Category: Media

If we conceive of life as being accompanied by all of our thoughts and conversations around it, where does this collective act of communication happen? It seems there must be a place we get our ideas from, test them out, or hear what others have to say about life, all that’s happening within it, and what it might mean. Whether that’s the role of culture or “the media” more specifically, it’s interesting to imagine the power it has.

Isn’t it an important conversation? This space where we listen to how others are speaking of things, absorb the terms being used, and establish our own personal sense of meaning, engagement or judgement with regard to the world we’re all living in (Notes One). Hopefully it’s full of reasonable, balanced information and responsible statements – something reliable on which we can base our views and decide how we’ll respond.

That said, isn’t the modern conversation generally peppered through with commercial agendas, distractions vying for our attention, and polarised voices of almost complete disagreement and mutual anger? Quite a volatile place, socially and emotionally, where we’re more likely to feel criticised than heard. Potentially, a very stressful drain on our energy, patience, and interest in hearing one another out.

Within that, how can we be sure or calm about anything? It seems we’re all seeing things so differently, at times; making this a conversation filled with disbelief, indignation, and concern over where things are heading. How are we to capture complex realities, from various angles, in simple terms? If we truly have limited capacity to listen or care, how are we to navigate this and avoid being overwhelmed? (Notes Two)

And, if we’re taking these ideas out into our lives to act upon them, who gets to draw the conclusions or determine the action points? Are we just left to blend “all this” in with what we already had and see what comes of it? Placing all these jumbled facts or half-truths somewhere on our mental shelves for reference later. All of these images, suggestions, inferences waiting for us to somehow establish meaning between them.

It seems a strange sort of communication, at times: words, events, thoughts, all shooting across the void in this conversation that never quite “lands”. We’re all part of it – drawing, as it does, on the realities of our lives – and, arguably, what we take from it becomes the outworking of this exchange of ideas, but seeing where we stand and how it all fits together seems far from easy most of the time.

In many ways, it’s fascinating that we’ve opened the floodgates and allowed all kinds of voices, perspectives and experiences to speak into this one conversation we’re now able to have. The idea of being able to assimilate it all into a meaningful, balanced, purposeful sense of “what life is” isn’t seeming so easy to achieve, though. At times, it seems more likely we’ll be overwhelmed by the task, or the conflict that’s coming along with it.

Notes and References:

Note 1: Caught in these thoughts
Note 1: On whose terms?
Note 1: Passing on what’s important
Note 1: Culture as information
Note 1: Joining the dots
Note 2: Too much responsibility?
Note 2: Ways thought adds spin to life
Note 2: Overwhelm and resignation
Note 2: Can others join you?
Note 2: Going towards the unknown

Isn’t it true that conversations happen using terms as they’re set? Civilisation, generally speaking, being this process of picking things up at the point previous generations handed them over. Life as this long, ongoing “conversation” humanity’s been carrying forward through its ideas, beliefs and activities over the years.

That in mind, it’s interesting to consider what’s happening with modern society. We’ve got the entire wealth of civilisation at our fingertips. And we’re gleefully pulling all its visual or philosophical reference points into new and original relationships – this endless potential for juxtaposition and re-presentation (Notes One).

But there’s also this sense that we’re not happy with the past: constantly re-evaluating and reinterpreting it as we revisit our history with the eyes, ideas and sentiment of the modern day (Notes Two). In many ways that’s fair enough – our path’s often been murky and not what we’d hope for when looked at with the ideas it’s led us to.

The experiences, knowledge and capacity history leaves us with is such a questionable inheritance. What are we to make of where we stand? How are we to pick up words with all their history or handle the powerful fruits of those dubious actions? It’s understandable humanity’s most recent generations struggle to reconcile the facts and responsibilities they’ve been handed (Notes Three).

Yet, somehow, we still need to talk about where we’re headed. It doesn’t seem we can just discard what’s brought us here, throwing out this old, tainted terminology and completely redefining everything. Much as we might want to, it doesn’t quite seem the most respectful, sensible course of action.

People might’ve been living in questionable and unsustainable ways, but it’s never easy to see where blame lies. Where do ideas and beliefs come from? How much were people encouraged to trust rather than question the authority around them? Looked at from the limited national perspective that was all we once had, how were people to judge realities they couldn’t see?

Civilisation arguably walks a moral path from limitation through expansion to increased awareness – crossing lines and moving forward we “can” turn around and see that path with fresh eyes (Notes Four). Not to say that anything bad is ever justifiable; but isn’t life itself a journey of growth toward greater understanding? Aren’t we always, hopefully, learning and gaining perspective from where we stand?

The present day seems this strange awakening of global consciousness: we’ve explored it all, terrible as many routes have been, and now “have” this insight into humanity’s position on this planet. We receive the entire body of ideas people have spun around the world as they came to understand it.

How best to work with the words and realities we’ve inherited seems important. Rather than turning on one another, maybe it’s wise to handle our inheritance cautiously? Respecting and understanding what’s brought us here while still actively, compassionately involving ourselves to resolve the many undeniable problems we’re left with. Perhaps we can redefine and reshape society on far better terms.

Notes and References:

Note 1: How ideas find their place in the world
Note 1: Meaning in a world of novelty
Note 2: The world we’re living in
Note 2: Entertaining ideas & the matter of truth
Note 2: The value of a questioning attitude?
Note 2: Old meets new, sharing insight
Note 3: Can we manage all-inclusive honesty?
Note 3: What it is to be human
Note 3: Overwhelm and resignation
Note 4: Culture as a conversation across time
Note 4: “Quest for a Moral Compass”

Do we sometimes say things without quite saying them? Knowing our words might be misconstrued, but continuing anyway; safe in the knowledge we can claim it’s not what we said and our meaning’s been misinterpreted. This plausible deniability that lets people slip out behind the fence of their words.

It’s like humour in a way, to make comments on the slant then say they’re a joke. Maybe it’s simply communication? Especially given how hard conversation’s becoming these days (Notes One). There’s safety in not quite saying things. Plus, the release of having, to some extent, expressed ourselves. Also, perhaps, the power of delivering our real message under cover of darkness.

Is that also what this is? Saying things off the record, tucked away from what’s said on the surface. Communication’s fascinating in that people are pretty capable of conveying what they’re wanting to say. Not always with the words themselves, but somewhere between, near, underneath or around them. Language serving as this ever-evolving code for sharing our thoughts (Notes Two).

Ambiguity has such power – the smoke and mirrors of what’s said and meant. Those aware of the subtext receive messages that remain almost undetectable to others. Concerns can be swept away as overthinking, reading too much into it, or just being paranoid. Backtracking can quite easily be described as an honest mistake, and by then the damage is probably done.

There’s also a disconcerting confidence to lying. People seem quite capable of boldly stating things, indignant you might question them, standing so calmly by their false little assertion. By contrast, those accustomed to speaking truth may appear flustered, confused or hurt at their character being called into question. Especially if what’s at stake – principles; the value of human life – truly matters to them.

In a way, those two almost look the same: statements, reactions, calmness or chaos. It’s interesting to think that behind one stands truth while the other conceals deceit and questionable intentions. Why does anyone want to hide truth? Why confuse, mislead and distract others? There’s clearly value in stoking fires and planting seeds of doubt, knowing they’re likely to grow despite being challenged or disproven.

At times there’s perhaps something comparable in this writing – the deliberate incompleteness of not quite finishing a thought, letting things stream out beyond the confines of what I’m saying. It comes from a place of not wanting to tell anyone what to think but, instead, to explore these thoughts and see where they lead. Isn’t our thinking always up to us?

Whatever the context, there’s this sense in which it’s up to each of us to decide what we hear, how we see things, what it might mean, and where it all leads – how our views on life are being informed (Notes Three). Isn’t the obligation on us all to think for ourselves and be sure of what we’ll trust? Surely, then, it’s worth considering why people communicate as they do, the intentions behind it, and what’s truly in our best interests.

Notes and References:

Note 1: True words spoken in jest
Note 1: Does anger ever, truly, help?
Note 1: Is honesty actually the best policy?
Note 1: Listening, tolerance & communication
Note 2: What we say & what we mean
Note 2: Conversation as revelation
Note 2: Can others join you?
Note 3: The power of understanding
Note 3: Freedom, what to lean on & who to believe
Note 3: Need to stand alone & think for ourselves
Note 3: Powerful responsibility of a media voice
Note 3: Which voice can we trust?

Knowing who to trust – understanding enough of the world around you and the nature of people within it – could be life’s most important challenge. How are we to see through any lies, attempts at persuasion, well-meaning advice, and partial truths that’ve been thrown at us from the moment we arrived here?

Because, does anyone possess “the truth”? At best, we’ve probably got a version of it that makes enough sense from our perspective and fits our personal inclinations well enough. Isn’t that all we really have? The sequence of thoughts that put our own mind to rest with the compelling, reassuring or practical narrative they offered for living life by.

That’s not to say I don’t believe there “is” all-encompassing truth to be found in life, just that I’m not sure of many people who’ve yet found it. Yet, there are clearly many, many people happy to insist upon their version of absolute, unshakable truth – the world’s perhaps full of those telling us what to think, do, feel and believe.

How can we navigate that? Even if we believe all these people mean well in what they’re offering, how are we to integrate it all into a workable body of ideas to hold about “life”? Workable in the sense of this being an ongoing process of learning, overcoming obstacles and expanding our knowledge – any understanding likely being, at best, a working premise that’s holding the space for greater insight.

Within that picture, where does trust sit? Is there any perspective we can happily accept wholesale as the firm foundation for our worldview and unquestionable basis for our actions? If so, is it based on trust for the thinking involved or on some other “appeal” such as it supporting our position or not setting us against majority opinion? How do we decide what to believe?

It’s an interesting train of thought in that life’s, arguably, a reality surrounded by a world of ideas. What we think, believe and act upon in our choices, words and attitudes simply isn’t this “neutral” thing – it’s affecting the complex, interwoven realities that make the world what it is (Notes One). Our minds are, perhaps, the filters through which we’re deciding where to stand.

In that, then, who “can” we trust? People’s experiences are almost worlds apart – personal stories, wounds and concerns meaning we’ll likely take quite different meaning from very similar “realities”. How are we to find enough truth to be able to work with?

There’s probably no answer here. To my mind, it makes sense to trust those who are honest. It’d be great if everyone cared, if taking advantage of trust or ignorance never crossed a mind, but that’s rarely the case. At times interests might align, but we still need discernment to see where our paths converge or diverge. We can’t just follow blindly.

Another thing with thought, though, is that it does seem to offer freedom – beyond blind trust, it can, perhaps, see the truth and wisdom of what’s being said.

Notes and References:

Note 1: Invisible ties
Note 1: Who should we trust?
Note 1: Freedom, what to lean on & who to believe
Note 1: The value of a questioning attitude?
Note 1: What would life be if we could trust?
Note 1: Do we really need incentives?
Note 1: Complication of being human
Note 1: What’s neutral?
Note 1: The value & cost of our words

How are we using the words we speak? So often it seems we talk along the grooves of personal patterning: our general attitude to life, the kinds of things we say in response to it. Some have this basic gesture of defiance, challenging everything in a perpetual battle stance. Some draw everything down into the gutter, while others drag it up to the stars or into an ivory tower of contemplation. Each, perhaps, coming at a cost.

We’re here for such a limited time, and how we’re choosing to apply our words to situations or direct them towards others doesn’t seem insignificant. As much as we’re these centres of observation, we’re equally transmitters of what we have to say about it all. We can choose to fight everyone to make our perspective victorious, or we could make more companionable or constructive contributions (Notes One).

Of all the attitudes we could take – all the responses we might consider as our options – why choose aggression? Why shoot someone down with a kneejerk denial of what they’ve offered up? What is this fighting gesture that’s creeping into so many everyday conversations, this verbal equivalent of a slam down?

It’s probably justified as an intellectual gesture more than a social one: that we’re fighting in the realm of ideas, theories or beliefs rather than people (Notes Two). But isn’t communication always social? Thoughts – plus all the experiences, hopes and feelings that come along with them – travelling between us as we seek common ground, understanding, belonging, engagement.

As with anything, there’s the question of what we add and what we’re taking. Given we’re operating in both those realms of ideas and of people, how well are we navigating? Are we sacrificing social connections in pursuit of intellectual victories? Are we abandoning intellectual honesty in search for personal power or attention? Do we even know what we’re doing?

Writing this in the context of media, I’ve clearly drifted toward the personal. But, presumably, similar thinking applies? So often it seems we go for cheap shots or limited victories rather than pursuing real truth or harmony. What’s the cost of derailing things with a personal attack? They may be effective weapons in some ways, but also easily deflect us from other matters.

Maybe what I’m really writing about is responsible, skilful communication: the way – individually and collectively – we’re employing our words to engage with others and shape the realities around us.

Collectively, the media “leads the way” in terms of the conversations we’re inclined to have and stances we take within them. Journalism clearly has its “voice” in addressing and contextualising modern life; hopefully directing our attention in reasonable, realistic, balanced ways so we’re able to understand and uphold what’s valuable within our communities (Notes Three).

With all this, though, there’s surely that same line to be drawn between social realities and intellectual ones? Between the personal gestures of our words and the idealistic statements we’re hoping to communicate, we have quite a tricky balance to strike.

Notes and References:

Note 1: Can others join you?
Note 1: Who should we trust?
Note 1: Invisible ties
Note 2: Pick a side, any side
Note 2: Conversation as revelation
Note 2: What we say & what we mean
Note 2: Making adjustments
Note 3: Ideas of justice & vengeance
Note 3: Powerful responsibility of a media voice
Note 3: Effect, if everything’s a drama

Musings around balancing idealism with reality were also the focus of Imperfection as perfection?

In a world where our awareness of all that’s “wrong” is forever increasing, how are we to manage? Is a reality filled with constant revelations of human or systemic shortcoming on the global scale something the mind or heart can truly withstand?

Notions of “staying informed” clearly arose in times where that entailed relatively slow-paced news with limited scope. It’s presumably much more manageable to receive updates once or twice a day, delivered in fairly neutral and assertive tones. Ignorance is bliss, essentially: not being made aware of things you’re perhaps powerless to influence; retaining the psychological security to carry on with daily living.

These days, we live in another world of relentless, chattering drama. This incessant flow of voices all talking over one another trying to grab our attention and call us to some form of action (Notes One). And, in many ways, that’s a far better scenario: ignorance is a strange sort of bliss that evidently allows all sorts of things to go on away from the watchful eye of almost everybody.

But can we listen to it all? Are our minds capable of processing that much information? Even if we strip away all the frivolous or purely commercial activity, is this a volume of knowledge we’re able to take in and assimilate meaningfully alongside the challenges of everyday life? What kind of stress and strain is that going to place on our nervous system, cognitive capacity or general well-being?

It’s incredible to think how humans have never existed in a way that’s even remotely comparable to modern, Western society. This immediacy of interconnectedness and vastness of all we’re now drawn into: global economic systems with powerful, hidden impacts; conversations that cross all cultural boundaries with our fiery judgements of what’s acceptable in life (Notes Two).

How are we to stay sane in such a world? Even if we’d developed perfect awareness and communication skills within our national communities, bridging the gap between those limited interests and all the points they intersect with the economic or cultural concerns of others would be an incredible challenge. It’s mind-blowing to think of all that’s flowing together in the wonderful melting-pot of the modern world.

In light of that, do we simply plough on? Confident in ourselves as capable adults, we attempt to juggle all that’s thrown at us while tuning out every unnecessary distraction that’s coming along with it. Such a ceaseless onslaught seems almost impossible for anyone to manage long-term.

Especially considering the path we’re apparently taking: given the opportunity technology’s offering, everyone naturally wants to use it to their advantage. Every area of life – society, relationships, industry, news, culture – wants to be heard, leading to this strange reality of “who can shout loudest” or various other tactics for hooking our attention and distracting us from other things.

Are we in “boy who cried wolf” territory here? Might it be wiser to dial things down a little so we’re actually able to discuss those things that truly do matter?

Notes and References:

Note 1: Desensitised to all we’re told?
Note 1: Value in being informed
Note 1: Powerful responsibility of a media voice
Note 1: Who should we trust?
Note 1: And, how much can we care?
Note 2: Working through mind & society
Note 2: Right to look out for ourselves?
Note 2: What are our moral judgements?
Note 2: All we want to do passes through community
Note 2: Can others join you?

One seemingly quite wise approach to managing modern life could well be The idea of think globally, act locally.

Theoretically, at least, the media serves society as this “fourth pillar” of democracy – informing, framing, directing the shared conversation, advocating or burying certain issues. It’s clearly powerful to be in that position of guiding what people know of and the way they’re being encouraged to think, feel or talk about the concerns we all face.

At its most basic, I suppose it’s simply a source of information. Our way of finding out what’s going on out there: the main events of the local, national, international and global stages. Staying informed, I guess, of all that matters to humanity as a whole and to those smaller communities we’re also part of through our participation, interest, voice. (Notes One)

If we’re to make sensible – or, wise – decisions on how to act, what to say on any topic, where to stand when lines are drawn, then we really need to understand. And presumably not just the pre-digested, directed opinions outlets might offer. Surely context, history, the arc of developments as much as the specifics all matter? But that’s drifting more toward the reality of media existing alongside good education.

How else do we know or understand anything? There’s really no source of information beyond the media. If we’re seeking to grasp the world, all that’s going on within it, the struggles others are experiencing, then this is where we have to turn. If we’re hoping to “help” the global community of humanity through those things within our power, this is where we come for the bigger picture to inform our actions.

That’s such a responsibility. Especially in an age of heightened connectivity. This is a voice that’s streaming directly into people’s hands, constantly updating or reinforcing the contents of our minds. Because it’s not just information, it’s essentially opinion – it’s spin, it’s agenda, it’s already taken bare facts and placed them within the prism of interpretation. Often, it’s seeming a step or three away from sheer fact.

Beyond that though, how this feeds into public dialogue seems so interesting. Surely the tone, the spin – all that – shapes our concerns, our awareness, the nature of the conversations we’re inclined to have? We are, perhaps, primed to pick up certain trains of thought, conclusions or social judgements even without quite seeing where they’ve come from.

Much of what we receive seems so loaded, so weighed down with implications others already assigned to the facts. Events are being woven into pre-existing narratives, taking their place within arcs of meaning others have decided upon. There’s already this conversation going on where sides have been taken, and “that” is how we’re all being encouraged to continue thinking and interacting with life (Notes Two).

And that’s intended more as observation than judgement – it seems to be where we stand. I guess my thinking is that if society’s becoming increasingly self-aware, increasingly conscious of what our lives depend on and where our understanding’s coming from, then it surely helps to see the forces at play and, perhaps, question their intentions?

Notes and References:

Note 1: Who should we trust?
Note 1: Freedom, what to lean on & who to believe
Note 1: What would life be if we could trust?
Note 1: Value in being informed
Note 2: Caught in these thoughts
Note 2: Attempts to influence

In many ways related to this, Ways thought adds spin to life looked at what we make of things with our minds.

At times, it seems that we’re living in these trains of thought. Thought that became society, its forms and principles. Thought that becomes our conversations and approaches to how we’re living. As if there’s this established pattern of thinking we all step into and take the reins of when we come to life. Every area having its own pre-existing conversation, the terms set and ways of operating within them quite firmly held in place.

It’s as if we ‘have’ to relate to what’s gone before, as with communication in general: you listen, take what’s been said on board, then proceed to build upon or add something alongside what’s already there. Society and life then taking on that air of being a conversation we relate ourselves to and find ourselves within (see Notes One).

And maybe it’s simply true? That human existence isn’t a blank slate; much has gone before and it’s inevitably shaped and influenced where we now stand. It’s perhaps foolish to disregard that, detach from the past and decide to start afresh (Notes Two). There’s a degree of sense in relating to what’s gone before, ensuring a level of continuity to the threads of reason flowing throughout society.

If we were to be constantly redefining the terms, questioning the logic, challenging steps already taken, then presumably collective life would grind to a halt? Locked in perpetual, unresolvable conflicts over the courses taken. Which, I suppose, is the essence of the social and intellectual debate surrounding the ‘project’ of Western society: options weighed; democratic decisions made; paths chosen and followed.

But, with that, surely then we’re carrying on a conversation that, to a greater or lesser extent, mightn’t entirely fit with modern society? It’s a conversation that started in quite different times, yet a conversation that sorely needs to engage with the realities of today (Notes Three). Almost like this anachronism we insist on keeping alive, forever trying to re-articulate the tired limbs so they can fit with the challenges we now face.

What if the divisions, concepts, theories brought to life in the past don’t actually describe society as it currently stands? What if we’re shoehorning present phenomena into ideas that can’t quite hold them? Like Cinderella, trying to make things fit that never will. What if all of these inherited divisions that carve up our political, economic, social and media conversations just aren’t quite the right way to be viewing things now?

Surely it matters? If we’re all caught up in a conversation that missed the point somewhere along the line, might we not be wasting our time battling things out in a futile misinterpretation of realities?

It’s an interesting thought. Unsettling, of course, as it’s touching upon all our foundations. Challenging too, in that re-evaluating our terms and sources of authority is a massive reworking of society and all its relationships. But it seems – in various areas of life – that paths we’ve taken are being called into question, so perhaps it’s not something we can avoid.

Notes and References:

Note 1: The conversation of society
Note 1: Respect, rebellion & renovation
Note 1: How we feel about society
Note 1: Right to question and decide
Note 2: Meaning within it all
Note 2: All that’s going on around us
Note 2: Tuning out from environment
Note 3: What’s a reasonable response?
Note 3: Can we manage all-inclusive honesty?
Note 3: The power of understanding

One of the biggest questions in life might be who to trust. Life’s essentially navigating things wisely: understanding situations, being aware of risks, responding well to whatever you meet. Whether we’re talking about everyday living or more heightened realities, there’s this sense in which we need to trust in some sort of information or guidance.

But, perhaps now more than ever, it’s becoming more difficult to see who’s trustworthy. With over a million opinions online, you can pretty much find confirmation or encouragement for whatever you want to believe. In that scenario, truth can seem impossible to find.

We might hope that we’ll find a voice we’re confident trusting, but things can sound reasonable when they aren’t and sometimes truth is spoken quietly. People are now so skilled in arguing, presenting their case, applying pressure in various ways to get others to believe them or follow their paths. At times it seems like a sport, this ‘winning people over’.

Beneath all that though, what is it we’re seeking? Is this about personal victory, making others agree, pushing agendas, or giving people enough information to decide for themselves? How much trust, truth and transparency are there within our conversations? (Notes One)

These days, it’s so difficult to know who can be listened to or trusted. Behind all the social or, increasingly, commercial masks people wear, it’s not easy to separate the functions from those who fill them. Are people speaking as themselves or voicing another agenda? Are they imparting neutral information with the intent of fleshing out another’s understanding, or attempting to paint their own conclusions in the other’s space?

If life’s a reality we have to understand – a bigger picture, if you will – then conceivably our ideas are the mental landscape we’re creating, maintaining and correcting through the course of our lives? Youth hopefully makes a reasonable initial sketch with the help of family, community, culture, education; and then society, media, life itself starts filling out the details (Notes Two).

It does seem that life might be viewed as this hidden landscape of headlands and dangers we’re all striving to uncover. This sense in which life, in all its complexities, contains truth in some form: all the realities of history, personal existence, social construction forming this world we’re all living within. It might not be quite what we were told or expected, but it’s there.

Perhaps, then, the voices we encounter are attempting to serve as beacons, as lighthouses or, possibly, sirens. All this guidance, advice and warning telling us something about the world and how others have seen and responded to it.

Newspapers offer us overviews based on their perspective and interpretation. Political parties, and the governments they form, take a specific view in the solutions they propose and values they’re prioritising. Activism, in all its valuable forms, sheds light on specific problems to raise awareness around those.

Learning to ‘read’ all that, see beyond appearances or potential illusions, and discern the best paths seems a very personal endeavour.

Notes and References:

Note 1: Leaders & sheep led by a lion
Note 1: Fear or coercion as motivators
Note 1: Attempts to influence
Note 1: Freedom, what to lean on & who to believe
Note 1: The power of understanding
Note 2: Value in being informed
Note 2: Obligations and contributions
Note 2: Playing with fire?
Note 2: Respect, rebellion & renovation
Note 2: Cutting corners

The idea of roles we play, ways we seek to make an impression, was the subject of Masks we all wear.

Modern life seems, in a way, obsessed with influence – influencers, online statistics, leveraging interpersonal power for whatever cause we’re putting our name behind. Maybe it ties in with branding and identity? This train of thought whereby all our interactions become quantifiable so we must use them wisely; rather than simply frittering them away on social niceties.

In some ways, that’s great: bringing a degree of conscious awareness to the influence we have over others, the example we set and standards we’re upholding through all we say and do, is surely better than leading unexamined or careless lives. It’s undoubtedly true that we’re social creatures, influenced by others’ opinions, approval or disapproval of our choices.

But there’s also something about this aware intention that can unfortunately come across as strategic, false, calculated, condescending, or possibly somewhat aggressive. To deliberately use social interactions to push an agenda seems quite specific. If we’re telling other people what to do, presumably we need to tread carefully?

Communication, relationship, and change are all such delicate matters. With the pace of modern life and deceptively ‘easy’ interface technology’s offering, we might be tempted to pick those things up casually and confidently; but they’ve likely never been straightforward (see Notes One).

Of course, there are many urgent and deep-seated problems rising to the surface of modern society. And, despite its challenges, technology serves us well by bringing all that to our attention while potentially offering a powerful tool for redressing things. Learning how best to put those functions to use, so they help rather than hinder, isn’t easy though.

My reservation, I suppose, is around this inclination to tell others what to do (Notes Two). We may think the conclusions we’ve reached are ‘right’, but what does it mean when we leverage social relationships to our own ends? We may ‘be’ right; although we might also have latched onto but one part of a bigger picture. By putting up firm boundaries or expectations, do we risk alienating others and closing down conversation?

Many of these are actually genuine questions rather than rhetorical ones, as I’m honestly unsure about the nature of modern ideas around communication and change (Notes Three). I mean, what if, in all our best efforts at improving things, we’re actually driving deeper wedges between people and pulling up the drawbridges to respectful, inclusive discussion?

Might we not be better off making time for wider dialogue based on deeper understanding? Rather than pre-packaged opinions, priorities and solutions, might it be wiser to present views clearly enough that others see where we’re coming from and what matters in our eyes? If we’re sure of being completely right, could we not lay our logic out to be tested, explored and appreciated, instead of it being a non-negotiable battle line?

I just think it might be worthwhile investing more in attempting to respectfully bring people toward an informed, balanced, empathetic, independent, empowering understanding of life; rather than using other forces to guide or push people toward certain ideas.

Notes and References:

Note 1: “People Skills”
Note 1: Listening, tolerance & communication
Note 1: Conversation as revelation
Note 2: Modern activism in practice
Note 2: People wanting change
Note 2: Dealing with imperfection
Note 3: Fear or coercion as motivators
Note 3: Need to stand alone & think for ourselves
Note 3: Tell me why I should

Looking further into how aims play out, Dystopia as a powerful ideal explored the disparity between ideas and realities.