Author: admin

Complicity and cultural attitudes

I hesitated over my choice of title here as “complicity” is a fairly loaded word, but it more or less fits: notions of associates or allies, things we do alongside others, also of ‘folding together’ and the sense of individual actions forming part of a complex whole. Because what I want to talk about is how our personal choices and the attitudes that often accompany them serve to create a shared cultural reality.

Here I’m meaning things like beauty, age, appearance, or other benchmarks against which we judge others (see Notes One). It seems we maintain certain standards with our actions, our communication, and our subtle estimations of one another. And, to my mind, that all carries with it a structure of thought around human worth and acceptable ways to view people (one way of understanding culture).

For example, we could talk of conventions around what’s fashionable in clothing, values and interests; or generally adhered to practices of colouring hair or creating illusions of youth. The ways we cast an eye over others, seeing how they compare; and how it’s apparently increasingly normal to assign status in this way.

Which is what it is; a society’s cultural life can be seen as comprising of such ideas, customs, and social behaviour. But, for a term originating in the Latin for growing, tending and cultivation, I wonder how much modern culture serves us and where things might lead.

It seems cultural practices traditionally arose to bind people together with meaning, whereby we knew where we stood. These days, many of our standards have surely arisen out of commerce – whether that’s beauty and lifestyle industries, entertainment and fashion circles, or a combination thereof. Many aspects of life seem to have stepped into these commodified forms, where products and services are presented as modern cultural life.

My concern with that is how our sense of human worth is then defined in large part by industry, by people seeking to sell and to create a market. So something essentially human becomes something commercial, run with very different ideas in mind. Which is a slightly different topic, but it’s relevant in the sense of whether we’re going along with something natural that is in our best interests.

Looking at the social principles accompanying modern cultural ideals, they seem quite divisive. We’re inundated with images and language asserting that we’re worth less if we don’t have certain things or adhere to these ideas (see Notes Two). But are young people really more relevant or interesting than older ones? Is grey hair or a lack of makeup genuinely a cause for despair? Does beauty or the pursuit of fashion honestly set us apart from others in a meaningful way?

Humans are surely social creatures, and our shared cultural life forms a large part of that. It just seems much of modern culture essentially attacks and sets us against one another, with often impossible and self-defeating ideas of what’s worthwhile. And it’s something we all form a part of.

Notes and References:

Note 1: What do we see in beauty?
Note 1: Relating to cultural benchmarks
Note 2: How many aren’t well represented?
Note 2: Attitudes to elder members of society
Note 2: How many things are cycles (we could break)

Also Mirrors we offer one another, which considered the complex interrelationships between self and society.

Ways to share this:

Economics and the task of education

The challenge of education can clearly be seen in many different lights. There’s the root of the word itself, to lead out; with its sense of those able to bring others from one state to another. Then there’s the question of competing priorities and agendas, based on our own differing ideas of what’s important (see Education’s place within Society). Education also highlights and embodies a lot of the struggles we’re now facing; many of which seem to come down to money.

In this day and age so much is defined by money: home, security, health, appearance, social worth, opportunities, career prospects, influence. It often seems the less money you have the more invisible you are, which I find strange (see Note One). But, while I might disagree with it in terms of wisdom and ethics (Notes Two), it’s undoubtedly the society and world we’re creating.

But how much influence should economics have in shaping education systems? Is learning to be co-opted into the economy itself, seen increasingly as a preparatory workshop of sorts where businesses and employers dictate what they think they’re looking for? Are schools the places governments and industries start planning what they want to create?

It seems we’ve largely accepted the view that education arose as a way of creating a workforce and building a stable society. That’s certainly one way of looking at history, and may well be true to some degree; but does that define forever the nature of these relationships? Widespread education may have begun in response to industrialisation and, at that time, it may have been seen as a way to harmonise society and strengthen the economy; but does that make it right to embrace the concept of social engineering to the extent we do?

As suggested in the post linked above, it could be that a different conceptualisation of education might lead to greater freedom and possibly even a truer and more responsive economy. Surely, if people are informed and strengthened to truly understand the world around them, free of any agenda or prescriptive path, then they would be able to meet the challenges of reality and decide how to engage constructively with that.

What I’m trying to get at is that there is a relationship between economics and education, but is it the right one? Should current economic operators be guiding what comes next or should our activities simply be guided by intelligent, independent minds? One of those paths seeks to perpetuate its own ideas, while the other encourages people to think for themselves. That second path might seem less stable, but it may be wiser in many ways.

Of course, practical realities arise out of our current systems and the necessities created by them: industries exist and have plans, and ends must be met one way or another. But what I’m saying is that maybe this is a relationship we could challenge to some degree by having a slightly different conversation about human society, shared priorities, and possible ways forward.

Notes and References:

Note 1: Value of each human being
Note 2: Morality and modern thought
Note 2: Values and the economic

Also Writings on Education, which explores the path we’ve taken into modern times and how education strives to meet that.

Ways to share this:

“Spiritual Emergency”

A while back, I wrote about the spiritual threads running through history and how they seemingly got swept away (Spirituality since the 80s). And, in that context, I want to talk about the book “Spiritual Emergency” which draws together contributions from the fields of psychology and spirituality to address what are essentially questions of the mind.

The main premise is that mental episodes, at times, might be moments of potential transformation: “a play on words, suggesting both a crisis and an opportunity of rising to a new level of awareness”. Of course, the writers are very careful to state this is “not to be confused with diseases that have a biological cause and necessitate medical treatment”. But, with that in mind, it’s interesting to consider if certain experiences categorised as mental illness could be something more.

Describing modern society as having arisen out of various revolutions and revelations whereby “rationality became the ultimate measure of all things”; the authors ask if we might’ve been slightly mistaken in discarding spiritual belief as incompatible, and thereby losing its ability to give a firm and meaningful foundation to our lives. Because if our civilisation lacks deeper meaning, and if “sanity today appears to rest very largely on a capacity to adapt to the external world”, then maybe some of our battles arise because we look for or see meaning within a world that denies it?

It’s a similar line of inquiry as forms part of “Towards a New World View” which looked at how engaging with alternative perspectives might assist us in overcoming our own imminent challenges (see also, Note One). Not that I necessarily advocate all modern spiritual paths (see Notes Two), but there certainly seems to be a market for metaphysics and a demand for greater meaning and purpose in life than is habitually offered or accepted (see Note Three).

The bulk of the book then covers ideas around shifts of consciousness; the therapeutic value of archetypes and myths; cultural traditions such as shamanism; Maslow’s study of “peak experiences”; past life or near death experiences; and notions of the psyche and the higher self. It’s a pretty comprehensive exploration of alternative ideas from various sources; focussing on how to safely guide people through such processes. Essentially, ways to “untangle and undo the knot of self” and let images of chaos or destruction give way to new forms of being.

It’s a worldview that risks getting a little dark (Note Four), but it still seems worthwhile contemplating. With the prevalence of conditions such as depression and anxiety, it’s timely to ask to what extent such difficulties arise from self, from society, or from thought itself. Because, in a way, our sense of self and our thoughts on life seem to arise and exist in relationship to the world around us (Note Five). If we look at the mind and the self as reflections of external reality, it could be that the shifts and struggles of the inner life might become more meaningful.

Notes and References:

“Spiritual Emergency. When Personal Transformation Becomes a Crisis” edited by Stanislav Grof, M.D., and Christina Grof, (Penguin Putnam, New York), 1989.

Note 1: Literature where West meets East
Note 2: Mindfulness, antidote to life or way of being
Note 2: The ideas of Eckhart Tolle
Note 3: Writings on Education
Note 4: Mental health relative to modern times
Note 5: Mirrors we offer one another

Also, “Education’s End” on the importance of knowing the path we’ve taken and the value of belief.

Ways to share this:

Morality and modern thought

In looking at life, I’ve realised I tend to view things over a foundation of social morality or individual ethics. My concerns – as explored in The value of each human being or How many aren’t well-represented? – lean toward an affirmation of human worth alongside a desire to understand what lies beneath our shared systems and values. My other guiding principle being truth: wanting to see the reasons behind things, and be sure they’re wise. That’s just me, in a way, but I mention it here as it’s something I truly struggle with in the world around me.

Within modern life, an intrinsic sense of morality doesn’t seem that evident in the face of scientific or economic modes of thinking. More often I notice a “because we can” mentality of doing what’s broadly tolerated or encouraged socially and legally; or a “looking out for yourself” attitude that presumably arises from Darwinian notions of individual advancement. Although, at times, a new moral conversation seems to be seeking a voice, as in Empathy in a world that happily destroys.

It’s an interesting question: what is right or wrong, both in principle and in action? How do our intentions, thoughts, words, and behaviours impact others and shape things around us?

In that light, I read an article recently that essentially recast our evolution from the perspective of economics, power and human utility; concluding that scientific advancements might render most of us “useless”. It painted a bleak picture of a future to be feared, where survival hinged on the goodwill of a few. Another article suggested that as science and statistics make correlations between lifestyle and health clearer, people may come to judge those not embracing wellness industries; that collective systems of care may be resented by those making larger contributions.

Both looked at collective human existence, contributions we make, and how we are valued; and, in both, ‘reason’ overshadowed other ways of seeing. The past can surely be seen in terms of money and power, but is it right to completely delete social morality from the equation? Are human ideals truly only now seen as a veneer for material, selfish desires? And, because logical evidence exists, does that mean we’re right to condemn those who don’t heed logic over the psychological or socioeconomic conditioning of their personal lives?

I could talk of how these trends of thought turn us against one another; using our social and cultural inclinations, such as our innate desire to belong and our fear of being deemed a burden, in a way that supports certain systems. I could speak of humanity as a whole, and our responsibility to act based on mutual concern within the societies we sustain.

Because ideas matter, and so does the thinking behind them (as argued in Writings on Education, a post very relevant here). And, to my mind, logical thought may well pose the greater risk for our future, in that it often seems to undermine what indeed sets us apart from machines: our humanity.

Ways to share this:

Why listen to media that exists to profit?

I’ve written a few times now on this subject (Media immediacy, Media and responsibility, Media within democratic society) as well as on the dynamics of money (Values and the economic), and here I want to look at how that intersects.

To dive right in, I’m surprised at times by the assertion that media is a business and exists for profit. Obviously it’s true, everything these days is a business; but part of me perhaps naïvely viewed it as a public service. Codes of ethical conduct do put it more in that position, but it seems revenue increasingly influences many aspects of media behaviour.

In trying to decide how much that matters, I came back to the ideas of Aldous Huxley and “Manufacturing Consent” discussed in the third media post above; both describing media as a sort of propaganda that sustains society. If a collective way of life is supported by information (whether strictly in our best interests or more to serve the system itself) then surely the function of the media truly does matter. Yet if we’re overrun by information, conflicting opinions, and blatant or subtle attempts at influence then this foundation begins to appear shaky.

Bringing things back to money, to me this raises questions of trust and authority. If someone has a financial interest in conveying information then that must affect the content we’re offered. Of course, we currently live in a profit-based world; but facts and ideas are very powerful, so their communication could be seen as an almost sacred responsibility given it informs the inner life and social reality of so many.

Modern life’s unusual in many ways. For one, we have access to so much information: it’s conceivable to become aware of all that’s going on in the world. Then there’s this proliferation of ideas and opinions available constantly through technology. We ‘can’ know everything and, as intelligent and social creatures, we want to; but that places us within a deluge of questionable information. Can we feasibly assimilate all that?

Things I’m talking about aren’t purely financial; more about a daunting reality of competing influences. But the pursuit of profit clearly seems to muddy some already turbulent waters. Are we receiving the neutral, impartial information we so need in order to make educated decisions in all areas of life? Or are we being subjected to more attempts to influence, attract and persuade? How do we decide who to trust for our knowledge? And are voices we listen to “free”?

I’m certainly not saying we shouldn’t listen to media; only that what’s contained there doesn’t exist purely to inform. And information matters: it shapes our ideas, attitudes, priorities, and decisions. Many industries count on that and put massive resources into it; some of which struggle to be heard, while others seem intent on causing confusion. As humans trying to see through the mist of irrelevant yet profitable distractions, it’s challenging to know what to ignore and where to focus; but that seems to be our situation.

Ways to share this:

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: