Month: August 2018

True words spoken in jest

It’s often easier to say things humorously. It’s a way of communicating that allows plausible deniability while testing the waters, so it’s potentially quite helpful in broaching difficult issues: letting you say things without actually saying them. As communication goes though, that’s clearly a little ambiguous. And where does it leave us in terms of the social atmosphere?

While not having investigated theories around humour’s social functions and inner workings, it seems to skirt close to the truth in order to be effective. Truthful observations can become more approachable, indirectly, in this way as it’s socially acceptable to laugh and bond with those around you in appreciating the unspoken intention of what’s being said.

That kind of subversion of words, context, meaning, and potentially provocative implications is an intriguing aspect of human community: that we would make fun of ourselves, laugh at the realities we’re finding ourselves within.

In terms of how we manage as a society when life is hard, generally humour and anger seem the responses we turn to (see Notes One). Of the two, humour’s clearly the more enjoyable, and possibly the approach more likely to unite us. Both, though, are emotional responses. Both create ripples within the social environment – something we then have to navigate more purposefully, perhaps.

After either moment’s passed, we presumably still need to be able to talk about things meaningfully? An over-reliance on humour could lead into perpetually silly conversations where everything’s deflected, nothings truly being said, and avenues for more direct engagement with our problems aren’t really emerging.

Leaving anger aside, humour seems to let us place things on the table and explore the emotion around that. Surely an important function? Of course, it doesn’t solve anything and likely doesn’t carry well when taken out of context; but as a way to check our understanding of life with others it’s seeming quite valuable.

I mean, if we were to use humour to reach out in this way; then were to use that initial feedback to develop more exploratory conversations around things we might not yet understand or appreciate, there’s real value there (Notes Two). From that first, tentative, light-hearted social reaction we could discern so much to then sensitively and thoughtfully unpack through conversation and self-reflection.

I’m aware of being both meta and idealistic here, but surely humour can serve as more than simply the escape of release? Handled as a starting point for something more, it could become a very effective springboard for addressing our plentiful struggles.

Because arguably we only know what we know; anything else is beyond that, laying out there in a space we’ve not yet encountered or explored (Notes Three). If we’re ever to expand our horizons then we need to be able to navigate that which we don’t know. Reaching out into those spaces, finding ways to understand and relate to the social significance of what’s there, might be slightly confounding.

Becoming more skilful communicators could be the most wonderful blessing, for us and others.

Notes and References:

Note 1: Anger as a voice
Note 1: We may as well laugh
Note 2: Apparent difficulty in finding a voice
Note 2: Tone in public dialogue
Note 2: Counselling, listening & social identity
Note 3: Is anything obvious to someone who doesn’t know?
Note 3: Seeing, knowing and loving

Ways to share this:

Cost and convenience

We might talk of cost and convenience, but is it ever clear how those calculations are playing out? We might pay more for the convenience of locally available products, but what’s the ultimate cost of that consumer behaviour? We might celebrate low prices, but who’s actually paying the cost for them? It might be convenient and enjoyable to buy essentially disposable items, but what’s the real cost of doing so?

Presumably every item does have both a cost and a price for which it’s deemed worthwhile letting it go. Whether that price is a reflection of its true cost or more a calculation around the value of shifting the market in some way is another matter. Getting people used to convenience creates a demand, I suppose, while also driving out less well-stocked or competitively-priced alternatives.

As I’ve said before, I’m not an economist; but the way goods are being delivered, produced and priced conceivably affects us all in countless fundamentally important ways (see Note One). Afterall, we’re all now effectively plugged into the same system: methods of production, savings offered by shipping that elsewhere, and the related human or environmental costs all paint a picture on the global scale.

What if our “convenience” is coming at the cost of too much? Outsourcing commercial functions seems to often be taking advantage of other countries’ lower costs and/or relative environmental riches; possibly destroying the diversity of local activities while commodifying the lives and landscapes of those living there. We might dress that up as development, but it’s clearly reshaping many peoples’ livelihoods.

In terms of the longer-term outcomes of our relatively short-term consumer decisions, does this not raise a lot of questions? Why are we being encouraged to seek immediate satisfaction while disregarding the bigger picture? If our choices are destroying environments, communities and traditional industries while distorting markets so only the most ‘competitive’ survive, what future are we setting up?

We might enjoy the streams of novelty in all its forms, but surely there’s going to be very real costs to that? We’re generating an insane amount of waste on scales the world’s never before known. If we’re treating others unfairly, might there be justifiable backlash? Then, the psychological cost to keeping up with it all and filtering marketing chatter out of our visual, cultural and media channels. (Notes Two)

Of course, understanding the intricate inter-relationships of modern, global marketplaces is incredibly difficult. And, evidently, it’s a way of operating that’s fostered rapid progress and international cooperation across the field of human endeavour. I’m aware many people embrace that dynamic quality, praising how it’s freed us from past limitations and enabled vast leaps forward.

But still, at what cost? What exactly are we leaving behind us by living this way? Beyond the mountains of waste, relentless white-noise of advertising, strings of broken industries and lost richness of countries we’ve wrung dry for our own gain, what are we going to be left with? And, how might we be judged for that?

Notes and References:

For an interesting, insightful and very human perspective on this, see the documentary “Chris Packham: In Search of the Lost Girl” (BBC, UK), 2018.

Note 1: What is economical
Note 2: Waste and consumer choices
Note 2: Living in luxury, on what grounds?
Note 2: At what cost, for humans & for nature
Note 2: Will novelty ever wear off?

Approaching this from other angles, the insights of Schumacher and Huxley were considered in “Small is Beautiful” & “Brave New World Revisited”.

Ways to share this:

Points of sale as powerful moments

In a way, markets can be seen as these nebulous, undefined, hypothetical spaces full of offerings, attempts to influence, and promises of how well our needs are going to be met. Until, that is, a decision is made and a deal’s been done. Then, things become very real.

It’s an interesting thought, I think. Clearly people invest a lot into that early phase: developing ideas; investigating how best to bring them to life; maybe setting up complex, international systems of production and distribution; looking at how to convince us to buy into things, what the right sales pitch might be etc. This vast system of inter-connected, mutually beneficial commercial activities that make up ‘the economy’.

And obviously it’s important stuff. It’s the kind of activity that gives rise to a need for workers to fulfil those functions; creating employment, revenue, and taxation streams that fund our individual requirements and collective infrastructures (see Notes One). Also, the same activity that’s giving rise to many of the ‘costs of living’ as we act in our capacity as consumers to choose from all that’s on offer (Notes Two).

Possibly a somewhat simplistic manhandling of complex economic realities, but it’ll probably suffice. Getting back to my point – how all that’s quite ‘imaginary’ until someone agrees to a transaction – there’s conceivably this sense in which everything hinges round our agreement. That’s the point where things get tangible as money changes hands, profit happens, and people potentially get used to things.

If we couldn’t be persuaded to buy, all that other stuff theoretically serves no purpose. It’s these moments of decision-making that make it something real, as individual and collective patterns of behaviour form these income streams around which everything else is built. Our points of commitment then becoming as these constellations of impending realities.

Why might that matter? Where within it all does power lie? Our lives clearly depend, in many ways, on what’s happening in the global marketplace: the stability of that world in turn becomes our stability, or otherwise. Yet it’s also very much dependent upon us, on our choices and the extent to which they can be anticipated, influenced, met, and possibly controlled (Notes Three).

Really, it must be a very integrated relationship. Our lives to such a great extent are defined, shaped, and assisted by economic realities. And the outworking of those realities generally revolves around the ins and outs of our lives. This complex, convoluted, contagious system of needs that’s serving us as much as the commercial entities effectively at the helm of it all.

That might be far too much to condense down into simplistic solutions for the state of modern society, but my essential point is that we’re the ones who decide. It’s something we, of course, tend to be aware of: keeping abreast of developments so as to make the most informed, intelligent decisions possible likely takes up a fair chunk of our free time. But I do wonder how consciously we evaluate all we’re agreeing to.

Notes and References:

Note 1: Obligations and contributions
Note 1: Business defining human life
Note 2: Tell me why I should
Note 2: Right to question and decide
Note 2: What we bring to life
Note 3: How we feel about society
Note 3: Cycles of mind & matter

Ways to share this:

Smart to play the system?

As soon as anything’s written down it becomes possible to twist it one way or another, to play things to your advantage. It’s evident in so many areas of life; and perhaps unsurprisingly, given we’re trained to take sides then argue our corner (see Note One). But when we approach things seeking personal advantage, what’s the cost? What or who is losing out when we look only to ourselves?

I suppose what that’s coming down to is the spirit of things: the intention and purpose of any given arrangement; the assumptions around how things are taken, the attitudes we bring to the table. Any agreement, contract or policy must have a sense of what it’s hoping to achieve and the character of those entering into it. Surely there’s a backstory to all these things.

When we look only to what we can get, what we’re entitled to, maybe we’re missing the bigger picture in some way? Because society, effectively, is built up of agreements: some unspoken or implied, some commercial, some legal, some we consciously enter into, and some we might be almost completely unaware of (Notes Two). In a way, we’re all living within a variety of contracts.

And any contract generally offers those engaged with it entitlements, rights, responsibilities, and powers for redress. We’re offered something and give something in return. Presumably in a way that’s mutually beneficial: each party benefiting and the overall outcome being considered positive, despite any compromises or curtailments of a previously complete freedom.

Because any agreement likely does limit those involved by defining what will be done and conditions that must be met on either side. Boundaries effectively creating a space of engagement where something can be achieved; a sense of limitation offering power, as the gears within complex systems engage and make something greater possible (Note Three).

But what if we lose the sense of that? What if we start taking all we can, without regard for the original intention and spirit of what’s been made available. What if we stop holding up our end of the bargain quite so well, creating this counterweight of disharmony that pulls against it all. What if all the ‘stress’ of that ‘unfairness’ begins to cause us real problems?

It’s merely a train of thought, but raises some fundamentally important questions: if we don’t understand, appreciate and uphold the systems we’re engaged with, then what are we doing? And, beyond that, if we’re actively pulling against them, where does that lead? Not to say the West is perfect in terms of its ideas and their implementation, but the general intention behind it seems pretty admirable (Notes Four).

Maybe it’s seen as ‘intelligent’ to read situations and figure out how to work them to your advantage, but arguably the cost of that has to be born somehow. Whether in the form of systemic stress or carried by other individuals or commercial entities, the cost of imbalance falls somewhere. In that light, what are we actually risking here?

Notes and References:

Note 1: Pick a side, any side
Note 2: Laws and lawlessness
Note 2: People, rules & social cohesion
Note 2: What holds it all together
Note 3: Limits having a purpose
Note 4: Freedom, what to lean on & who to believe
Note 4: Dystopia as a powerful ideal

The thread of thinking here also dovetails quite well into Responsibility for shaping this reality.

Ways to share this:

“Watership Down”

It was amusing a few years back when British TV broadcast “Watership Down” over the Easter weekend; as if ‘anything’ featuring animated rabbits was bound to go down well at that time of year. I’d imagine though that it’s one of those films many have accidentally watched, forgetting quite how powerfully dark it was. But, all that aside, both the book and film surely convey some pertinent lessons to keep in mind?

Ultimately, it’s a story about survival, safety and freedom. Also, the position of individuals within their social grouping and the consideration offered for their gifts and insights as much as their age and relative weight, socially or physically. Essentially, about power structures and how well they serve the preservation of society as a whole and the respectful inclusion of everyone.

This sense of understanding your wider reality, trusting your ability to read the signs or listen to gut instincts, must be key to the survival of any community? Whether we’re talking rabbits, local government or national policies, the need to picture how things fit together and anticipate likely outcomes seems fairly essential to long-term, sustainable futures (see Notes One).

Which is why it’s seeming such a wonderful book for the modern day: running through all these potential social, political, interpersonal scenarios whereby individual or collective survival might be threatened externally or by misguided, risky or repressive methods of organising our lives. This way in which the characters must evaluate potential solutions, using the insights of each one, in order to create the reality they dream of.

It’s also an interesting allegory in that Fiver, in particular, is able to sense the darker intentions surrounding them: ways human activity threatens their safety; ways their own social frameworks might render them passive, compliant or complicit; or ways danger might be used as a justification for oppression from within. As an exploration of the ‘realities’ of communities of individuals existing within the bigger picture of their environment it’s fairly comprehensive and insightful.

Yet, in all this, it somehow manages to remain impartial. Although there are political comparisons to be drawn, and a nod to spiritual or religious attitudes to life, it keeps apart from the more divisive labels of the human world to focus instead on underlying ‘truths’ such as freedom, trust, listening, respect, courage (Notes Two).

And, on a completely separate – though possibly not unrelated – note, there’s real familiarity with nature that stands out through details of landscape, flora and fauna. Deep understanding and empathy for lived realities of the animal world seems almost quaint now, but the idea of living sympathetically alongside nature, rather than seeing it only from our perspective, is surely important for us as much as for them? (Note Three)

With fiction, I’m generally wanting ‘value’ to being immersed in an imaginary world: that it’ll add to my understanding of life, giving insight that’ll help in grasping things more clearly so constructive paths can be found. In many ways, this offers a great example of that.

Notes and References:

“Watership Down” by Richard Adams, (Penguin Books/Kestrel Books, GB), 1972. Film version written, produced & directed by Martin Rosen (1978).

Note 1: The philosopher stance
Note 1: Complexity of life
Note 1: Dystopia as a powerful ideal
Note 2: How we feel about society
Note 2: Freedom, what to lean on & who to believe
Note 2: Counselling, listening & social identity
Note 3: Nature speaks in many ways, do we listen?

Alongside this, The idea of self reliance also picked away at the threads of self, community, and what we all bring to life.

Ways to share this:

Respect, rebellion & renovation

Coming into life, we generally have to reach the point of understanding and relating ourselves to what’s gone before: finding our place, those things that interest or concern us, the aptitudes or talents we have to contribute, and a sense of purpose to integrating ourselves with the structures of society.

That relationship between individuals, society and those mediating our understanding of it can be a fascinating reality to contemplate as much as a daunting one (see Notes One). Arguably, life itself is largely based around our relationships and the meanings we assign to all the aspects of that bigger picture – life being what we make of it, how we respond to all that we encounter and the choices we have (Notes Two).

Ideas we hold in our minds around what’s important or acceptable seem to really define the lives we’re going to lead. And much of education can be seen as imparting essential information and training individuals to think in a certain way. It’s a process that hopefully prepares people for life, giving them a sense of their own worth and all the ways they’re valued within society.

Of course, that’s highly idealistic. In reality, it seems questionable at this point how well modern education is serving individuals or society. Yet, regardless of how well it’s currently working out, the ideas we’re offering young people still inform their understanding and appreciation of all the systems we’ve been upholding.

In the past, it seems there was once an attitude of respect toward elders as young people listened obediently to the authority or insight of those who’d experienced life and grasped which qualities best enable individuals to operate wisely within their world. There was this trust, this listening to the accumulated wisdom of those inclined and prepared to impart it to following generations.

Which apparently then shifted more toward rebellion as people began rejecting, challenging or disregarding that input and the parameters of society itself. It’s an approach to life that’s persisting into the present day, possibly in part through the very expectation of those now parenting that ‘it’s the way things go’. Anticipating rebellion seems a little strange however, as a side note.

Personally, it seems right that society was called into question rather than blindly accepted. It may well be that the ideals placed at its foundation have become contorted over time, creating realities quite far from the original intent. But then, what’s the best way of dealing with that? Is there a way of questioning, re-evaluating, shoring up social principles without tearing apart our social institutions and relationships? (Notes Three)

The problem may also be that adults themselves – those in positions of authority, with an expectation of how such functions should be respected – are as much the ‘victims’ of society’s failings as they might be viewed responsible for them. We can only think with the ideas we’ve been handed, and it’s surely very hard to dismantle a system that your own psychological, intellectual or economic security is built around.

Notes and References:

Note 1: Writings on Education
Note 1: The social metaphor of education
Note 1: Common knowledge
Note 2: How we feel about society
Note 2: Relating to one another
Note 3: Dystopia as a powerful ideal
Note 3: Dealing with imperfection

Ways to share this:

Value in being informed

Staying informed about things comes across as this important foundation for modern society: the sense of needing to keep abreast of current affairs, know what’s going on, and be able to evaluate it rightly which then informs our choices and actions as citizens, consumers, or simply adults within all the communities and systems shaping our lives.

It presumably arose alongside democracy and free markets? That if we’re to be placed in the position of exercising our own judgement in those arenas, then we need both to be adequately informed and have the capacity to judge wisely. If you’re going to give individuals freedom, they must be well educated and communicated with if they’re to fulfil those roles responsibly (see Notes One).

In the West, there’s this sense in which “power” was effectively placed in everybody’s hands – we were made the unit of decision-making. And that’s clearly a huge responsibility; especially when you view it in conjunction with the loosening and speeding up of all the systems we’re now living within (Notes Two)

Within all that there’s then this function of imparting information. Whether that’s social, economic, political, cultural, personal, commercial, or whatever else, there are all these individuals, organisations and entities clamouring for our attention (Notes Three). Given the advent of the internet, that’s much different from when people would return from a day’s work and tune in to a brief radio broadcast for the salient points.

Of course, back then there was maybe more trust in those in power and those reporting things. Having the more multifaceted insight offered by modern media can surely do wonders in terms of holding people accountable and challenging the courses we’re taking. But it’s undeniably also making things more overwhelming.

At times it’s almost like we’re riding the tail of this vast dragon of opinion, argument and reaction. Each event sparking off a turbulent chain of responses. Sometimes the voices speaking there might seek to soothe, reassure, engender calmness and reason; other times they might enflame, striking powerless fear or anger into our hearts; or maybe they’re making light, offering up sheer novelty for our amusement. It’s quite a volatile, unpredictable reality – never knowing what’ll be thrown at us each day.

In that light, at what point does the value of being informed get outweighed by the strain of being overwhelmed? How easily are we able to stand as responsible citizens or consumers if our minds and emotions are being torn to shreds by incessant updates? When do we start losing the capacity to judge or willingness to engage with voices seeking to undermine, convince or coerce as much as inform us about our choices?

Given how much media influences our democratic decisions, alongside the influence of advertising and culture over consumer or social behaviour, it’s far too important to play games with. Politics, social cohesion, mutual interest or respect, and the vast economic realities engulfing the world affect us all; not giving people what they need to navigate that responsibly seems risky.

Notes and References:

Note 1: Right to question and decide
Note 1: Freedom, what to lean on & who to believe
Note 1: Responsibility in shaping this reality
Note 2: The conversation of society
Note 2: Modern media and complex realities
Note 3: Media within democratic society
Note 3: What’s a reasonable response?
Note 3: Fear or coercion as motivators

As a counterpoint to this, Plato & “The Republic” explored ideas of what makes a healthy society from the perspective of a somewhat distant past.

Ways to share this:

Obligations and contributions

Words tend to carry history. Whether linguistically or culturally, they bring with them the context in which they arose plus the accumulated sense of how they’ve been applied over time and ways they’ve worked themselves into society now. Sometimes that might be helpful, adding richness to our lives, or it might be a little confusing as layers of meaning blur the realities of what’s actually going on.

The fact language can be applied in different ways, maybe deliberately calling to mind age-old notions or drawing misleading comparisons with present-day ideas, is one of many fascinating aspects of communication (see Notes One). Seeing beyond the terminology to the reality of what we’re agreeing to, creating, sustaining with our actions seems one of life’s quirky little challenges.

One example being the world of money. Looking to the roots of words such as “contribution” or “obligation”, we find ideas around ‘bestowing with, bringing together, adding’ and ‘binding by oath’ overlaid with connotations of “liege” and the relationship between feudal superiors and their vassals (those holding land in return for that allegiance).

Meanings that trace back through Latin, French, Germanic, English and Celtic times, and branch out into many other complex and beautiful notions around human coexistence and cooperation. “Bestow” bringing with it a history of ‘conferring or presenting an honour, gift or right’ or placing something in (hopefully) the right hands. “Tribute” carrying thoughts of either gratitude and respect or dependence.

All these words, having arisen through complex experiences, paint some interesting pictures around the ideas or principles underpinning Western society. We have these fairly ancient social arrangements working their way through the intricacies of the Middle Ages then emerging into the light of more modern-day civilisations.

It’s bringing in ideas of lords and masters; the protection afforded through community and other allegiances; and the often precarious realities that led to such ‘transactional relationships’ being seen as truly valuable. There’s this whole world of history that’s grown into the more abstract reinterpretations of modern life. Some aspects may be similar, but the nature of the relationships and risks is also a little different.

Within all that, where do we stand? Do we owe a debt of gratitude to the past and all the ways it’s passed over wealth, knowledge, mastery into our hands? Does history bind us to accept the paths it’s taken and modern forms its ideas created? Is it ungrateful if we seek improvements to how values of freedom, equality or respect are manifested in our times? Or is society still, as ever, a living thing we serve to sustain and perfect? (Notes Two)

It brings to mind the thoughts of the late Wayne Dyer, who once spoke of government as society’s servant – asking why it then turned around and began speaking as the master, making greater demands to fulfil its own agendas. It may not be a perfect analogy, but does raise that essential question around the nature of all these relationships of power and money that govern our lives.

Notes and References:

“Four Pathways to Success” (Audio) by Dr Wayne W. Dyer, (Hay House), 2004.

Note 1: Language and values
Note 1: Worthless, or priceless?
Note 2: Right to question and decide
Note 2: Responsibility in shaping this reality
Note 2: What holds it all together

Ways to share this:

What holds it all together

Society is conceivably a construct simply held together by infrastructure and convention. We could view that as an illusion, a contract or a burden, but maybe those are just ideas we have towards it. However, society’s clearly also a reality: it asks things of us, offers things in return, and, in many ways, our attitudes and behaviours can either uphold or hinder its progress and stability.

In terms of what serves to hold that together we could talk of laws, cultural conventions or economic obligations (see Notes One). All those ‘systems’ that effectively delineate acceptable or punishable behaviour, seeking to guide us through reward or punishment along those paths deemed valuable or essential.

As social creatures we’re evidently inclined to seek acceptance and belonging, so meeting the standards set by the group we want to be part of must be a strong motivating factor in curtailing individual behaviour. But then I suppose that raises the question of whether we view “society” as the group to belong to more than, say, some other sub-community that exists in person, in theory, or online (Notes Two).

Realistically, society seems essentially to be a belief: an idea we have to believe in and see the value of maintaining through our actions. Beyond notions of obligation, we presumably need to understand what societal participation offers us and how exactly ‘all that we do’ feeds into that bigger picture. If that’s not personally compelling then I’d imagine people might seek belonging elsewhere and stop caring greatly about it.

What I suppose I’m trying to say is that if we don’t believe in, understand, and intentionally uphold society then maybe we’re losing what’s holding it together? That might happen for many reasons: education; upbringing; socio-economic background; social or interpersonal experiences; lack of appreciation of or agreement with the values of a given society; disillusionment of countless kinds. All ways we might stop thinking it worthwhile.

And if people don’t understand or agree with society, for whatever reason, then presumably they stop acting in the ways that effectively sustain it. All those little ways we might break with “expectations” – whether it’s subtle social conventions and niceties, or a seemingly casual disregard for bylaws and road rules – then serving to chip away at social cohesion.

It seems true that if we see others not upholding certain standards we might conclude not to bother either. Or, we might judge them as antisocial for not caring; in turn, creating interpersonal tensions. As social creatures, with ideas of conventions and their meanings often woven into us from an early age, seeing poor behaviour pass unpunished while ‘good’ behaviour goes unnoticed surely causes problems?

Afterall, if society’s essentially an idea upheld by intentional actions then seeing that invisible ‘reality’ of convention breaking up is presumably going to be quite disconcerting? As the authority of tradition and the relative homogeneity of communities are being delightfully shaken up by the freedoms of modern living, it almost seems inevitable that social cohesion will need shoring up.

Notes and References:

Note 1: Laws and lawlessness
Note 1: People, rules & social cohesion
Note 1: Human nature and community life
Note 1: “The Spirit of Community”
Note 1: What is acceptable?
Note 2: Using internet to construct community
Note 2: Responsibility in shaping this reality

Looking deeper into how our behaviours are or might be shaped was also the focus of Fear or coercion as motivators.

Ways to share this:

Playing with fire?

Culture clearly goes back thousands of years, with all the ways civilisations have reflected upon and sought to shape their ways of life. It’s a fascinating thought: that stories have accompanied humans all along their path to the present day. How much that process has informed and altered society or individuals is presumably unfathomable to fully comprehend.

And I’ve talked of culture a few times here, musing over its functions within human society and for the individual discovery of meaning or purpose in life (see Notes One). The idea of this as a ‘tending’ of what’s required seems interesting to me, as if cultural forms are as seeds we plant or flames we fan to life in order to sustain what’s needed, productive or helpful.

In that light though, where’s this leading? How can we be sure that the ideas we’re entertaining are wise, the right way to go about resolving things or fostering the attitudes necessary for modern society? Can we trust that our current embodiment of this ancient practice is running along the same lines rather than accidentally enhancing what it’s hoping to eradicate?

We might argue that we’re simply reflecting realities: representing the trends or concerns of our times so others can consider them, make sense of life and form a reasonable response for the good of themselves and others. Maybe that’s true, maybe the thoughts we have in response to culture is where the important conversation needs to happen (Notes Two).

Because presumably ideas can act as seeds or flames, growing over time into something that will often change the course of events? Those words spoken or images seen that might lodge in your psyche, developing over the years into patterns or attitudes that affect how you are. If everything we’re taking in has that quality to it, then what exactly are we leaving ourselves open to these days?

If cultural life can help generate thoughts, attitudes, and values that might help us in how we live or teach us valuable lessons around the perils of paths we may not wish to take, then it must be serving an extremely valuable social function. Rather than seek to experience everything for ourselves, we could learn through the insights offered up to us by others – living vicariously through those other ways of being.

But then, how much can we truly trust modern culture to be offering us that? Are we right to simply go along with what’s offered, taking it all in and mulling it over? If the intentions behind a large proportion of such offerings are essentially commercial, is that a problem? How we might best discern what’s truly worthwhile and respond wisely to the rest of it isn’t so easy to figure out (Notes Three).

Might it not be that we’re effectively playing risky games? Depending on your metaphorical preference, we could end up with a nice warm fire and perfectly tended landscape, or something more closely resembling chaos. Not being sure of which seems troubling.

Notes and References:

Note 1: Culture, art & human activity
Note 1: Revisiting the question of culture
Note 1: Meaning in culture
Note 2: Culture selling us meaning
Note 2: Complicity and cultural attitudes
Note 2: Entertaining ideas & the matter of truth
Note 2: Cultural shifts & taking a backseat
Note 3: Dystopia as a powerful ideal
Note 3: Plato & “The Republic”

Ways to share this: