#we’ve been forced to conform to other peoples culture and ideas for so long | Explore Tumblr Posts and Blogs

tundrainafrica · 3 years

Note

i really thought hange was non-binary bc the one who said hanges gender was up for interpretation was kodansha us but isayama asked for gender neutral pronouns right?

here!

I’m gonna answer all of the gender asks in one go because for one, I don’t think I wanna flood my own feed and my own tumblr with the same arguments.

I think a lot of the questions on Hange’s gender and the topic of gender and sexuality overall are kinda intertwined and I feel like for anyone who actually reads my stuff, it’s better understood as one big wall of text.

So I was wondering, is that song the absolute proof about hange's gender?

No. I think the interpretation of the song which people are using to prove that Hange’s nonbinary is very western centric. I actually did research around this song and knowing what I know about Japanese culture, I actually interpret the song as a way for Japanese people to break out from gender norms.

For people who are not aware, Japan is incredibly strict with gender norms. The LGBTQ community is not as progressive as it is in Western countries (I mean gay marriage isn’t completely legalized yet). And just looking at it from the stand point of gender roles and gender expectations, despite the progressive thinking, there are a lot of things Japanese men and women have to conform to just to be respected in everyday society. Because in Japan, the community has always been more important than the individual and it’s honestly the same for most asian countries as well.

A lot of the pressure of living in Japan, working with Japanese people is the pressure to conform and I’ve seen my friends do it through small things like getting bangs (because all Japanese women have bangs apparently), wearing make up when going out (because this is generally an accepted for all Japanese people) and always dressing your best because in that manner women are held to an incredibly high standard in Japan. And this goes similarly for men who are constantly pressured to be the breadwinner in the family. If your wife is making more than you, be ready to hear people talk. I know these expectations exist in a Western setting too but Japan is incredibly stiff as a society and this is one reason why, despite having numerous opportunities to moveto Japan myself, I am not at all entertaining that possibility. I have worked in a Japanese company and I hated it and moved to a western company right after six months. I have completely accepted the fact that there is no mobility career wise from a non-Japanese (and a woman at that) in Japanese society.

In conformity, hierarchies etc, Japan is its own monster. That’s why when songs like Jibunrashiku, Hitchcock (by Yorushika) or Shisoukan (by Yorushika) come out, for one it’s in Japanese so I wouldn’t approach the songs from an English and as a Japanese speaker and someone who is pretty familiar with Japanese culture, I can’t help interpret that song as a social commentary for the shitty parts of Japanese society and how they tend to shoot the concept of an ‘individual’ down.

But does that mean I completely shoot down the idea that Hange is NB?

NO. Yams said so himself, Hange’s gender is unknown. But at the same time, Yams recognizes the fact that in the anime and in the live action, Hange is a female. If Yams were that adamant to make Hange NB, I think he would have at least made more of an effort to police how she is depicted in the anime and in the live action.

His exact words were:　「ハンジは彼（彼女）みたいな、ちょっと浮世離れした、枠にとらわれない自由な感じで描きたかったんです。」If I roughly translated it to English, “I wanted to draw Hange as someone otherworldly, free from the confines of gender.”

Tbh, I wanted to avoid these gender asks altogether but I’ve seen the environment in twitter and the ways many people approach gender, particularly ‘nonbinary’ or genderfluid and it really just doesn’t sit well with me. For one, what’s up with all these rules on how to approach our nonbinary and LGBTQ friends? What’s up with all these accusations that if we don’t follow them to a T, then we’re suddenly transphobic or homophobic?

The fact that we’re creating all these rules on how to go about her nonbinary gender for one, just defeats the whole purpose of Hange being a free bird in the first place who wouldn’t have cared and who wouldnt’ ever have been confined to gender in the first place.

I mean the establishment of set rules and social norms on how to navigate gender, sex, sexuality and gender roles is the reason why we had heternormativity in the first place. And what I can see, yes, we did get progressive, we did start recognizing other genders, other ways of thinking but the danger in all this is that, we’re once again creating frameworks and norms about how people that identify as these genders are supposed to act. And this defeats the whole purpose of why we recognized concepts of other sexualities, other genders and breaks from gender roles in the first place.

We wanted to show these people that their feelings are valid, that the way they’re navigating their relationships and their identities are valid and the heternormative society we’ve lived in that has been condemning for so long, was flawed, was wrong.

But the thing is, with the establishment of all these social norms on how to navigate our relationships with LGBTQ people and how to navigate our own gender, sexuality, sex and role is just making us regress back to that shitty heteronormative society of a hundred years ago. Because suddenly, everyone is questioning once again ‘How am I supposed to be feeling if I’m nb?” “How am I supposed to be feeling if I’m trans?” “How am I supposed to be feeling if I’m LGBT?”

And we’re creating these abstract ideas of how exactly, being genderfluid is supposed to feel like. Am I really supposed to be going by ‘they?’ Am I supposed to be uncomfortable with CIS pronouns?

And If I don’t go through this process… If I don’t feel this way then maybe I’m not NB? Maybe I’m not Trans? Maybe I’m not LGBT? And if I don’t conform to this clear cut idea of what NB is which people set up for me, god forbid I might just be transphobic or homophobic.

And Here’s the thing, everyone’s journey to self discovery is unique and there is no exact way to go about your gender or identity. I find it terrifying actually that creating all these clear cut rules have built misconceptions in so many people already on what they are supposed to feel like when they decide to identify with a certain gender which is no different from long ago when people had to hide the fact that they liked people of the same gender because god forbid they might just be persecuted for being gay.

Creating these frameworks, these incredibly strict rules on how someone is supposed to navigate relationships with LGBTs and their own personal identities is only making it all the more dangerous for people who are in the process of discovering themselves.

Back in college, I used to accompany a friend to a clinic when he was starting HRT treatments and before he started them, he had to consult with a doctor and the consultation lasted months. Before all that, they gave him a checklist of ‘feelings,’ which if he does experience them, he checks it and if he does check enough of them and agrees with a huge chunk of them, then he might have gender dysphoria and maybe the HRT treatments and sex reassignment was for him. It was a hundred item checklist, pages full of waivers, warnings and questions about his own experiences with his gender identity. And the fact that he had to consult for months after on that? There must be a reason.

Maybe because the academe realizes, maybe because those adept on the field on gender realize that gender is too complex of a subject to have been boxed into these categories in the first place.

And this whole discourse or I wouldn’t say discourse more of like, this ‘pushing of agendas’ as to say, ‘this is how being gender fluid or non binary is supposed to feel like’ this is how being transgender is supposed to feel like and if you don’t fit it to a T then you’re not transgender or you’re not nb. Or if you don’t fit it all, maybe you’re just transphobic is dangerous for many reasons. Either it gatekeeps people who want to explore their gender further. Or it forces people to have to conform to these and force themselves to ‘feel’ all of these things in the first place.

And god, this is just the gender issue, I haven’t even explored the sexuality, gender roles or biological issue.

i mean pronouns are important but they don’t really reflect someone’s gender??? like there’s people who use he/they, she/they or all pronouns(? they just don’t conform to gender binary ahaha

Given the environment on twitter and having witnessed the bullying first hand that came with one writer who is active on twitter using she/her pronouns for Hange, I feel like my own writing and my own POV on how I go about my writing and how I approach the gender of Hange (since I strictly use she/her) might just be a ticking time bomb and I might find myself at the end of whatever hate war or ‘education’ or as I like to just refer to as bullying, one day.

I believe though I at least have enough knowledge and awareness of the LGBTQ situation and I think I did put a lot of thought already into this before I made my decision to use ‘she’ to refer to Hange.

(And tbh, you can be nonbinary and you can be female at the same time and I’ve written about that multiple times already BECAUSE THEY’RE NOT EVEN IN THE SAME CATEGORY. And creating this mutual exclusivity between being nonbinary and female just kinda invalidates a lot of those people who are still deciding where exactly they fall in this complex web of identity discovery)

As someone who generally mainly hangs out with LGBT people and i have been doing this since high school by the way, and as someone who has tried all the sexualities on the spectrum, I talked to my asexual friends about possibly being asexual, I have experimented with women and sometimes, I just had dry spells and it just so happened that in the end of all these, I fell in love with a guy but I really believe that gender is such a flexible thing and even though I am with aguy right now, I still simp over lesbians, gays, ciswomen, transgenders because simping isn’t about gender.

And these set of rules on how to navigate genders is just invalidating the experiences of people who are flitting in between the two identities and it just hinders the process of self discovery for a lot of people.

Anyway, the point is, there is only one statement I found fundamental when approaching my relationships with the LGBT community and my own perspective on my self identity.

Recognition of someone’s feelings and their journey to a gender identity and the pronouns that come with it are important.

Then someone might go “THEN WHY DON’T YOU RESPECT HANGE’s NON BINARY PRONOUNS. Because just because someone is nonbinary doesn’t mean they automatically go for they. Just because someone is non-binary, doesn’t mean I have to use every single pronoun on the spectrum. The only one who can tell me what pronouns they want used on them is the person in question.

(I actually read an argument somewhere that going for ‘they’ just because someone is NB is transphobic lmfao. Assuming someone’s pronouns is apparently transphobic too lmfao.)

AND HANGE IS FICTIONAL. And we will never hear about which pronoun she would have wanted in the first place and I think the great ‘nontransphobic’ in-between is just letting people interpret characters how they want to interpret characters in this fictional world (And Hange can be both interpreted as nb and female). It’s the policing which makes the whole process of self discovery, the process of navigating genders all the more difficult for a lot of people.

And policing how exactly people should navigate gender and sexuality is just gatekeeping. Hange is everyone’s character. The only gender and sexuality identity people have complete jurisdiction on, is their own. And this policing of what exactly certain journeys to discovery are supposed to feel like is inherently harmful for those who are still in the process of deciding for themselves where they stand.

And going back to what Yams said “I wanted to draw Hange as someone otherworldly, free from the confines of gender/sexuality/gender roles.” I agree with that.

Because even though I do use ‘she’ with Hange, I do not firmly believe that Hange is a cisgender heterosexual female either. I just believe there are so many more layers to her whole identity and I believe similarly for every single person. Just concluding for one’s self that Hange is nonbinary with a very narrow minded view of what non binary just generally defeats the whole purpose of being ‘free from the confines of gender’ and hinders a lot of discourse and analysis on Hange’s identity over all.

I mean, I don’t know if people agree with this but in the decades I have spent with my close friends figuring out their gender identities, changing pronouns, transitioning, coming out to their parents, here is one thing I noticed. They weren’t asking for a celebration of their gender or sexuality, they weren’t asking for all these policing on how people should approach them. All they wanted was for their feelings to be validated, normalized as an everyday occurrence. I think the point of all these LGBTQ discourse (and by extension race and sex discourse) were all there to just make all these different identities normalized and to completely eradicate the concept of a negative bias or an other which was generally plaguing society for a long time.

And as their friends, I have never approached them as this champion who would make sure EVERYONE RESPECTED THEM IN THAT WAY IN TWITTER THEY BELIEVE LGBTQ PEOPLE SHOULD BE RESPECTED. All these nonverbal rules I have set up for myself on how to go about being friends with them is because I wanted them to be happy and comfortable in their shoes. And what were the types of things they appreciated? Me hiding it from their parents until they were ready to come out, me helping make their relationship work with their partner, me respecting the pronouns they requested for themselves, me accompanying them to HRT when their parents refused.

And you know what, that was only a facet of our friendships. My friends’ gender identities and sexualities never dominated discourse. None of them were the ‘token gay friend,’ the ‘token lesbian friend’ or the ‘token asexual friend’ or the ‘token NB friend.’ They were all people I genuinely care about who just happened to have fallen in love with someone of the same gender. They were just people who just happened to be uncomfortable with their original sex. But I would never just describe them as just that. My friend who just so happens to identify as assexual makes a great companion on a night out drinking. My friend who just so happens to be trasngender is really great with logistics and planning and was super helpful and I was eternally grateful when we worked together on that one project. My friend who just happens to be a lesbian has the cutest picture of her girlfreind on her phone screen.

I will memorize their favorite orders, what makes them tick, what makes them such a great companion, their talents, capabilities more than I will remember their gender. And that’s the characetr song in question is called “Jibunrashiku” or in English “just like me.” Because in the end a strict society which creates all these maxims of what exactly people of a certain gender should act would of course birth songs like “Just like me” A society which puts so much emphasis on gender and sex as an identity instead of other things like personality, preferences, skills etc.

And I don’t know if it applies to everyone. But my friends appreciate it because this journey to whatever gender identity they chose wasn’t rooted in some sort of strict framework on how they should be treated according to twitter. It was rooted in their own experiences and how these experiences made them feel.

Do they feel weird in a woman’s body? Do they just don’t feel any romantic attraction to the opposite gender?

Just treat them as how you would treat anyone else you respect. Just be a decent person. Just be a good friend.

Respect their requests for their own personal pronouns. If they need help, help them to the best of your abilities.

And here’s the thing, the approach I use with navigating identities, sexuaities genders are rooted in one very simple concept which can be applied to the race discourse, the feminist discourse etc etc.

Don’t be an ass. Respect people. Don’t reduce people to one facet of their identity. And by extension, when faced with such a dubious situation, think, discern for yourself what’s right or wrong. When there are people educating you, policing you on what is right or wrong, process that information objectively.

All I have here right now is my own opinions on the gender discourse on Hange and my own opinions on the discourse overall.

If you don’t agree with it, then have a nice day and I hope you find something else that will convince you to be more openminded but...

UTANG NA LOOB HUWAG LANG KAYO MAMBULLY NG TAO POTA. MAGHANAP NALANG KAYO NG IBANG PWEDENG GAWIN SA BUHAY MO.

ANG DAMING NASASAKTAN ANG DAMING NATRATRAUMA ANG DAMING NAWAWALANG GANA MAGSULAT KASI DI KAYO NAG-IISIP. PURO TIRA LANG.

Okay thank you for listening. Do what you want with the information up there but I have said my piece.

#hange zoe #hanji zoe #commander hange #commander hanji #meta

93 notes · View notes

asherwarf-archive · 3 years

Text

i saw ASHER WARF at a coffee shop in QUEENS today. i forgot how much HE looks like DANE DEHAAN. they are a THIRTY-THREE year old WAREHOUSE WORKER who’s been in nyc for THIRTY YEARS now. every time we run into each other, they are always SELF-AWARE AND DILIGENT but i’ve heard people say they can also be ASOCIAL AND PESSIMISTIC. HOLD IT TOGETHER BY MIKE SHINODA reminds me of them every time it comes on the radio.

TW: drug addiction, recovery and relapse, mental illness, divorce, social services, and prison. brief mention of violent crime.

born in philidelphia, pennsylvania, asher’s parents were your average “high school sweethearts”, having hit it off during their senior year; both able to relate to one another’s working-class backgrounds. his mother’s pregnancy was unplanned; however, it wasn’t unwanted, the couple welcoming a son into the world on a september evening – the thirteenth to be precise. one of asher’s earliest memories was at aged three when he and his parents moved from their quiet philly suburb home to brace the chaos of new york, hoping to open a door of new beginnings and opportunities for the three of them.

growing up, it became apparent that asher was something of a “difficult” child, teachers throughout kindergarten and elementary school often reporting incidents of tantrums and picking fights with other kids; however, his parents never had much concern regarding this. after all, kids go through these sorts of phases, right? perhaps it was something that should have been nipped in the bud, though, as adolescence was when his behaviour started to take a downward spiral. during this time – unbeknownst to asher – his parents’ marriage was beginning to crumble and soon lead to an inevitable divorce when asher was sixteen, his father deciding to up and leave their home one evening. this, of course, took a toll on his mother and, over the following months, caused her to sink into a depressive state. though he and his mother never discussed it, asher had his suspicions that perhaps he was to blame for his parents’ separation. with this weight resting on his shoulders, asher’s behaviour as a teenager got worse – he started mixing with bad crowds, finding himself roped into a world of recreational drugs and misdemeanour. his rebellion combined with his mother’s deep depression made it difficult for her to cope as a parent, social services soon having to step in and offer extended respite care as a solution.

living out of plastic bin bags hurt like hell for a kid of his age, though there was no resentment towards his mother for his living situation – he knew deep down that perhaps he had a lot to answer for. nonetheless, his continuous misbehaviour led to another inevitable: him being a high school drop-out. between the ages of seventeen and into his twenties is when things took a turn for the worst; recreational drugs and misdemeanour becoming more serious affairs – an addiction to prescription opioids and the means of getting his fix. of course, this was a somewhat expensive addiction for a young man with no qualifications or earnings to his name and, in a desperate state, asher entered a local convenience store one evening; making a decision which would lead to dire consequences.

october the fifth would forever be a significant date after that evening – at aged twenty-two, asher was sentenced to prison for armed robbery, a manic decision fuelled from the desperation to scratch an unbearable itch. arguably, this was perhaps another inevitable in his life; his behaviour and acts of misdemeanour as an adolescent being something of a foreshadowing. however, despite his delinquency growing up, asher was, in fact, not built for a life behind bars. being tossed into a cesspool of those described as “society’s worst” was a daunting experience – handfuls of erratic personalities forced to live with one another, some white-collar criminals, others responsible for someone’s last breath. it was, indeed, an unpredictable culture within those concrete walls and barbed wire fences; one that would be enough to push a man over the edge. the desperate craving for a fix lingered; however, with mere pennies to his name – and therefore limited commissary to trade – asher turned to a cheaper option that would offer similar effects; abusing heroin among other drugs throughout his sentence.

his twenties spent behind a steel cell door, it wasn’t until his thirties – aged thirty-one to be exact – that asher was able to, at last, experience the freedom of the outside world after almost a decade; having lost what were, arguably, his most precious years of adulthood to a life that some wouldn’t wish upon their worst enemy. though comparable to a deer in the headlights upon his arrival at the prison facility all of those years ago, returning to the “real world” was something of a disconcerting experience in itself – he had grown accustomed to an existence defined by rules, set mealtimes and discipline; never able to move freely outside of his assigned wing without a set of handcuffs and shackles, and a warden at either side of him. of course, those still incarcerated would give up everything that they owned for a mere glimpse outside of the merciless steel beams and mesh that surrounded them; however, self-awareness was, perhaps, one of asher’s few “positive” traits and he knew all too well that the task of returning as a conforming member of society wouldn’t be a simple one – a large chunk of civilization immediately declaring people like him as being the scum of humankind. ever the pessimist, there was a period of time upon his release where asher was in a metaphorical hole, continuing to abuse heroin as a means of numbing even the slightest bit of emotion or anguish that he might have felt.

though it was somewhat difficult for him to admit, asher knew deep down that he had a problem that required a solution, and fast; having been a witness to what the wicked substance could do to those who continued to abuse it. however, recovering from excessive use of such a drug was, indeed, much harder than it seemed, urges to relapse growing stronger as the weeks passed; some of which he succumbed to. fast forward to now, asher is still battling the immense hardships that come with recovery, relying on doses of prescription methadone to aid him through the process. symptoms come and go; however, the long-term effects are prominent in his mental health; unpredictable mood swings and signs of paranoid schizophrenia, though no official diagnoses. with no qualifications and a criminal record to his name, asher works perhaps one of few careers that would allow him a second chance at life; a low-wage warehouse job, packaging and labelling boxes for hours on end – it's a repetitive, tedious task, but all to make ends meet.

—

aaand scene! first and foremost, i will apologise for the fact that i suck at concluding a piece of writing - it isn’t a strong point of mine (which i think we’ve gathered). i’m roo, and this absolute car-crash of a human being is asher, a character of mine who i’ve had for close to ten years now; however, this is the first time in a looong that i’m properly getting to explore his characteristics and whatnot so i’m quite excited about that. i’ll leave a link below to some ideas that i've come up with for connections / plots, but please, please, please do feel free to message me with any ideas of your own. i’d love to work something out!

CONNECTION / PLOT IDEAS

#villageintro #tw: drug addiction #tw: relapse #tw: mental illness #tw: divorce #tw: social services #tw: prison #tw: crime #i hope that i've covered everything #i suck at concluding a piece of writing apparently

11 notes · View notes

girlsbtrs · 3 years

Text

How Countercultures turn Politics into Culture

Written by Lila Danielsen Wong. Graphic by Paula Nicole

In 1969, an academic named Theodore Roszak published “The Making of a Counterculture” and coined the term “counterculture” in order to describe the ant-mainstream youth movements of the 60s. Counterculture’s are not inherently good or progressive, both the punks and the skinheads are countercultures. Counterculture just means, according to the Merriam-Webster dictionary, a culture with values and mores that run counter to those of established society.

I’m not here to critique these movements. I am not writing this to critique how the Bohemian Romantics won respect for the arts because they mostly came from upper class backgrounds, and I’m not here to discuss the lack of intersectionality in the riot grrl movement. After starting this article I realized I had pitched a whole academic thesis, and maybe bit off a little more than I had intended to chew (why can’t I just pitch a listicle?). So, instead of focusing on the nitty gritty of what prompted these social movements and academically exploring their effects, I want to talk about the “culture” part of counterculture.

Nearly all countercultures are birthed around shared political ideas, but many seem to start within the culture itself, perhaps as a musical movement, a literary movement, a visual art movement, or even a fashion or aesthetic. As the movements expand, they come to encompass more of those aforementioned arts, and thus the politics that prompted the original movement become a culture.

An early example of a western subculture is the Bohemian Romantics of Europe of the 19th century. In pre-revolutionary France, artists were lower class tradesmen. Artists were seen as dirty and immoral. However, in post-revolutionary France, disillusionment prompted young bourgeois men to reject the typical hierarchy and launch the bohemian artist lifestyle we are more familiar with today. A critical event on this timeline was Victor Hugo’s “Romantic Army,” or his mob of young men that he assembled to protest theatre censorship by absolutely trashing a theatre. The Bohemian lifestyle often manifested as wealthy young artists electing poverty to reject the traditions they were born into, and to spend their time creating art unrestricted. Bohemian fashion was more utilitarian and rustic than the upper-class styles. The music of the Romantic era is categorized by its vigor and passion, pioneered by Beethoven himself. Beethoven challenged the strict and sometimes formulaic sonatas and symphonies of the past, favoring expression and inventiveness. Thus, prompted by the rejection of bourgeois values and principles, a culture was created: a lifestyle, an aesthetic, a literary movement, a new musical style.

Nearly 150 years later and 5000 miles away from Bohemian France, the riot grrl movement was brewing in the Northwest United states. The riot grrl movement, created by a group of women working to combat sexism in the western Washington punk scene, was a counterculture within a counterculture. While the Romantic movement originated in literature, the punk movement, and then the riot grrl movement, was born as a musical movement.

In 1970s Britain, the government was nearly bankrupt and giant cuts to social services were making life hard and creating a sense of alienation between the ruling class and the working class. British Punk emerged from this alienation. The youth used music to communicate their frustrations and anger. The rips and safety pins of punk fashion weren’t originally fashion, the punks just owned ragged clothing. The disillusionment with the political landscape and frustration with older generations resonated with youth all over the world, and it’s not hard to see why a Post-Vietnam and Watergate America would embrace the Punk movement with open arms. However, where British Punk was rooted in working class frustrations, American Punk took root with the middle-class suburban crowd, who, similar to the Bohemians, choose to reject the comfortable life they were born into. A notable difference that this created in the music was British punk had more pointed and explicit politically leftist lyrics, whereas this was not the focus of American punk lyrics.

This is especially important to understand when talking about the riot grrl movement because they put the politics in American Punk lyrics. In the early 1990s, a group of women from the Olympia, Washington punk scene had a meeting to address the sexism they faced in Punk. They started writing lyrics centered around the sexism and misogyny they face in Punk and in life. They created their own literature through zines when they could not get coverage. They wore clothing specifically intended to look like what respectable women weren’t supposed to wear. Again, we watch a group of people turn their politics into a culture, as a way to spread and practice their ideologies.

If you want a modern example of turning politics into culture via a counterculture, look no further than cottagecore (yes, really).

As I said at the beginning, countercultures don’t need to be radically progresive to be countercultures. Cottagecore dwells on romanticized pastoral ideals of a fantastic yesteryear that never really existed. Cottagecore gained some traction on TikTok as an “aesthetic,” made up of imagery such as women in long button up dresses flouncing through fields and making picnics. Absent were the rise and grind aspirations of pre-pandemic America. Absent were any signs of the labor often associated with pastoral living. It is no surprise that a counterculture that emphasizes solitary retreat, rest, nature, and crafting blew up during the first year of the covid-19 pandemic during which many experienced forced solitary retreats, a change in work environments (not to mention the want to not work), and boredom that could only be remedied with solitary activities such as crafting and enjoying nature. The pandemic dismantled all of the systems of normal life as we knew it, and cottagecore invited us to grow from this space, perhaps embracing a simpler, slower life. This political message was so subtly delivered through our social media scrolling that if you weren’t paying attention, you might not have even realized cottagecore had political ideals at all.

The rise of cottagecore is important in the conversation of how countercultures turn politics into culture because it showcases very blatantly how countercultures are not created, or at least do not catch on, without need and reason. Taylor Swift most likely did not create her surprise albums Folklore and Evermore (the unofficial cottagecore soundtrack) solely to cater to the cottagecore TikTok crowd, she created these albums as a form of personal escapism from how her own life was turned upside down by the pandemic, as a form of connection with her fans who were also experiencing the effects of the pandemic on their lives, and as art that represented certain feelings that came along with the pandemic.

Her albums came about for the same reason that cottagecore really caught on in the first place: it was what some people felt that they needed due to the circumstances of the time. It was for this reason, I would argue, that Folklore won album of the year. It was indicative of the times.

So, countercultures are born from a need. From this need comes politics, be it post revolution anti-bourgeois sentiments, mid-century British leftism, or a quiet call to slow down and reject hustle culture for a simple life. From politics comes art, and from art, culture.

Let’s talk about this in terms of an up-and-coming counterculture, hyperpop.

Though Wikipedia currently defines hyperpop as a “micro genre,” hyperpop’s rise is looking anything but “micro.” Hyperpop is described in The Spectator as “catchy synthpop or bubblegum bass tune with elements of EDM and typically a focus on either queer culture or Internet futurism”. The term “self-referential lyrics” is often thrown around. In the least complicated words possible, hyperpop uses it’s sounds and lyrics to make a camped-up parody of popular music. Hyperpop pioneers that have some mainstream following include SOPHIE, Charli xcx, and Caroline Polechek. Hyperpop often uses carbonated synth sounds and vocal modulation, and many of the trailblazers are part of the LGBT community.

What will hyper pop fashion and literature look like? What are hyper pop’s politics?

As for politics, there is something inherently political about queer artists carving out a space for themselves in pop music. Orange Magazine describes this as “pushing pop music to its limits and satirizing the gendered music industry. There’s an enjoyable sense of irony and juxtaposition.”

As for fashion, if we’re following the patterns we’ve established, hyperpop might bring gender non-conforming fashion that satirizes what’s been proclaimed normal. In terms of literature perhaps a Hyperpop literary movement will come from the controversial direction of Alt Lit, a community of minimalist writers that use the internet form and often reject intellectualized creative writing, create things that are weird for the sake of being weird, and use all caps and other purposeful spelling and grammar mistakes. A hyperpop literary movement might share the “self-referential” themes of hyperpop movement, while examining gender, sexuality, and personal identity in the internet age, seeing as the need to examine these themes in music indicates a need to examine these themes in other art forms. Maybe it will find creative ways to use internet platforms, as Alt Lit originators such as Steve Roggenbuck, a YouTube poet (well, a poet depending on who you ask), already have.

What I find most exciting about hyperpop is that it has the potential to create a culture guided by music first, similar to the punks or to disco. Fashion and visual art and literature all inspired by the glittery new sounds created in music. Maybe hyperpop will stay a “microgenre,” but maybe we will get to witness the rise of something new.

SOPHIE once said “I think all pop music should be about who can make the loudest, brightest thing. That, to me, is an interesting challenge, musically and artistically… just as valid as who can be the most raw emotionally,” and isn’t that a phenomenal thing to bring with us into a pent-up, fed-up, thoroughly exhausted, and newly vaccinated decade?

Sources

https://monoskop.org/images/b/b4/Roszak_Theodore_The_Making_of_a_Counter_Culture.pdf

https://www.sfgate.com/books/article/When-the-counterculture-counted-2835958.php

https://www.classicfm.com/discover-music/periods-genres/romantic/

https://www.mtholyoke.edu/courses/rschwart/hist255/bohem/tlaboheme.html

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Punk_subculture

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Riot_grrrl

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theodore_Roszak_(scholar)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bohemianism

https://www.nme.com/blogs/nme-blogs/brief-history-riot-grrrl-space-reclaiming-90s-punk-movement-2542166

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2019/05/03/arts/music/riot-grrrl-playlist.html

https://www.nypl.org/blog/2013/06/19/riot-grrrl-movement

https://wildezine.com/3528/opinion/a-brief-history-of-punk/

file:///C:/Users/8lila/Downloads/history_initiates_vol_iv_april_2016_01_brooks_alison.pdf

https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2021/03/hyperpop/617795/

https://www.billboard.com/articles/columns/pop/9595799/hyperpop-history-mainstream-crossover/

https://www.stuyspec.com/ae/hyperpop-the-defining-genre-of-the-digital-age

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyperpop

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0YRl4Kdnl2E&list=LL&index=4

https://theface.com/music/sophie-behind-the-boards-pop-scottish-producer

https://orangemag.co/orangeblog/2020/10/15/exploring-the-trans-roots-of-hyperpop

https://thebluenib.com/the-rise-and-fall-of-alt-lit-by-ada-wofford/

https://www.rollingstone.com/music/music-news/pc-music-are-for-real-a-g-cook-and-sophie-talk-twisted-pop-58119/

#lila danielsen wong

6 notes · View notes

jonismitchell · 3 years

Note

hey arden. i was listening to maathp and i was looking for a post i liked a while back analyzing the song that i always meant to read but never did and couldn’t find it, so i was hoping you’d give your analysis of it when you can bc you’re one of the only people who will analyze one of her songs in a way that’s more in your own way and not the “this is what the song probably means to taylor” kind of way which i kinda hate that most swifties do 💖

Hello! I read this lying in bed and thought ‘hey, this is an awesome ask, but it’s 11pm so maybe I’ll answer in the morning,’ and then I got too swept up in thinking about Miss Americana and the Heartbreak Prince. Now I’m up cranking out Taylor Swift analysis in the middle of the night, which is my preferred habit. (Thank you for your compliments on my specific style of analysis! I love looking critically at media and will aggressively take any opportunity to do so.)

The analysis is under the cut, because it is 1000+ words and I do not hate my mutuals. Hope you enjoy!

So, what is MAATHP about? In my opinion (a general disclaimer for this entire answer), this song is about political turmoil and an obsessive romance that anchors you through it. As a greater metaphor for the juvenile state of politics today, it’s set in a high school, which also links back to the idea of public perception being the most important thing and romantic love being all consuming. (Think Lorde’s ‘blow all my friendships to sit in hell with you, but we’re the greatest.’ That’s the vibe I get from this song.)

The first verse is as follows: You know I adore you / I’m crazier for you / Than I was at sixteen / Lost in a film scene / Waving homecoming queens / Marching band playing / I’m lost in the lights. She sets the stage for the song here: an obsessive love, a comparison to being a teenager, and specific allusions to typical American high schools. There’s a reminder of her early, Fearless-era work in the homecoming queens and marching bands, but the idea of being lost in public perception implies a darker edge than we’ve heard before.

* The ‘lights’ were formerly referenced as a context for public perception as ‘another name goes up in lights’ in The Lucky One.

Swift continues with: American glory faded before me / Now I'm feeling hopeless, ripped up my prom dress / Running through rose thorns, I saw the scoreboard / And ran for my life Quite a bit more to unpack here! The first obvious political association here is the idea of American glory fading (a reaction to the 2016 election, presumably). Our narrator destroys a standard symbol of ‘successful’ teenage years, the prom dress, in an extension on this theme. A conflict is introduced in these lines: a visual of escape, a view of the scoreboard (nice wordplay—could be a football game or a national election).

Pre-chorus: No cameras catch my pageant smile / I counted days, I counted miles / To see you there, to see you there / It's been a long time coming, but We’re again looking at the idea of public perception with the pageant smile, which is associated with beauty pageants for young women but is in the song’s context an allusion to the very social nature of political campaigning. It’s reinforced with counting days and miles, as if on the campaign trail around the country, and sets up the complete clash of personal and political for the chorus.

It's you and me, that's my whole world / They whisper in the hallway, "She's a bad, bad girl" / The whole school is rolling fake dice The primary romance of the song—the idea that the world is such a disaster that this one person is your lifeline and your world throughout it. Despite the gossip typical to high school halls, the narrator holds onto the person they love and condemns the rest of the school as liars. (Fake dice to me means a presupposed set of outcomes that don’t actually exist, i.e. there are more choices than others appear to see. Could also be a reference to ‘fake news.’)

You play stupid games, you win stupid prizes / It's you and me, there's nothing like this / Miss Americana and The Heartbreak Prince / We're so sad, we paint the town blue / Voted most likely to run away with you If you do something stupid, you have to accept the consequences for your actions = if you assume there are only a set number of outcomes, you force yourself into accepting the unpleasant result. (Maybe a bit too leftist for Swift’s intention, but this isn’t about her. Could also be ‘voting for Trump / not voting means you have to accept the consequences of his presidency.’) It’s in essence a condemnation of a narrow outlook.

We’re drawn back to the romance that forms the backbone of this song; between someone so perfectly American (at least on the surface, conforming to the politically and socially acceptable views of the nations) that they are ‘Miss Americana’ and their lover, the ‘Heartbreak Prince’ here to ruin it all. Both of the lovers are disappointed with their society—unclear whether it’s the school or the country, probably deliberately—so they strike back for change (vote blue), but ultimately want to escape the world that has ostracized them and is actively burning down.

My team is losing, battered and bruising / I see the high fives between the bad guys / Leave with my head hung, you are the only one / Who seems to care The second verse is pretty impressive to me from a lyrical standpoint. We can see the team as a high school’s home team or a political party, but either way they’re being fought against and beaten down. The opposition is fierce and cruel, the ‘bad guys’ who revel in their victory of cruelty. The narrator abandons this with a miserable look and her lover is the only one there to comfort her.

American stories burning before me / I'm feeling helpless, the damsels are depressed / Boys will be boys then, where are the wise men? / Darling, I'm scared The typical idea of America—good guys always win, a bootstraps / American dream narrative—is crashing before a narrator who’s held such a strong belief in it. Without the system, she doesn’t know what to do with herself, and sees this reflected in the people around her. The ‘damsels are depressed’ is a typical idea of the role women are meant to play changed by the mental health crisis. (I am extrapolating heavily, folks.)

‘Boys will be boys’ is a play on locker room talk, the culture of misogyny and assault that plagues America beneath the veneer of glory, and Swift follows by writing ‘where are the wise men;’ a biblical allusion to the idea of singular people that can remedy the faults in the system. She finally reverts back to the lover to share her fear.

No cameras catch my muffled cries / I counted days, I counted miles / To see you there, to see you there / And now the storm is coming, but We look again at the idea of public perception, a private love that outlasts the outcry in a similar way to Swift’s own ‘reputation.’ She discusses hiding from the ever-present storm (whether it be a debilitating political condition or a flurry of gossip within a high school) and holding onto that lover as a remedy for outward pain.

[Repeat of the chorus as above.]

And I don't want you to (Go) / I don't really wanna (Fight) / 'Cause nobody's gonna (Win), I think you should come home [repeated] And I'll never let you (Go) 'cause I know this is a (Fight) / That someday we're gonna (Win) This repetitive bridge, a play on a traditional cheerleader chant, highlights and contrasts the two settings in this song for a final time. The narrator displays brief hatred, reconciled to the idea of no change, and unwilling to lose her lover. Soon after (in the typical fashion of young, passionate people), there is a minute belief in the idea that the battle (against another school or political party) can be won, that it is worth sticking your neck out for, and that the narrator becomes willing to sacrifice their lover for.

It’s in this vein that the song ends with the ‘she’s a bad, bad girl’ line repeated; now symbolizing the willingness of the narrator to sacrifice themselves and their lover for a victory they fervently believe in. This 180, incidentally, is what makes the song less convincing for me—the desperation for escape turning to a preparation to be villainized—but I hope this analysis was interesting and helped you form some of your own conclusions.

#anon #asking with you #taylor swift analysis

8 notes · View notes

militant-holy-knight · 4 years

Link

American Founder and second U.S. president John Adams once extolled his era. Some called it The Age of Reason. It was a time in which people were beginning to know more about their world than they ever had before. Knowledge was increasing at an exponential rate, and this filled the air with excitement. The Old World – Christendom, led by the Catholic Church – was on its way out. The Enlightenment was well underway to shape the West forever. Adams, a Unitarian, was greatly pleased that men would be able to lead their lives and their own society on the basis of their own conscience.

He then less than halfway joked that, just maybe, something bad might arise from the movement of his day:

“The world grows more enlightened. Knowledge is more equally diffused. Newspapers, magazines, and circulating libraries have made mankind wiser. Titles and distinctions, ranks and orders, parade and ceremony, are all going out of fashion. This is roundly and frequently asserted in the streets, and sometimes on theatres of higher rank. Some truth there is in it; and if the opportunity were temperately improved, to the reformation of abuses, the rectification of errors, and the dissipation of pernicious prejudices, a great advantage it might be. But, on the other hand, false inferences may be drawn from it, which may make mankind wish for the age of dragons, giants, and fairies.”

Indeed, a great many false inferences were drawn from the Enlightenment. This period in history, which shaped America herself, started a downward spiral for the West that appears to have no end. Adams was right. In spite of himself and everything he achieved for the United States, times have definitely grown darker, and the cause for our empire’s downfall can be traced to its own blueprints.

As a result, the people in our day have a great need for escape. Over two centuries later, men find themselves at odds in a hateful world ruled by principalities and powers that are insurmountable. The people have been force-fed “the progress of civilization.” So now there are vast entertainment industries that produce escapist literature, film, music, and games to help people flee from the madness of their overlords. Over the centuries, they’ve carried the label of Romantics, Decadents, Symbolists, Counter-Culturists – they all run from the oppressive boot that shoves them onward to a destiny they didn’t ask for. They seek to escape from forced rationalism into something mystical.

Our Imaginations Must Be Free, Not Trapped

The mind can tolerate a wasteland for only so long. Men require a pilgrimage and retreat. Otherwise, one settles for vice and debasement. Experiencing wonder is necessary for a mature mind. It is not enough to be raised in a plain fashion, learning good moral habits to live by as if it’s all a simple matter of hygiene. Becoming a lawyer for “what’s good and what’s bad” does not securely instill the Faith in children, who, above all, are in the business of make-believe. No, we must leave the districts and subdivisions gerrymandered in our brains. We must fly above the rooftops from our suburban bobo communities. We’ve got to run for our lives into something fresh, new, and perhaps even dangerous:

“At first they had passed through hobbit-lands, a wide respectable country inhabited by decent folk, with good roads, an inn or two, and now and then a dwarf or a farmer ambling by on business. Then they came to lands where people spoke strangely, and sang songs Bilbo had never heard before. Now they had gone on far into the Lone-lands, where there were no people left, no inns, and the roads grew steadily worse. Not far ahead were dreary hills, rising higher and higher, dark with trees. On some of them were old castles with an evil look, as if they had been built by wicked people. Everything seemed gloomy, for the weather that day had taken a nasty turn. Mostly it had been as good as May can be, can be, even in merry tales, but now it was cold and wet. In the Lone-lands they had been obliged to camp when they could, but at least it had been dry.”

–From The Hobbit

Perhaps it is true that people are considered respectable when they “never have adventures or do anything unexpected.” Maybe it is true that the majority of people value someone who never breaks a taboo and can be counted on to be consistent and predictable. And, after all, even Puritan-loving John Adams will tell you that obscure men are hardly ever honored. Conformity and monotony are what the world tells you it wants. But this mode of dry, uninspiring, Dudley-Do-Right, unimaginative thinking is like planting seeds in depleted soil:

“[T]he seminal ideas of Plato, Aristotle, St. Augustine, St. Thomas, only properly grow in an imaginative ground saturated with fables, fairy tales, stories, rhymes, romances, adventures–the thousand good books of Grimm, Andersen, Stevenson, Dickens, Scott, Dumas and the rest. Western tradition, taking all that was the best of the Greco-Roman world into itself, has given us a culture in which the Faith properly grows; and since the conversion of Constantine that culture has become Christian. It is the seedbed of intelligence and will, the ground for all studies in the arts and sciences, including theology, without which they are inhumane and destructive. The brutal athlete and the aesthetic fop suffer vices opposed to the virtues of what Newman called the “gentleman.” Anyone working in any art or science, whether “pure” or “practical,” will discover he has made a quantum leap when he gets even a small amount of cultural ground under him; he will grow like an undernourished plant suddenly fertilized and watered.”

–Ryan Topping, Renewing the Mind

There has been a war against fantasy, a war against wonder. And yet, those who wonder and philosophize are superior to those who despair cluelessly. And only someone who does not know everything has the capability to wonder. Therefore, what better place is there to explore than fantasy? The realm of fantasy is a place accessible to all, and as it is ever changing, we can never hope to know everything about it. The Land of Faerie, as Tolkien called it, transports and uplifts us. It renews us. It waters the soil of our minds, and it serves as a much needed respite from the godless demands of the world.

Fantasy’s Ultimate Effect

John Adams ridiculed imagination. He joked that Shakespeare could have been an electioneering agent. In his view, “superstition, prejudices, passions, fancies, and senses” were weaknesses to be manipulated, preventing you from ever having what he considered liberty. Adams believed that fantastical thinking was forced upon the West in order to control the people. This is all a grievous error. “For God hath chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise; and God hath chosen the weak things of the world to confound the things which are mighty” (1 Corinthians 1:27).

It is the imagination that enables us to survive in today’s wicked world. We have a sense of wonder that rationalists like Adams cannot understand. This sense of wonder is what prepares us for understanding the wider world and what it means. The vast majority of people who fall away from the Faith or refuse to consider it lack wonder. As a result, you have a large portion of people in the West who fall into hedonism. They try to numb their own senses as they struggle to follow the crowd – as though they were swimming among a school of fish.

“Fantasy, horror, and science fiction, apart from allowing an author to comment on things in a way he normally could not in mainstream writing (so much of which is garbage anyway) – it breeds a sense of wonder. And ladies and gentlemen, if you do not have a sense of wonder, you cannot really understand the Catholic faith. You’ll just be ‘Oh well, the bread and wine turn into the body and blood of Christ.’ You may actually believe that, but if you don’t have a sense of wonder?

“Listen, ladies and gentlemen, what is more amazing? The idea that with a wand I could wave, everything would start dancing around the room? Or that Christ Himself comes down onto the altar and becomes bread and wine that we are able to receive into ourselves? Which is more wondrous?

“If I already have a sense of wonder, then I can look at this incredible gift that God has given us. And the fact [is] that every single Mass that has ever been, or ever will be, or is being said at this moment across the globe is one with every other – and with the Crucifixion, and with the Last Supper. That’s astonishing. That’s absolutely amazing. And I have a sense of wonder that prepared me for that – to make it go from a mere set of things I learned in school and home to being a living reality that dominates my life. …

“[U]nless we approach our faith with that wondrous quality, it will grow old and tired. That is not a fault of the Faith. That’s our fault.”

–Charles Coulombe, “Off the Menu,” July 16, 2018

Being good “to be good” is not enough. John Adams thought so, but his Puritanical sensibility was mistaken. Man lives his life on a quest. He is not meant to run from his imagination and all that is mystical. He is meant to explore with awe and curiosity. His heart is meant to be lifted, not shackled.

A strange and exciting land lies before man when it comes to fantasy. We go to that place because it presages the Land Beyond we all hope to emigrate to, Heaven itself. “And Jesus calling unto him a little child, set him in the midst of them, and said: Amen I say to you, unless you be converted, and become as little children, you shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven” (Matthew 18:2-3).

#Christianity #catholic #catholicism #advice

11 notes · View notes

all-things-are-nothing-to-me · 5 years

Text

Towards An Indigenous Egoism

Introduction

I am an Indigenous person of the Oglala Lakota nation. My ancestors are from the Pine Ridge Indian Reservation in western South Dakota. Before then, they were nomadic and travelled freely across the entire area known as the Great Plains. I am also an individualist anarchist and, for better or worse, exist within a radical “community” of other anarchists here in the United States. I have been bombarded with countless write-offs of individualist and egoist thought, calling it capitalist, colonialist, or even white supremacist. I’m writing this particular piece in response to a friend of mine who made the claim that individualism and self-interest are basic tenets of colonization. While this may be true if self-interest is defined by colonial ideology, I will present an individualist and egoist-anarchist thought that is a tool of decolonization and indigenous resistance.

Individualism, Colonialism and Entitlement

What makes individualism and egoism so appealing is the sense of liberty and freedom it offers: the sense that no one else should restrain you from attaining your desires and that you and your desires are important. We are deprived of freedom in every culture and society: we face the coercion to work, to serve the collective, to honour the morality of God and the church, to fear prison and internalize policing, to fulfil social roles, to reproduce the family, to submit to authority, to be a productive contributor to society and humanity. Active pursuit of freedom seems a natural reaction to constraints. European explorers, colonists and settlers were seeking this freedom. They felt entitled to resources and land, which lead to the removal and relocation of Indigenous peoples. They felt entitled to the exploitation of free labour, which lead to the transport and slavery of Africans. It was in their interest to expand the wealth and power of their nation or colony, and disregard the interests of anyone who would be in the way of this. In short, colonization is the acting on behalf of the self-interest of the colonizer.

However, Max Stirner’s definition of what constitutes a voluntary egoist offers a different vision of colonial individualism. A colony is a collective that exists to benefit its mother country with natural resources, labour, spread of nationalist and Christian ideologies and culture, and strategic control of land from which to wage war. Everyone who exists within a colony is then existing to serve their country, whether it be workers to extract resources or in factories maintaining production, armies to fend off rival countries and Indigenous peoples, missionaries to spread religion amongst Indigenous nations, or politicians to maintain the order of the colony’s population. The thirteen colonies realized their lack of freedom from Britain, and initiated the American Revolution, created the Declaration of “Independence,” and the creation of the United States of America. The United States is founded on an illusion of freedom, liberty and individualism. This has always been a central marker of American national ideology. But a delusional mass that continues to serve and submit to various authorities are not voluntary egoists, but rather, in Stirner’s words, involuntary egoists. A patriotic soldier may join the military and fight his country’s enemy in his self-interest, but in doing so, he is submitting to his commanding officer, to the politicians who decided to go to war, to the duty to obey orders, and to his devotion to Country. He is giving up his freedom as an individual and serving a collective: his idea of a “greater good”. He is giving up the ability to become his full Self. The same can be applied to the religious man who serves God in self-interest, to attain salvation and avoid eternal suffering in his imagined Hell. He represses many aspects of himself to conform to his idea, or his church’s idea of God and morality. Every man who fought in the American Revolution and every person who has immigrated to America – for freedom, for individualism, for the American dream – has been chasing individualism, which can never truly be achieved by servitude.

The History of American Colonialism and Indigenous People

Colonial individualism and entitlement were achieved at the expense of Indigenous peoples. In order for these explorers, colonists, and settlers to expand and have access to what would bring them power and wealth, Indigenous people had to be subjugated. In a military sense, this was not an easy task at first, but due to epidemics brought by Europeans, many Indigenous nations were severely weakened or nearly wiped out entirely. This allowed European/American colonizers to gain a military advantage. Forced removal from land followed; any land that held value of any sort was cleared out and exploited by the colonizers, resulting in near extinction of animals and plants that Indigenous people relied on to sustain themselves. Any resistance to removal brought warfare and the individuals who advocated for such things were labelled “savage” and either forcibly civilized or killed. The civilizing was left to missionaries, whereas the killing was the job of the United States and Canadian governments. Both spiritual and cultural traditions and ceremonies were outlawed. Belongings considered to be sacred were taken away and destroyed. Children were removed from families and sent to boarding schools. Their hair, which held tremendous spiritual meaning, was cut off to resemble whites. They were hit and beaten for speaking their traditional languages. They were converted to Christianity. They were educated as the colonizer saw fit, to be suited to living up to Western cultural standards. Everything was done to exterminate Indigenous culture, in the service of colonialism.

Self-Hatred in Modern Day Indigenous Communities

We have survived through a great deal. History has erased us; to most we no longer exist. We are still very much alive, but modern day reservation life is no treat. Colonization’s effects still haunt us as a people, often taking subtle forms. Alcoholism, addiction, domestic abuse, economic deprivation, poverty, diabetes and suicide are at high rates on reservations all across North America. Most of these stem from self-hatred, both individual and collective. Is it a coincidence that many of these issues also plague African-American neighborhoods in major cities across the United States? These are the results of colonization, of removing indigenous peoples from the land that they’ve become accustomed to living with, of forcing them to assimilate to Western civilized cultural standards and a capitalist market economy.

The Colonizer in Our Heads

Aside from the self-hatred I see in fellow Native people, I also witness assimilation and a sense of identification with the colonizer. The remnants of our communities are now run by tribal governments, tribal police, and tribal courts pushing reform and imitating the way that the colonizer runs things in his world. Our youth are encouraged to go to college, get careers, and be successful; or join the army to fight in the United States government’s wars to enforce colonialism in other parts of the world. I frequently attend, dance, and sing at powwows across North America, and see crosses and Nike symbols on individuals’ dance outfits. It’s unheard of for there not to be an American flag carried in at grand entry, followed by a song to honour all Native and non-Native veterans for “protecting our freedom” and “allowing us the privileges to do what we’re doing today.”

Individualism as a Tenet of Decolonization

It should be evident that when we talk about “self-interest,” we cannot speak of objectivity. What may be in your self-interest could also very well be something that would keep me from something in my self-interest. This makes the blanket statement “self-interest and individualism are a tenet for colonization” a simplistic view of what self-interest is and avoids the question of whose interest it is that we’re talking about. As an Indigenous person who takes a strong stance against assimilation, colonialism, and capitalism, it is certainly not in my interest to maintain those structures.

Individualism is the idea that you and your desires are important. Egoism implies this and also states that one ought to act on behalf of oneself to realize desires. As Indigenous people, what could we use more than self-confidence? We need to know that we as individuals, and as an Indigenous people, matter. For centuries we’ve been beaten down, physically and psychologically. We’ve been oppressed by Power for so long that we’re convinced that we don’t matter, that we’re worthless, that we’re savages: less than human and unfit for society. The psychological effects of colonization have been studied, dissected, and proven to result in both internal and external self-hatred.

Some of us have accepted this; we abuse ourselves and each other. Or we self-medicate to numb ourselves from the pain. Some of us assimilate to be recognized by our oppressors, to feel a sense of self-worth. I for one want to appease to no one. I want to know that I matter to me, not to the society that denies me my desires, keeps me from my freedom: a society responsible for all of the damage done to Indigenous people worldwide. One thing that I do see at powwows all across the continent are bumper stickers and clothing expressing “Native Pride.” This is something that my elders have said since as far back as I can remember. “Be proud of who and what you are.” If we were to take on this pride and understand that we do matter, to us, and start acting in our self-interest, it would mean war against those who stand in our way, who keep us from our freedom.

Egoism Means War On Society

The idea of individualism that the European explorers and colonizers failed to realize was its rejection to duty, devotion and submission. I recognize no authority figure over me, nor do I aspire to any particular ideology. I am not swayed by duty because I owe nothing to anyone. I am devoted to nothing but myself. I subscribe to no civilized standards or set of morals because I recognize no God or religion. No amount of pressure, judgment, or force should cause me to restrain myself from that which I desire. Egoist anarchists have declared war on society, war on civilization. This resistance is in the interest of anyone who desires a life free of submission to a ruling power, to those who dream of a world of freedom, to those who would build community with those who share common interests and affinity: a world of free association, so we can live as we please and experience a fulfilling life. This should apply to no one more than Indigenous peoples. As the Western civilized culture’s standards and values have been forced down our throats, we need to remember who we are. We need to remember the importance of self and our desires.

The rejection of this submission does not come easily. When I say war on society, I mean it. Decolonization can only occur if we confront our enemy: the colonizer. If we don’t, then we’re only perpetuating the colonizer/colonized relationship. We can never expect the oppressors to give up their privileges for the sake of the oppressed. This initiation and confrontation may necessitate violence. “It should be noted that colonialism was imposed through military force. Ultimately, it is the system’s monopoly on the use of violence that enables it to impose its will” (Warrior Magazine).

We have to remember what it means to be a “warrior”. We honor our veterans as Native people, to revive the traditions of honoring our warriors; but a true warrior doesn’t fight for her enemy, and she doesn’t submit to an authority that dominates and subjugates her and her people. A true warrior fights for himself, his family, and his community. Make no mistake: our indigenous ancestors didn’t go down without a fight. We remember the Sioux uprising, where a broken promise of food led to attacks on white settlers and theft of food from settlements. Andrew Myrick, a lead trader who said of the broken promise “if they are hungry, let them eat grass,” was one of the first killed, found days later with his mouth stuffed with grass.

The history of indigenous resistance began the day Columbus and his men landed and continues today in struggles such as the refusal of the Diné to relocate as strip-mines rip apart their lands and generating plants poison the desert air. I think it’s time we stress the importance of Self. I think it’s time we brainstorm new strategies and study the history of Indigenous resistance to formulate new paths toward decolonization and the destruction of civilization.

#extinction rebellion #communism #egoism #anarchy #indigenous #indigenous egosim #indigenous people's day

39 notes · View notes

scifimagpie · 3 years

Text

The Secret of Evil

I’d been sitting on this concept for a while, and then I found myself relaxing on Youtube one night, watching a film reviewer’s analyses — and I was jolted from my comfortable mood and into a flurry of expository frothing.

Possible content warning for talk about cults, general acts of violence, the dark side of humanity, cops, abuse — you get the idea.

Now, I think Ryan Hollinger does a great job of analysing this giving the constraints of his expertise and knowledge. I generally love his channel, and would recommend it. However, the underlying concept of this movie bothered me so greatly that, well — here we are.

youtube

What is evil?

For our purposes, “evil” refers to socially unacceptable, transgressive acts that cause harm to others. Examples include violent acts, sexual assault, murder, theft, fraud, lying — you get it.

Now, as long as humanity has been living in groups, squatting near our little fires, we’ve quarreled and bickered and occasionally wronged or harmed each other — sometimes, more severely than at others. The call to understand both our own dark impulses and bad decisions and to understand those taken by others appears to be pretty universal. Narratives and folkloric tales about evil, good, punishment, and morality appear in every single human civilization and culture, from small subsistence clans and tribes to our modern era.

I have a strong interest in cults, extremist groups, new religious movements, and that kind of thing. I’ve always wondered how “evil” came to be. It was a while before I understood that evil is a verb, not an actual force in the world.

But writers — especially in Hollywood, but in the general creative sphere as well — don’t all have degrees in the human condition. And while that’s fine, what is not fine is the way that evil is portrayed and continues to be portrayed. Not to mention the fact that criminality is often portrayed as “evil,” regardless of whether or not the criminal actions harmed anyone (i.e. an expired license plate vs a speeding ticket vs an assault charge).

Now, fun, lighter-hearted portrayals of evil aren’t really the issue here — I’m talking more about the serious portrayals, where a movie or story is really trying to Say Something. The silly portrayals of things, however, are rooted in the more serious stuff — so let’s talk about what we see as evil.

There’s no such thing as “born evil”

Take a minute with it. If you already know that, and are going, “yeah, duh,” then let me explain the whole “evil” thing in the context of murderers. I’m so tired of these bad, stupid true crime narratives about someone who just “wakes up and does bad things”. They allow us to ignore the massive preponderance of people who a) commit crimes for survival purposes, b) the misunderstandings of how mental health issues and neurodivergence works (i.e. “evil autistic” etcetera), and c) socio-economic factors, not to mention d) the cycle of abuse. That’s not even including e) cultural dehumanization of others caused by privilege — such as with wealth, perceived moral authority, or racist or gender-based ideas, to name but a few.

Let me run through those again with examples. Now, I’m not saying these are actually all “causes of evil,” but they’re various examples of causes of harmful acts, that some people might label — fairly or unfairly — as evil. Some of these groups and people are especially vulnerable to maltreatment, and especially innocent of what they’re accused of, but culturally, we don’t usually act like that’s the case.

a) survival criminality — doing something bad for either good reasons or personal safety. Example: stealing a TV to pay for a child’s school fees; stealing to pay for drugs in the case of an addiction

b) mental health issues and neurodivergence — people who experience impaired empathy and/or struggle to conform to societal cultural norms. Example: an autistic child slapping a caregiver during a meltdown, because they feel angry and/or threatened.

c) socio-economic factors — poverty is often criminalised, and some people — in Canada, that includes Indigenous, Metis, and First Nations people, and Black, African, and Caribbean Canadians in particular — are disproportionately accused of and suspected of crimes. This can lead to being forced into the prison system, loss of opportunities, prejudice, and murder. If you’ve heard the phrase “school to prison pipeline” regarding the way Black people are treated, you’ll know what I’m talking about. (If you don’t, look it up; it’s very important. Also horrifying.) Example: a store manager points at a Black child for acting “suspicious,” assuming the child has stolen a candy bar. (Depending on the portrayal, either the child will be implied to be “evil” or the store owner will be “evil”.)

d) the cycle of abuse. Abuse survivors who don’t deal with their experiences in some way go on to abuse others. Example: a man who is assaulted by his uncle may later go on to assault his daughter’s friend in her teen years. Alternately, an abused child may go on to abuse her spouse in adulthood.

e) cultural dehumanization of others caused by privilege — such as with wealth, perceived moral authority, or racist or gender-based ideas, to name but a few. The trope of the Evil Rich Executive from the 80s is a good example. See also, President of the US #45 for abundant and horrifying examples of dehumanizing and abusing others.

Does evil even exist?

I mean, colloquially, sure. As a primeval force? No. Even companies that profit from true crime content will, with some bashfulness, admit that a significant majority of the “terrifying killers” they love to portray are just severely abused people who’ve ended up lashing out in the worst possible ways. In the exceptionally rare cases where multiple murderers aren’t actually abused in childhood and/or suffering severe adverse effects, there’s often neurological damage involved.

However, as you can see from this brief analysis, it’s pretty clear that evil is more of a verb than a state of being. Someone’s actions can be evil, but defining a person as “evil” assigns a certain kind of evaluation that is both dehumanizing and oddly absolving. I won’t dive into the depths of Christian theology about evil right now — but even in games like Dungeons and Dragons, confronting the question of “evil races” (yikes) has required some updates and changes. And frankly, that’s a good thing.

How do we write about bad things and evil, then?

Don’t take this essay as the vituperative howling of an inveterate killjoy. Rather, it’s a plea for authors to realise that the old stories we’ve been telling are not only dusty and boring from overuse, they’re deeply inaccurate. The real world’s cues are so much more interesting and fertile, and trying to tell the same old mortality tales that have already been explored — without adding to them — is both artistically annoying and actually pretty harmful.

All of these things can still make for incredible, nuanced, interesting, gripping stories…but NoOoooooo, Hollywood still loves, “but what if just pure evil?” At this point, the thought experiment side of it is no longer a good argument. It’s become the predominant understanding of how crime, especially murderers, work — and that’s really, really bad.

We learn about the world from the narratives we take in — whether that’s pursuing true crime tales late into the night or listening to harrowing tales of social justice and fights against societal forces, or even just watching a fun, dumb horror movie. Luckily, there’s a lot of wonderful work that’s been coming out that does take these nuanced, complicated stories into account — to list some podcasts I love, How We Roll, Dungeons and Randomness, Campaign: Skyjacks, The Adventure Zone, and Critical Role all tend to feature plenty of nuance in the “evil” characters, as well as in the “good” ones.

So ask yourself — who are the heroes in this tale, and in the world? Who do you instinctively take the side of when you see a real-world conflict? Although we all pride ourselves on being able to tell the differences between facts and fiction, our construction of the world comes from stories — and that means we have to be honest about who we label “the bad guys,” and why.

***

Michelle Browne is a sci fi/fantasy writer and editor. She lives in Lethbridge, AB with her partner-in-crime and their cats. Her days revolve around freelance editing, knitting, jewelry, and learning too much. She is currently working on other people’s manuscripts, the next books in her series, and drinking as much tea as humanly possible.

#evil #writing #how to #morality #sociology #psychology #true crime #commentary #podcasts #editing #narrative

0 notes

fiteyes · 3 years

Photo

Doing Things Slowly in a Fast World The entire following blog post was initially written as a private email to a friend of mine. I decided to share it here. I grew up doing fast things in a fast way. I raced motorcycles -- and I have always loved anything fast. But I also tried to accomplish the maximum possible number of things each day and I always pushed myself to do things quicker or more efficiently. Then I developed glaucoma. As I have gotten to know myself more intimately (thanks in part to self-tonometry) I have realized that I actually like to take my time. I enjoy doing things in a non-rushed manner. You could even say that I enjoy being slow! (Something I never would have admitted to myself in my days of racing, even in my most private thoughts.) Even today, I still have great admiration for people who do things quickly, as if this is an inherently superior way of being. But I now know that I like to take my time doing things. I still enjoy efficiency. But sometimes it is more efficient to delay the next project's start and finish what was started rather than have to terminate it due to an artificial deadline and then pick it up again at a later time. I like going deep into things (whether discussions, research, or building software) and having the time to do it well. And I have found that sometimes I even enjoy doing something in a completely inefficient manner (saying that still sounds sacrilegious). Sometimes I enjoy just plain being slow! (What have I just said! My gosh!) Actually, slowness is a Kapha tendency. Honoring one's tendencies -- without letting them become imbalanced -- seems to be a valid strategy for healing. Exercise is good for Kapha people in part because it gets us going, prevents us from stagnating and getting taken over by inertia. However, keeping Kapha balanced is a much different thing from trying to deny one's Kapha tendencies and act like a vata or pitta person. When I realized these things about myself, I stopped trying to consult with clients for at least 8 hours per day, for example. I started leaving big gaps between my appointments. This cut way back on my stress and dramatically increased my enjoyment. I think this decision and other related decisions are important to my strategy of protecting my vision. This decision has certainly been a benefit to my overall health and happiness. I think one of the worst things I did was deny my desire to take my time. For most of my life, I forced myself to operate in jobs and in situations that demanded doing things as fast as https://bit.ly/2ZfvdV3 wife is the opposite of me in this regard. She does not like to spend much time on any one thing. She doesn't care about understanding something in detail, and it is virtually impossible for her to do deep research. But it also makes her an ideal fit for many modern workplaces. Bosses see her as someone who gets things done. Indeed, I also greatly admire this quality of hers. (And few bosses really care about doing things any better than she does them anyway, but now I'm getting off-topic.) However, it is clear to both my wife and I that her (lack of depth + quickness) and my (depth + slowness) are complimentary. Neither is inherently better than the other, but modern society tries to force everyone into the mode my wife operates in. Even in areas where depth has traditionally been the most valued trait, CEO's have (for example) compelled employees to follow a model that emphasizes speed above all else, right?A person who doesn't fit well in a corporate culture that demands we do as much as possible as fast as possible, will, at some point, have to face a hard truth. The lack of congruence here is almost guaranteed to result in the development of the disease. Often people never make the connection between dis-ease and disease, but my experience tells me that the correlation is nearly 1.0. [EDIT: a correlation of 1.0 means loosely that the relationship is nearly 100% aligned.) I had to accept the fact that leaving time between clients (so that, if an occasional Thursday session needs to run longer, for example, I can go with that and enjoy it) would reduce my potential and actual income. In the beginning, my old ideas about being productive, successful, etc. dominated the messages from my own body. I endured dis-ease. Eventually, I did listen to my body -- but my first reaction was that I wanted to quit consulting and go back to my previous job. Eventually, I just learned to really listen, to pay attention to what was right in front of me. When I gave up my concepts about "success" I found that I could easily do this consulting and be comfortable. But at the time it was a difficult decision. Choosing to be "less successful" goes against everything society wants us to do/be. Society rewards/honors those who destroy their health to achieve some material gains, right? As Eckhart Tolle points out, when we are on our death beds, we may finally see the folly of this way of living. Tim Ferris calls it the deferred life plan. One can learn mental discipline and psychological techniques for dealing with stress in the workplace. But when one is in a job that is against one's nature, it makes mastering the other eminent psychological skills we've discussed seem trivial. I do not feel that simply adjusting, as challenging as that would be, is sufficient to let me accomplish my goals of protecting my vision and improving my vision. I need to be in a situation where I feel totally right all the time. Where I live with comfort (the total opposite of dis-ease) in my physiology 24 hours a day. No matter what worldly success may be achieved by conforming to society's ideals of success if doing so is against one's nature and takes one out of one's comfort zone, real success and real happiness will never ever be achieved. Nothing but misery, disease, and suffering will come from that strategy. The beauty of self-tonometry is that we can quantify and test these ideas. In my case, I see a near-perfect long term correlation between dis-ease in my body and elevated intraocular pressure. As a postscript, I would like to add that even after I made this decision to honor my enjoyment of working more slowly, I still retained a tendency to want to do things fast and to do more in less time. For example, I have the habit of walking in the evenings. It is good for my eyes. Until more recently, I tried to walk fast. I felt like I needed to get the benefits of physical exercise (even though I was walking primarily for my mind and my eyes). That immediately led to the idea that the more miles I walked in my given hour of time, the better I was doing. Soon I discovered that my walks did not always lower my IOP. Eventually, I tried the idea of walking slowly. (Slowly I started applying the concept of being true to myself to all areas of my life.) At first, walking slowly was actually psychologically painful. I felt that I was wasting my time. Eventually, I learned to let myself do it and I found that I could consistently produce lower IOP by walking slower. My best walking is when I turn off my thinking brain and just walk as slow and as relaxed as I feel like walking. When I give up on the idea of making it into a productive exercise, I get a much lower IOP. Moral of the story: slower is better. ;) Want to learn more? JOIN THE COMMUNITY! https://bit.ly/3ag4Q7L

1 note · View note

thatawkwardequestrian · 4 years

Text

Memory Genius Learning Series - Why is Education Important?

The Memory Genius Leader seeks out every chance to equip everyone in the family, school, and organization with the identical unity of idea that the leader owns in their position as the philosopher. The chief is a model of lifelong learning; additionally, the chief encourages and equips everyone in the organization to grow in knowledge, wisdom, and ability. The function of the Memory Genius leader is as a learning leader and a teacher.

The word education comes from a French origin that means to lead from ignorance. Memory Genius Leaders lead from a stage of knowledge-their personal and professional logos; and they direct the business to knowledge-knowledge of their logos, knowledge of their vision, knowledge of the best business practices, and knowledge of the most effective ways to build relationships of trust and respect in communities and homes.

We can't, shouldn't operate in ignorance. As humans, we need knowledge to grow in all six areas of human development: psychological, physical, religious, social, financial, and psychological. As a society, we have to acquire knowledge for human improvement. And as an organization, it's impossible to create our vision become a reality without the appropriate education of all people within that organization. Throughout the early 1990s, a phrase that became popular in books and articles on leadership was"the Learning Organization." The concept emphasized the importance of continuous, continual learning. If individuals and organizations aren't learning, they're dying. James Belasco and Jerre Stead wrote a nice leadership guide, titled Soaring with the Phoenix. They asserted:

Knowledge has always been the differentiators. Hannibal's knowledge of the Alps allowed him to defeat a superior Roman force. American creativity enabled us to defeat a much superior German force in North Africa during World War II. Superior knowledge inevitably wins.

Richard Teerlink, President and CEO of Harley Davidson, insists that"People are the sole long-term competitive edge and lifelong learning is how to fully develop that benefit." With access to new information and new business plans advancing at micro-processed speed, those organizations that expect to survive in the new century must participate in a continuous process which promotes the development of new approaches to learn faster and work smarter than the competition. Champions of Change must enhance their thinking before they'll have the ability to enhance their performance.

Why is education important?

Terrific Memory Engineers leaders engage the hearts and minds of everybody with ennobling beliefs and enduring worth. Additionally, Memory Genius Leaders engage their Purpose Partners' (students/employees/associates) hands with skills that equip them to perform at maximum efficiency.

I once heard a story about a guy walking through a cemetery whose focus was seized by this epitaph:"Died when he was thirty; buried when he was sixty-five." The passerby stopped, puzzled. Peering down at the tombstone, he discovered the excuse engraved at the base of the rock:"He ceased learning when he was thirty."

There are a great many people which could be represented by these doleful words. Everybody dies when they quit studying, even though they may not close their doors for several more years. In the event that you were to ask the president of a failing firm once the business died, an honest and perceptive leader could respond,"We died about twenty years back, when we ceased reading, stopped studying, stopped listening to our clients and our Purpose Partners®, and when we stopped coaching. We expired when we thought that we'd arrived at the peak of the heap and had nothing more to learn."

The lifeblood of every person and every organization is the passion and joy that's aroused by the discovery and wonder of learning. Memory Genius Leaders understand this; they're insatiable models of lifelong learning and vigorous proponents of continuing education. They abandon books and periodicals from the waiting areas of the businesses, in break rooms, and on people's desks. These learning leaders earnestly feel that one of the main components of their organization's compensation package is education, and they make every attempt to make certain that these"benefits" are unmatched by their competitors. The business is growing and breathing and carrying in intellectual nourishment. The organization is so alive with the culture of lifelong learning that if you should cut it with a knife, it would bleed knowledge!

Far too many people have lost touch with all the miracle and the experience of learning. Young kids are inexhaustible question-boxes. They're bright-eyed and curious, always inquiring, researching, and learning. Why would we adults need to"grow" from that? We seem to believe it's a sign of elegance to appear incurious, like we know all the answers to everything. The reduction of intellectual curiosity is a sign of regression, not of health. It's a sign of immaturity, because we've become so prideful that we would like to impress everybody with what we know-or, worse yet, to seem like we know when we really do not-instead of learning to be silent and respect others by listening to what they need to say.

Education in 50 Years: A Futurist's Perspective

Education is an important tool that's used in the modern world to be successful. The word education means 'to bring up'. Education provides the fundamental knowledge which makes a human a human. Since the beginning of human history people have been studying and teaching. People previously struggled very much to acquire education. Education has progressed from this moment. In the current time just educated people can get success in the world. Without education success is impossible.

Education helps somebody to live a respectful life. Educated people are more useful in the progress of a nation. It's playing an essential part in the social and economic prosperity. Career wise, education is the basis of creating people by providing knowledge regarding humanity all around the world. Individuals in the society develop new approaches in life that assemble opinions on the economic and social life. Education enables the society to interpret the world around them professionally, innovating to new methods and means that conform to their environment.

In spite of the ways of getting education in the past, now a day's obtaining education is simple. New technologies, books and several other items have made it effortless to get education.

According to my standpoint education in the future will be much advanced compared to present and past. With the progress of science and technology education in the future will probably be quite wonder complete. The internet is playing an essential part in getting education and it's going to be of great help later on. Smartphones, tablets, laptops, computers and everything now that's helping in acquiring education will be significantly more upgraded. At the next 50 years we'll have the ability to open any book while sitting at home with only a gesture of hands. Rather than LCDs or screens everything is going to be projected in front of us with the support of holographic technology. The children's of 1-3 years old which are unable to go to college will learn many new things with this technology in the home.

Like there are always two faces of a film, one is glowing while other is dark in exactly the same way there are just two ways the education in next fifty years can proceed. Education at the next fifty years may turn out to be rather simple because everything will be in a student's reach when sitting at home. There'll not be any need to carry large and heavy bags to school and schools. And due to the progress in science and technology all of the classes and lectures will be given online. However there may arise many issues for this reason. Students will become very lazy and inactive and several problems will surround them because of their inactivity. They'll get everything when sitting at home that will distort their health.

The education in next 50 years might become somewhat difficult for students because new ideas and discovery's are being made and students have to study everything at a very little age therefore that it will become a burden on them to understand everything but it is going to be helpful for them since for getting whatever you need to eliminate something. In the entire world, there are lots of countries which include developing and developed nations. The education system after 50 years will differ in both. It'll be really good in developed countries but in developing countries it won't be that much progress because the countries are far back in the business of science and technology. The following fifty years system of education in school, colleges and universities will undoubtedly be changed. Studies will become very straightforward. Science and technology will play an significant role in future education but it won't reduce the significance of teacher. A teacher is the most important guide in the full life of a pupil. He guides them and makes them well disciplined and educated and in the future also instructor will play an significant part in the livelihood construction of a pupil. Even if the students are going to have the ability to acquire knowledge from progress resources like internet, nevertheless they will require a teacher. Teachers will instruct them in college, colleges and universities in a suitable way. The use of a teacher in the life a pupil can not be neglected.

A teacher is also regarded as a"spiritual father" of a student. A student can learn all of the knowledge of the world but he can not understand it without the assistance of a teacher. Without a teacher, students will get distracted and become involved in different activities. They'll become way less and their curiosity for hunting education will perish. The advance technology will also help instructor to communicate his teachings in a much better approach to the students. There's a gold saying:-

"Get knowledge from a child's cradle till tomb"

Function of a teacher in the life span of a pupil in another fifty years will remain the same as it is currently present. As education produces a student well-mannered and well-disciplined so a pupil of future are also well mannered and disciplined. He'll respect his elders and his or her teachers. He'll follow the ideal path.

In next fifty years the life of a student will also be shifted entirely. Now each day, pupils have a very challenging routine. They go to school in the morning, from college to tuition and have to study at home. Their entire day is spent in this routine and they do not have time for themselves. In future the students won't have to do that much hard work as it's bad for their health and education method to bring up to not bring down. In current days the illiteracy rate is quite high. Many children in most countries of the world don't go to college but in future this could be changed and each kid will get education because acquiring education is the right of each one. System of education in the next fifty years are also improved as compared to now.

In summary, whatever the configuration of an education of prospective may be technology will play an significant role in it. With technology teachers will also play an essential role in teaching the students. If all teachers are well educated then they'll play a better role and with the coordination of a teacher and new technology the pupils of future is going to be the very best and they'll take their state or nation to the peaks of advancement.

#education #education important #learning #education system

0 notes

feathersandblue · 7 years

Text

hansbekhart

reblogged your post and added:

I’d rather discuss what you think of my argument.

Then I hope you don’t mind me putting this in an extra post, as the original thread is getting quite long.

I’m copying/posting your last reply here:

I don’t think it’s a contradiction though. I think it’s a miscommunication, stemming mostly from privilege. The disconnect in this argument is over what, exactly, is problematic.

Fandom has always imagined itself as a place of progressive values - a place where (predominately) women can explore their own sexuality and recreate community in a way that isn’t hostile to them, as a lot of the real world is. But this world we’ve created still has all of the prejudices that each member was brought up with - there’s no way that it couldn’t, firstly because many of our prejudices are invisible to us, and secondly because a lot of fandom works were created specifically to remix that already-existing culture: fan fiction is a mirror that we bend to find stories that include ourselves.

I think that the expression “fandom has always imagined itself” is a bit of a generalisation that does not hold up to close scrutiny: fandom is extremely diverse, and I don’t necessarily think that everyone who participates in it - or even the majority of people who participate in it - frame their contribution in these terms, or see it in that light.

So while such a narrative exists, especially when it comes to the defense and representation of fandom in media, I wouldn’t agree that this idea of “progressiveness” is at the center of fandom for a majority of fans - at least not for those who never engage on a meta level. People often politicize fandom, but I’d argue that fandom, as such, is personal rather than political.

I absolutely agree wtih you that fandom content reflects our perception of the world, and all of our biases. But for me, that’s pretty much a given, and I’d like to add that the same applies to every kind of art and literature: whether we try to avoid it or not, everthing that we create is a reflection of our environment (geographical, historical, political), our personality, our prejudices and biases, our personal issues.

And since it’s squeezed through what could arguably be called a feminist lens (because it positions female sexuality and self-exploration at its center), we fool ourselves into thinking that all the bad stuff - the parts of the world we were so alienated by that we were compelled to fix them - all that ugliness, we think it all gets left on the other side of the glass.

I don’t think that is the case, actually. At least I can’t confirm that from my own perspective and experiences. Very few people that I’ve spoken to - very few people who I argue with - would claim that fanworks are necessarily “better” or “less problematic” than the sources they derive from. Such a statment, I think, would be difficult to uphold when one takes a closer look at the average fanwork, the 90% between “My Immortal” and your Personal Favorite.

I think that there might be a bit of confusion - or disagreement - about the nature and purpose of fanworks. In my understanding, fanworks are a form of wish-fulfillment and self-empowerment for those who create it. Fanworks can be progressive, sure, and they can be political, but I see that as side effect rather than a primary purpose. First and foremost, fanworks are hedonistic. They are the self-expression of individuals, the purely self-indulgent outlet for personal creativity.

Of course, I have no idea what goes on in the mind of any given fan creator or writer. But speaking from my own perspective, when I write fanfiction, I write things for my own, personal enjoyment, for my own, personal amusement, or, if I wanted to be flippant: Because I can. Nothing inherently progressive about that.

I’m saying “we” not just as a fan, but as a demographically representative one. Fandom is majority straight, white, and female - I’m two of those things, and can pass for the third. The reason I called this the White Feminism of discourse is because that’s where I think it comes from: a centering of a certain sort of narrative and victimhood to the exclusion of all others. Not necessarily out of maliciousness, but because a large proportion of fans don’t see the persistently racist problems in fandom - because it doesn’t affect them. Because they’ve never experienced racism personally, and are blind to the way they (we) perpetuate the microaggressions or outright racism that literally every fan of color has experienced in fandom. It’s a language we can’t hear unless we really, really listen.

Fandom is mostly white and female, though not necessarily straight, but that’s another matter.

I think we need to make a distinction here, and that’s between fandom as a space for individuals, and the idea of fandom as it is currently presented in media by pro-fandom voices, which indeed often paints fandom as a beacon of progressiveness and female empowerment.

When it comes to the individual fan and their contribution to fandom ... I hate to say it, but there is no reason why any given fan should priotitize anything but their own, selfish enjoyment. I’m not in fandom to contribute to the joy and happiness of other people. I’m here for my own.

Creating art of fiction is always a selfish act. No writer writes something they don’t want to write (unless they’re paid for it, or course), no artist paints something that they don’t want to paint. That’s how we create: it’s our personal, self-indulgent vision that we turn into something that other people might enjoy. Or not enjoy, whatever the case may be.

The argument that I often hear is “if your personal enjoyment comes at the price of other people’s hurt feelings, it’s oppressive and immoral”, but that only applies when I actually force people to consume the product of my imagination. But as long as they have the freedom of choice, why should their feelings take precedence over mine?

Especially, and I feel that this is an important point that doesn’t get stressed often enough, when I don’t even know who these people are? We’re on the internet. I have no idea whether the person I’m dealing with is actually who they claim to be. I have no idea what their life looks like. I have no idea whether they were actually “triggered” by something (I’m using quotation marks because the way the word is used here on tumblr, it can mean anything, from mild annoyance to great anxiety) or are just striving strive for power and control.

I can totally get where the people who write this sort of positivity posts about fandom are coming from, and I can get why it seems like these are attacks out of left field. But when you (and not meaning you specifically, OP - all of us) claim essentially that all media/fandom is good, and all ways of consuming media/fan fiction are good, that ignores the way that media/fandom continues to be a really hostile and ugly place for a lot of people. You may mean, “There is no bad way to explore your sexuality,” but it can sound like you really mean “Even if it includes explicit, unqualified racism.”

But who says that media/fandom has to be “good”? Who made that rule when I wasn’t looking? When I “joined” fandom, I never agreed to limit my own, personal enjoyment to what minorities find acceptable. And while I get that some people think they’re entitled to that - that it should be my goal as a “decent person” to make them feel included, safe, welcome, and cared for - that’s not what I’m here for.

You may find this a controversial statement, but actually, it shouldn’t be controversial at all. I get that some people would like me to sign a metaphorical contract, with the fine print written in their favor, but the truth is that such a contract does not exist within fandom.

No other person has the actual authority to tell me that my own enjoyment should not be my sole and ultimate goal. People might think they have the moral authority to tell me that, but there is no reason why I should have to accept that.

Why should I let other people dictate what my contribution to fandom should look like? Or, what’s more to the point, why should I let a bunch of strangers with funny urls do that, who willingly choose to engage with the content that I post on my blog or to my AO3 account?

ESPECIALLY because, when confronted with that exact challenge, a lot of people double down on that and admit that yeah, the racism doesn’t really bother them. Which is what’s happening here.

It’s not a contradiction, but an unwillingness to confront an ugly truth about fandom because it doesn’t personally affect you. Fandom has a huge problem with racism, and pointing that out is not an act of The Morality Police.

Well, I’m one of these people. Though I think it’s fair to say that while racism does, in fact, bother me, my understanding of racism does not conform with the US American definition, and I’m not inclined to re-frame my worldview according to US American sociological theories just because fan culture happens to be dominated by US Americans.

It’s not only racism, though, is it? It’s “abuse” and “homophobia” and “transphobia” and “ableism” and “misogyny” and so on, and I can tell you that most of what I’ve written and published would raise the hackles of one minority or another, if they came looking.

Or rather, raise the hackles of some individuals, which is another issue: very rarely, in my experience, has there been an agreement within a minority group on whether something was actually “harmful” or “offensive”. So, when I’m faced with a couple of people who come to my inbox, often in a very hostile manner, to tell me that something is offensive to people of color, or Jewish people, or trans people, or disabled people, and so on, they might be making a lot of noise, but I have no real means to say whether they are actually representative of the minority they claim to speak for.

In reality, it might look a little like this: My piece of dark fic, which was clearly labeled as such, got twohundred hits. Ten people left kudos, one left a positive but trivial comment, and now suddenly three people, one after the other, leave their comments in quick succession, neiher politely worded nor inviting a discussion, informing me that this piece of fiction is problematic and needs to disappear. Because they say so.

That’s the point where I have to ask myself: if I give in to that kind of intimidation and pressure, am I doing it because these people are in the right, or because I’m afraid? Am I willing to follow their moral code, which apparently includes dogpiling, intimidation, and name-calling, or do I trust my own?

Meanwhile, the people in my comment section are in all likelihood not willing to take my opinion into account. Any attempt on my side to justify myself just leads to statements like “check your privilege”, “you’re a nazi apologist”, “white (cis, straight, abled) people don’t get a say in this”. Disagreement is not an option. They’ve decided that my content problematic, that I am problematic, and that’s that.

I’ve seen this play out in a variety of instances, and quite honestly, I think it’s very important that people don’t give in to that kind of bullying.

Finally, let me just add, for good measure: I think you’re right in one point, and that is that we might want to stop pretending that fandom is all about progressiveness, when progressiveness is mostly accidental, and yes, we can absolutely point out that fandom content reflects the preferences of those who contribute to it. If that’s mostly white women, the content will reflect that, as we’ve basically agreed above.

On the other hand, if everyone keeps making the kind of content that they want to see, instead of bemoaning that others don’t make it for them, fandom will continue to change.

Just don’t expect fans to go to great length to make fandom a better place for others if that’s not what they signed up for.

#hansbekhart

115 notes · View notes

ultralifehackerguru-blog · 6 years

Photo

New Post has been published on http://www.lifehacker.guru/what-i-learned-when-i-quit-numbing-my-feelings/

What I Learned When I Quit Numbing My Feelings

I took the month of August to camp and hike and travel alone in Ireland. Part of my intention was to quit smoking weed, which I’ve previously written about as being my go-to strategy for connecting to the sacred, for accessing presence and immanence.

To be clear, I pass zero judgment on anyone who chooses to smoke weed. I’ve mostly used weed in beautiful, supportive ways that expanded my sense of connection with the natural world, and lots of folks can use it without any downsides. That’s just not my experience.

As part of my weed-retirement process in Ireland, I took lots of pictures, enacted rituals to talk to the spirit of the plant, and communed with the elemental forces of magic that I’ve been relying on weed to access since I was 15.

Ultimately, in quitting weed, I discovered that I’ve spent almost 40 years convincing myself, in one way or another, that what I’m feeling in a particular moment is wrong and that I should feel another way.

What I’ve realized is that if I allow myself to really honor what I want in each moment, much of my need for weed seems to dissolve. The desire for it is gone as long as I’m doing other things to access the magic and sense of connection with the natural world that I crave.

So, really, quitting weed wasn’t hard while I was in Ireland. I had moments of anxiety and uncertainty, but I was traveling alone with no itinerary. I was empowered to choose what my body and spirit really wanted in each moment. Since I returned home, however, I’ve been thinking about weed approximately every 23 seconds.

I’ve spent a lifetime policing my emotional landscape, pushing away certain feelings because they aren’t comfortable.

In the past, I’ve mostly used weed to help me tune into a particular frequency of reality where there is no separate self, which I’ve written about in other articles. What I didn’t realize is that I’ve also sometimes used weed to push through the (perfectly reasonable) resistance I feel in certain moments.

Essentially, I smoked weed to force myself to do shit I didn’t actually want to do; to push myself to do things I ultimately wanted to do, but at the wrong times; and—the most insidious—I smoked weed to not feel certain types of feelings that I deemed unsavory. I used it as a way to resist whatever challenging emotional experience I was feeling.

The fact that I’ve spent a lifetime policing my emotional landscape, pushing away certain feelings because they aren’t comfortable, isn’t a new realization.

I’ve used all kinds of strategies to escape my own inner landscape, whether that be snorting heroin, bingeing on alcohol or ice cream or pizza, swallowing prescription opioids, or taking a prescribed SSRIs and mood stabilizers.

I’ve worked hard to heal and reclaim my capacity to fully honor whatever I’m feeling. But I wasn’t tracking the full truth of just how often I was using weed as a strategy for pushing myself through resistance, whether to force myself to do something I “should” be doing or to get away from a feeling I “shouldn’t” be having.

And it’s not just me. We all have our moments of wanting to escape.

People have written extensively on this idea of a “Great Escape,” this very human, biologically hardwired thing we do, pushing away the mundane, resisting the circumstances of our lives, always looking for an “escape” of some kind.

But these implications that we are “hardwired” for anything can be dangerous, and they only tell part of the story. For me, the idea that we’ve got some biologically hardwired tendency to run away from our lives, to escape the contexts we find ourselves in, is a downer that quickly leads me down a disempowering and reductionist path.

I advocate for a wider lens where, when we talk about human tendencies, we include the deep, empowering ramifications of the latest findings in neurobiology and trauma healing, where our brains are neuroplastic and massive shifts and consciousness evolution are, in fact, possible.

A parallel story to the idea that we’re wired for escapism, and one that is more accurate for me personally is this: We receive varying degrees of obedience training from the time we are born.

Truly, deeply, honoring what is true in each moment — for ourselves and for others — is one of the most radical acts we can take to reclaim our inner authority and well-being.

We are enculturated into hierarchical domination. Our cultural institutions create and reinforce systems of oppression where we have to fight and contort and conform to get closer to the center of power (white, male, able-bodied, straight, etc.) in order to get power for ourselves. We all internalize that thinking (including white able-bodied straight males), and we turn those patterns inward, where we begin a lifetime habit of controlling ourselves, doing shit we don’t want to do, sublimating our own impulses and uniqueness in exchange for external validation, status, belonging, love, and survival.

Who the fuck wouldn’t want to escape that?

I’m a white, able-bodied, educated, upper-middle-class person who works from home and has disposable income and no children to care for. Clearly my decision to “stop doing shit I don’t want to do” is easier than it would be for many people. And yet this realization is helping me quit—and stay quit from—marijuana, and it’s encouraging me to stop and listen when my body is resisting my mind’s idea of what I’m “supposed” to be doing or feeling in a given moment.

The difference in how I approach my thinking now, compared to how I approached it with weed, is startling.

For example, if I’m thinking: “I have to do that annoying newsletter and then build that webpage. Ugh, I just wish someone else would do it. I’m so sick of this job.” Weed would suggest I get high, making the annoying thing bearable. But, really, that resistance is my body telling me it’s time for a new client or a new way of making money that is more meaningful or a reality check on things I’ve agreed to that would be done more joyfully by someone else.

Or how about those moments when I’m thinking, “Ugh—I don’t wanna unpack, reassemble my room after putting everything away for the subletter, do laundry and grocery shopping.” Weed would undoubtedly tell me it would all be more tolerable with a bong hit. But, really, that’s me placating the part of my self-critical, drill-sergeant brain that thinks right now is the only right time to do a particular task. And if I don’t, I’m just lazy as fuck.

Instead of grabbing the bong, I can remind myself there will come a time when I’m going to be excited to set up my room and fill the fridge with food. If that time’s not right now, that’s okay.

Whatever challenging thing is happening in your emotional landscape in each moment, there is a perfectly good reason for it — and feeling it is much faster and more relaxing than resisting it.

As for the big one, the “denying what is true for me in a particular moment and making myself wrong for what I’m feeling,” there’s a better way to handle that too.

If I’m feeling sad and depressed, if I’m lamenting how I should be grateful, and convincing myself what I’m feeling has no reason. I wish this feeling would go away, but the answer probably isn’t to escape by smoking a joint. Instead, I need to remember that no one is “depressed for no reason”—despite what my inner voice thinks.

Finding the source of the feelings and then peeking underneath to see what needs aren’t being met is one of the keys I’ve found to building nervous system resilience, inner calm, acceptance, and wholeness.

Truly, deeply, honoring what is true in each moment—for ourselves and for others—is one of the most radical acts we can take to reclaim our inner authority and well-being.

This is the most revealing thing I’ve learned since quitting my weed addiction (and every other addiction I’ve ever had, for that matter), and this realization holds the key to my own sobriety in the long run: Whatever challenging thing is happening in your emotional landscape in each moment, there is a perfectly good reason for it—and feeling it is much faster and more relaxing than resisting it.

After all, we know now from relational neurobiology that those of us who haven’t internalized a loving, secure, warm, and attuned inner parent can find it virtually impossible to “just be with” our feelings. If people lack a resonating, compassionate self-witness to accompany them in times of emotional intensity, they will likely be flooded, overwhelmed, and then shuttled into whatever their go-to distraction strategy is.

Research has shown the vagus nerve controls our fight/flight/freeze responses in conjunction with the emotional alarm system (the amygdala), and 80 percent of the information flow from that nerve goes upward from the body, not top-down from our prefrontal cortex. Without building fibers between the amygdala and the prefrontal cortex through warm, secure attachment, our body will continue to react until we can internalize the self-soothing capacity of secure attachment that enables us to actually feel and accompany ourselves in our own pain the way a loving parent would.

fMRIs have shown that the nervous system relaxes a bit once we name and acknowledge the feelings we’re feeling. Research also indicates that the nervous system further relaxes once we consistently name and acknowledge unmet needs that are underneath the feeling. Our bodies are trying to tell us through feelings what is important to us. But we have to listen.

Acknowledging feelings and needs won’t necessarily make the uncomfortable feeling go away, but it does free up our nervous system to relax enough to come to a place of balance enough to ground ourselves to decide what to do about it.

(C)

#Health #Quit Numbing #smoking

0 notes

clusterassets · 6 years

Text

New world news from Time: ‘We Now Stand at a Crossroads.’ Here’s What Barack Obama Said During His First Big Speech Since He Left Office

Former President Barack Obama gave his first significant speech since he left the Oval Office on Tuesday, commemorating the 100th anniversary of Nelson Mandela’s birth.

Speaking to a crowd of around 15,000 people at the 16th Nelson Mandela Annual Lecture in Johannesburg, Obama called the South African political leader “one of history’s true giants” and someone whose “progressive, democratic vision” helped shape international policies.

Obama touched on numerous topics ranging from the need to stand up for democracy and believe in facts to the current state of politics, though he never mentioned President Donald Trump by name.

“I am not being alarmist, I’m simply stating the facts,” Obama said. “Look around — strongman politics are ascendant, suddenly, whereby elections and some pretense of democracy are maintained, the form of it, but those in powers seek to undermine every institution or norm that gives democracy meaning.”

“Too much of politics today seems to reject the very concept of objective truth,” Obama said. “People just make stuff up. They just make stuff up.”

Obama also made a reference to Russian interference in the 2016 U.S. election, saying social media “has proved to be just as effective promoting hatred and paranoia and propaganda and conspiracy theories.”

You can read the full transcript of Obama’s speech in South Africa below:

Thank you. To Mama Graça Machel, members of the Mandela family, the Machel family, to President Ramaphosa who you can see is inspiring new hope in this great country – professor, doctor, distinguished guests, to Mama Sisulu and the Sisulu family, to the people of South Africa – it is a singular honor for me to be here with all of you as we gather to celebrate the birth and life of one of history’s true giants.

Let me begin by a correction and a few confessions. The correction is that I am a very good dancer. I just want to be clear about that. Michelle is a little better.

The confessions. Number one, I was not exactly invited to be here. I was ordered in a very nice way to be here by Graça Machel.

Confession number two: I forgot my geography and the fact that right now it’s winter in South Africa. I didn’t bring a coat, and this morning I had to send somebody out to the mall because I am wearing long johns. I was born in Hawaii.

Confession number three: When my staff told me that I was to deliver a lecture, I thought back to the stuffy old professors in bow ties and tweed, and I wondered if this was one more sign of the stage of life that I’m entering, along with gray hair and slightly failing eyesight. I thought about the fact that my daughters think anything I tell them is a lecture. I thought about the American press and how they often got frustrated at my long-winded answers at press conferences, when my responses didn’t conform to two-minute soundbites. But given the strange and uncertain times that we are in – and they are strange, and they are uncertain – with each day’s news cycles bringing more head-spinning and disturbing headlines, I thought maybe it would be useful to step back for a moment and try to get some perspective. So I hope you’ll indulge me, despite the slight chill, as I spend much of this lecture reflecting on where we’ve been, and how we arrived at this present moment, in the hope that it will offer us a roadmap for where we need to go next.

One hundred years ago, Madiba was born in the village of M – oh, see there, I always get that – I got to get my Ms right when I’m in South Africa. Mvezo – I got it. Truthfully, it’s because it’s so cold, my lips stuck. So in his autobiography he describes a happy childhood; he’s looking after cattle, he’s playing with the other boys, eventually attends a school where his teacher gave him the English name Nelson. And as many of you know, he’s quoted saying, ‘Why she bestowed this particular name upon me, I have no idea.’

There was no reason to believe that a young black boy at this time, in this place, could in any way alter history. After all, South Africa was then less than a decade removed from full British control. Already, laws were being codified to implement racial segregation and subjugation, the network of laws that would be known as apartheid. Most of Africa, including my father’s homeland, was under colonial rule. The dominant European powers, having ended a horrific world war just a few months after Madiba’s birth, viewed this continent and its people primarily as spoils in a contest for territory and abundant natural resources and cheap labor. And the inferiority of the black race, an indifference towards black culture and interests and aspirations, was a given.

And such a view of the world – that certain races, certain nations, certain groups were inherently superior, and that violence and coercion is the primary basis for governance, that the strong necessarily exploit the weak, that wealth is determined primarily by conquest – that view of the world was hardly confined to relations between Europe and Africa, or relations between whites and blacks. Whites were happy to exploit other whites when they could. And by the way, blacks were often willing to exploit other blacks. And around the globe, the majority of people lived at subsistence levels, without a say in the politics or economic forces that determined their lives. Often they were subject to the whims and cruelties of distant leaders. The average person saw no possibility of advancing from the circumstances of their birth. Women were almost uniformly subordinate to men. Privilege and status was rigidly bound by caste and color and ethnicity and religion. And even in my own country, even in democracies like the United States, founded on a declaration that all men are created equal, racial segregation and systemic discrimination was the law in almost half the country and the norm throughout the rest of the country.

That was the world just 100 years ago. There are people alive today who were alive in that world. It is hard, then, to overstate the remarkable transformations that have taken place since that time. A second World War, even more terrible than the first, along with a cascade of liberation movements from Africa to Asia, Latin America, the Middle East, would finally bring an end to colonial rule. More and more peoples, having witnessed the horrors of totalitarianism, the repeated mass slaughters of the 20th century, began to embrace a new vision for humanity, a new idea, one based not only on the principle of national self-determination, but also on the principles of democracy and rule of law and civil rights and the inherent dignity of every single individual.

In those nations with market-based economies, suddenly union movements developed; and health and safety and commercial regulations were instituted; and access to public education was expanded; and social welfare systems emerged, all with the aim of constraining the excesses of capitalism and enhancing its ability to provide opportunity not just to some but to all people. And the result was unmatched economic growth and a growth of the middle class. And in my own country, the moral force of the civil rights movement not only overthrew Jim Crow laws but it opened up the floodgates for women and historically marginalized groups to reimagine themselves, to find their own voices, to make their own claims to full citizenship.

It was in service of this long walk towards freedom and justice and equal opportunity that Nelson Mandela devoted his life. At the outset, his struggle was particular to this place, to his homeland – a fight to end apartheid, a fight to ensure lasting political and social and economic equality for its disenfranchised non-white citizens. But through his sacrifice and unwavering leadership and, perhaps most of all, through his moral example, Mandela and the movement he led would come to signify something larger. He came to embody the universal aspirations of dispossessed people all around the world, their hopes for a better life, the possibility of a moral transformation in the conduct of human affairs.

Madiba’s light shone so brightly, even from that narrow Robben Island cell, that in the late ‘70s he could inspire a young college student on the other side of the world to reexamine his own priorities, could make me consider the small role I might play in bending the arc of the world towards justice. And when later, as a law student, I witnessed Madiba emerge from prison, just a few months, you’ll recall, after the fall of the Berlin Wall, I felt the same wave of hope that washed through hearts all around the world.

Do you remember that feeling? It seemed as if the forces of progress were on the march, that they were inexorable. Each step he took, you felt this is the moment when the old structures of violence and repression and ancient hatreds that had so long stunted people’s lives and confined the human spirit – that all that was crumbling before our eyes. And then as Madiba guided this nation through negotiation painstakingly, reconciliation, its first fair and free elections; as we all witnessed the grace and the generosity with which he embraced former enemies, the wisdom for him to step away from power once he felt his job was complete, we understood that – we understood it was not just the subjugated, the oppressed who were being freed from the shackles of the past. The subjugator was being offered a gift, being given a chance to see in a new way, being given a chance to participate in the work of building a better world.

And during the last decades of the 20th century, the progressive, democratic vision that Nelson Mandela represented in many ways set the terms of international political debate. It doesn’t mean that vision was always victorious, but it set the terms, the parameters; it guided how we thought about the meaning of progress, and it continued to propel the world forward. Yes, there were still tragedies – bloody civil wars from the Balkans to the Congo. Despite the fact that ethnic and sectarian strife still flared up with heartbreaking regularity, despite all that as a consequence of the continuation of nuclear détente, and a peaceful and prosperous Japan, and a unified Europe anchored in NATO, and the entry of China into the world’s system of trade – all that greatly reduced the prospect of war between the world’s great powers. And from Europe to Africa, Latin America, Southeast Asia, dictatorships began to give way to democracies. The march was on. A respect for human rights and the rule of law, enumerated in a declaration by the United Nations, became the guiding norm for the majority of nations, even in places where the reality fell far short of the ideal. Even when those human rights were violated, those who violated human rights were on the defensive.

And with these geopolitical changes came sweeping economic changes. The introduction of market-based principles, in which previously closed economies along with the forces of global integration powered by new technologies, suddenly unleashed entrepreneurial talents to those that once had been relegated to the periphery of the world economy, who hadn’t counted. Suddenly they counted. They had some power; they had the possibilities of doing business. And then came scientific breakthroughs and new infrastructure and the reduction of armed conflicts. And suddenly a billion people were lifted out of poverty, and once-starving nations were able to feed themselves, and infant mortality rates plummeted. And meanwhile, the spread of the internet made it possible for people to connect across oceans, and cultures and continents instantly were brought together, and potentially, all the world’s knowledge could be in the hands of a small child in even the most remote village.

That’s what happened just over the course of a few decades. And all that progress is real. It has been broad, and it has been deep, and it all happened in what – by the standards of human history – was nothing more than a blink of an eye. And now an entire generation has grown up in a world that by most measures has gotten steadily freer and healthier and wealthier and less violent and more tolerant during the course of their lifetimes.

It should make us hopeful. But if we cannot deny the very real strides that our world has made since that moment when Madiba took those steps out of confinement, we also have to recognize all the ways that the international order has fallen short of its promise. In fact, it is in part because of the failures of governments and powerful elites to squarely address the shortcomings and contradictions of this international order that we now see much of the world threatening to return to an older, a more dangerous, a more brutal way of doing business.

So we have to start by admitting that whatever laws may have existed on the books, whatever wonderful pronouncements existed in constitutions, whatever nice words were spoken during these last several decades at international conferences or in the halls of the United Nations, the previous structures of privilege and power and injustice and exploitation never completely went away. They were never fully dislodged. Caste differences still impact the life chances of people on the Indian subcontinent. Ethnic and religious differences still determine who gets opportunity from the Central Europe to the Gulf. It is a plain fact that racial discrimination still exists in both the United States and South Africa. And it is also a fact that the accumulated disadvantages of years of institutionalized oppression have created yawning disparities in income, and in wealth, and in education, and in health, in personal safety, in access to credit. Women and girls around the world continue to be blocked from positions of power and authority. They continue to be prevented from getting a basic education. They are disproportionately victimized by violence and abuse. They’re still paid less than men for doing the same work. That’s still happening. Economic opportunity, for all the magnificence of the global economy, all the shining skyscrapers that have transformed the landscape around the world, entire neighborhoods, entire cities, entire regions, entire nations have been bypassed.

In other words, for far too many people, the more things have changed, the more things stayed the same.

And while globalization and technology have opened up new opportunities, have driven remarkable economic growth in previously struggling parts of the world, globalization has also upended the agricultural and manufacturing sectors in many countries. It’s also greatly reduced the demand for certain workers, has helped weaken unions and labor’s bargaining power. It’s made it easier for capital to avoid tax laws and the regulations of nation-states – can just move billions, trillions of dollars with a tap of a computer key.

And the result of all these trends has been an explosion in economic inequality. It’s meant that a few dozen individuals control the same amount of wealth as the poorest half of humanity. That’s not an exaggeration, that’s a statistic. Think about that. In many middle-income and developing countries, new wealth has just tracked the old bad deal that people got because it reinforced or even compounded existing patterns of inequality, the only difference is it created even greater opportunities for corruption on an epic scale. And for once solidly middle-class families in advanced economies like the United States, these trends have meant greater economic insecurity, especially for those who don’t have specialized skills, people who were in manufacturing, people working in factories, people working on farms.

In every country just about, the disproportionate economic clout of those at the top has provided these individuals with wildly disproportionate influence on their countries’ political life and on its media; on what policies are pursued and whose interests end up being ignored. Now, it should be noted that this new international elite, the professional class that supports them, differs in important respects from the ruling aristocracies of old. It includes many who are self-made. It includes champions of meritocracy. And although still mostly white and male, as a group they reflect a diversity of nationalities and ethnicities that would have not existed a hundred years ago. A decent percentage consider themselves liberal in their politics, modern and cosmopolitan in their outlook. Unburdened by parochialism, or nationalism, or overt racial prejudice or strong religious sentiment, they are equally comfortable in New York or London or Shanghai or Nairobi or Buenos Aires, or Johannesburg. Many are sincere and effective in their philanthropy. Some of them count Nelson Mandela among their heroes. Some even supported Barack Obama for the presidency of the United States, and by virtue of my status as a former head of state, some of them consider me as an honorary member of the club. And I get invited to these fancy things, you know? They’ll fly me out.

But what’s nevertheless true is that in their business dealings, many titans of industry and finance are increasingly detached from any single locale or nation-state, and they live lives more and more insulated from the struggles of ordinary people in their countries of origin. And their decisions – their decisions to shut down a manufacturing plant, or to try to minimize their tax bill by shifting profits to a tax haven with the help of high-priced accountants or lawyers, or their decision to take advantage of lower-cost immigrant labor, or their decision to pay a bribe – are often done without malice; it’s just a rational response, they consider, to the demands of their balance sheets and their shareholders and competitive pressures.

But too often, these decisions are also made without reference to notions of human solidarity – or a ground-level understanding of the consequences that will be felt by particular people in particular communities by the decisions that are made. And from their board rooms or retreats, global decision-makers don’t get a chance to see sometimes the pain in the faces of laid-off workers. Their kids don’t suffer when cuts in public education and health care result as a consequence of a reduced tax base because of tax avoidance. They can’t hear the resentment of an older tradesman when he complains that a newcomer doesn’t speak his language on a job site where he once worked. They’re less subject to the discomfort and the displacement that some of their countrymen may feel as globalization scrambles not only existing economic arrangements, but traditional social and religious mores.

Which is why, at the end of the 20th century, while some Western commentators were declaring the end of history and the inevitable triumph of liberal democracy and the virtues of the global supply chain, so many missed signs of a brewing backlash – a backlash that arrived in so many forms. It announced itself most violently with 9/11 and the emergence of transnational terrorist networks, fueled by an ideology that perverted one of the world’s great religions and asserted a struggle not just between Islam and the West but between Islam and modernity, and an ill-advised U.S. invasion of Iraq didn’t help, accelerating a sectarian conflict. Russia, already humiliated by its reduced influence since the collapse of the Soviet Union, feeling threatened by democratic movements along its borders, suddenly started reasserting authoritarian control and in some cases meddling with its neighbors. China, emboldened by its economic success, started bristling against criticism of its human rights record; it framed the promotion of universal values as nothing more than foreign meddling, imperialism under a new name. Within the United States, within the European Union, challenges to globalization first came from the left but then came more forcefully from the right, as you started seeing populist movements – which, by the way, are often cynically funded by right-wing billionaires intent on reducing government constraints on their business interests – these movements tapped the unease that was felt by many people who lived outside of the urban cores; fears that economic security was slipping away, that their social status and privileges were eroding, that their cultural identities were being threatened by outsiders, somebody that didn’t look like them or sound like them or pray as they did.

And perhaps more than anything else, the devastating impact of the 2008 financial crisis, in which the reckless behavior of financial elites resulted in years of hardship for ordinary people all around the world, made all the previous assurances of experts ring hollow – all those assurances that somehow financial regulators knew what they were doing, that somebody was minding the store, that global economic integration was an unadulterated good. Because of the actions taken by governments during and after that crisis, including, I should add, by aggressive steps by my administration, the global economy has now returned to healthy growth. But the credibility of the international system, the faith in experts in places like Washington or Brussels, all that had taken a blow.

And a politics of fear and resentment and retrenchment began to appear, and that kind of politics is now on the move. It’s on the move at a pace that would have seemed unimaginable just a few years ago. I am not being alarmist, I am simply stating the facts. Look around. Strongman politics are ascendant suddenly, whereby elections and some pretense of democracy are maintained – the form of it – but those in power seek to undermine every institution or norm that gives democracy meaning. In the West, you’ve got far-right parties that oftentimes are based not just on platforms of protectionism and closed borders, but also on barely hidden racial nationalism. Many developing countries now are looking at China’s model of authoritarian control combined with mercantilist capitalism as preferable to the messiness of democracy. Who needs free speech as long as the economy is going good? The free press is under attack. Censorship and state control of media is on the rise. Social media – once seen as a mechanism to promote knowledge and understanding and solidarity – has proved to be just as effective promoting hatred and paranoia and propaganda and conspiracy theories.

So on Madiba’s 100th birthday, we now stand at a crossroads – a moment in time at which two very different visions of humanity’s future compete for the hearts and the minds of citizens around the world. Two different stories, two different narratives about who we are and who we should be. How should we respond?

Should we see that wave of hope that we felt with Madiba’s release from prison, from the Berlin Wall coming down – should we see that hope that we had as naïve and misguided? Should we understand the last 25 years of global integration as nothing more than a detour from the previous inevitable cycle of history – where might makes right, and politics is a hostile competition between tribes and races and religions, and nations compete in a zero-sum game, constantly teetering on the edge of conflict until full-blown war breaks out? Is that what we think?

Let me tell you what I believe. I believe in Nelson Mandela’s vision. I believe in a vision shared by Gandhi and King and Abraham Lincoln. I believe in a vision of equality and justice and freedom and multi-racial democracy, built on the premise that all people are created equal, and they’re endowed by our creator with certain inalienable rights. And I believe that a world governed by such principles is possible and that it can achieve more peace and more cooperation in pursuit of a common good. That’s what I believe.

And I believe we have no choice but to move forward; that those of us who believe in democracy and civil rights and a common humanity have a better story to tell. And I believe this not just based on sentiment, I believe it based on hard evidence.

The fact that the world’s most prosperous and successful societies, the ones with the highest living standards and the highest levels of satisfaction among their people, happen to be those which have most closely approximated the liberal, progressive ideal that we talk about and have nurtured the talents and contributions of all their citizens.

The fact that authoritarian governments have been shown time and time again to breed corruption, because they’re not accountable; to repress their people; to lose touch eventually with reality; to engage in bigger and bigger lies that ultimately result in economic and political and cultural and scientific stagnation. Look at history. Look at the facts.

The fact that countries which rely on rabid nationalism and xenophobia and doctrines of tribal, racial or religious superiority as their main organizing principle, the thing that holds people together – eventually those countries find themselves consumed by civil war or external war. Check the history books.

The fact that technology cannot be put back in a bottle, so we’re stuck with the fact that we now live close together and populations are going to be moving, and environmental challenges are not going to go away on their own, so that the only way to effectively address problems like climate change or mass migration or pandemic disease will be to develop systems for more international cooperation, not less.

We have a better story to tell. But to say that our vision for the future is better is not to say that it will inevitably win. Because history also shows the power of fear. History shows the lasting hold of greed and the desire to dominate others in the minds of men. Especially men. History shows how easily people can be convinced to turn on those who look different, or worship God in a different way. So if we’re truly to continue Madiba’s long walk towards freedom, we’re going to have to work harder and we’re going to have to be smarter. We’re going to have to learn from the mistakes of the recent past. And so in the brief time remaining, let me just suggest a few guideposts for the road ahead, guideposts that draw from Madiba’s work, his words, the lessons of his life.

First, Madiba shows those of us who believe in freedom and democracy we are going to have to fight harder to reduce inequality and promote lasting economic opportunity for all people.

Now, I don’t believe in economic determinism. Human beings don’t live on bread alone. But they need bread. And history shows that societies which tolerate vast differences in wealth feed resentments and reduce solidarity and actually grow more slowly; and that once people achieve more than mere subsistence, then they’re measuring their well-being by how they compare to their neighbors, and whether their children can expect to live a better life. And when economic power is concentrated in the hands of the few, history also shows that political power is sure to follow – and that dynamic eats away at democracy. Sometimes it may be straight-out corruption, but sometimes it may not involve the exchange of money; it’s just folks who are that wealthy get what they want, and it undermines human freedom.

And Madiba understood this. This is not new. He warned us about this. He said: “Where globalization means, as it so often does, that the rich and the powerful now have new means to further enrich and empower themselves at the cost of the poorer and the weaker, [then] we have a responsibility to protest in the name of universal freedom.” That’s what he said. So if we are serious about universal freedom today, if we care about social justice today, then we have a responsibility to do something about it. And I would respectfully amend what Madiba said. I don’t do it often, but I’d say it’s not enough for us to protest; we’re going to have to build, we’re going to have to innovate, we’re going to have to figure out how do we close this widening chasm of wealth and opportunity both within countries and between them.

And how we achieve this is going to vary country to country, and I know your new president is committed to rolling up his sleeves and trying to do so. But we can learn from the last 70 years that it will not involve unregulated, unbridled, unethical capitalism. It also won’t involve old-style command-and-control socialism form the top. That was tried; it didn’t work very well. For almost all countries, progress is going to depend on an inclusive market-based system – one that offers education for every child; that protects collective bargaining and secures the rights of every worker – that breaks up monopolies to encourage competition in small and medium-sized businesses; and has laws that root out corruption and ensures fair dealing in business; that maintains some form of progressive taxation so that rich people are still rich but they’re giving a little bit back to make sure that everybody else has something to pay for universal health care and retirement security, and invests in infrastructure and scientific research that builds platforms for innovation.

I should add, by the way, right now I’m actually surprised by how much money I got, and let me tell you something: I don’t have half as much as most of these folks or a tenth or a hundredth. There’s only so much you can eat. There’s only so big a house you can have. There’s only so many nice trips you can take. I mean, it’s enough. You don’t have to take a vow of poverty just to say, “Well, let me help out and let a few of the other folks – let me look at that child out there who doesn’t have enough to eat or needs some school fees, let me help him out. I’ll pay a little more in taxes. It’s okay. I can afford it.” I mean, it shows a poverty of ambition to just want to take more and more and more, instead of saying, “Wow, I’ve got so much. Who can I help? How can I give more and more and more?” That’s ambition. That’s impact. That’s influence. What an amazing gift to be able to help people, not just yourself. Where was I? I ad-libbed. You get the point.

It involves promoting an inclusive capitalism both within nations and between nations. And as we pursue, for example, the Sustainable Development Goals, we have to get past the charity mindset. We’ve got to bring more resources to the forgotten pockets of the world through investment and entrepreneurship, because there is talent everywhere in the world if given an opportunity.

When it comes to the international system of commerce and trade, it’s legitimate for poorer countries to continue to seek access to wealthier markets. And by the way, wealthier markets, that’s not the big problem that you’re having – that a small African country is sending you tea and flowers. That’s not your biggest economic challenge. It’s also proper for advanced economies like the United States to insist on reciprocity from nations like China that are no longer solely poor countries, to make sure that they’re providing access to their markets and that they stop taking intellectual property and hacking our servers.

But even as there are discussions to be had around trade and commerce, it’s important to recognize this reality: while the outsourcing of jobs from north to south, from east to west, while a lot of that was a dominant trend in the late 20th century, the biggest challenge to workers in countries like mine today is technology. And the biggest challenge for your new president when we think about how we’re going to employ more people here is going to be also technology, because artificial intelligence is here and it is accelerating, and you’re going to have driverless cars, and you’re going to have more and more automated services, and that’s going to make the job of giving everybody work that is meaningful tougher, and we’re going to have to be more imaginative, and the pact of change is going to require us to do more fundamental reimagining of our social and political arrangements, to protect the economic security and the dignity that comes with a job. It’s not just money that a job provides; it provides dignity and structure and a sense of place and a sense of purpose. And so we’re going to have to consider new ways of thinking about these problems, like a universal income, review of our workweek, how we retrain our young people, how we make everybody an entrepreneur at some level. But we’re going to have to worry about economics if we want to get democracy back on track.

Second, Madiba teaches us that some principles really are universal – and the most important one is the principle that we are bound together by a common humanity and that each individual has inherent dignity and worth.

Now, it’s surprising that we have to affirm this truth today. More than a quarter century after Madiba walked out of prison, I still have to stand here at a lecture and devote some time to saying that black people and white people and Asian people and Latin American people and women and men and gays and straights, that we are all human, that our differences are superficial, and that we should treat each other with care and respect. I would have thought we would have figured that out by now. I thought that basic notion was well established. But it turns out, as we’re seeing in this recent drift into reactionary politics, that the struggle for basic justice is never truly finished. So we’ve got to constantly be on the lookout and fight for people who seek to elevate themselves by putting somebody else down. And by the way, we also have to actively resist – this is important, particularly in some countries in Africa like my own father’s homeland; I’ve made this point before – we have to resist the notion that basic human rights like freedom to dissent, or the right of women to fully participate in the society, or the right of minorities to equal treatment, or the rights of people not to be beat up and jailed because of their sexual orientation – we have to be careful not to say that somehow, well, that doesn’t apply to us, that those are Western ideas rather than universal imperatives.

Again, Madiba, he anticipated things. He knew what he was talking about. In 1964, before he received the sentence that condemned him to die in prison, he explained from the dock that, “The Magna Carta, the Petition of Rights, the Bill of Rights are documents which are held in veneration by democrats throughout the world.” In other words, he didn’t say well, those books weren’t written by South Africans so I just – I can’t claim them. No, he said that’s part of my inheritance. That’s part of the human inheritance. That applies here in this country, to me, and to you. And that’s part of what gave him the moral authority that the apartheid regime could never claim, because he was more familiar with their best values than they were. He had read their documents more carefully than they had. And he went on to say, “Political division based on color is entirely artificial and, when it disappears, so will the domination of one color group by another.” That’s Nelson Mandela speaking in 1964, when I was three years old.

What was true then remains true today. Basic truths do not change. It is a truth that can be embraced by the English, and by the Indian, and by the Mexican and by the Bantu and by the Luo and by the American. It is a truth that lies at the heart of every world religion – that we should do unto others as we would have them do unto us. That we see ourselves in other people. That we can recognize common hopes and common dreams. And it is a truth that is incompatible with any form of discrimination based on race or religion or gender or sexual orientation. And it is a truth that, by the way, when embraced, actually delivers practical benefits, since it ensures that a society can draw upon the talents and energy and skill of all its people. And if you doubt that, just ask the French football team that just won the World Cup. Because not all of those folks – not all of those folks look like Gauls to me. But they’re French. They’re French.

Embracing our common humanity does not mean that we have to abandon our unique ethnic and national and religious identities. Madiba never stopped being proud of his tribal heritage. He didn’t stop being proud of being a black man and being a South African. But he believed, as I believe, that you can be proud of your heritage without denigrating those of a different heritage. In fact, you dishonor your heritage. It would make me think that you’re a little insecure about your heritage if you’ve got to put somebody else’s heritage down. Yeah, that’s right. Don’t you get a sense sometimes – again, I’m ad-libbing here – that these people who are so intent on putting people down and puffing themselves up that they’re small-hearted, that there’s something they’re just afraid of. Madiba knew that we cannot claim justice for ourselves when it’s only reserved for some. Madiba understood that we can’t say we’ve got a just society simply because we replaced the color of the person on top of an unjust system, so the person looks like us even though they’re doing the same stuff, and somehow now we’ve got justice. That doesn’t work. It’s not justice if now you’re on top, so I’m going to do the same thing that those folks were doing to me and now I’m going to do it to you. That’s not justice. “I detest racialism,” he said, “whether it comes from a black man or a white man.”

Now, we have to acknowledge that there is disorientation that comes from rapid change and modernization, and the fact that the world has shrunk, and we’re going to have to find ways to lessen the fears of those who feel threatened. In the West’s current debate around immigration, for example, it’s not wrong to insist that national borders matter; whether you’re a citizen or not is going to matter to a government, that laws need to be followed; that in the public realm newcomers should make an effort to adapt to the language and customs of their new home. Those are legitimate things and we have to be able to engage people who do feel as if things are not orderly. But that can’t be an excuse for immigration policies based on race, or ethnicity, or religion. There’s got to be some consistency. And we can enforce the law while respecting the essential humanity of those who are striving for a better life. For a mother with a child in her arms, we can recognize that could be somebody in our family, that could be my child.

Third, Madiba reminds us that democracy is about more than just elections.

When he was freed from prison, Madiba’s popularity – well, you couldn’t even measure it. He could have been president for life. Am I wrong? Who was going to run against him? (Laughter.) I mean, Ramaphosa was popular, but come on. Plus he was a young – he was too young. Had he chose, Madiba could have governed by executive fiat, unconstrained by check and balances. But instead he helped guide South Africa through the drafting of a new Constitution, drawing from all the institutional practices and democratic ideals that had proven to be most sturdy, mindful of the fact that no single individual possesses a monopoly on wisdom. No individual – not Mandela, not Obama – are entirely immune to the corrupting influences of absolute power, if you can do whatever you want and everyone’s too afraid to tell you when you’re making a mistake. No one is immune from the dangers of that.

Mandela understood this. He said, “Democracy is based on the majority principle. This is especially true in a country such as ours where the vast majority have been systematically denied their rights. At the same time, democracy also requires the rights of political and other minorities be safeguarded.” He understood it’s not just about who has the most votes. It’s also about the civic culture that we build that makes democracy work.

So we have to stop pretending that countries that just hold an election where sometimes the winner somehow magically gets 90 percent of the vote because all the opposition is locked up – or can’t get on TV, is a democracy. Democracy depends on strong institutions and it’s about minority rights and checks and balances, and freedom of speech and freedom of expression and a free press, and the right to protest and petition the government, and an independent judiciary, and everybody having to follow the law.

And yes, democracy can be messy, and it can be slow, and it can be frustrating. I know, I promise. But the efficiency that’s offered by an autocrat, that’s a false promise. Don’t take that one, because it leads invariably to more consolidation of wealth at the top and power at the top, and it makes it easier to conceal corruption and abuse. For all its imperfections, real democracy best upholds the idea that government exists to serve the individual and not the other way around. And it is the only form of government that has the possibility of making that idea real.

So for those of us who are interested in strengthening democracy, let’s also stop – it’s time for us to stop paying all of our attention to the world’s capitals and the centers of power and to start focusing more on the grassroots, because that’s where democratic legitimacy comes from. Not from the top down, not from abstract theories, not just from experts, but from the bottom up. Knowing the lives of those who are struggling.

As a community organizer, I learned as much from a laid-off steel worker in Chicago or a single mom in a poor neighborhood that I visited as I learned from the finest economists in the Oval Office. Democracy means being in touch and in tune with life as it’s lived in our communities, and that’s what we should expect from our leaders, and it depends upon cultivating leaders at the grassroots who can help bring about change and implement it on the ground and can tell leaders in fancy buildings, this isn’t working down here.

And to make democracy work, Madiba shows us that we also have to keep teaching our children, and ourselves – and this is really hard – to engage with people not only who look different but who hold different views. This is hard.

Most of us prefer to surround ourselves with opinions that validate what we already believe. You notice the people who you think are smart are the people who agree with you. Funny how that works. But democracy demands that we’re able also to get inside the reality of people who are different than us so we can understand their point of view. Maybe we can change their minds, but maybe they’ll change ours. And you can’t do this if you just out of hand disregard what your opponents have to say from the start. And you can’t do it if you insist that those who aren’t like you – because they’re white, or because they’re male – that somehow there’s no way they can understand what I’m feeling, that somehow they lack standing to speak on certain matters.

Madiba, he lived this complexity. In prison, he studied Afrikaans so that he could better understand the people who were jailing him. And when he got out of prison, he extended a hand to those who had jailed him, because he knew that they had to be a part of the democratic South Africa that he wanted to build. “To make peace with an enemy,” he wrote, “one must work with that enemy, and that enemy becomes one’s partner.”

So those who traffic in absolutes when it comes to policy, whether it’s on the left or the right, they make democracy unworkable. You can’t expect to get 100 percent of what you want all the time; sometimes, you have to compromise. That doesn’t mean abandoning your principles, but instead it means holding on to those principles and then having the confidence that they’re going to stand up to a serious democratic debate. That’s how America’s Founders intended our system to work – that through the testing of ideas and the application of reason and proof it would be possible to arrive at a basis for common ground.

And I should add for this to work, we have to actually believe in an objective reality. This is another one of these things that I didn’t have to lecture about. You have to believe in facts. Without facts, there is no basis for cooperation. If I say this is a podium and you say this is an elephant, it’s going to be hard for us to cooperate. I can find common ground for those who oppose the Paris Accords because, for example, they might say, well, it’s not going to work, you can’t get everybody to cooperate, or they might say it’s more important for us to provide cheap energy for the poor, even if it means in the short term that there’s more pollution. At least I can have a debate with them about that and I can show them why I think clean energy is the better path, especially for poor countries, that you can leapfrog old technologies. I can’t find common ground if somebody says climate change is just not happening, when almost all of the world’s scientists tell us it is. I don’t know where to start talking to you about this. If you start saying it’s an elaborate hoax, I don’t know what to – where do we start?

Unfortunately, too much of politics today seems to reject the very concept of objective truth. People just make stuff up. They just make stuff up. We see it in state-sponsored propaganda; we see it in internet driven fabrications, we see it in the blurring of lines between news and entertainment, we see the utter loss of shame among political leaders where they’re caught in a lie and they just double down and they lie some more. Politicians have always lied, but it used to be if you caught them lying they’d be like, “Oh man.” Now they just keep on lying.

By the way, this is what I think Mama Graça was talking about in terms of maybe some sense of humility that Madiba felt, like sometimes just basic stuff, me not completely lying to people seems pretty basic, I don’t think of myself as a great leader just because I don’t completely make stuff up. You’d think that was a base line. Anyway, we see it in the promotion of anti-intellectualism and the rejection of science from leaders who find critical thinking and data somehow politically inconvenient. And, as with the denial of rights, the denial of facts runs counter to democracy, it could be its undoing, which is why we must zealously protect independent media; and we have to guard against the tendency for social media to become purely a platform for spectacle, outrage, or disinformation; and we have to insist that our schools teach critical thinking to our young people, not just blind obedience.

Which, I’m sure you are thankful for, leads to my final point: we have to follow Madiba’s example of persistence and of hope.

It is tempting to give in to cynicism: to believe that recent shifts in global politics are too powerful to push back; that the pendulum has swung permanently. Just as people spoke about the triumph of democracy in the 90s, now you are hearing people talk about end of democracy and the triumph of tribalism and the strong man. We have to resist that cynicism.

Because, we’ve been through darker times, we’ve been in lower valleys and deeper valleys. Yes, by the end of his life, Madiba embodied the successful struggle for human rights, but the journey was not easy, it wasn’t pre-ordained. The man went to prison for almost three decades. He split limestone in the heat, he slept in a small cell, and was repeatedly put in solitary confinement. And I remember talking to some of his former colleagues saying how they hadn’t realized when they were released, just the sight of a child, the idea of holding a child, they had missed – it wasn’t something available to them, for decades.

And yet his power actually grew during those years – and the power of his jailers diminished, because he knew that if you stick to what’s true, if you know what’s in your heart, and you’re willing to sacrifice for it, even in the face of overwhelming odds, that it might not happen tomorrow, it might not happen in the next week, it might not even happen in your lifetime. Things may go backwards for a while, but ultimately, right makes might, not the other way around, ultimately, the better story can win out and as strong as Madiba’s spirit may have been, he would not have sustained that hope had he been alone in the struggle, part of buoyed him up was that he knew that each year, the ranks of freedom fighters were replenishing, young men and women, here in South African, in the ANC and beyond; black and Indian and white, from across the countryside, across the continent, around the world, who in those most difficult days would keep working on behalf of his vision.

And that’s what we need right now, we don’t just need one leader, we don’t just need one inspiration, what we badly need right now is that collective spirit. And, I know that those young people, those hope carriers are gathering around the world. Because history shows that whenever progress is threatened, and the things we care about most are in question, we should heed the words of Robert Kennedy – spoken here in South Africa, he said, “Our answer is the world’s hope: it is to rely on youth. It’s to rely on the spirit of the young.”

So, young people, who are in the audience, who are listening, my message to you is simple, keep believing, keep marching, keep building, keep raising your voice. Every generation has the opportunity to remake the world. Mandela said, “Young people are capable, when aroused, of bringing down the towers of oppression and raising the banners of freedom.” Now is a good time to be aroused. Now is a good time to be fired up.

And, for those of us who care about the legacy that we honor here today – about equality and dignity and democracy and solidarity and kindness, those of us who remain young at heart, if not in body – we have an obligation to help our youth succeed. Some of you know, here in South Africa, my Foundation is convening over the last few days, two hundred young people from across this continent who are doing the hard work of making change in their communities; who reflect Madiba’s values, who are poised to lead the way.

People like Abaas Mpindi, a journalist from Uganda, who founded the Media Challenge Initiative, to help other young people get the training they need to tell the stories that the world needs to know.

People like Caren Wakoli, an entrepreneur from Kenya, who founded the Emerging Leaders Foundation to get young people involved in the work of fighting poverty and promoting human dignity.

People like Enock Nkulanga, who directs the African Children’s mission, which helps children in Uganda and Kenya get the education that they need and then in his spare time, Enock advocates for the rights of children around the globe, and founded an organization called LeadMinds Africa, which does exactly what it says.

You meet these people, you talk to them, they will give you hope. They are taking the baton, they know they can’t just rest on the accomplishments of the past, even the accomplishments of those as momentous as Nelson Mandela’s. They stand on the shoulders of those who came before, including that young black boy born 100 years ago, but they know that it is now their turn to do the work.

Madiba reminds us that: “No one is born hating another person because of the color of his skin, or his background, or his religion. People must learn to hate, and if they can learn to hate, they can be taught to love, for love comes more naturally to the human heart.” Love comes more naturally to the human heart, let’s remember that truth. Let’s see it as our North Star, let’s be joyful in our struggle to make that truth manifest here on earth so that in 100 years from now, future generations will look back and say, ‘they kept the march going, that’s why we live under new banners of freedom.’ Thank you very much, South Africa, thank you.

July 18, 2018 at 01:43AM ClusterAssets Inc., https://ClusterAssets.wordpress.com

#Time #world #news #ClusterAssets #ClusterAsset #Cluster Asset Inc.#ClusterAssets Inc.

0 notes

davidamosley · 6 years

Text

Life Lessons from the Movie Elf

It was a cold and cloud-covered Saturday morning in November 2003, and my boyfriend had just tearfully confessed his betrayal while lying next to me in bed. He was regretful and apologetic, swearing it would never happen again, professing his love in such a desperate way that I immediately demanded he leave. After his departure, I paced and wrote pathetically dark poetry (most have faded from memory now, but I recall one that revolved around the concept of using my blood as ink to write out a list of his flaws — ah, how morbid and dramatic I was!).

Somewhere in between bouts of crying and typing, my best friend showed up with a six pack and an idea. "You need to get out," she said. "Let's go see Elf." I was despondent and angry, and the thought of a joy-filled holiday movie wasn't what I'd envisioned for my Saturday afternoon — more goth-themed poetry and perhaps some angry splattering of paint on canvas seemed more appropriate — but I begrudgingly let her drive me to to the theater.

Looking back on it now, all these years later, I'm not sure if it was the tone of the film (such a stark and silly contrast to what I'd been feeling alone in my room), the few beers I'd drunk beforehand, or the comedic brilliance of Will Ferrell, but I'd never laughed as hard, nor felt as uplifted, during a film as I did when watching Elf that afternoon. That period of my life was challenging — it's now a muddled memory of the betrayal and break-up, the reconciliation and the months of angst and mistrust and the love that grew weirdly stronger than it had been before — but I'll never forget how I felt in the theater that day, laughing so hard and giving into the silliness of that make-believe world when my heart was so heavy.

Anyway, long story short: Elf holds a special place in my heart, as far as films go. Years ago (in 2010!) I wrote about the life lessons I'd picked up from watching the film (which I've probably done at least a few dozen times since 2003), and I thought I'd revisit them again this year. Whether or not you're into the film, you're bound to gain some good insights from Buddy below:

Lesson #1: Spread cheer (Christmas and otherwise). "The best way to spread Christmas cheer is singing loud for all to hear." Spreading cheer sounds like an easy enough thing to do — but not when the people around you aren't into it. That's one of the great things about Buddy the Elf. He doesn't care if other people are cheerful or not. He continues to look for the positive in the things around him and point them out to others. And, in addition, he tries to encourage others to be cheerful as well (as he was doing when he said the above quote to love interest, Jovie). It's not always easy to be cheerful, but Buddy serves as an motivating inspiration for the benefits of having a cheerful attitude.

Lesson #2: Make smiling your favorite. "I just like to smile! Smiling's my favorite." Smiling's a small thing that's actually a big thing. The small act of smiling can change not only someone else's day, but your own as well. Try it. Next time you see someone you know — or even someone you don't — remember Buddy's quote above and make smiling your favorite thing to do. Greeting someone with a smile can transform an interaction and set a pleasant tone for that person — and for you as well. Don't think you'll be running into anyone today? Try looking in the mirror and smiling at yourself. Sounds crazy but it's actually a mood-booster!

Lesson #3: Be yourself, even when it's hard to know who you are. "Actually, I'm a human, but I was raised by elves." From the beginning of the film, Buddy struggles with his identity. Having been raised by elves, rather than humans, he struggles to figure out where he fits in in the world. He might look like a human but he certainly acts like an elf. Nevertheless, throughout the film, Buddy strives to be himself — even when that self makes him stick out dramatically in the human world. It would be much easier for him to learn and conform to the standards around him, but Buddy chooses to stay true to himself — a trait I admire in anyone (human or elf!).

Lesson #4: Give out compliments freely. "Deb, you have such a pretty face. You should be on a Christmas card!" One thing Buddy does incredibly well is dole out compliments. As the movie progresses, the number of positive things Buddy says about other people is actually pretty amazing. The quote above references only one of the times he compliments his father's assistant and, from her reaction, you know his words made her day. I find that I often have complimentary thoughts, but I don't always say them aloud. Making the effort not only to see the positive in others, but to tell them about it as well, can have a very powerful impact on your social interactions.

Lesson #5: Take risks. "Papa says my real father lives in a magical place far away... but the thing is, I've never left the North Pole." Want good things to happen to you? Like Buddy, you have to take risks. At the beginning of the film, Buddy finds out that he's not actually an elf and, though he's never before left the North Pole, he decides to bravely venture to NYC to meet his human father. This is the kind of risk a lot of people would be hesitant to take, but it's just the kind of risk that can have great rewards. Doing something different — breaking out of your comfort zone — is a great way to find new and exciting outlets for positivity in your life.

Lesson #6: Don't give up. "I passed through the seven levels of the Candy Cane forest, through the sea of swirly twirly gum drops, and then I walked through the Lincoln Tunnel." The quote above is just one example of Buddy's perseverance demonstrated in the film. On more than one occasion, Buddy is faced with challenges, but instead of complaining or stressing about them as many of us do, Buddy takes his challenges head-on and does what he needs to do to achieve whatever goal he's working towards. With the amount of times Buddy is put down in the film, it would have been much easier for him to give up and return the life he'd been living. But, as the positively inspiring elf that he is, Buddy doesn't give up but instead keeps working harder and harder — all while maintaining a positive attitude!

Lesson #7: Speak your mind. "If you can sing alone, you can sing in front of other people. There's no difference." In a conversation with his love interest, Jovie, Buddy explains to her that there's no difference between singing in front of others and singing alone (a fact he then goes on to demonstrate). Though she strongly disagrees with his point, Buddy doesn't seem to mind and continues to do what he can to convince her. This is only one example of how, in the film, Buddy is never afraid to say what's on his mind. He'll tell someone he loves him. He'll tell a fake Santa he's a fraud. He'll speak the truth — and his mind — without hesitation, something most are afraid to do. We could all learn a thing or two from Buddy's ability to be open and honest with those around him.

Lesson #8: Let life excite you. "Good news! I saw a dog today!" One of the things I love most about Buddy the Elf is his ability to be truly excited by life. In the scene from which the quote above was taken, Buddy greets his half-brother after school and exclaims with utter joy how he's spent his day. The most mundane things excite Buddy and there's not a bit of him that holds back his excitement for life. Can you imagine what the world would be like if everyone was as happy to be alive as Buddy is? If everyone looked at the world around him/her with utter excitement? Buddy's inspired me to take another look around and see the wonder that really is all around me. Too often I get caught up on what I have to get done and I forget to stop and really be present and enjoy the moment — something Buddy seems to do very well.

Lesson #9: Show affection. "Does somebody need a hug?" How often do you show affection to the ones you love? I do what I can to be affectionate, but I can honestly say I'm no match for the ever-affectionate Buddy, who is always giving hugs and spouting words of love. Now, I wouldn't recommend hugging everyone (as Buddy demonstrates in the quote above, said right before he attempts to hug an angry-looking raccoon), but I do think there's a lesson to be learned from Buddy's ability to openly and consistently show affection. Showing affection is a great way to connect with others and make their lives — and yours! — more positive.

Lesson #10: Do what you love. "First we'll make snow angels for a two hours, then we'll go ice skating, then we'll eat a whole roll of Tollhouse cookie dough as fast as we can, and then we'll snuggle." If there's one lesson to be taken away from the film, it's this: do what you love. Buddy, being the positive elf that he is, loves doing a lot of things and they aren't the "normal" things most adult men love to do, but you know what? He does them anyway. He doesn't let the human culture constrain him, forcing him to do what he "should" do. No, Buddy makes his own path and finds ways to spend time doing the things he loves to do. We should all follow Buddy's lead and be honest with ourselves about what we truly love to do. Once we've identified our favorite things, it's time to put that love into action because doing what you love to do is one of the best ways to be positive and present.

Did I miss any of the life lessons from Elf? I bet if I watched it again right now (which, let's be honest, I might actually do), I could find even more wisdom from Buddy. Let me know if you have any additional lessons in the comments below — or let me know what your favorite holiday (or anytime) film and what you've learned from it!

0 notes

golockhart · 6 years

Text

Oculus and our troubles with (virtual) reality

by Matthew Flisfeder

Facebook founder and CEO Mark Zuckerberg announces the launch of Oculus Go virtual reality headset in October. (Handout)

Last month, Facebook-owned virtual reality company, Oculus, announced its new device, Oculus Go.

Go, the successor to Oculus Rift, is a cheaper standalone virtual reality (VR) headset and controller system set for release in 2018. The company boasts that the new system allows users to immerse themselves in over 1,000 games, social apps and 360˚ experiences, and step inside a personal portable theatre to watch movies, TV shows, sports and play games.

At a much lower cost than the previous iteration (US$199 compared to $599 for the Oculus Rift), Oculus Go is likely to become very popular.

Similarly, Microsoft partners, including Acer, Dell, HP and Lenovo, announced their own headsets in the US$299 to $530 range, built to the technology giant’s specifications. And Google announced its $99 Daydream View — up in price from $79 for the previous smartphone-headset model.

These increasingly affordable devices are likely to excite many. But VR has long been a part of our popular culture. Throughout its history, new VR technologies have forced us to ask questions about its impact on culture and society.

In my research on media, popular culture and ideology, I’ve traced some of the ways that new media have changed how we see and experience reality.

Acer is one of several Microsoft partners launching consumer-priced mixed-reality headsets. (Handout)

VR in popular culture

Following the arrival of photography in the 1830s, the diorama, and then the panorama, were built structures that reproduced scenes made to look like the real world. Panoramas and dioramas are still used in shopping malls, window displays, museums and galleries to emulate the appearance of the traditional town square.

The arrival of cinema, and then television, truly gave us a new sense of VR. Movies and TV brought scenes, fantasies and fictions closer to us.

The way we tend to imagine new fully immersive VR technology has come from its depiction in popular literature, film and television.

William Gibson’s novel, Neuromancer (1984), deals with a VR “cyberspace” environment called “the matrix.” The book is a precursor to the 1999 film, The Matrix. Other popular sci-fi and cyberpunk films in the 1990s also portray the arrival of immersive VR. These films include Brett Leonard’s The Lawnmower Man (1992), Josef Rusnak’s The Thirteenth Floor (1999), David Cronenberg’s eXistenZ (1999) and Kathryn Bigelow’s Strange Days (1995).

youtube

The Matrix film series helped to create a popular vision of virtual reality.

Star Trek: The Next Generation’s (1987-1994) holodeck showed a much more optimistic portrayal of the possibilities of VR. But unlike its depiction on Star Trek, VR is used in other works to question the impact of the media and entertainment in creating alternate and possibly harmful realities. Perhaps that’s a reflection of our suspicions about the dangers of media manipulation.

Propaganda, “fake news” and “alternative facts”

Recently, the idea of alternate or alternative realities has moved from the fantasy worlds of the big screen to the small real-time screens of the news. The idea of “alternate realities” has been brought into the spotlight by political commentators observing the presidency of Donald Trump.

Trump shows his disdain for the mainstream mass media by calling it the “fake news.” His former campaign manager and now adviser, Kellyanne Conway, coined the term “alternative facts” to support the false claims of former White House Press Secretary Sean Spicer.

Spicer had claimed that Trump’s inauguration was the most highly attended in history. This was not true. The idea of so-called “alternative facts” shows that even fact, truth and reality have become politically divisive and contentious topics.

Much of the discussion around so-called “fake news” and “alternative facts” has also looked at the role of social media, such as Facebook (the parent company of Oculus). Social media has reportedly played a major role in circulating false information that helped to get Trump elected.

youtube

Donald Trump political adviser Kellyanne Conway coined the term “alternative facts.”

Part of the problem with social media is that it produces information bubbles. Because of the algorithmic logic of the platform, people end up trapped in feedback loops of information. Users end up only seeing information in their newsfeeds that reinforces — rather than combats or contradicts — their own world views. Because of this, social media seems to have created more opinion-based segregation in society. This flies in the face of the more traditional democratic notion of the public sphere.

In the democratic public sphere, people are supposed to come together to engage in critical rational debate. Instead, corporate new media offers users safe spaces of rhetorical support for their existing conceptions of reality.

Both sides of the story

There is also a parallel that runs here with the meaning of “objectivity” in the media — of reporting fairly and without bias. But misconceptions about “objective journalism” might add to the problem. People think that objectivity means showing “both sides” of the story. But what if one side is factually false?

A good example is climate change and the debate between climate scientists, who research the human causes of climate change, and those who deny the “human footprint” in climate change, ignoring the overwhelming majority of research that supports the climate science.

The new U.S. ambassador to Canada, Kelly Craft, has said that she believes “both sides” of the climate science. But this raises the question: If “objectivity” is merely the attempt to give legitimacy equally to different “views,” what then is the impact on reality? Does this mean that there is no single reality? No single, objective truth?

youtube

U.S. ambassador to Canada Kelly Craft says she believes “both sides” of the climate science debate.

Representing reality

The history of VR and entertainment new media suggests that our experiences of reality are constantly reinscribed and redeployed with each new form. This means that representations of reality in different media affect how we see the world and our place within it.

Reality’s portrayal and depiction varies depending upon how it is being represented, and by who is doing or producing the representation of reality. It affects our ethical judgments about how to act and treat other people in the real world.

In the Charlie Brooker sci-fi series Black Mirror‘s “Men Against Fire” episode, soldiers are implanted with augmented reality technology — a not-too-distant variation on existing forms such as Google Glass, or even Pokémon Go. The technology lets soldiers see their enemy as vicious monster mutants called “roaches.”

But once the technology fails, one of the soldiers is able to see the enemy for what they really are: Human, poor people trying to escape genocide by the dominant group.

The episode reverses the line from art historian and cultural critic, John Berger, who says: “The way we see things is affected by what we know or what we believe.” In the episode, what we know and believe is affected by the way we see things.

Total entertainment forever

Obsessions and critiques of new media are already part of popular culture. Green Day’s “American Idiot” talks about media control. Katy Perry’s “Chained to the Rhythm” portrays a culture of conformity led by our new media. Even Father John Misty’s “Total Entertainment Forever” begins with the lines, “Bedding Taylor Swift/Every night inside the Oculus Rift.”

youtube

Father John Misty’s “Total Entertainment Forever” cautions against the perils of virtual reality.

Misty (whose real name is Josh Tillman) sings about the darker side of our emerging new media and entertainment technologies. The song itself is a testament to our over-investment in entertainment and its ability to obscure reality.

As new media and entertainment technologies are normalized, they tend to have an impact on the way that we experience actual reality. This is not to suggest that our entertainment technologies are necessarily dangerous, or that we face a moral conundrum as we enjoy new media.

But it’s worth asking how our mediated practices of enjoyment in the virtual world still have real-world social and political implications.

As VR technologies like Oculus Go become more popular, we might ask ourselves how our immersion in its world of high-definition simulation impacts our experiences of reality.

As we’ve already witnessed through the political implications of Facebook, and its difficulty with so-called “fake news,” such a question is not entirely politically neutral.

youtube

The forthcoming film Steven Spielberg film Ready Player One , based on the novel by Ernest Cline, depicts a near future in which people retreat to a virtual reality world called The OASIS.

Matthew Flisfeder is Assistant Professor of Rhetoric and Communications, at the University of Winnipeg.

This article was originally published on The Conversation.

#thought #virtual reality #media #oculus #ready player one

0 notes

newstfionline · 7 years

Text

Americans have lost faith in institutions. That’s not because of Trump or ‘fake news.’

By Bill Bishop, Washington Post, March 3, 2017

Bill Bishop is co-author, with Robert Cushing, of “The Big Sort: Why the Clustering of Like-Minded America is Tearing Us Apart.” He lives in La Grange, Texas.

The easiest sell of President Trump’s life is that a “corrupt” media produces “fake news.” After all, fewer than 2 in 10 Americans have “a lot” of trust in news organizations, the Pew Research Center has found.

Trump has helped make trust a big deal for media types, and they are now searching for ways to regain the faith of their readers. To combat the “fake news” charge, the New York Times, for example, is running full-page ads and even bought a television spot during the Oscars declaring that “the truth is more important now than ever.” For some, the problem is that journalists have allowed too much of their personalities to creep into their work. Pittsburgh Post-Gazette editor David Shribman prescribes “less analysis and more reporting, less personality and more facts.” For others, there’s a need to demonstrate that journalists are not faceless elites but real people. Washington Post opinion writer Dana Milbank wrote of his newsroom colleagues: “They hail from all corners of this country, from farms and small towns, the children of immigrants and factory workers, preachers and teachers.” But even local papers, the ones most closely connected to their readers, are struggling to defend their integrity. One editor of a rural California paper accepted an op-ed about the danger of “fake news” in an attempt to instill some faith among the anti-press crowd.

You can hear similarly fretful discussions in dozens of other professions. The president has maligned politicians, scientists, judges, teachers, labor union leaders and intelligence officials, among others. “Donald Trump’s most damaging legacy may be a lower-trust America,” the Economist’s Lexington column predicted. Trust in American institutions, however, has been in decline for some time. Trump is merely feeding on that sentiment.

The leaders of once-powerful institutions are desperate to resurrect the faith of the people they serve. They act like they have misplaced a credit card and must find the number so that a replacement can be ordered and then FedEx-ed, if possible overnight.

But that delivery truck is never coming. The decline in trust isn’t because of what the press (or politicians or scientists) did or didn’t do. Americans didn’t lose their trust because of some particular event or scandal. And trust can’t be regained with a new app or even an outbreak of competence. To believe so is to misunderstand what was lost.

In 1964, 3 out of 4 Americans trusted their government to do the right thing most of the time. By 1976, that number had dropped to 33 percent. It was a decline that political scientist Walter Dean Burnham described as “among the largest ever recorded in opinion surveys.”

Of course, that intervening period brought a series of tumultuous events: the expansion of the war in Vietnam, the Watts riots of ‘65, the civil rights movement and, then, assassinations and Watergate. These affairs have served as shorthand explanations for our decline in trust. After all, who could trust an incompetent government that brought us scandal, riots and an unpopular war?

There are at least two problems with this explanation. First, the decline in trust in government has been accompanied by falling trust in nearly every institution. Why should a riot in Watts lead to distrust of organized labor? Yes, the news of the day caused fluctuations in how Americans felt about their institutions. The Watergate scandal caused Americans to lose faith in their government. Conversely, after the country was attacked on 9/11, trust in government soared and people went back to church. After the impact of scandal and threat faded, however, the long-term trends returned.

Second, the erosion hasn’t been confined to the United States. “Declining trust in government has spread across almost all advanced industrial democracies since the 1960s/1970s,” writes political scientist Russell Dalton. “Regardless of political history, electoral system, or style of government, most contemporary publics are less trustful of government than they were in the era of their grandparents.”

We haven’t simply changed our attitudes. We’ve voted with our feet, walking away from the institutions we supported for generations.

For instance, historian Martin Marty describes a “seismic shift” in religion. “From the birth of the republic until around 1965, as is well known, the churches now called mainline Protestant tended to grow with every census or survey,” Marty wrote. And then, the pews started to empty. The six largest Protestant denominations together lost 5.6 million members--a fifth to a third of their membership--between 1965 and 1990.

And civic engagement has declined. Harvard’s Robert Putnam has counted the drop in members of the Lions, the League of Women Voters and, famously, bowling leagues beginning in the mid-’60s . The decline of these associations brought about a decrease in consistent social connections. Society began to fray.

The changes that seemed to erupt suddenly in the early 1960s actually began long before and moved slowly at first, as the globe shrank and societies modernized. As far back as the 1600s, travelers confronted by new cultures and novel deities began to question their own societies’ rules and institutions. “Not a tradition which escapes challenge, not an idea, however familiar, which is not assailed; not an authority that is allowed to stand,” historian Paul Hazard wrote. “Institutions of every kind are demolished, and negation is the order of the day.” This was the Enlightenment, a turning away from tradition and an anointing of reason, scientific inquiry and individualism.

Rising incomes and the welfare state brought Enlightenment individuality to the people. Political scientist Ron Inglehart proposed in the 1970s that as societies grow wealthier and less concerned about basic survival, we should expect a shift from communal to individual values: People express themselves more and trust authorities less.

Everything about modern life works against community and trust. Globalization and urbanization put people in touch with the different and the novel. Our economy rewards initiative over conformity, so that the weight of convention and tradition doesn’t squelch the latest gizmo from coming to the attention of the next Bill Gates. Whereas parents in the 1920s said it was most important for their children to be obedient, that quality has declined in importance, replaced by a desire for independence and autonomy. Widespread education gives people the tools to make up their own minds. And technology offers everyone the chance to be one’s own reporter, broadcaster and commentator.

We have become, in Polish sociologist Zygmunt Bauman’s description, “artists of our own lives,” ignoring authorities and booting traditions while turning power over to the self. The shift in outlook has been all-encompassing. It has changed the purpose of marriage (once a practical arrangement, now a means of personal fulfillment). It has altered the relationship between citizens and the state (an all-volunteer fighting force replacing the military draft). It has transformed the understanding of art (craftsmanship and assessment are out; free-range creativity and self-promotion are in). It has even inverted the orders of humanity and divinity (instead of obeying a god, now we choose one).

People enjoy their freedoms. There’s no clamoring for a return to gray flannel suits and deferential housewives. Constant social retooling and choice come with costs, however. Without the authority and guidance of institutions to help order their lives, many people feel overwhelmed and adrift. “Depression is truly our modern illness,” writes French sociologist Alain Ehrenberg, with rates 20 to 30 times what they were just two generations ago.

As groups based on tradition and consistent association dwindle, they are being replaced by “event communities,” temporary gatherings that come and go without long-term commitment (think Burning Man). The protests spawned by Trump’s election are more about passion than organization and focus. Today’s demonstrations are sometimes compared to civil-rights-era marches, but they have more in common with L.A.’s Sunset Strip riots of 1966, when more than 1,000 young people gathered to object to a 10 p.m. curfew. “There’s something happening here,” goes the Buffalo Springfield song “For What It’s Worth,” commemorating the riots. “What it is ain’t exactly clear.” In our new politics, expression is a purpose itself.

A polarized and distrustful electorate may stymie the national government, but locally most communities are either overwhelmingly Republican or Democratic. In 2016, 8 out of 10 U.S. counties gave either Trump or Hillary Clinton a landslide victory. In these increasingly homogenous communities, nobody need bother about compromise and the trust it requires. From anti-abortion measures to laws governing factory farming, the policy action is taking place where majorities can do what they want without dealing with “those people” who live the next state over or a few miles down the road. At last count, 1 in 4 Americans supports the idea of their state seceding from the union.

Solutions and action shrink to the size of the individual. Increasing numbers of New York state parents have been holding their children out of end-of-year school tests in a kind of DIY education reform. In some Los Angeles schools, so many parents opt out of the vaccination regime that inoculation rates are on a par with South Sudan’s as people make their own scientific judgments. The “we medicine” of community health, writes Donna Dickenson, is replaced by the “me medicine” of individual genetic testing, tailored drug regimes and all manner of personal “enhancement” technologies. And where once antitrust laws were used to break up monopolies in food markets, Michael Pollan concludes that today, we must “vote with our fork.”

These are all solutions that don’t touch the big issues, such as economic inequality and climate change. They also avoid the question that now demands an answer: How does an increasingly diverse society govern itself democratically?

Political scientists tell us that democracies require a little faith. To engage with others, you have to believe that if you lose a contest or a debate, the winner will treat you equitably; that if the other side wins, it will act within the law and not send its opponents off to jail. You have to assume that institutions will be fair and that leaders will act in the country’s best interest.

“Aren’t you concerned, Sir,” CNN’s Jim Acosta asked Trump at last month’s news conference, “that you are undermining the people’s faith in the First Amendment, freedom of the press, the press in [this] country, when you call stories you don’t like fake news?”

Trump responded: “The public doesn’t believe you people anymore. Now maybe I had something to do with that. I don’t know. But they don’t believe you. If you were straight and really told it like it is ... I would be your biggest booster.”

The president is right that they don’t believe. But he’s wrong to take credit for it--and wrong to suggest that there’s much that can be done.

#Donald Trump #trust in media #trust in institutions #community

0 notes