Month: April 2017

Using internet to construct community

Looking at modern life, it seems unquestionable that technology informs much of what we’re doing (as explored in Tech as an evolving second life and Reality as a sense check). My question here is how that serves human social community, how it’s impacting us, and how well we’re overcoming the challenges to make the most of opportunities.

Those are vast, unanswerable questions in a way; countless communities exist, with the platforms hosting them shifting all the time as tech companies draw up manifestos for their borderline utopian future societies. If communities arise naturally, it must make sense for business to capitalise on that. But what are we trying to attain, to what extent is it achievable, how should it be shaped, and what’s in our best interests?

As discussed in Globalised society finding its feet, life is changing at an unprecedented rate; and many shifts brought by technology happen regardless of our conscious involvement. Surely there’s an agenda behind all that we’re offered and an impact to all we do: systems shape our behaviour and our outcomes. Technology being a tool designed with a purpose in mind; our ability to use it knowingly, within context, and in full awareness of its advantages and limitations is down to us (as grappled with in “Response Ability” by Frank Fisher). So are we right to leave the reshaping of our social existence largely in the hands of tech companies?

Humans are evidently social creatures: we exist in communities; cooperating and creating meaning with one another (see Mirrors we offer one another). That shared existence giving rise to the habits of communication, organisation, social identity, economic activity, and cultural conversation that have lately become enshrined online. But should we happily replace real world relationships with streamlined virtual communities? Do we know enough of community to confidently pull them apart on the ground, and replicate our understanding of them online?

At times I must come across as anti-tech, which truly isn’t the case. It’s just that with human nature, inner life, and social realities I find myself genuinely concerned that we’re stumbling blindly into a world of opportunity and placing our faith in the hands of business.

Looking back, communities seemingly arose naturally, often shaped by local figures or forces. Groupings of affinity, necessity, proximity, or common interest evolved into a society where meaning was held, people belonged, and impacts were felt (as in Community – what it was, what we lost). In contrast, we’re now offered a limitless window to know and connect; but does this spread us thinly, drawing us away from our immediate realities where we display less interest or tolerance for those nearby?

Getting back to the point, humans now live in this global society with communities both online and within our environments; with participation in one often at the cost of the other. Companies may have pretty ambitious, fine-sounding ideas for reshaping the social fabric of the world; but I’d have thought human society might be better placed in our hands.

Ways to share this:

Talking through difficult topics

For many reasons, it seems we’re having a hard time talking with one another these days. As explored in How arguments avoid issues, and Does truth speak for itself?, conversations frequently shift into arguments, conflict and division as we feel our views to be so compelling and important. Within that context, my focus here is emotion and how it seems to be derailing communication and making it challenging to have any conversation that touches on emotive personal or human realities.

In modern life, we’re aware of so much more and connected with so many more through technology and the movement of people. Cultures, experiences, historical issues, differing beliefs and practices are all flowing together; often without a sense of how to embrace that (see Globalised society finding its feet). How aware are we of the many subconscious ideas or assumptions guiding our behaviour and expectations? If we can’t consciously ‘own’ ourselves in that way, how well can communication fare? As in Mirrors we offer one another, processes of identity and relationship seem complex and significant.

Beyond that, society appears to be losing the strong sense of shared values, standards and responsibilities it seemingly once had. As discussed in Antisocial behaviour & the young, it’s daunting to address such social realities; but, with society becoming increasingly individualistic, surely these conversations are exactly the ones we must find a way to approach.

Returning to emotion, it seems at times people’s own emotions around a subject overtake them, spilling over into the social aspects of conversation where disagreement is met with moral judgement, social condemnation, or whatever socio-emotional weaponry might sway you to change your thinking. At other times, the emotional life of a listener may render frank discussion impossible through sensitivities arising out of personal experience.

In all of this, divergent perspectives in life make it hard to talk effectively. Modern discourse seems to arrive at this impasse where we face a battlefield of unresolved issues, strong emotions, and finely crafted arguments. Do we avoid topics to minimise social conflict and personal pain, or are feelings simply a part of life that need to be respected then managed constructively? Could varied experiences become an enriching source of strength and awareness, instead of divisive wounds? Is there a way to acknowledge our convergent paths to this point, yet continue to talk?

For whatever reasons, society and individuals seem less stable these days. Maybe it’s the rapid changes of modernisation, undermining social structures in unforeseen ways. Maybe it’s the influx of information, unsettling our inner lives in ways that simply didn’t used to exist. Maybe it’s the struggle to process all we’re now aware of, including the wounds inflicted by recent times.

Whichever path we took, we’re apparently in this somewhat uncharted territory where we must find a way to establish productive dialogue. I’m not saying that’s easy, but it seems we sorely need new ways to relate to one another; hopefully managing differences in a way that unites rather than divides us all.

Ways to share this:

Blogs illustrating ways of being

As with my thoughts on Podcasts as conversation, what I value most from the offerings of modern technology are those things that increase or strengthen our humanity. In that light, blogs can be seen to offer many things: to inform, to showcase a certain style or a set of concerns, to provide an outlet for personal creativity, or whatever else. From among all that, what often shines out for me are those who use technology to share who they are as people, how they see the world, and what their life is.

Beyond evaluating that as a strong personal brand with a loyal following, such individuals can introduce others to new perspectives and other ways of being. Even if you don’t experience the world that way, in seeing through those eyes you can understand how that might be and relate to someone completely different and unique. Essentially, presenting an opportunity for cultivating empathy and tolerance through stepping out of your own ideas and putting yourself in another’s shoes; qualities often lacking in online life, as explored in Empathy in a world that happily destroys.

Of course, everyone’s perspective and personality is different and unique to varying degrees; but some seem more able and inclined to articulate and share that. To me, it seems many take that opportunity and use it as a way of reinforcing a sense of self, or promoting specific views or consumer choices. Which is fine, it is what it is. But that’s not so much what I find myself admiring.

To take an example, the Australian writer and photographer Nirrimi Hakanson (www.fireandjoy.com) seems to have amazing self-awareness and courageous honesty in exploring the various aspects of her life and sharing herself openly. While clearly extremely talented, she apparently passes up the many commercial opportunities of modern times in order to hold to her personal sense of authenticity and the strength of her own voice. In a world where so many are trying to influence or promote, her words seem beautifully truthful as she simply describes who she is.

I imagine there are many others who offer us the same, managing to find ways to express who they are honestly and without much agenda beyond sharing their humanity and seeking to craft a constructive, wise storyline or path within the inevitable challenges of life.

We all have our preferences in what we seek or are drawn to online, and for me it is often that opportunity to appreciate life through another’s eyes and understand those whose way of being may be worlds apart from my own. It is a wonderful, generous gift when people manage to find a way to articulate life without pride or ulterior motive, just simply saying ‘this is me, this is how I see life and how I try to find meaning’.

There’s so much going on in the world, and looking to those who are trying to be fully human and offer that up quite freely to others seems important to me.

Ways to share this:

Romance, love & the movies

Recently I read someone saying how they were waiting to experience love as it is in the movies; which led me to wondering how these cultural images influence our personal life experiences, as well as what ‘love’ itself is all about.

In modern culture, the notion of romantic love often appears to be shorthand for meaning, success, worth, and various other things. Shorthand both in the sense that these ‘relationships’ often rush to hasty endpoints for the sake of viewing figures, and in that much seems to be skipped over (things like character, realities, difficulties).

Of course, no two relationships are alike and we all seek different things in our lives, but what ideas are we being sold? Is our self-worth, our social value dependent upon a romantic relationship? As in Relating to cultural benchmarks, I question what that really says about us. Often relationships seem to be practical economic or psychological arrangements; offering material, emotional, and social reassurance through the presence of another who reaffirms your views and priorities.

My view tends to be that relationships aren’t so much a place for seeking or strengthening the sense of self, as a venue for transformation and growth between independent partners. I don’t feel being part of a couple says anything fundamental about your worth, given that we are all individuals, complete within ourselves, and life doesn’t need to be so prescriptive in how we understand or evaluate one another.

Looking at movies, they tend to make ‘the couple’ the centre of attention, with all others serving to facilitate or challenge that relationship. In storytelling, that makes sense; but in life it seems combative. Are single people always ‘a threat’ or an inscrutable phenomenon? Are issues always so black and white, with one person gaining exclusivity, or is life more nuanced?

Then, in terms of intimacy, it seems we’re presented with many questionable scenarios and encouraged to accept them as normal. Surely – as with relationships themselves – we are talking of people’s inner selves, their dreams or insecurities, their difficulties in life, and their sense of worth. All areas demanding care, clarity, respect, and compassion; rather than unnecessary comparison with movie star standards.

I suppose we are storytelling creatures, inclined toward casting our life journey into a storyline of the self (especially when that approach is pushed at us through both culture and advertising). But what are relationships, and how do they relate to the self? Are we seeking reflection (see Mirrors we offer one another), security, or acting out our own story? Are cultural representations a sign of reality or something more symbolic (as explored in How many aren’t well represented?).

For me, modern culture frequently overlooks the truth of things while surrounding us with impossible and unhelpful notions. Romance could be this mystery of people sharing their true selves with another, not in a limiting but in a living way; this place where life can unfold and personalities can develop, rather than an often slightly stale recipe without true substance.

Ways to share this:

Media within democratic society

In Media Immediacy and Media and responsibility, what emerged was an appreciation of the crucial functions of the media and also of the challenges it presents modern society. My main focus for the moment though is that we seem to have been living strangely for such a long time now that it’s started to feel normal. And, in this context, I’m mainly thinking of our collective conversation through media channels and influences at play there.

After writing the above posts, I looked into Aldous Huxley’s “Brave New World Revisited” and Herman & Chomsky’s “Manufacturing Consent”; both books offering powerful perspectives on media, propaganda and democracy.

Huxley paints an interesting picture, especially given these ideas pre-date modern technology. Essentially the premise is that society requires common understanding, whether that’s to support a democratic system, a totalitarian one, or an economic one: we receive information and, in the light of that, make the best decisions we can. This bears with it the importance of what we receive and of our ability to make the most of it.

“As for the meaning of the facts, that of course depends upon the particular system of ideas in terms of which you choose to interpret them.” So does it matter which perspectives we choose to have amplified in our understanding of raw, complex realities? Huxley speaks of the neutrality of the media, in that it can be used for good or bad; but also highlights the intentions underlying any system of information and the challenge to our discernment of charting a path through it all.

In the face of the overwhelming volume, intensity and speed of modern information, I wonder at our ability to stand our ground and be sure enough of what it all means. It seems the very nature of that knowledge pushes us to simplify realities and ignore alternative views or concerns out of pure, functional necessity. Then there’s the question of commercial interests or other social distractions; all competing for our attention in a way that must surely over-stimulate and desensitise us, while masquerading as more important “information”.

These are themes Herman & Chomsky then pick up, speaking of how the media essentially serves societal interests and reaching interesting conclusions around the role of commercial concerns in weakening the public sphere of dialogue and information so essential to democracy. Seemingly, the media is not the neutral force it often purports to be and arguably needs to be.

If “the media” – whether in traditional news format, online outlets, social media, cultural influences, or the constant flow of marketing – is so important to the conversations we’re having around modern life; how can we cultivate discernment and get to grips with what’s really going on and what truly matters, given all the attempts to influence us in countless directions? Is it possible to hold ourselves back from those tempting waves of opinion, reaction and distraction; to demand what we need and cut back on what we don’t in order to get that clearer picture?

Reference: “Manufacturing Consent. The Political Economy of the Mass Media” by Edward S Herman & Noam Chomsky, (Random House, London), 2008 (originally 1988).

Reference: ‘Propaganda in a Democratic Society’ in “Brave New World Revisited” by Aldous Huxley, (Random House, London), 2004 (originally 1958).

Ways to share this:

Living together

This post is a bit of a sidestep from things I’ve talked about so far, but it’s into territory that in many ways does relate to those other ideas. My focus here is modern living situations such as house shares, subdivided properties, or shared developments; and how, for many reasons, it seems we’re moving toward sharing ever-closer spaces which – while steering clear of the social ethics of modern economic practices – must surely have an impact on how we experience our homes, our privacy, and our social relationships.

It’s one of those essential human requirements: a home; somewhere to feel secure and free to do as you please; a place to take care of and also to display your values within your environment. It seems central to a person’s sense of self and their place in society. I mean, how we choose to be in relation to others shows what matters to us and the contribution we make through how we live. Maybe these are slightly old-fashioned or idealistic notions; but, as discussed in The challenge of community, what takes place around us is a reality we create together. Home, community, environment, and social ties are important issues, but ones that seem increasingly strained, individualistic, and commercialised.

As existing properties are subdivided (with varying degrees of concern over adequate storage, soundproofing, and sensible outside spaces) or replaced with shared developments (again, often showing greater regard for profit than for creating wise or beautiful dwellings), it seems economic realities are pushing people towards having to ignore or infringe upon others through little fault of their own (see also, Values and the economic).

Does it matter if we live in a way that encourages us to disregard others? Where your desire to “do as you please” comes at the cost of another’s “quiet enjoyment” of their own space? As explored in Antisocial behaviour & the young, modern society seems to lack a clear conversation around what’s socially acceptable and how to co-exist happily in common areas; and that cannot be helped by ill-conceived accommodation.

What I’m really talking about is intentions. To me, home and community are places where humans get to “be” and to share that with others; where we can show interest, concern, responsibility, and respect for other people and for our shared spaces. And, as I said to start, this connects to many other discussions such as Community – what it was, what we lost on social change; Reality as a sense check when I talked of hidden impacts; or Attitudes to elder members of society which is essentially about human worth.

In all this, my concern is human realities; and while there are clearly economic forces at play, which I may address at some point, the social consequences cannot be dismissed as insignificant. How we live with one another, create a sense of community, and foster genuine social connections seems a real challenge of modern times; and I wonder whether it’s possible to shape that in a more human direction.

Ways to share this:

Is sustainable design an impossibility?

I once read an interview with someone working in the field of sustainable design; and he was saying how of course it would be great if products could be made to last using sustainable resources and so on, but that it didn’t work as a business model. Which seems true enough: modern businesses need an ongoing market so there needs to be change, whether that’s through ageing materials or dated designs. So we have these creative industries churning out new looks each year, each season, each month.

As I wrote in Values and the economic, I just wonder at the deeper wisdom of all this. If a system requires novelty and consumption in order to sustain itself, and therefore cultivates this mind-set of trends, identity and belonging; then how can we avoid creating waste or draining resources? Is the notion of sustainable design more one of window-dressing, that appeals to certain values but ultimately doesn’t attempt to redress the fundamental problem? And do we truly “need” these things, or are these largely manufactured desires that feed on our social desire to belong?

It’s an interesting scenario, and one that ties in with both Relating to cultural benchmarks and How many things are cycles (we could break) in the sense of how culture blends with economics. As humans, it seems we want to belong and find our place in society; we want to relate ourselves to the options presented, crafting an identity and finding personal meaning in the eyes of others and relative to the cultural images surrounding us. There’s a beautiful magic there, but I do wonder to what extent this very human process is being exploited and the needs of the psyche being directed toward the material world of things.

Increasingly, it’s becoming established that “our look” (be that our shoes, interiors, or lifestyle) defines us; thereby locking our sense of identity into our position as consumers. How you decorate your home declares who you are; so keeping a perfectly functioning and good quality kitchen becomes unthinkable because it’s not quite “you”. This natural desire to express our selves has somehow become a fuel for consumerism.

And my intention here isn’t to be critical, because it seems humans are these delightfully unique, creative, and social creatures who long to express who they are and share in this process of exploration and definition. To me, that’s part of humanity and connects in with what I was saying in What makes a good life. But equally, with that post, there’s a question of how we balance our values, our priorities, our needs, and our consequences. What systems are we sustaining – and, in a sense, creating – with the choices we make?

As I’ve found myself saying elsewhere: is it possible to shape a more human system out of the world around us? Do we have little choice but to accept a version of this model whereby we seek identity in products that aren’t made to last, or could these things happen differently?

Ways to share this:

Empathy in a world that happily destroys

I want to talk here about the need for understanding and a sense of responsibility towards the human permanency of our actions.

In that context, we find modern phenomena such as cyberbullying (as touched upon in this BBC article on teen suicide) or those seemingly plentiful times when the internet turns on individuals or organisations out of a sort of social justice (see this Guardian review of “So You’ve Been Publicly Shamed”, a book by Jon Ronson). There’s a certain tendency toward being dismissive or carelessly humorous while real lives are at stake; often targeting others for their perceived mistakes, insecurities, or social isolation. And there currently seems both a lack of accountability for this, and also a struggle to cultivate a powerful social response or dialogue around what’s going on.

On a personal note, I truly believe in the Value of each human being despite any mistakes or limitations; and, as in Mirrors we offer one another, I feel there’s immense complexity in the relationships we seek with others and how that relates to our sense of meaning. I also tend to feel that modern society works against this, as in How many aren’t well represented?; to which technology adds even greater challenges (see Reality as a sense check).

Whether we’re talking about the tragedy of anyone losing their life due to online harassment or the professional consequences others have faced due to overheard comments, it seems the internet now employs shame as a powerful form of “social control” with unquestionable human costs.

With any notion of collective social justice, I find myself wondering where this sense of modern morality arises from. Logically, outside of religion or another shared code of behaviour, where is this objective moral framework? We may have legacies of moral judgement: handed down standards we might adhere to. We may have the habit of using social rejection or criticism as tools for behaviour regulation. But I’m not sure we have a modern dialogue on ethics. So is this more a social sport of shaming others: pointing out people who mistakenly or inadvertently found themselves at the mercy of others, not having fully appreciated the consequences?

For me, this idea of social shame is ill-defined. On the one hand, we are surrounded by cultural images objectifying the human form and declaring our freedom to do with it as we wish; on the other, people are held hostage for applying those standards personally. We live in an online world of perpetual opinion and banter, but those who (often unwittingly) step across “a line” can be hounded on a global scale.

As a society, it seems we’re unclear over the values we now operate by; with derogatory comments and unforgiving attitudes having found a place within mainstream conversations. But it also seems to me that we must find the empathy to stand firmly with the right people: to release our judgements and extend the opportunity for people to emerge from their “mistakes” and be greeted with genuine respect.

Ways to share this:

Antisocial behaviour & the young

The issue of antisocial behaviour raises its head every once in a while, maybe in the context of violence or of education; so it seems something we collectively need to find a way to address. And, to my mind, this essentially ties in with how we see others and also with how we view the social system we find ourselves within (as explored in Mirrors we offer one another).

Say you’re walking down a street, with a group of young teens heading towards you; and as they pass they cough insults or kick their ball off your feet. Do you try to show the impact of their behaviour in a way that might prove meaningful; or choose not to react, hoping at some point they reflect upon their interactions with others? We live in a society where so much disappears into a non-existent community; schools and families facing bigger challenges.

Or maybe you overhear a child saying something critical about a stranger to the adult they’re with. Should such comments be concealed only out of “politeness” in public, or are deeper values at stake? At what point does an inclusive, respectful, compassionate society cross over into one where we cast an eye of casual judgement over others? As discussed in How many aren’t well represented?, what are socially acceptable attitudes and how conscious are we in the realm of social ethics?

To me, anti-social behaviour – even on this small scale – is troubling in the underlying human attitudes it betrays and also in the sense that, as a society, we will surely have to bear out the consequences. As said above, parents and schools are fighting worthy battles on so many fronts in raising children in these times; but my concern is that, lacking space for time-consuming conversations about society, we might risk leaving people without a sense of why these things matter.

Of course, young people are getting to know their social reality: balancing their perceptions and understandings with what is acceptable to think or say, and what they can get away with. Then those around them respond, giving their behaviour meaning and hopefully imparting values that sustain a healthy society. In the past, it seems social standards were more commonly held – families, schools, communities and individuals could reaffirm shared values and be confident of others standing by them – creating fairly consistent messages. Now, values seem increasingly subjective, with confusion and anger over who has the right or duty to respond.

Looking at the bigger picture – with compassion and concern – I just don’t think we’re helping younger generations by not having a clear sense of social ethics; and I don’t feel we’re helping society in the long-term by avoiding the difficulties of establishing dialogue around such issues. In situations where I’ve been the one who didn’t correct that unkind statement, I’ve felt I let both people down: the child by not giving a clear affirmation of human worth and the other by not standing by them as a human being.

Ways to share this:

Literature where West meets East

Rather than a thorough literature review, this post considers a few books where Western and Eastern thought intersect. And in using those terms, I’m talking loosely about Western civilisation’s objective, scientific approach; alongside the counterpoint of Eastern spiritual philosophy or belief.

As discussed in Spirituality since the 80s and then in Mindfulness, antidote to life or way of being, there seems to have been a shift in the West toward the latter part of the twentieth century whereby many have sought a cultural dialogue with Eastern ideas. Here we could talk about the spiritual movements of the 60s and 70s, or the more recent incarnations of mindfulness or modern spiritual literature and so on.

This could be characterised as the West seeking greater soul, meaning, beauty, or recognition for the human spirit; as if we reached a certain point in the development of our civilisation and realised something might be lacking. And of course this isn’t limited to a dialogue with Eastern philosophy; there’s also the rich wisdom of indigenous peoples or the revival of various folk traditions that pre-existed Western ways.

In looking at texts that embody this interchange between Western and Eastern thinking, I’ve had in mind “Towards a New World View” which compiles conversations between Russell E DiCarlo and various others; “The Ending of Time” charting dialogue between David Bohm and J Krishnamurti; and “The Art of Happiness” based on exchanges between the Dalai Lama and Dr Howard Cutler.

In a way, it’s interesting that these books all take a conversational format; and each one is a fascinating model of communication between divergent worldviews attempting mutual understanding. Many of those DiCarlo interviews draw on ideas from Eastern thought in seeking to address Western challenges; and much that takes place there is a discussion of terms, concepts and values across different cultural or personal experiences. Then Dr Cutler’s work with the Dalai Lama seeks to relate the deep yet simple perspectives of Tibetan Buddhism to the psychological approach of the Western mind; it’s insightful to witness these two ways of understanding human realities grapple to come to terms with one another.

Building on that, the talks between Bohm and Krishnamurti then raise these same polarities of thought into a heightened and lively meeting of minds. David Bohm, a theoretical physicist who worked closely with Einstein, seeks and finds common ground with the philosophical spirituality of Jiddu Krishnamurti. It’s a truly fascinating dialogue about the nature of thought, the human condition, and how we interact with life. It’s also a wonderful example of an exploratory conversation between completely different ways of thinking, as this highly intelligent yet open Western mind reaches through the veil and comes face to face with a much more mystical way of viewing things.

It would disrupt the flow of this post to attempt to quote or encapsulate these disparate and developed lines of thought, but I highly recommend these writers for anyone seeking to experience more of this often exciting and worthwhile cultural conversation.

Reference: “Towards a New World View: Conversations on the Leading Edge” edited by Russell E. DiCarlo, (Floris Books, UK), 1996.

Reference: “The Ending of Time” by J Krishnamurti & Dr David Bohm, (Harper San Francisco), 1997.

Reference: “The Art of Happiness. A Handbook for Living” by HH Dalai Lama & Howard C. Cutler, (Coronet Books, Hodder & Stoughton), 1998.

Ways to share this: