Author: admin

“Paradox of Choice”

“The fact that some choice is good doesn’t necessarily mean that more choice is better” is the central premise of “The Paradox of Choice” by Barry Schwartz, a fascinating and readable book exploring some psychology behind the spread of consumerism and ways we might go about managing that reality.

Schwartz starts with ideas around freedom, pointing out “we do ourselves no favor when we equate liberty too directly with choice, as if we necessarily increase freedom by increasing the number of options available” as “clinging tenaciously to all the choices available to us contributes to bad decisions, to anxiety, stress, and dissatisfaction”.

Drawing attention to the volume of choice in education, entertainment, finance, health and beauty, belief, relationships, and even identity, Schwartz observes “we now face a demand to make choices that is unparalleled in human history”. It’s interesting to see this summarised succinctly and humorously, and it naturally raises questions about the cumulative effect. If this is ‘how life is’, can we consciously navigate it?

The book addresses this by examining the process of decision making: setting and evaluating goals; identifying and selecting from options; attempts to influence us below our conscious awareness; and the challenge of finding reliable information, given all that’s now online.

This, of course, is the essence of our economic system: that “individual freedom of choice ensures the most efficient production and distribution of society’s goods” (see Notes One). And as humans we naturally want to belong, progress, and make the best of life and the options we’re given; but what’s the subjective cost of it all, in terms of satisfaction and peace of mind?

If “our most fundamental sense of well-being crucially depends on our having the ability to exert control over our environment and recognizing that we do”, then “perhaps there comes a point at which opportunities become so numerous that we feel overwhelmed”.

Schwartz goes on to consider links between happiness, money, and restrictions on freedom: how commitments such as marriage, religion and other social ties essentially limit us in a way but also serve to give life meaning and happiness. Perhaps excessive freedom and choice might diminish our sense of control, leading to feelings of helplessness or depression.

Ways we regret what we do and don’t do; how the burden of choice can lead to feelings of incapacity; and our inclination to compare outcomes with hopes, expectations, and experiences of others certainly hint at quite considerable psychological impacts. If ‘having to choose’ creates all this mental baggage, then maybe the wiser choice is to create limits for our own well-being (as much as anything else).

It’s a book with simple advice and far-reaching implications, bringing to mind the conclusions of Aldous Huxley in “Brave New World Revisited” about whether people might relinquish the burden of choice even though “without freedom, human beings cannot become fully human and that freedom is therefore supremely valuable”. We are free, but choices come at a cost; so being clear what we’re doing seems pretty important.

Notes and References:

“The Paradox of Choice. Why more is less” by Barry Schwartz, (HarperCollins, New York), 2004.

Note 1: Fashion, self & environment
Note 1: Is sustainable design an impossibility?
Note 1: Money as a pivot of matter & intention
Note 1: The business of spiritual ideas
Note 1: Why listen to media that exists to profit?
Note 1: Culture selling us meaning

On a similar note, Need to stand alone & think for ourselves looked at these ideas of deciding our own path in life.

Ways to share this:

Culture selling us meaning

Culture can be viewed as the ideas, meanings, practices, and stories we tell to tie life and therefore society together; this idea of cultivation, of tending what will come of it all. But, in these times, the cultural forms proliferating and feeding into society aren’t necessarily wise or constructive so much as commercially viable.

Notions around appearance, status, character, and human worth are seemingly being defined and shaped by industry; whether that’s entertainment, advertising, or other news and media outlets (see Notes One). In effect, popular culture seems to be ‘what sells’ rather than an intentional set of principles that might help sustain a healthy society.

In a way, of course, these activities are continuations of age-old traditions recast in the modern light: stories become films, campfires become screens, togetherness translates to global connectivity, and meaning to identity. Today’s forms are variations on what has ‘always’ happened, just with a technological and commercial overlay in many cases.

But is that the same? Does it serve the same function, or is the commodification of culture something different? Clearly, selling something makes it a transaction and a product, and market forces bring in elements of exclusivity and demand (whether real or fabricated).

The posts referenced before have questioned the implication of cultural life becoming business; our natural desires for belonging and worth transposed into consumption. We’re offered something – a product, an experience, plus the sense of identity packaged up with it – but it’s not freely given. There are natural costs of course, but also systemic ones in terms of storylines we’re accepting or supporting through our adherence to them (Notes Two).

On a personal and a social level we’re still weaving together meanings: culture still shapes our ideas around self, society, and others; still informs our attitudes, beliefs, assumptions, and values in life. We might be more aware in how we craft our ‘self’ in relation to it, but how conscious are we of the overall picture being formed?

The coherence and deeper meaning of that picture concerns me at times, as does the commercial nature of what’s essentially a human endeavour: ideas around age, looks, gender, and background often seem far from ideal; and selling people things, saying that completes you, seems to undermine human worth for the sake of money.

But then these days everything’s a marketplace, and this is simply the one dealing in human meaning. That is what it is, and maybe our power in that system is the freedom to direct it as consumers: how we engage and what we create from it, the messages and meanings we affirm, the worldview that all serves to maintain.

Money’s a part of life, so ‘naturally’ people seek to make a business and a profit out of this essential human function. Their sense of constructive responsibility may be questionable at times (as with any business), but our more conscious participation in building a culture that sustains humanity throughout each lifetime and across the globe may be one way to go.

Notes and References:

Note 1: The value of art in society
Note 1: Intrinsic worth over social identity
Note 1: How many things are cycles (we could break)
Note 1: Is sustainable design an impossibility?
Note 1: Complicity and cultural attitudes
Note 1: Romance, love & the movies
Note 2: Missing something with modern culture?
Note 2: What are the true costs?

Ways to share this:

What are the true costs?

The value of things comes up all the time, as we estimate the financial impact of different courses of action; but it often seems that long-term, environmental, social, or human implications are left out of these equations.

A recent Guardian article on the price of urban trees is an example: we calculate risks and costs in determining a plan for managing these things, but articulating their value in terms of ecosystem, historical legacy, and mental wellbeing is so much harder to quantify (see Notes One).

Figures are somehow more solid and foreseeable than other concerns and consequences, but letting them govern matters is questionable and risks a one-sided understanding of life, what makes it worth living, and the impacts our choices have. I mean, everything creates a reality: how we act towards others; how we consume in terms of diet, lifestyle or culture; and the industries we support. All these things have a cost and value, and not just financially.

So, taking society to be ‘the way we do things’, our actions sustain or re-create these systems; feeding into a bigger picture of our values, priorities, and ideas about life (Notes Two). Everything can be seen to have human, social, natural, and systemic implications or costs. This picture can be viewed from an economic perspective, but that’s far from all it is.

With regard to the consumption of products, our choices feed industries, practices, standards, and cultural norms; having a social consequence in the example we offer to others as much as for those employed across the globe. Both within our own environment and in remote centres of production, our lifestyle choices are significant statements.

Then looking at regulation, the observance or disregard for legal or other conventions serves to either sustain or weaken our communities (Notes Three). It might seem without consequence if we ignore some rules, thinking no one cares enough to stop us and if they do we can just ignore or intimidate them; but these things surely strain the fabric of society.

And in cultural life, the attitudes and standards we adopt around what makes a person worthy of respect, admiration or courtesy shape the social world we inhabit. Glances, words and gestures directed towards others signal how we perceive their value; much as that might be informed by commercial or status-driven concerns.

Clearly modern life brings with it an inundation of images and information, testing our capacity to discern what matters. And as social creatures we tend to go along with things, not wanting to miss out or appear old-fashioned. But in all this it seems the social and environmental costs might be pretty considerable, as the underlying ideas filter into how we relate to one other and the world around us.

It might seem harmless, an extension of ‘how things have always been’, or part of systems we have little control over; but looking only at money may mean overlooking much that’s essential to holding together systems, relationships and environments we genuinely rely upon.

Notes and References:

Note 1: Values and the economic
Note 1: Nature tells a story, about society
Note 2: Created a system we seek to escape?
Note 2: Complicity and cultural attitudes
Note 2: Individual responsibility, collective standards
Note 3: Laws and lawlessness
Note 3: Antisocial behaviour & the young

Then there’s “Small is Beautiful” which also touches upon issues of environment, values and consequences.

Ways to share this:

How it is / Selling out

In various ways, we start out with high ideals – dreams of how things can be and principles we value dearly – but almost inevitably end up in some kind of compromise. And we might say that’s just how life is, that the ideals of youth cannot last in the real world; but there’s often a bitterness mixed in with that, a part of us still hoping for more.

This idea of compromise cropped up already in relation to spiritual ideas, artistic collaboration, and also education (see Notes One); areas where vision meets reality and struggles to realise its intentions in a flawed and pressured world. More fundamentally, this can become an attitude to life itself (Note Two).

Which I guess is this basic conflict between ideas and reality, thought and actions. We might have ideas of how life can be, but so much depends on the world around us with its systems and collective behaviour patterns: we have to make ends meet, get along with others, and also accept the inability of changing their ideas or effecting immediate change ourselves.

So it seems compromise is part of life, however much we might search for all-embracing solutions and seek to make a valuable contribution to human society.

And in a way this often comes down to money; that’s the factor that bends people’s ideals in a practical sense or makes them appear compromised by the agendas of business or the temptation of personal gain. Money being this fact of life, this way we must trade our dreams and efforts in order to make a living (Note Three).

Money seems to be set against us as we seek to realise our ideals in life; given how we need it to sustain ourselves or facilitate more organised commercial activity. It’s hard to avoid compromise in all that, yet, for many, the truth and value of what you say can be tainted as soon as you accept money or make a decision guided by it.

To take a fairly recent example, Casey Neistat felt the need to address accusations of selling out (link below). It’s an interesting video for many reasons, and I’m not entirely familiar with the background of his career and those responses to it; but it seems people take offence at the financial transaction and the associated loss of something perceived as genuine. Essentially though, it’s a heightened version of what I’m talking about.

It’s a complicated situation: we all have our ideals and also our compromises; and it seems we want to see ideals find their place in the world through the activities of others but get disillusioned or frustrated at the compromises we also see there.

For me, it’s a flawed system and most people simply try the best they can; and of course there tend to be less-than-ideal compromises in business. But bringing ideals to life is incredibly hard, so maybe being more understanding of our idealistic imperfections or compromises might be a better way to move forward together.

Notes and References:

Casey Neistat “Millionaire YouTube SELLOUT” https://youtube.com/watch?v=BQ_z48aJD5o

Note 1: The business of spiritual ideas
Note 1: Art, collaboration & commodification
Note 1: Education, society & the individual
Note 2: Mental health relative to modern times
Note 3: Life and money, seamlessly interwoven

Ideas around thought, reality and ideals are also explored in What inspires all of this.

Ways to share this:

Created a system we seek to escape?

Life could be this growing into a system where we all played a valuable part and our interactions were full of meaning and purpose. Society could be a building up, a collaboration, a development of worthwhile ideas and solutions. Yet it seems we generally seek to be free of it. Why is that?

Why does it have to be this uphill struggle? Why has ‘making ends meet’ become this strange means to an end where we toil away in search of freedom from it all, often resenting one another and much of what we do.

It just seems we seek escape: consumption, indulgence, addictions of varying intensities, ways to pass time or feel better. Large chunks of modern culture seem to be these somewhat destructive or careless pursuits of obliteration, criticism, and fleeting sensations of happiness; else a building up of identity, ways we set ourselves apart (see Notes One).

At times we might distance ourselves from things, using despair or humour as our vehicles: laughing at or blaming others or ourselves for the situations playing out. But does any of this get us anywhere; does it help shift matters or create paths beyond our current limitations?

Systems are what they are: ideas, ways of organising the necessities and opportunities of life. We all exist at some point within that, taking what we can and often maintaining the structures that afford us what we possess. Many now seem to be saying – in different ways – that our systems aren’t working; but finding a new way clearly isn’t straightforward. And it revolves around money; which seems difficult to move beyond.

We might seek to reform capitalism: creating organisations that operate more responsibly within it; making efforts to redistribute resources or redefine things. Essentially though, this system seems to work by plugging our ‘needs’ – real or imagined – with goods and services produced for profit; draining a presumably finite material world for our satisfaction (Notes Two). And if one company doesn’t do it, another probably will.

But surely we don’t need all this; we might ‘want’ it and it might set us apart from others, but much of it can hardly been deemed essential. So, what is that bubble of frivolity that seems to be engulfing us? What are we chasing, and why aren’t we stopping?

And I’m very aware I’m being a little dark here; that life’s ‘always’ been a struggle and people find a way. But these systems and the lives we live within them say something about how we view life, what’s important, and the ways we see and value one another. Could all that be organised more purposefully, with greater restraint and consideration? Are there ways to step back and engage more intentionally in reshaping these systems; creating meaning where we find it lacking?

Because this really seems a rather strange way of living; and maybe if we saw a choice we’d choose to say something quite different through the lives we lead and how we spend our time.

Notes and References:

Note 1: Relating to cultural benchmarks
Note 1: Intrinsic worth over social identity
Note 1: Life and money, seamlessly interwoven
Note 2: The motivation of money
Note 2: How many things are cycles (we could break)
Note 2: Is sustainable design an impossibility?

In a similar vein, What inspires all of this considered the human side of systems we inhabit.

Ways to share this:

“People Skills”

The challenge of communication may be one of the more fundamental concerns of our existence, as “each moment with another person can be an opportunity for discovery and growth or for the erosion of identity and the destruction of one’s personhood … One does not become fully human without interaction with other human beings.”

How we relate to others, and what that means and creates personally and socially, seems central to human life (see Notes One); and “People Skills” by Robert Bolton captures both the specifics and underlying principles in quite a timeless way without gimmicks or oversimplifications. While our interactions may have changed, what it is to be human and communicate meaningfully presumably hasn’t.

Bolton talks of how “as children, we learned by the example of the significant others in our lives as well as from their instructions to us”, then “cultural norms in our society reinforce much of the training we received.” So, ways individuals, practices and principles teach us to view others and the world around us; or, the broader task of education and of life (Note Two).

The text addresses barriers to communication, listening skills, assertiveness, and managing conflict; before considering some essential foundations of human relationship: genuineness, non-possessive love, and empathy. The idea being that learning specific skills helps us develop an understanding of those underlying ideals: form leading to function.

Love for people as they are and acceptance of a person (if not their behaviour) creates a foundation of mutual respect and freedom, while establishing ground for addressing differences. As “each individual has a unique personal space – a physical, psychological, and values territory which is hers … Within our life space, we exercise the prerogatives of our own individuality. Outside of this personal space we move in a common area where the rights of others need to be considered and where adaptability is required.”

Yet in modern life both that ‘space’ and the tolerance of it are under pressure, as social changes bring us closer in our orbits while blurring our more traditional boundaries. In many ways, technology merges our personal space with that common one: blending friendship with consumerism or activism, and presenting social communication alongside that of media or business (Notes Three).

Then, empathy: “walking with another person into the deeper chambers of his self … experiencing the feelings of another without losing one’s own identity.” So, understanding what life’s like for another, as if you were them; “a kind of detached involvement”. Again, something Western society grapples with in the sense of either detachment and carelessness, or the ways we’re swept up in the feeling lives of others.

In many ways, modern life is altering how we see one another and the world around us; with society, culture and education now facing up to the need and the challenge of reworking our understanding to meet that changing world. Coming to a clearer appreciation of the principles of human nature and practical ways of approaching one another seem key parts of that.

Notes and References:

“People Skills” by Robert Bolton, Ph.D., (Touchstone, Simon & Schuster), 1986 (originally 1979).

Note 1: Mirrors we offer one another
Note 1: Listening, tolerance & communication
Note 2: Learning to be human
Note 3: Using internet to construct community
Note 3: Modern activism in practice
Note 3: Reality as a sense check

Ways to share this:

Reviving local community

The extent to which local communities are changing, fading, or dying out is a topic that surfaces fairly often: as modern life shifts towards remote and essentially invisible networks, the local structures that once supported everyday life now strain to compete. Where does that lead, and in what ways could community evolve to remain a part of how we live?

Faced with modern business practices and the countless ways technology’s transforming how we communicate, relate, and lead our lives the geographical locations we occupy are inevitably changing (see Notes One).

Infrastructure, after all, reflects the functions assigned to it and the ways we interact with one another and what’s provided. Local services and businesses grow out of government policy and modern economics, as well as the initiative of those seeking to make a living or fulfil needs within their community.

With so much being run through the online world, independent businesses are naturally struggling to stand up against the convenience, organisation, and competitive pricing of powerful commercial operators. And the allure of what’s being offered, along with how it’s packaged within modern culture and advertising, of course appeals to our desire to belong and benefit; but at what cost?

I mean, local communities presumably developed to meet needs; evolving out of local concerns, industries and individuals to offer services around food, education, employment, and other social or cultural functions. Little centres of life, human interaction, and meaningful work. That was life.

Now, so much is streamlined as local life blends into this increasingly global culture of business and branding. As a business model, that’s probably great; but what does it mean for us? What will it mean if local community disappears in that way, becoming an essentially commercial culture instead?

In many ways it might already be redundant to pose such questions, as these things may be almost impossible to resist; but it still seems important to ask.

If community offered meaning, belonging, and a relationship to others and to environment then that must’ve shaped people; telling us our worth in the eyes of others and showing the contributions we all make to our shared existence (Notes Two). It seems there was once a great deal of meaning woven through community. Much, of course, was the legacy of different times; but not all needs discarding.

In “New Renaissance”, Maurice Ash addressed this idea of the meaning inherent in community and how politics “must concern the forms of everyday life … a politics of community, of patterns that hold people together”. “The Spirit of Community” also explores how community can serve to sustain social values.

It’s a subject that can be approached from a personal perspective as much as a commercial or philosophical one, and in every case it seems important: we live within a social, environmental and economic environment and the way we live either brings all that into awareness so we act responsibly, or conceals it. Old practices may be falling away, but surely meaningful structures can replace them.

Notes and References:

Note 1: The challenge of community
Note 1: Community – what it was, what we lost
Note 1: Nature tells a story, about society
Note 2: Mirrors we offer one another
Note 2: “Ecological Intelligence”

Ways to share this:

Listening, tolerance & communication

Something about communication can be incredibly beautiful: that we can take our thoughts and experiences, express them through language and, through conversing, share and develop our own ideas as well as coming to understand others. It’s been touched on a few times here, both in its capacity to enrich our lives and for the challenges it presents society (see Notes One).

Because if communication is this sharing, this act of listening as much as articulating our own interests, in a way it’s fundamentally confronting: we have to suspend the self with all our beliefs, opinions and judgements in order for the other to find space to express theirs. Which I suppose is the idea of tolerance: to allow something without interference; creating that space for a different reality to be heard without conflict.

Often though it seems we want to ‘win’ at conversations; to be heard, validated, unchallenged, or at least defeat those challenges (Notes Two). As if that space of tolerance isn’t available, it’s the ground we don’t want to offer in case we cannot get it back.

This energy of a battleground can be a deterrent to broaching many topics, as offering up meaningful aspects of yourself or addressing something you’re less familiar or confident with can leave you open to an easy or painful defeat. And some simply just don’t want to argue, don’t like ‘attack and defence’ as a model for communicating.

And I wonder why we’re feeling this threatened; why time’s so tight, patience so thin, and tempers so high. I guess there’s this sense that things are moving fast so we have to jump in and get heard (Note Three). Also that our pace of living leaves less scope for patiently listening to those we might have less in common with (Note Four). It does seem we have less time and more pressure of varying sorts – more stress.

But maybe intolerance and poor communication add to that. Maybe these walls we put up against others leave us more isolated or frustrated as we cling rigidly to our views and break the habit of making room for others. And, in doing so, we might risk losing something valuable: sharing ideas and experiences, exploring how we’re different and what we have in common, imagining what it is to see life through another’s eyes – letting all that ‘be’ without needing to judge or compare seems beautifully human.

Yet for some reason there seems to be this pressure to form an opinion, an identity, a set of defining choices, then to stand by what we’ve chosen. I’m not at all sure where that comes from. Maybe from business, consumption and marketing; maybe from social media and the principles that are shaping online interactions; or maybe it is simply human nature in a way.

Maybe it’s a fundamental insecurity of being human; but surely also a challenge to rise above feeling threatened and find new ways to communicate beyond differences while still addressing all that needs to be addressed.

Notes and References:

Note 1: Mirrors we offer one another
Note 1: Globalised society finding its feet
Note 1: Where’s the right place to talk?
Note 2: Does truth speak for itself?
Note 3: Patience with the pace of change
Note 4: Attitudes to elder members of society

Ways to share this:

Where’s the right place to talk?

Many times here I find myself asking questions that seem to have no place; they might be important but they’re diverse and tend to cross over established boundaries into a sort of middle ground (see Notes One). I often wonder what it is that prevents this conversation from happening, and how far we can get without it.

It seems at times that we’re all simply talking at once, shouting one another down or refusing to listen to others’ concerns until we’ve addressed our own. Leading to conversations that never quite get started, as one topic stands against another in a sort of stalemate: if time’s tight we won’t cover both, so we discuss neither. As if ideas cannot co-exist and one has to emerge the winner, the most important.

And many issues are interconnected, so where do you start? Social cohesion is linked to education but also to media, to culture, to home life, to technology, to tradition and belief. Mental health may be connected with internet use and concerns over empathy and powerlessness in that sphere, but also with uncertainty over the future, seismic social shifts, and the psychological difficulty of finding your feet in it all.

Can a conversation begin to encompass these divergent aspects of modern life, or do we make a start but soon encounter a seemingly impassable bridge into a completely different area of expertise we feel unqualified to enter? In an era of specialisation, can we develop the oversight to confidently address all that needs to be talked about and drawn into a suitably cohesive solution?

And if reality is peopled with divergent paths, histories, experiences, and wounds are we only allowed to speak of our own (Note Two), or is there a way to respectfully rise above our differences and have those conversations that seem so urgent and important? Can we afford not to?

In a way, every topic and path is both important and challenging to understand: specialisation and personal experience matter in that they shape us and, in grappling with them, we develop greater knowledge and hopefully wisdom. But learning and experience take time, so pursuing one path comes at the cost of others; in which case, we need to be able to communicate in order to benefit from the wisdom others are offering.

Yet modern life moves at this pace where you have to react immediately, ride the wave of whatever conversation or trend you wish to be part of as yesterday’s conversation is already over. So many different threads, subcultures, generations apparently struggle to find points of common interest and respect; ploughing ahead with their interrelated, but unfortunately unrelated, concerns.

Can we rise above that resulting isolation and find ways to genuinely and powerfully connect? If modern communication stumbles at these divisive roadblocks, unable to sustain conversations that bridge the divides to speak out of a coherent enough sense of ‘the bigger picture’ to understand and judge what experts are able to offer us, then where are we headed?

Notes and References:

Note 1: Privacy and our online existence
Note 1: Anti-social behaviour & the young
Note 1: Media and responsibility
Note 1: Laws and lawlessness
Note 1: How many aren’t well represented?
Note 1: Learning to be human
Note 2: Talking through difficult topics

Related to this, Need to stand alone & think for ourselves spoke of the importance of finding our own feet.

Ways to share this:

Patience with the pace of change

With change, things seem to be moving so quickly; and in a way they are. But then there’s the time it takes to achieve deep and lasting change, which I suppose is harder to see and be sure of.

Technology opens up conversations on a scale never before conceivable, raising our awareness along with an expectation that knowledge will bring immediate transformation. But does it? Does knowing something lead to change, or do we still have to work through our resistance, our patterns, our old ideas, and our capacity to make changes on all those levels? Knowledge seems but one part of the ingrained and often unexamined layers we all seem to carry.

So maybe our increased awareness might lead instead to greater challenges as we know so much but struggle with how to wisely integrate and act upon it, let alone form a coherent picture as to the ultimate meaning of all that we do.

These days so much happens so instantly, where a while back change often took a lifetime. And maybe that very process was valuable in strengthening resolve and fostering the commitment and perseverance required to uphold changes. Maybe the conviction of dedicating your life to something brought about what’s necessary for real change to take place both individually and as a society.

Compared with that, technology seems in a way to diffuse focus: a relatively small action can cause an instantaneous ripple of response, but does that actually lead to significant change? All these ripples can take up time and give the illusion of a global conversation, but the extent to which it’s simply the flexing of intellectual muscles rather than achieving results remains to be seen.

The question of effecting change is fascinating, as clearly it’s needed in many areas yet often struggles to shift beyond argument, division and identity (see Notes One). We have these models and tools for change, applying them to modern scenarios; but are they truly scalable and effective or are we dealing with something new requiring a fresher approach?

As ever, I’m asking a lot of questions. It just seems the world has fundamentally changed; and we’re trying to grasp that and steer it, possibly with contorted ideas from the past.

Technology, after all, is a system: a crystallised way of understanding how things work, how human society can be both served and shaped by the capacities we’re developing. In a way it’s neutral and it’s up to us how we use it; but not entirely so, as it surely influences our understanding and the kinds of interactions we’re having (Note Two).

Modern life largely takes place through that veil of technology; with its fidgety, compulsive sense of novelty giving an impression of ever-changing realities. Whether that’s the case, or if lasting change takes as much effort as it ever did seems an important question. Maybe there’s a way of looking beyond that fast-paced surface to see the depth of resolve still needed to bring worthwhile changes to life.

Notes and References:

Note 1: History as a process of changes
Note 1: People wanting change
Note 1: Modern activism in practice
Note 1: How arguments avoid issues
Note 2: “Response-Ability” by Frank Fisher
Note 2: “Education’s End”

The themes of Communication and Change also pick up many of these ideas more generally.

Ways to share this: