Category: Society

The nature of leadership can be fascinating to consider: what does it mean to entrust ourselves to another, to defer our decisions to their judgement or guidance? And what might they make of us, if they turn our own nature to their way of being?

Reflecting on the sentiment expressed by Alexander the Great, that “I am not afraid of an army of lions led by a sheep; I am afraid of an army of sheep led by a lion”, it dawned on me there’s far more to leadership than meets the eye. That, beyond superficial appearances, the guiding principle might be what ultimately matters most.

Essentially, we’re talking about the qualities of followers and of their leaders: that first army, while unlikely, would presumably be a fairly peaceful affair; the latter, though, may be both easy to assemble and inclined toward aggression. But perhaps we’re also touching on the nature of fear and combat? The sense of knowing our own aims and capacities, and deciding when it’s wise or necessary to engage.

As an idea, it raises a lot of questions around the qualities represented by animals, the constraint of commitment or discipline, and the purpose of conflict (see Notes One). Also, around knowing what we’re doing in life and what we’re faced with: being able to read things rightly. In battle, as with anything, we might look to how things appear on the surface or to what lies beneath.

And, while direct conflict isn’t seeming so far from the surface at times these days, for me this speaks more to the question of which side we’re on in more everyday matters. Because it often seems we’re taking sides through our choices, or, being asked to: in almost every area of life our words and actions are placing us on one side or another politically, commercially, socially, and so on (Notes Two).

With this polarisation of society, it’s surely more important than ever to know ourselves, where we stand, and the nature of those around us. Are we a willing army, or is our subservience hard-won? Do we know our own principles, strengths and weaknesses? Could our subconscious patterns or wounds be used against us? Are we rational and confident in our decisions, or might we be easily swept along with others?

Then, in terms of leaders, are we really aware who exactly is seeking to direct and shape our behaviour? Do we know their nature and the aims they might have? Are we following those who avoid unnecessary conflict, rather than seeking out or inciting it? If we’re deferring our judgement or lending weight to someone else’s cause, it certainly seems wise to understand those realities rather than passively becoming part of them.

As individuals, maybe it comes down to knowing yourself and not being drawn into the wrong battles? Also, to knowing what we’re facing; as one of those scenarios is instinctively far more fear-inducing than the other. Managing fear perhaps depends on insight and thorough understanding?

Notes and References:

Note 1: Does truth speak for itself?
Note 1: The idea of self reliance
Note 1: Animals in human society
Note 2: Obligations and contributions
Note 2: Freedom, what to lean on & who to believe
Note 2: Codes of behaviour

On a slightly related note, Spiritually committed literature explored other imagery around finding and following our own paths.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Notes and References:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Notes and References:

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

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

Thinking of culture and its role in reflecting social standards, it’s clear things are changing fast: attitudes that were apparently commonplace and unchallenged quite recently now come across as problematic at least.

Not to tap the hornet’s nest too much, I’m thinking of issues such as age or gender. How phrases like “be a man” appear so stereotypical, limited and disempowering; then all the views around women that focus on appearance, downplaying other intellectual, social or emotional qualities (Notes One). As if it’s reasonable to simplify people that way, making light of certain things yet emphasising others.

But maybe it’s great things are now starting to seem so “wrong”, because it shows we’re changing. Of course, it’s also showing that, even recently, ideas like this were seeping into minds, attitudes and relationships without much awareness (Note Two). It’s confronting to think how many unexamined prejudices or patterns of behaving have been presented as socially acceptable, culturally approved, ways of being.

Given that seems the case though, how could we move forward? Do we somehow hold onto that jarring dissonance, refusing to admit we might’ve been mistaken; or is there some way to allow change to happen without it threatening our collective sense of self or moral foundation? Can a society admit mistakes without completely losing its footing?

At times it feels like this earthquake, this gentle or dramatic tearing away from how things have been: unchallenged, flawed, imperfect. This sense of how people’s lives, ideas, careers, identities, relationships, so many things, have been tied up in these ways of thinking that modern society has, to a large extent, been built upon.

How can we feel about a society or culture that sheltered or encouraged attitudes we’re beginning to see as unacceptable? As our moral, social or ethical compasses re-tune to this new awareness of what was or is happening, what’s the right way to relate ourselves to a past we may not have seen as we now do? How might we withstand that kind of ethical tremor?

It could be that moral understanding and social values are always ‘evolving’; with law and cultural dialogue tending to chart their course alongside that (Notes Three). But then it’s also likely many would’ve been quite seriously hurt as we ‘waited’ for our ideas to catch up and assume the correct relationship to reality.

Navigating shifting values, without unduly justifying things or crippling people with shame, can seem impossible to achieve. We may expect people to shift faster than they feel able, given the psychological foundation we might be insisting they reassess. It’s not easy to see you’ve been wrong, and these conversations must be some of the more complex ones our blended societies have recently faced (Note Four).

But, also, change is exciting: that it’s even possible on personal let alone collective levels. Things might be happening fast, fact and opinion flying in from all directions, but surely that means we have the chance to match our ideas up better to these realities.

Notes and References:

Note 1: “Women who run with the wolves”
Note 1: “Wisdom” by Andrew Zuckerman
Note 2: Writings on Education
Note 3: Responsibility in shaping this reality
Note 3: What is acceptable?
Note 4: Testing times

Talking more about the question of change, there’s Can we reinvigorate how we’re living?

Looking at life now, there’s this astounding picture of a globe filled with billions of people each, potentially, able to communicate with all others. While modern technology’s clearly not without its challenges, the opportunities it’s brought for creating a genuinely global conversation about our existence are amazing to consider.

But then, it’s not like we’d mastered things before those floodgates opened: society clearly still had more than a few threads we’d not quite figured out what to do with (see Notes One). In the West, we may’ve had the ‘essentials’ of these social systems – democratic government; economic theories; health, welfare and education; the public voices of media and culture – but technology’s now testing all that to the limit.

Many issues hadn’t been resolved: dealing with differing beliefs and values; attitudes towards such differences; and the conflicted legacy of our shared histories. It takes great courage and honesty to address these things – to admit mistakes or other ways of approaching life – because it presumably threatens our sense of self and our justifications to do so.

Really, with technology, it seems that whatever stage society had got to at that point was simply dialled up. As if we’d had some time to sort things out, then this whole other system amplified it all and began transmitting these competing frequencies at the same time (Notes Two). What were once quite contained personal, social or national conversations suddenly became incredibly complex and public.

It hardly seems surprising that individuals as much as societies are going to be tested by such a thing happening. Having everything thrown open into an environment of almost complete transparency was always going to be confronting: there’s no place for people or organisations to hide, so having that new demand for accountability is going to expose whatever moral, ethical or social standards we did or didn’t have figured out.

Then there’s how well we’re able to convey our true meaning in these forms, and how open we are to receiving possibly contradictory messages in return. It’s beautiful to think we might be able to share our thoughts, values and experiences with others and reach mutual understanding of our points of view, what matters to us, and our dreams for the future. But it’s not easy in practice.

It just seems we have an awful lot of work to do, and an awful lot to distract us as we attempt it. Technology may place tools for connection and information at our disposal; but also knows exactly how to tempt us with every possible amusement, novelty and vice. Even if we cut through that and focus our attention, there’s then the challenge of understanding, discernment, and relating our ideas to life as it stands (Notes Three).

And it all matters: it’s the complex relationships between people and the planet that sustains us. It’s not something we can defer; all this has to be taken in hand and resolved, hopefully quickly and thoroughly, if we’re to create a world that works for everyone.

Notes and References:

Note 1: Complexity of life
Note 1: Created a system we seek to escape?
Note 2: Value in visible impacts
Note 2: The potential of technology
Note 3: Responsibility in shaping this reality
Note 3: Entertaining ideas & the matter of truth
Note 3: Seeing, knowing and loving

Looking in quite a different light at the project of society, Plato & “The Republic” considered principles that underpin our common existence.

Thinking about life, society, and what it means to be human is essentially all my writing here is about – trying to understand what’s going on, how we got here, and what might matter most going forward.

And, in that, it’s probably clear to say there’s cause for concern (see Notes One). It often seems to me that we’re living within systems we might not fully understand – things like economics, technology, social structures, culture and media realities – and generally being asked to defer to others, to experts, in order to form our ideas and make our decisions.

Which in many ways is understandable: life has been developing so quickly in almost every direction, creating these fields of specialisation that are far beyond the thorough comprehension of ‘most people’. In light of that, it’s fairly obvious the fullest level of understanding rests in the hands of those working in each particular field.

But then there’s the question of to what extent that fragmented understanding creates a state of dependency and necessitates a large degree of trust. Outside all those isolated pockets of intelligence, is there a truly robust overview capable of holding it all in place?

It seems you either need individuals capable of containing that ever-growing wealth of understanding within a workable yet flexible ‘worldview’, or an extremely trustworthy institution able and willing to offer the same. The level to which education, culture and the media can or do offer those things is a challenge to answer.

I mean, how are we supposed to judge things? If every avenue of human endeavour is hurtling at full speed in its own direction with only market forces or relatively slow-moving government regulation to keep it in check, how are we ever to evaluate each course of action as well as the overall picture being created?

It may be reasonably ‘natural’ then that we conceive of our role as one of filtering the information we’re presented and forming some sort of logical assessment of our choices and where we stand. Which clearly raises issues of trust (in others, information and the agendas of those offering it), and draws into focus our capacity for discernment and independence.

Within that, do we become fairly passive ‘consumers’ who entrust themselves to the ultimate wisdom of modern society? Is there more to life than that? Is it possible for humanity to rise above such fragmentation and begin to chart a potentially wiser course? We might resign ourselves to juggling the competing demands of life and generally going with the flow, but who knows where that might lead (Notes Two).

None of these are easy questions, but they’re important ones (Notes Three). As in many of the posts mentioned below, we surely are often placing our trust and our future in the hands of business or the willingness of others to regulate it. If we hope for a future that works from a human perspective, it may be we need to take a different role in bringing that about.

Notes and References:

Note 1: Economy & Humanity
Note 1: The web and the wider world
Note 1: Human nature and community life
Note 1: Nature speaks in many ways, do we listen?
Note 1: Modern media and complex realities
Note 2: What we bring to life
Note 2: Right to question and decide
Note 2: Complexity of life
Note 3: Responsibility in shaping this reality
Note 3: The need for discernment
Note 3: Can we reinvigorate how we’re living?

The idea of what it takes to make changes, and forms that’s taking in our times, were explored a little in Patience with the pace of change.

Within society, it can be insightful to consider where we get our ideas on ‘how to live our lives’. There are clearly many ways we could answer that: many different influences and sources for those ideas, and many arguments we could make about the relative weight of different factors in attempting to reach a definitive conclusion. Beyond that though, there’s simply the sense of what guides us (see Notes One).

Looking to the past, it seems many communities have attempted to draw together the ideas, values and priorities of their times to craft a set of principles whereby people could live ‘right’ in terms of their character and actions. I’m thinking here of the knightly codes of medieval courtly love and the like, or the Japanese counterpart providing practical and moral instruction for the warrior.

The “Code of the Samurai” was apparently committed to written form around the seventeenth century but, presumably, was based on beliefs and ways of living that had thrived and evolved over the preceding centuries. So, similar in a way to the more Western chivalric codes arising out of that time period and reaching us mainly through the Arthurian legends.

Leaving the history aside, it’s interesting to see how different cultures and times have sought to codify human personal, social and professional standards in order to help sustain a healthy, well-ordered society founded on some pretty finely-tuned moral principles. It can seem quite alien to the modern mind that these communities sought to elevate praiseworthy ideals and put them into practice (Notes Two).

These ‘codes’ – seemingly a few steps from religion, much as they might’ve been informed by such beliefs – essentially seeking to uphold things like honesty, courage, integrity, devotion and self-sacrifice, while reminding people of the social structures and relationships their actions serve to sustain. Giving people an understanding of society and their roles within it can clearly create some quite beautiful cultural legacies.

But then, turning to the present, we seem to not really have such things; only a lot of disparate and often conflicting ideas in their various forms. There’s culture of course, although in the West it no longer seems to have that strong moral or social voice; then our economic narrative, although values seem to have found a strange home there (Note Three).

Maybe it’s a spiritual conversation, this territory of inner morality and social ethics? One modern form might be Paulo Coelho’s “Manual of the Warrior of Light” which can be seen as a fairly non-denominational approach to the question of how to live. It’s not truly comparable, but draws on that tradition of adopting a code of behaviour so there may be a place for it here.

Anyway, it’s just a fascinating thought: whether a modern code’s possible and how ideals, principles and standards might serve to regulate shared existence as much as personal interactions. Rather than drifting on with a slightly ill-defined jumble of ideas and opinions, could a clearer sense of principles be capable of guiding society?

Notes and References:

“Code of the Samurai” by Thomas Cleary, (Tuttle Publishing, USA), 1999

“Manual of the Warrior of Light” by Paulo Coelho, (Harper Collins, London), 1997

Note 1: Learning to be human
Note 1: The way to be
Note 1: Meaning in culture
Note 1: What is acceptable?
Note 2: Dystopia as a powerful ideal
Note 2: The idea of self reliance
Note 3: Language and values

When it comes to life, how are we supposed to evaluate it? We could look to statistics: the number of friends we have, the volume of interactions in any given timeframe, the amount of money in the bank, or countless other formulas for how we’re doing. That’s one approach. And, of course, it tells us ‘something’ about a person in relation to society. But that may not be all there is.

It’s something I’ve talked about at various times in writing here (see Notes One), and that’s largely because it seems so important. We can indeed look at society and human activity statistically, but surely we get a very different picture than if we were to look at it from a human perspective. In that light, what is it that we, as humans, bring to life?

Because it really seems that ‘the modern way of looking at things’ seems to create confusion or overwhelm and, in doing so, possibly obscures some fundamental thoughts about life, human worth, and the project of existence. I’m going to leave that sentence in its slightly confused state because, to me, there’s truth in that: we have so many conversations going on at once, so many contradictory or conflicting principles at play in the things we do, that it’s hard to pick out what we’re really saying about life.

We might be encouraged to judge others, cast people aside, or care more for ourselves than the remote impacts we’re having elsewhere. We may struggle to bear in mind all the systems we’re part of and ways our words, actions and attitudes create realities others have to deal with. There might be so much going on that it’s too much to handle and easier to ignore (Note Two), but does that make it the right path?

In making our choices in life – from the myriad of options, and under fairly intense time pressures and social coercion – we may well choose to put ourselves first, to allow a ‘reasonable’ or ‘practical’ degree of compromise, or be swept along with various trends and make that a justification in itself. And all that sends messages out through the example we offer, standards we set, and the ramifications for others.

From that perspective, we’re all making a difference through how we live: in our relationships and interactions; with our insights, contributions or criticisms; by our very presence and the journey we’re all making. Through living, we make the world around us a different place. What it is that we’re doing on that level may be harder to quantify and slower paced, but it’s arguably no less important or real (Note Three).

It’s interesting to consider, because it could be that ‘how we’re living’ – while viable and maybe even admirable economically – really isn’t working so well in a human sense (Notes Four). If society and modern culture are judging our ‘worth’ wrongly then surely people will feel unappreciated, despondent, and maybe even angry. After all, what is life and human existence?

Notes and References:

Note 1: Worthless, or priceless?
Note 1: How we feel about society
Note 2: Value in visible impacts
Note 3: What is real?
Note 4: The conversation of society
Note 4: Economy & Humanity

Turning to literature, “Brave New World Revisited” had some interesting insights around these topics.

The word belief can be seen as having less weight than ‘know’, but in some ways it’s starting to seem more important. These days it’s as if facts and knowledge can be reframed to suit many different worldviews or opinions. And, if that’s a true reading of the situation, what power does fact then retain?

It’s a strange situation, because it used to be that knowledge carried power: people would familiarise themselves with specific trains of thought and generally accepted premises, then the conversation would broadly progress along those lines. Now, personal perspectives and preferences have apparently stepped into that chain of reasoning.

Maybe it’s not so unusual, in that there always needs to be some overarching sense of meaning within which knowledge can sit: the firmament into which we slot our facts and see how things relate to one another.

In that case, maybe the main difference is that this backdrop is now personally constructed rather than collectively accepted? So, instead of our sense of meaning being imparted by the traditions of religion, state or some other source, we’re seeking things out for ourselves. Presumably, that personal meaning may then be informed to varying degrees by culture, education, unexamined assumptions, or life experiences (see Notes One).

Which is interesting to consider, because how can we be sure? Recent centuries have had these robust dialogues around the nature of knowledge, as they applied logic to extricate human understanding from the oversight of those authorities; but that tradition of inquiry seems to have fallen by the wayside. Often, for some reason, we’re being encouraged to simply decide it all for ourselves.

Whether or not that matters is then a philosophical or spiritual question, I would’ve thought: whether beliefs about reality matter, at the end of the day. But also a social or interpersonal question, in the sense that our beliefs about life must impact how we relate to one another and the world we create together (Notes Two). If people all carry significantly different ideas as to what things ‘mean’, conflict’s also fairly likely.

It’s obviously something I see as important. What we believe influences so many aspects of life: how we view ourselves and the power of our words, ideas and actions; how we approach others, accepting or respecting their own ideas and experiences; how we understand society and ways we shape it through communication, relationships, patterns of behaviour; then the global ramifications of all these things.

Belief – the trust, faith or confidence we have – finds it ways into all that we do, creating countless consequences that will take time to unravel: our attitudes and actions may trap others in economic, social or emotional realities they’re then almost powerless to extricate themselves from. The moral implications are arguably no less weighty than they were considered to be a century or so back.

Beyond facts then, there’s this overlay of ‘meaning’ and of understanding where things may lead. Whether we call that belief or something else, it’s conceivably an important reality.

Notes and References:

Note 1: Complexity of life
Note 1: Learning to be human
Note 1: Meaning in culture
Note 2: What are we thinking?
Note 2: What if it all means something?
Note 2: What is real?

In terms of how best to stand within all this, The idea of self reliance explored some of Emerson’s thoughts around how we could live.

When we look at one another, do we automatically seek to define our relationship? Assessing to what degree they might be a threat or an ally: a rival in how we wish to be regarded or the power we want to hold, or someone who might bolster our status and develop us in areas we may feel we are lacking. But, beyond that, could there be another way of valuing human existence?

Often it seems we’re encouraged to view others somewhat strategically, in terms of how we compare and how that might impact us. I’m not really sure why, but it’s arguably woven through how we learn to relate from school and ways we’re taught to approach the social world of work, status and security. Modern culture’s peppered with ways to judge, compare, label, and differentiate ourselves through the process.

This way of approaching one another must’ve come from somewhere, but it’s quite combative. It’s essentially viewing human society as a competition wherein we must seek strategic advantage; reading our social world, positioning ourselves “wisely” and making sure we get ahead. It seems to mainly view others to the extent they serve your purposes.

That kind of social or psychological reasoning doesn’t sit well with me, but it seems to play a big part in how the world’s working. It’s beginning to seem “normal” that we might assess friendships in terms of how much they support us, our ideas on life, and where we want to be heading: creating a brand, an image, a tribe, and allowing yourself to be drawn into their orbit, absorbing their talents or outlook.

I’m not sure humans have always approached social relationships that way; although we might believe that to be the case. Is it right to view others strategically? Might their life not have value beyond how it can serve others? Might treating people like resources, stepping stones, supporting characters in our own drama be downplaying the worth of our existence?

It’s strange to me how we’re constantly evaluating others: casting an eye over them to see how pretty, young, stylish they might be; deciding what labels best fit and how they stack up to us in whatever competition we feel ourselves a part of (see Notes One). It seems we make all these subtle judgements then relate accordingly, adopting tones of condescension or confidence depending on the conclusions we’ve drawn.

Is that normal? Is it normal to see people so transactionally, rating them against whatever standards we decided to apply then relating to them on that basis? Is there no longer a baseline of respect, courtesy, interest, understanding, or recognition of the unwavering value of each human life? Modern life might have a pace that threatens to overwhelm our capacity to care, but being human can’t have changed that much (Notes Two).

Maybe I’m wrong, maybe it’s completely fine and without consequence to relate to other people in this way; but it might be worthwhile being sure on the matter (Notes Three).

Notes and References:

Note 1: What do we see in beauty?
Note 1: Attitudes to elder members of society
Note 2: The worth of each life
Note 2: Does it matter if others suffer?
Note 2: Mirrors we offer one another
Note 3: Zimbardo & the problem of evil
Note 3: What if it all means something?