they said I should have been

at home during that period I was

in Paris

signing the treaty we had worked for

eign

and certainly those were there will

quite forget now what we saw on that

occasion was almost you come bursting

out of that Embassy door to the waiting

microphones and you very quickly said

that you were going to stand for the

second ballot but I wonder if you could

tell us actually how it was because

moments before that you were waiting

upstairs weren't you for a phone call

we were and I couldn't go after the

evening's engagement until we'd had it

and I was told the results immediately I

said but this means a second ballot so

we had not in fact got enough but then

it seemed to not seem to me at that

stage it would be difficult uh to get uh

three or four more people to vote with

us on the second ballot and um although

it was not very easy to go to a second

ballot it didn't seem to be very

difficult

uh something happened while I was away

that night there were various meetings

all over the place I think in London I

couldn't obviously be here and when I

got back the next morning it still

seemed to me that I would have a good

chance but during the day uh I got on

with

starting to get the confidence motion

ready and then thought I simply must see

the cabinets and some other people and

it was just very strange have you seen a

situation slip away from you I'm a

politician I know I can feel it I can

sense it and when um some people whom I

expected to be absolutely a staunch

had very different views said look I

will support you but I don't think that

um that it is a foregone conclusion then

all right no General can fight without a

really good army behind and I Linda guy

indicated it was the view that I took

I'm still sure it was the right one

under those circumstances

when did you really first sense that the

support had drained away to the extent

that you had to reach that decision was

it in in the morning when you came back

no it was in the evening after I had

come back because you had a big meeting

of colleagues over lunch didn't you at

number 10. yes so that was perfectly all

right Perfect all right and staunch what

some suggestions at that that all might

not be well I don't think people told

you then about the division of numbers

in the cabinet but I think there was

more than a hint there wasn't there that

things might not be quite going your way

to say the very least well I came back

and I I saw quite a lot

and I learned a good deal from that and

then the advice that I had was that

things were moving and changing in the

house and no I I was not going to cling

I either carried on with full Authority

I knew I had the authority of the people

but I wasn't going to carry on without

the authority of my party I did not have

enough I had

um I had a majority

I had a majority on the first ballot I

had a majority but I did not have a

sufficient majority and it would not

have

have been enough to go on the divisions

would have gone on that would have

absorbed them that is not good at that

stage of a parliament for anyone I still

believe that the decision was right and

so after that I'm confessed I went there

it's about half past eight and I simply

said look I have got to get back to

number 10 to finish making up that

speech you realize I have got emotional

Center tomorrow and I'm going in and I'm

going to have a battle

but of course uh just earlier today so I

got back and I think it was about ten

past one when um I had just finished the

speech and I said that I would make up

my mind finally the following morning

I'd sleep on it and Dennis and I

discussed it and

um you know the result

I'm still convinced it was the right

decision what went wrong was that we did

not get a big enough majority on the

first ballot and there's nothing I could

do to cure that that was the thing I

couldn't get over they said to me as I

went through but you haven't been to ask

us to vote for you other people have and

I thought Goodness Me

do I after 11 and a half years have to

go and ask personally for a vote

I remember previous leadership elections

but there you are they thought that I

did and I thought that um that was not

necessarily the right way to do it

because in the afternoon confidence or

they hadn't so it fell away very rapidly

uh early evening and because of the

first ballot not being sufficient I took

the decision in the end when you had to

come to that decision after you'd seen

the members of the cabinet individually

and one or two one understands that said

Point Blank that they would resign if

you carried on that only underlines what

you've been saying with such force that

you couldn't go on but I don't think

anyone said to him and no one said to me

no one said to me they would resign if I

carried on

no one that's interesting because it is

reported that at least one one said to

me

they would resign

if I can I didn't see them all

I didn't see them all I think I saw

about 11 or 12 and one or two other

people

but no one said to me

not one

but the crucial thing is that you then

went back to number 10 you had a

conversation with certain Etc Dennis DT

as he's always known he has always been

an absolutely staunch defender of you of

course as any husband would be but he's

been very valuable to you well he's he's

he's he's absolutely marvelous

and I think he was a bit cut up too that

we didn't get more but if he did we

didn't get enough then um he he

thought it was better to resign so he

was supportive in your decision there he

didn't try to talk you out of it no

he realized the political situation too

you must have full authority of your own

party to do to do the decisive things

which I have always done

too many people were fearful of the

opinion polls and um

so that was the way it went and then the

following morning of course you had I

suppose what must have been brought up

early

um and things hadn't changed so I

decided to take the course of action

which I did

then I went into the house well could I

just first of all ask you to recall what

must have been a very difficult meeting

of the cabinet yes of course it was

of course it was you don't take a

decision like that

without it being difficult

without heartbreak

heartbreak there may have beamed it was

the right decision

but you had to get through it

bernardingham in his Memoirs has said

that it was a traumatic experience those

are his words yes it was and it would

have been very strange if it hadn't been

but we got through it in fact you broke

down we got to the house you broke down

during that cabinet didn't you yes but I

carried on

and then the house

by that time I was back fighting fit

as you saw

just before that though the image that

people will perhaps remember you said

the cabinet was extremely difficult then

you had to come out into Downing Street

and you had to face the cameras in

effect you had to face the world

[Music]

you had to come and make what was

perhaps the statement of your life

and then I see that you know we notice

now that it's affecting you now and it

must have been yeah you must take to my

voice now it's not affecting my voice

you're thinking back to traumatic things

um but I managed to get through them

I managed to get through the television

I managed to get to the cabinet again

because there was something else to do

I had to um uh get on to people and I

must say this but Douglas heard and John

Major said if you wish to go on we will

propose you and second you again

and and that was marvelous that was

marvelous and then one had to get to a

cabinet and one or two people wanted to

leave because they too of course wanted

to to make provision for their own uh

for their own candidature quite right

quite right but by that time I had other

things to do and so I got on with them

the almost Final Act if you like of the

drama and it was a drama of your

resignation that speech you gave to the

house

now you've said how difficult it was

going through all the run-up talking to

the cabinet and all of that the

emotional strain that had obviously and

we've seen put you through what about

the business of going to the house and

making that resignation speech

ing it always isn't a full house always

whether it's at question time or an

ordinary down extraordinary day because

the house was packed

and early on in the speech I got a

little frog in my throat which you

sometimes do and I knew I had to talk

through it until I got some here here so

that I could have a glass of water and

then all of a sudden you start to get

interruptions and so you go from a

prepared script and it's spontaneous you

answer the questions that come

and

that just takes you out of yourself

completely you're so concerned with the

debate and the the quick thinking on

your feet of the right reply and then we

got on to the more interesting parts of

the speech let me say if ever you're

speaking the economy is the most

difficult thing to speak about it tends

to be in a sort of jargon

and however much you try to get rid of

the jargon you can't uh you always can

speak about the state of Industry

because that's human and living but the

actual public expenditure monetary

policy public sector Bond requirement is

it is difficult and you have to you get

that fairly fairly near the beginning so

you get to it and then you get on to

things which live like industry and

commerce uh and also some of your your

foreign policy and social services and

so on

uh and it did just take off I knew it

was taking off I knew when we got into

debate it would be all right but it just

did

do you remember the moment yeah do you

remember the moment when Dennis Skinner

intervened yes yes he is a marvelous

parliamentarian and no one has been

better at interjections than Dennis

Skinner

uh and he made a joke that you're going

to be governor of the Central Bank in

Europe and he said lots of money lots of

money you know he would say that and

your reply

what a good idea

it just did a thought I'm enjoying it

was fun beginning to enjoy I'm getting

to enjoy it yes were you yes because we

got on to him uh yes it's it it's it's

something which takes you out of

yourself the way to get out of yourself

is to have such strong things to do

immediately

that requires all your concentration all

your thought all your effort it's it's

and then you've forgotten what what is

bothering you because you've got

something to do immediately and for most

of my my political life that has been so

whatever the things that that really

that really were deeply deeply

concerning to me personally one had to

get on with something else and and

that's how you just get through

let me ask you if I may though about

thatcherism

it's uh

a word that's much banded about and

sometimes you've said well

really what it means because there was

the principles of it were invented long

before Mrs Thatcher yes they were but to

other people

to some other people thatcherism means

something negative it means I think that

they see it as a time of of personal

greed of time when people were just out

for themselves and that's the sort of

image that they have of ceterism

but absolute nonsense

don't most people want to work hard to

do better by their own families to have

a better house better holidays better

furniture

isn't that a worthwhile thing wouldn't

life be very much better if more people

took responsibility for their families

and for building their own future and

building their own security

and when they do that and have a little

bit over to help people less fortunate

than themselves isn't that a good thing

and aren't we trying to get the third

world out of the poverty it's in by

building up its Industries and having

some investment to go and help them with

John Wesley answered the question you've

just put

do not impute to money The Faults of

human nature

it's not the money it's not the wealth

you create it's what you do with it and

most people do want a better standard of

living

many many people use their money to to

do more for the Arts to see more to

enjoy more of the great artistic Works

whether it be music whether it be art

look at the Fantastic voluntary effort

in this country

it's enormous

no those look great isn't it absurd

trade unions mostly argue for higher

wages they argue for bigger

differentials but they then coming and

saying greed so some people are greedy

but people who want a better standard of

living a better way of life without

children or not they are highly moral

they're highly valued citizens and

they're usually those people who look

after their houses and their families

look after their neighborhoods join in

doing things their neighborhood

community spirit

this is the real satirism

isn't that always the danger that people

might be seeing you still as trying to

second-guess the prime minister

well I hope they won't

I hope they won't I did all my own first

guessing

for 15 years of what was right to do and

it wasn't guessing

so going back to the right principles of

passionate belief and uh you asked me

recently what things I remember I recall

one thing very well in 1980 One Finance

Minister of another part of the world

where'd you really rather believed in

what I was doing but hadn't seen it put

into practice before and saying to me

it look you're having difficulty we're

watching you very carefully we're

watching Britain very carefully that's

good they always please me when they're

watching Britain

because if you can roll back the

frontiers of socialism and in Britain

roll forward the frontiers of freedom

other people will follow you

what's an extraordinary thing to say

I knew I must keep going my goodness me

I took a pounding but we did

we did change Trade union law we did say

to a company look if you're if you're

going broke this is because you haven't

got it right and we're not going to pull

taxpayers money and to save you when in

fact if there's any taxpayers money

ought to be going to Bringing to bursts

and new Industries and for the first

time they had to take the consequences

of their own action what else is

democracy and responsibility all about

we did and we got people enthusiastic

about Enterprise do you know we've had

more young people starting up on their

own than ever before it is a new spirit

that's the essence to get the economy

right you have to understand human

nature there is a new spirit and we did

get it right and I'm not going to say it

go

just a final point on the whole business

of the way your Premiership ended I

think you've said that that no prime

minister really ought to have to leave

in those circumstances of course the

counter argument is it's almost like

that old phrase about be you never so

high the law is above you it's almost a

sense isn't it in which you say be you

never so high as prime minister but you

may be out of Downing Street by tonight

and prime ministers ought to know that

oh if you're out for what I call

constitutional reasons

of course

we were out for the reasons of the rules

made by the conservative party for

leaders in opposition

and that's very different

that's very different

uh the rules are still there

are there not rules which apply to the

labor party or to any other party

this was the first time it had happened

and uh it happened it happened I took

the right decision I am now free

to live another life a very practical

use both to the people of this country

and internationally I have a passion for

Britain

for the spirit of the people

for their character

it's done wonders for the world in the

past

it can still do wonders for the world of

the future

and what is your foundation going to do

it is going to embody all of those

things which I've explained and believed

in how to roll forward the frontiers of

Freedom how to bring it about

educating people about what it is all

about giving practical help to the

people in Eastern Europe who are trying

to do it they will want to know how to

learn we can give them scholarships they

can come over here we can get people to

go over there to advise them we can hold

conferences where they all get together

and learn from one another and

perpetuate the ideals I've also been

very active in uh the environment and

there's a good deal of work to do there

on a scientific basis that is partly

education was partly practical it's

enlarging the frontage of Freedom it's

bringing more and more of the world to

democracy on the basis of what we in

Britain have done it's taking our

leadership to others they're coming I

have telephone calls how can we do it

one can't give anything likes the amount

of money which governments can give the

one knows people who

you give them a helping hand you put

them in the way of Grants or

scholarships you teach them how to do it

most of the changes in the world

are brought about by a few people who

believe things and don't give up the

saccharovs the soldier knit sins knew

what was needed the Next Generation

we have to teach how and the young

people have never been made servile or

Passive by the communist system

the older people have when I spoke to

the young people in Moscow and then

they're such a right to a man and woman

isn't it marvelous but they already

raring to go and we must help them with

the how of it the spirit of Enterprise

the spirit

the character that is Britain

was such a marvelous people

we've done so much for Europe

we've done so much we've taken to the

far-flung corners of the world

a legal system our common law one of the

best in the world sound uncorrupt

Administration

of the spirit of enterprise

America practice at the other side the

best you learn from us this we must have

a foundation to make certain we have a

center so which it can continue that is

what I will do the best of Britain to

the best of the world

Margaret Thatcher thank you very much

indeed for talking to us

my pleasure thank you

Ostraphobia

Hook :

Good evening, 

Ladies and Gentlemen, 

Your Captain again.

Please do not allow 

this minor turbulence 

to disturb you.

For now, please sit back, relax. 

Enjoy the remainder 

of The Flight.

Thank You.

Peter Pan's Wife :

Look what Jack drew.

Peter Pan :

That's very nice, dear.

What's that?

Peter Pan's Wife :

Fire.

Peter Pan :

Fire. Really?

Is that Our Plane?

Peter Pan's Wife :

Yep.

Peter Pan :

Who are these people?

Peter Pan's Wife :

That's Jack, that's Me, 

that's Mom...

...and that's you.

Peter Pan :

Where's my parachute?

I won't make it to 

my next birthday….

Peter Pan's Wife :

You won't die without A Phone 

and a fax machine

Peter Pan :

I got The Phone, 

and The Briefcase.

Peter Pan's Wife :

Talk to him.

Peter Pan :

…why didn't I have 

a parachute, Jackie?

Jack :

Take a wild guess.

Peter Pan :

Jackie. Jack.

Will you stop? You can 

break a window.

Jack :

They're double-layered. 

You can't break them.

Peter Pan :

Give me that.

Jack :

You're afraid you'll 

get sucked out. 

Peter Pan :

I'm not afraid of being sucked out.

Yes, you are. You're afraid 

you'll be sucked out.

Peter Pan :

Just stop.

Jack, next season, I'm coming 

to six games. I promise.

Jack :

Yeah, be sure to buy 

enough videotape.

Peter Pan :

Hey. Jack.

My Word is My Bond.

Jack :

Yeah, junk bond!

Peter Pan :

What's the matter with you? 

When are you gonna stop 

acting like A Child?

Jack :

I am a Child.

Peter Pan :

Grow up.

Weeding

Captain James Hook :

Thank you. 

Thank you. 

Thank you.

Well, my stupid, sorry, parasitic sacks of entrails.... 

Revenge is Mine.

Long live The Hook!

I baited that Hook 

and now I'm proud to announce...

We have his children.

Finally I'm going to 

kill Peter Pan,

that cocky boy who 

cut off my hand 

and fed it to 

The Crocodile!

And who killed that 

cunning Crocodile? 

HOOK!

Who stuffed him?

HOOK!

Who made him into 

a quiet clock? 

HOOK!

Who went to 

The Other World 

and stole 

Pan's children?

HOOK!

And who didn't believe 

I could DO it?

Who doubted me?

Who amongst Us 

Does not Belong?

Someone here does 

not belong --

Stranger amongst 

The Loyal,

I'll weed you out.

[Command ship]

(Skagra snaps his fingers and the sphere settles on a pillar.)

ROMANA: 

Why don't you tell me? 

Why won't you just say what 

you're trying to do? 

(Skagra looks out of a big window.)

SKAGRA: 

Tell me what you see. 

ROMANA: 

Stars. 

SKAGRA: 

What are they doing? 

ROMANA: 

Doing? 

SKAGRA: 

Yes. 

ROMANA: 

Well, they're just there. 

They're --

SKAGRA: 

Exactly. Spinning uselessly through The Void. 

And around them, billions of people 

spinning uselessly through their lives. 

ROMANA: 

Says who?

SKAGRA: 

I Say. 

ROMANA: 

And Who are You? 

SKAGRA: 

What I am now is Not Important. 

But what I, what We all shall become... 

ROMANA: 

What do you --

SKAGRA: 

Shush. Look. 

(He opens his hands.)

ROMANA: 

What? 

SKAGRA: 

What do you see? 

ROMANA: 

Nothing. 

SKAGRA: 

Billions of atoms spinning at random, 

expending energy, running down, 

achieving nothing. 

Entropy, like the stars. 

But what is the one thing that 

stands against Entropy, 

against random decay? Life. 

(indicating himself)

See how the atoms are arranged here? 

They have Meaning, Purpose. 

And what more Meaning and Purpose 

than in here. (his head) 

You do not understand Me. 

Your Mind is too limited.

 

My Krargs. They shall be The Servants 

of The New Generation. 

ROMANA: 

New Generation? New people?

SKAGRA: 

Not new people. 

A new Person.

[Krarg generator room]

(They enter a vapour-filled room.)

ROMANA: 

What? 

SKAGRA: 

Shush. 

(Skagra activates A Machine, and a new Krarg is created. Giant shaggy alien red yeti with post-it notes instead of fur, pretty much.) 

KRARG: 

What is Your Command, O Master?

Men of Fire

 

Polly (put The Kettle on) :

Have done it Doctor, did you really find something…?

 

The Cosmic Hobo :

…oh, Polly, I only wish I had.

 

….why not make some coffee 

to keep them all happy, 

while I think of something.

 

Polly (put The Kettle on) :

(tenderly touches him on the shoulder)

Alright.

….it’s The SUGAR. 

That’s Why it only affects some people —

not everyone takes it.

 

Male Organism 

Not Suited to Induce Other Males 

 

It is frequently reported that homosexual relations are prevalent in that type of boys’ school called a “public school” in England, and a “private school” in the United States. 

 

I have had occasion to observe one or two such relationships. 

 

In the cases which have come to my attention an older, stronger boy has compelled a young and much weaker boy to give him erotic pleasure, as well as to perform many other services of an appetitive nature for the benefit of the older youth. 

 

In such cases as these, the emotional response of inducement on the part of the older boy wins for him a greater total amount of pleasantness, both appetitive and erotic, than that which can be obtained from mere teasing and torturing of younger boys. 

 

Moreover, the younger boy’s combined submission and inducement attain for him a certain amount of Freedom from being made the object of dominance response. 

 

The older boy in these affairs usually protects and favours, in various ways, the boy who submits to him. Frequently he not only refrains from hazing or tormenting the younger boy, but also prevents other boys from doing so.

 

In this type of behaviour, therefore, we may see a certain amount of inducement expressed by a male subject free from control of dominance.

 

The Limitation to such relationships seems to be a physiological one.

 

Since neither the body nor the emotional development of the younger boy is suited to act as an effective stimulus to the passion of the stronger youth, the dominance of the younger boy yielding to dominance of the older boy becomes a matter of compliance by the weaker one rather than submission.

 

The older boy as environmental stimulus, in short, evokes motor stimuli stronger than the motor self of his companion, but, for the most part, antagonistic to it.

 

Thus, the stronger youth becomes an adequate stimulus to compliance but not to submission. The younger boy yields, not because he enjoys the relationship as such, but because it seems to be to his appetitive advantage.

 

“That’s a LOT of Baseball Cards….."

 

The compliance of the weaker boy, in turn, makes itself felt by the would-be inducer, and the inducement fails to produce sufficient pleasantness to be long continued.

 

From this sort of relationship, however, both boys frequently emerge with an unusually complete appetitive development, and with a transfer of inducement into adaptation to, and control by appetite.

 

In other words, the older boy has learned that he can use inducement to obtain services and pleasures which would otherwise be beyond his reach.

 

The younger boy, also, has been taught that by a compound response made up of inducement and submission expressed toward a stronger companion, he can obtain protection, gifts, and perhaps advancement in school activities of various sorts.

 

In the cases I have studied, at least, both boys entering into such a relationship, tend thereafter to use the primary emotional response of inducement not for its own sake nor for the completion of a true love response, but rather as first aid in furthering the ends of active and passive appetite or both.

 

This use of inducement, as we shall have occasion later to observe, constitutes one of the most unfortunate of personality developments. 

 

Normal Adult Male Transfers 

Inducement From Sadism to Business

 

The element of inducement in males who have not had experiences of homosexual type, nevertheless, tends to follow a somewhat similar course of development. The behaviour called “cruelty” toward other males continues to be expressed in some degree throughout adult life. Business men, as well as men engaged in professional and academic life, appear to obtain a certain emotional pleasure by means of imposing hardships and minor torments upon other males who come under their authority. And this same type of pleasure is still more obviously manifested when failure of another man is reported, even though this individual is in no sense a rival. Criticisms or attacks made upon another male appear to be enjoyed without restraint by most men, and it would appear that the dominant or appetitive satisfaction in disposing of a rival fails to account satisfactorily for the entire response. There exists, in addition, a certain emotional gratification (captivation emotion) in the thought that the person attacked is thereby subjected to the subject himself as well as to all other persons who witness the attack. With the normal and fairly successful business man, however, these occasional enjoyments of perverted inducement response must be strictly limited to those occasions when the subject’s own appetitive interests can not be injured by indulging in enjoyment of the other person’s enforced subjection. Daring late adolescence there is indication that dominance, compliance and their appetitive combinations develop very rapidly with male subjects, until appetite may be said to exercise undisputed control over the average male’s emotional responses. With this maturing appetite comes the suppression and limitation of inducement expressed in forcefully bullying and injuring other males. The youth begins to discover that he cannot afford to alienate other males who may later serve his interests in one way or another, no matter how insignificant these persons may seem at the time when he has an opportunity to subject them injuriously in some way. For instance, one boy may successfully dominate another lad of the same group during athletic competition or competitive seeking of the same class office or scholastic prize. The natural tendency of the male following such successes seems to consist of an expression of open triumph over the rival, with perhaps a certain patronizing condescension expressive of the defeated one’s subjection to the superior strength of the more successful boy. The triumphant boy does not regard this defeated rival as an enemy or antagonist. In fact, the whole pleasure of the inducement response would be turned to indifference were the other boy regarded as a real antagonist. To enjoy this type of victory to the full, the defeated male must still be thought of as a friend, though a friend of inferior strength and position. It soon transpires, however, that the defeated boy has reacted to the openly expressed superiority of the successful youth by becoming a real enemy. Perhaps, at a subsequent election of class officers or in the course of academic relationships, if the two boys are taking the same courses, an occasion arises where the formerly successful youth needs the support of the boy whom he has been treating as an inferior. He finds this support is not forthcoming. The formerly defeated youth now responds with dominance to the previously controlling dominance in the other boy’s behaviour and the formerly triumphant youth suffers accordingly. I studied several instances of this type, and found that in these instances only a few such experiences were necessary to lead to a splitting off of inducement from open dominance, and the initiation of a new pattern of behaviour in which inducement was used to further the ends of appetite instead of thwarting them. In other words, instead of giving free rein to the pleasantness of injurious subjection of other boys the subject quickly learned to use inducement to acquire and regain their appetitive assistance and service. Inducement in Business This system of emotional organization, wherein inducement is used as first assistant to active appetite, forms what may be called the extensor muscle of modern business. Selling goods is a clear cut example of this type of composite emotional response. The salesman not only stimulates the appetitive mechanisms of his prospective customers by impressing upon the buyer the financial advantage which these particular goods hold for him, but he also uses a considerable amount of “personal appeal” to the buyer. That is to say, the salesman endeavours to impress the buyer with his own qualities as a good fellow and reliable person. And if the prospective customer allows himself to become sympathetic the salesman may even make an open statement of his own personal needs and desires in winning the patronage of the merchant to whom he is talking. All this consists of rather clear-cut, active inducement behaviour, on the part of the salesman. In itself such behaviour has no connection whatever with the intrinsic merit or usefulness of the goods to be sold. Yet, no business man to-day doubts the importance of such inducement technique in effecting sales. Even printed advertisements which do not, of course, enable the seller to appear personally before the buyer, contain as large an element of inducement as it is possible to convey with the help of words, pictures and suggestions of both form and colour. Pretty girls are depicted extending the article to be sold invitingly toward the reader of the advertisement. The concern manufacturing the product advertised is symbolized as the family’s best friend, or as the generous saviour of humanity in distress.

 

Another form of what might be called substituted inducement, commonly found in advertisements, is the attempted identification of the advertiser with some member of the prospective customer’s family, who is represented as inducing the reader of the advertisement to buy the product advertised.

 

For instance, a picture of a baby may be shown with the heading:

“Bring happiness to your child, buy this cuddly, dimpled baby doll!”

 

Or a picture of two attractive children sharing a bottle of soft drink,

may be displayed with the legend: “Let your children enjoy these taste-tempting drinks”.

 

In nearly all selling methods of modern business some element of inducement can be found directly or indirectly expressed, over and above the appetitive appeal contained in descriptions of the intrinsic values and delights of the goods themselves.

 

This use of inducement response as a servant of appetite emotion tends to be learned by the average male about the time of sexual maturity. Thereafter, he limits more and more the use of inducement in enjoyment of the captivation of other males, and extends its use further and further for the purpose of procuring appetitive benefits from other people of both sexes.

 

Confusions Between Inducement and Dominance

 

The behaviour just considered, which might aptly be styled the evolution of male inducement, serves only to illustrate the tendency which all males exhibit, at times, to confuse and intermingle dominance and inducement responses.

 

The integrative element which is identical in dominance and inducement is the superiority of the motor self over the strength of the motor stimulus.

 

The integrative difference between the two responses consists in the fact that an adequate stimulus to dominance emotion is antagonistic to the motor self while adequate motor stimulus to inducement must remain in alliance with the motor self.

 

If there appears to be the slightest doubt as to whether the person who constitutes the environmental stimulus is willing to accept the rôle of inferiority to the subject, then the average male organism immediately tends to react to the individual in question as to an antagonistic stimulus.

 

The “boot-licking,” or utterly servile attitude which male underlings of great men so frequently find it necessary to adopt, in order to retain their positions, furnishes dependable evidence of the tendency just referred to.

 

If the assistant or employee inadvertently manifested, at any time, behaviour which impressed his chief with a possible superiority of strength on the part of the supposedly inferior male, the employer would feel immediate necessity for reducing his employee’s strength to a level obviously lower than his own.

 

This emotional purpose, again, is a common one both to dominance and to inducement responses; but since dominance is the prevailing male emotion, the employer almost invariably seeks to educe his subordinate’s strength by action antagonistic to the other man’s interests.

 

He may reprimand him before others, decrease his pay, or discharge him. 

 

I have observed many instances of each of these methods used by males in Authority to reduce the strength of a subordinate. 

 

Nor are such methods limited to business or other appetitive relationships where there may be, in most cases, some actual opposition of interests between chief and subordinate. 

 

In The Home, a Wife or Son may be “put in their place” by this method. 

 

Deliberately cutting and insulting remarks may be addressed to The Wife. 

 

A Son who shows any tendency to dispute the superiority of a “successful” father is likely to receive more definitely injurious treatment. 

 

Physical abuse, cutting off a son’s allowance or privileges, or even (in one actual case) causing the son’s arrest and sentence in juvenile court, may be used as methods of reducing the “uppishness” of The Boy. 

 

All these courses of action are dominant and not inductive methods of reducing the strength of the person regarded as inferior to the subject, since all these methods of treatment disregard utterly the interests and well being of the person thus treated. 

 

Were inducement the prevailing response, the actions of The Father, or person in Authority must have been kept in complete alliance with the welfare and happiness of the persons subjected. Had this been done, and true inducement actually exercised, the inferior persons must have been induced voluntarily to reduce their own strength to a required degree, in order to accept completely the control of the inducer. 

 

Most males, who appear to possess very meagre development of inducement emotion in pure form, would regard such a task as utterly impossible. An average male is prone to remark “the only way to show the boy his place is to beat him within an inch of his life”. 

 

Often the sentiment expressed is more violent than the action which follows, but the two are usually similar in nature. Whenever another person’s strength is to be reduced to a level inferior to a man’s own, the person is treated as An Opponent and dominance takes the place of inducement in nine cases out of ten.

 

 

Hans: 

Very well. (hangs up)

 They're coming. 

Now we'll see how these Russians 

deal with a crack SS division. 

 

Erich: 

(putting his cap on) 

Er.... Hans.... 

 

Hans: 

Have courage, My Friend! 

 

Erich: 

Yeah. Er.... Hans,

I've just noticed something. 

 

Hans: 

(looking through binoculars)

These Communists 

are all cowards! 

 

Erich: 

Have you looked at

our caps recently? 

 

Hans:

(lowers binoculars)

Our caps? 

 

Erich: 

The badges on our caps.

Have you looked at them? 

 

Hans:

What?... No... A bit. 

 

Erich:

...They've got skulls on them. 

 

Hans:

Hm? 

 

Erich:

Have you noticed our caps have actually got

little pictures of skulls on them? 

 

Hans:

Er... I don't, erm... 

 

Erich:

Hans... are we the baddies?

 

Later, Erich still can't get over the fact that

the skulls seem to imply that

he and Hans are on the wrong side

of Good and Evil:

 

Hans:

Well — maybe they're the skulls of our enemies! 

 

Erich:

Maybe. But is that how it comes across?

I mean, it doesn't say next to the skull, y'know,

"Yeah, we killed him, but Trust Us,

this guy was horrid"! 

 

Hans:

Well, no, but— 

 

Erich:

I mean, what do skulls

make you think of?

Death. Cannibals. Beheading.

Erm... Pirates... 

 

Hans:

(brightening)

Pirates are fun!

 

Erich:

I didn't say we weren't fun,

but, fun or not, Pirates

are still the baddies.

I just can't think of anything

good about a skull!

 

Hans:

What about….

pure Aryan skull shape? 

 

Erich:

Even that is more usually depicted

with the skin still on!

Whereas The Allies—

 

Hans:

Oh, you haven't been listening 

to Allied propaganda?

Of course, they're gonna say 

we're the bad guys!

 

Erich:

But they didn't get to

design our uniforms!

And their symbols are all,

y'know, quite nice!

Stars, stripes, lions, sickles... 

 

Hans:

What's so good about a sickle? 

 

Erich:

Well, nothing, obviously,

and if there's one thing we've learned

in the last thousand miles of retreat,

it's that Russian agriculture

is in dire need

of mechanisation! 

 

Hans:

Tell me about it! 

 

Erich:

But you've gotta say,

it's better than a skull!

I mean, I really can't think of anything worse, 

as a symbol, than a skull! 

Hans: (thinks) 

A rat's.... anus? 

Erich: 

Yeah. And if we were fighting an army 

marching under the banner of a rat's anus, 

I'd probably be a lot less worried, Hans! 

(Hans puts a cigarette in his mouth and sets down an ashtray — shaped like a skull. As he absorbs this, he and Erich see one of their comrades drinking out of a mug with a skull on the side, and another knitting a scarf with a skull pattern) 

Hans: 

...Okay. So... 

(he and Erich suddenly bolt from the table and run for it)