Category: Society

The idea of law and how it works itself out in practice intrigues me: we’re raised into society which in a certain sense is built upon and sustained by laws and lawful behaviour; yet it seems rare for all that to be directly explained and laid out for us. Our entire lives are regulated, but we might be unaware of how unless we inadvertently or more deliberately step over a line. And that seems quite important.

Some laws are communicated more explicitly, like those around driving or money; but there must be many we exist in ignorance of. Short of pursuing a career within the field of law it seems we’re limited to the awareness evident in those around us, infringements we stumble across, or what we absorb through entertainment and the media. Then there are things like local bylaws, social and environmental practices, and contractual obligations in work or home life. How conscious are we of all that, and how much does it matter?

The very notion of law is simply interesting: how it relates to human behaviour and the ways it shapes society. Do we need the threat of punishment in order to regulate our actions, or are there natural social ethics to draw upon? Are laws there to limit our darkness, to protect the disadvantaged, or more an elevation of those values we aspire to?

Reflecting on how laws changed in response to historical realities such as slavery, we can see how that mirrors the development of moral standards and commonly held beliefs. Law – and the politics surrounding it – became a battleground for improving society; the history of our laws and societies running parallel, as collective awareness grew.

With our situation now, it often appears the law is something to toy with and stretch. Maybe that’s partly because there’s a perceived lack of accountability in the anonymity and overwhelm of how we live: if our actions and their consequences are largely unseen, is there any reason to comply? Does the idea of law begin to seem meaningless in a society that often doesn’t notice or care? Ways that actions are increasingly invisible certainly seems one of the challenges we’re facing (see Notes One).

But in terms of this relationship between law, human behaviour, and social reality what does a noticeable disregard for laws and conventions mean? Does it matter if people begin acting out of a sense that “we may as well, others do, no one really cares, and what are they going to do about it”?

For me, it matters to the extent that living in light of the law reflects a deeper understanding of society: the idea of making the world safe, enjoyable and reliable for others. While it may serve us personally to cut some corners, these principles are essentially there to maintain society. And all our actions surely have a social aspect to them, in that they demonstrate for others our social values and how important we feel all of that to be.

Notes and References:

Note 1: Reality as a sense check
Note 1: Antisocial behaviour & the young
Note 1: The challenge of community
Note 1: Individual responsibility, collective standards
Note 1: Empathy in a world that happily destroys

Also, Media and responsibility which spoke in similar terms of systems we’re a part of and the vital social function they have.

Taking a social situation as a starting point, recent assertions around age and economic or political value have been quite unsettling. That certain underlying assumptions aren’t being challenged seems concerning, as it implies these are seen as acceptable ways of thinking that will lead to reasonable conclusions.

For example, financial reasoning has been commonplace as many concluded some groups “cost” others dearly. As if calculations of life expectancy and anticipated earnings or opportunities are certainties we should bank on. Where does it lead if we think that way? At what age are we happy for our social relevance or democratic weight to diminish? Human life is inherently without guarantee so these hardly seem calculations to place at society’s core, yet they are apparently valid ways to be thinking.

This seems to come down to how we view reality and weigh up our choices; with figures offering us a sense of certainty and measurable impacts. I just feel it might be wise to re-evaluate the weight we give to that in what is ultimately a human society (see Notes One).

With politics, incorporating the views of all members of society seems a valuable idea. The wisdom of age, practical confidence of mid-life, and idealism of youth all combine to hopefully chart a sensible course. Every part of society has a voice to be heard, because society affects us all. Although all that does depend very much on the quality of information we receive; on education and our ability to evaluate all we’re told (Notes Two); and preferably on a sense of responsibility toward the whole rather than just the self.

Yet it’s still worrying to argue that outcomes would be different in a year or two “because a million or so people would no longer be here”. It may be ‘true’, but is it meaningful or humane to make such arguments?

To take a different manifestation of similar reasoning, a recent Guardian article on the social “cost” of individuals spoke of how foreseeable costs were from a young age. And of course it seems likely that both costs and needs would be greater for those born into situations containing obstacles they may well wish to overcome. Surely our social systems exist to support those genuinely needing assistance. And while the researchers pointed out the responsibility of applying the results compassionately, it still seems a risky train of thought.

Where do statistics lead? While such findings are famously ‘neutral’, we must undoubtedly be very careful in the conclusions we draw and the arguments we weave around them (Note Three). Reasoning based on calculations and projections often risks forgetting the human face of the data, as logic may dictate “certain people should be left out in the cold”.

At the end of the day, what is society about? Are we talking simply in terms of economic viability, or is there a sense of social cohesion and pulling together? Because it seems we still need to be careful that our thinking retains its humanity.

Notes and References:

Note 1: Values and the economic
Note 1: Economics and the task of education
Note 2: Education’s place within Society
Note 2: Media within democratic society
Note 3: Morality and modern thought

The issue of antisocial behaviour raises its head every once in a while, maybe in the context of violence or of education; so it seems something we collectively need to find a way to address. And, to my mind, this essentially ties in with how we see others and also with how we view the social system we find ourselves within (as explored in Mirrors we offer one another).

Say you’re walking down a street, with a group of young teens heading towards you; and as they pass they cough insults or kick their ball off your feet. Do you try to show the impact of their behaviour in a way that might prove meaningful; or choose not to react, hoping at some point they reflect upon their interactions with others? We live in a society where so much disappears into a non-existent community; schools and families facing bigger challenges.

Or maybe you overhear a child saying something critical about a stranger to the adult they’re with. Should such comments be concealed only out of “politeness” in public, or are deeper values at stake? At what point does an inclusive, respectful, compassionate society cross over into one where we cast an eye of casual judgement over others? As discussed in How many aren’t well represented?, what are socially acceptable attitudes and how conscious are we in the realm of social ethics?

To me, anti-social behaviour – even on this small scale – is troubling in the underlying human attitudes it betrays and also in the sense that, as a society, we will surely have to bear out the consequences. As said above, parents and schools are fighting worthy battles on so many fronts in raising children in these times; but my concern is that, lacking space for time-consuming conversations about society, we might risk leaving people without a sense of why these things matter.

Of course, young people are getting to know their social reality: balancing their perceptions and understandings with what is acceptable to think or say, and what they can get away with. Then those around them respond, giving their behaviour meaning and hopefully imparting values that sustain a healthy society. In the past, it seems social standards were more commonly held – families, schools, communities and individuals could reaffirm shared values and be confident of others standing by them – creating fairly consistent messages. Now, values seem increasingly subjective, with confusion and anger over who has the right or duty to respond.

Looking at the bigger picture – with compassion and concern – I just don’t think we’re helping younger generations by not having a clear sense of social ethics; and I don’t feel we’re helping society in the long-term by avoiding the difficulties of establishing dialogue around such issues. In situations where I’ve been the one who didn’t correct that unkind statement, I’ve felt I let both people down: the child by not giving a clear affirmation of human worth and the other by not standing by them as a human being.

It seems in modern life that we live in strange relationship to the world around us. We spend vast amounts on makeup to ‘look our best’, then need to spend almost the same again on cleansing or beauty regimes to redress the damage. Or we indulge in food or wine ‘because we’ve earned it’, but then need to work that off through suffering, deprivation or the endurance of a fitness regime. Is this imbalance – and the cyclical way of life that ensues – simply how things are or could it change?

With consumption, it seems many of these things cancel one another out. This could be seen as part of a larger pattern of creating problems we then need to solve, but it seems to work out well economically. As in Values and the economic, this lifestyle seems sensible in terms of making money; in that light, reinforcing cycles work better than a life of harmonious balance. If the ways we live become mutually dependent – the demand for one thing creating the need for another – then culture can work hand in hand with capitalism (see Relating to cultural benchmarks and How many aren’t well represented?).

In a way, this is one of the fundamental patterns of life. Looking to religion, we find Shiva, the Hindu god linked with both creation and destruction. Or there’s the Taoist concept of yin and yang: the balance of opposites that makes life possible; the complex relationship between chaos and harmony. Maybe these cycles are inherent to life or, more specifically, to material existence.

But what does it mean for us? We’re not eating to excess in order to support the fitness industry; we’re trying to live a meaningful life, to find our place in human society, to feel good about ourselves. I don’t feel that human beings seek imbalance or the psychology that often accompanies the need for much of this. I think we seek meaning, belonging, harmony, wholeness. Perhaps we also seek differentiation: to be better than others, to stand out. It seems it’s this that is being capitalised upon, rather than the fulfilment of genuine human needs.

While on a natural level such cycles are part of life, as indicated in ancient teachings, I wonder to what extent they’re suited to human existence. Our cycles of behaviour or consumption often seem linked with the psyche: with the social need to belong and hold meaning in the eyes of others. I’m just unsure these cycles of modern living are in our best interests or those of the environment (see Living the dream, Waste and consumer choices, or “Small is Beautiful”).

Essentially, what I’m saying is that maybe we’re worth more than we’re being told; and that our value as humans need not be linked to things, to these patterns of indulgence, avoidance, suffering and judgement. Our culture could uplift us, rather than bringing us to compare or to criticise. Are there other ways to co-exist on this earth, should we choose our values differently?

The initial impetus for this post was in reading about disablism and cultural representations of disfigurement, topics I’d not been aware of but found deeply concerning (e.g. this Independent article on Hollywood villains). This led me to thinking more broadly about people within society who aren’t represented positively and attitudes that may arise from that, which is what I’ll write about here.

To my mind, it seems our cultural conversations – be that films, television, books, or other forms – represent looks so as they mean something, and these media images then become the world of meaning we inhabit and relate ourselves to.

Western culture creates these standards of appearance, style, behaviour, values, character which seem to place many at odds with images they can likely never attain and may not want to. Indeed, are the faces of our cultural life meant as a reflection or a battleground? Who decides the options we’re presented and the meanings they hold?

Maybe that’s always been the way with culture: that society creates representations of reality, assigns meaning, and plays out social options, masks, qualities and relationships in order to give rise to discussion about our values, concerns and ways of living.

However, for this to spill over into our everyday attitudes so we begin judging those who may not value ‘fashionable’ clothing or the endless illusions of makeup seems a mistake. And that doesn’t even touch on the disturbing attitudes towards disfigurement or disability (topics I don’t feel qualified to address, but feel need raising in this context). To infer conclusions about anyone based on outward appearances is troubling on a social level.

Ultimately I suppose it comes down to the question of what this process of cultural representation is all about. I referred to it above as a ‘conversation’ and maybe that’s helpful: if culture is the voice emanating from society, telling stories and using social realities as its characters and forms, then maybe we need to think about how we understand that and what our response might be.

How aware are we of the ‘codes’ used within culture, and do we keep these distinct from our attitudes in daily life? What is really being said and meant? Are our cultural institutions acting responsibly, intending to foster division, or working in consideration of other industries? Are we being presented with ideals we’re supposed to be taking out into social life or ones to work with in a more inward, symbolic way?

There’s clearly more to this topic than I anticipated, as this has delved into interesting questions around society, culture and identity. At its core, this seems to be about how culture relates to social reality, how we relate ourselves to culture, and the extent to which cultural forms are based on reality or allusion. Are these lines being blurred, pulling us into consumption and image-creation? Is culture where we find our selves or where we reflect upon them, possibly hone them? What’s behind it all, and what’s socially acceptable?

I was reading some articles a while back about how young adults are struggling with feeling themselves capable and ‘grown up’ given the seeming impossibility of attaining the ‘usual’ benchmarks of ‘successful’ adulthood: home ownership, stable marriage, career security, etcetera. This got me wondering about what these benchmarks actually are, and what they really mean about us. Does a career define you? Does your self-image or social life define you? Do your relationships, family, health or fitness define you? Or are all of these things expressions of you?

With benchmarks, I suppose they are events or standards that we tend to measure ourselves by – some have them, some don’t; some want them, others may not; some assign deep meaning to them, others find it elsewhere. In a way maybe we all evaluate our personal worth against the absence or presence of these things and our views on that. Maybe we struggle our whole lives to attain or make our peace with what was possible for us according to such reference points.

Naturally, they seem to be historical constructions carrying with them social and cultural meanings of the past. It seems marriage used to be this sign of social status, recognition, maybe a moral or personal affirmation or judgement. Also that career spoke something of your character, your nature, your standing in life, your values and concerns maybe. And home seems to have demonstrated success, priorities, the face you present to others.

I suppose the essence there is that all this was seen to speak of inner qualities and contain an element of truth about a person. With modern life, I’m not sure the extent to which that remains true. Does home ownership really say that much? It often speaks more of opportunity; and while many still see value in crafting a certain aesthetic to demonstrate to others, I’m unsure how much that says of their true nature. Does a career really tell you much about a person? Sometimes it might, often it seems more of a pragmatic choice or one endured rather than embodied.

In all these things, maybe they define us in some sense and allow us to form some conclusions about a person; but I don’t know how much meaning is really contained within that now.

If in the past these benchmarks genuinely told society something about a person – signs of inner qualities flowing out and finding a place in the world – then I can see how they held meaning. But if they no longer necessarily speak of a person’s true self in that way, what is the value in assigning meaning to the more superficial considerations that money can buy?

Maybe there’s a way to step back, re-evaluate things, and see each person as a valid expression of their character, interests, situation in life. Listening to how people relate themselves now to these benchmarks in terms of values and life opportunities may contain more truth about a person and how they engage with their choices in life.

There’s been talk lately of ‘the end of globalisation’ and what that means for the path of civilisation, interpreting last year’s events as signs of a reversion to more limited, national interests. That may or may not be true, as who’s to say what these democratic incidents really mean and what may rise out of them. How I see it is that we are all more interconnected as a result of globalisation and that will not ultimately change, but the relationships can become more mature and hopefully better.

Picking up from Trying to understand our times, it seems we’ve been creating this new globalised society of sorts and so much of how that fits together hasn’t yet been defined. We’re involved in this self-reflexive process of creating meaning out of this set of realities and, rather than asserting conclusions that do not exist, it seems we need to somehow articulate our various perspectives within it all and work to create a new code of engagement.

This is exciting, but also quite daunting. Communication and the process of change was my attempt to begin addressing what seems one of the major challenges of modern society.

Sometimes I wonder how far we’ve moved beyond schoolyard social codes, and indeed it seems many schools struggle to instil ethical boundaries in this respect. I’m referring to the basic models of the wounded bully, the cult of popularity, the effectiveness of “being good”, the wars of words, and the expediency of behavioural psychology in moving things forward rather than tackling the messiness of socio-emotional realities or moral ones.

Without communication, without mutual understanding, how can we create a globalised society that works? Surely it would simply be imposing a system onto others.

Cultural diversity is a beautiful thing, and differing social conventions are fascinating yet also challenging when it comes to global integration. How aware are we of the ways we’ve been conditioned by our own culture and of how this shapes our social and political engagement? Without being conscious of our own formative attitudes, we seem prone to judging others as “wrong” when they’re likely just shaped by different ideas. Unless we can talk about that, how can we move forward together?

It seems there are issues with the systems we’ve been working with, both within the originating societies and in terms of others struggling to integrate it with their existing values and practices. So it seems we need to reconsider, re-evaluate the essence of that system and, in doing so, rise to the challenge of communicating our ways of being and listening to those of others.

For me, globalised society is finding its feet: we have this new interconnection, this wonderful merging together of experience and outlook, plus all the challenges that throws up and the opportunities for creating something new. Who’s to say what that new system may be, but hopefully it’ll be able to incorporate diversity with greater flexibility and also be based on genuine cooperation and mutual interest.

I wonder at times about the pursuit of happiness as an aim in life.

Happiness seems to be used in the sense of feeling at ease, joyful, satisfied. Surely to be happy in a world such as ours means to either ignore reality or to justify it in some way – some kind of mental adjustment to “make it all ok”.

It seems there’s a lot of “off-setting” that goes on – making up for the compromises of the week by buying things or indulging various “vices” in our free time. But it seems as if we are turning off our intelligence in order to feel better: consumer goods often equate to human or environmental suffering; and a way of living that drives us to activity that diminishes our consciousness and harms our health seems concerning.

Maybe overall these things even out and leave us feeling happy, or better, or simply relieved at which pocket of society we happen to exist within. But the truth seems to be that we are participating in a system that doesn’t quite work as we may hope and lead ourselves to believe.

It also seems that, in many ways, society itself undermines our sense of self-worth. In implying we are not complete or good enough without certain belongings, looks, relationships, lifestyle markers our very sense of our value is often shaken. This is a topic for another time, but it raises itself here to the extent that psychological happiness must be tied to how we view our self, and society takes a hand in that.

This isn’t to argue that we shouldn’t be happy, but more to look at reasons absolute happiness is difficult to justify. With this, as with issues around Values and the economic, it seems to be a question of balancing an honest understanding of realities with our personal concerns and capacity to enable change. There is a lot in life that is demanding our active engagement both in terms of purposeful action and in looking at the world we are making. I just feel that for happiness to be secure it needs to be founded on knowledge and acceptance, rather than on avoidance or denial: to know what we are doing.

Maybe it’s more a search for peace and a sense of self-worth and also of agency – that we matter, that our actions matter, and that things are heading in the right direction.