Current location:	Melbourne, Australia
Current mood:	contemplative

Forces of repulsion
Since a few weeks before the end of my 4th semester, I’ve been largely depriving myself of the joy of writing my thoughts down in detail, and I have set myself a project on writing a series of posts which will hopefully explore some delicate issues within the nexus between animal and moral philosophy, as well as psychiatry. Before I do that, though, I have to ease myself into the task by releasing all my pent-up wank in a single unmitigated stream. In other words, this post is linguistic pretension and pomp in full flight.

So here's a little something I prepared earlier:

For a while now a sense of unease has floated in my mind regarding (as I will melodramatically put it) the future of large proportions of humanity. My initial conclusions were somewhere along the lines of a doomsday thesis- that the sector of society which can be summed up essentially as the US-Australian and closely related nations axis (at the very least) would render unto itself the great disservice of becoming stagnant, budging only when its relevance has already long disappeared up its own orifice. Additionally, I was of the opinion that when the budging was to happen, it would be an explosive, bloody affair touted, no doubt, by Christian doomsday evangelists as no less than the Second Coming.

Such a view is possibly overly cynical of humanity and more importantly it may not be particularly prescient due to its apparent uni-dimensionality. I cited several reasons a while back, ranging from a shift of value systems away from the biological imperatives they were arguably derived from, to the specific liberal axiology of individuality, and how this manifests culturally and economically. I’ll be looking a little further into this to see if I can’t put some pieces together, thanks to catching some good TV (on SBS)- a report on the polarization of the US.

The program essentially gave me some basics on the mechanisms underlying the phenomenon, which I should have spotted quite a while back even before I made some references to it a few months ago. What it further examined was the effect of such- how “polarization entrepreneurs”, paranoia and inflammatory appeals to emotivism have effectively reduced, as many now finally notice, the states to a screaming mass of two sides and a dwindling bunch of forgotten, silent people stuck in the middle, cowering away from the persistent attempts at disjunction: “if you aren’t with us, you are against us”.

This is the most telling cultural feature as it has pervaded every level of the population from the micro-structural social fragments to the general public to congress. Sen. Obama notes that democracy in the US was ideally supposed to be an open forum between like and not-so-likeminded people. As such, the figures show that the recent years have shown two disturbing trends: a marked decrease in the number of senators who vote against their party lines (for which one is now branded a traitor, and it often makes big news in Australia, I might add), and a dearth of communication between the major factions- which, as the program pointed out, such an event would also merit national news. I would hazard a guess that this process, while feasibly accelerated by reactions to 9-11 as well as actions scripted according to market research for conservative administrations (I refer to the machine of religion), was in fact insidious and already progressive throughout the past two decades (I can only say this really for Australia) as by the time my limited political education allowed me to understand the situation, I already thought that it was paradoxical that one vote against party lines (or “cross the floor”), and that, in fact, such happened much more often as time wore on. I suspect though that this is more due to the behavior of the media in regards to such.

The lack of meaningful communication between parties is starkly reflected in the public- this to me is the single most important outcome of the polarization phenomenon. On one hand, we have a bunch of very loud people. This can cause misconceptions when judging what the public really want- and to counter this, one has to counter the sheer volume of a single party by placing the exact opposite with equal or greater force. However, unlike noise cancellation, placing two blaring speakers opposite each other does not create silence; it creates a deafening cacophony. One might well say that this is the voice of a healthy democracy, but I say it is killing it. Why? Because:

1. Argument between any number of conflicting parties is necessary and potentially productive as opposed to having no argument at all- as above. When one faces an opposition with whom the possibility exists that they can be either marginalized or persuaded, then it makes sense that one ought to make an attempt- presuming convinction in the accuracy of one's position. Such is the nature of debate, however, that rational properness usually goes to pot in favor of rhetorical fallacy and selective manipulation of facts- a priori (this point has been amended following airstrip's comment). Where there is disagreement and both sides are not willing to entertain the possibility that their position is not compelling, discussion likely degenerates into shouting, which engenders misunderstanding and a lack of reflection in the face of urgency (see 2). Constructive discussion is therefore not possible as the matter is, through this form of conflict, often erroneously reduced to a series of diametric oppositions. This is plainly evident through the profiling of liberal left versus the conservative Christian right- both “sides” claim to stand for “everything the other side does not stand for” but commentators (finally) clued in sometime early this year to the fact that the left misunderstood the right and the right was missing the point.
   
   
2. A heated argument causes a state of adrenaline-induced arousal, which inhibits cognitive processing. With most people already unable or unwilling to put in the hard yards and contemplate the intricacies of any issue beyond simple epithets, this will only increase misunderstanding, cause vilification of any person or persons who do not already align with their views, and thus the argument will generate nothing but only serve to fuel the insecurity-derived dogmatic attitude of observers and commentators. I am guilty of this myself (more-so in private as I am, simply put, overly sensitive), because my views have inextricably personal motivations, and I would be so bold as to suggest this is inevitable for anybody and everybody. Thus it can be difficult to differentiate between an argument made against one’s views and a personal censure, depending on the degree of attachment of one’s particular view to their sense of identity.
   
   
3. People are drawn into cacophonies. They are more exciting, and most people, it seems, don’t like to listen to a constructive and synthetic discussions because they are boring.

Thus loud polarizing arguments are increasingly where it’s all at, and the people who are most capable of thinking through things properly will be left out in the cold unless they find themselves a megaphone and some short, painfully oversimplified catchphrases to chant and thus add to the noise. The only condition is that they don’t do this in a public, physical space- apparently the US Terrorist Act has just been expanded to cover- get this- non-violent protests and other peaceful actions. This is taking matters farther than ridiculous, but those people who have noticed it also know that the general public seems not to care enough to be able to do anything about it- and besides, it is probably already too late. The rest of us will continue to rant on teh internetz for while it is now the most powerful communication tool, it is also a place that governments most everywhere appear hopelessly out of touch with.

This is where I begin to be confused (at least temporarily). On one hand we talk of this polarizing phenomenon, and contrasting this is the profile of a typical US (and Australian too) citizen- the type who doesn’t give two shits until he/she is unable to even give two shits of his own free will. I still find that the end effects of the individualization drive have been a certain self-centeredness, and additionally, more recently I wondered if this also involved an increasing focus on immediacy. Either way, this does merit some looking into.

More recently, both the US and Australian* federal governments have made clear steps in violation of the liberties of its constituents. This is not a one-off; it is a steady progression of denial of rights justified by fear mongering to incite the masses into a state of paranoia (well, that's what the Republicans are doing- in Australia it seems to be a ruthless economic powertrip). This has predictably been met with much outrage, but it is difficult to tell how deep it runs and just what proportion of the population is outraged, let alone what one might do about it apart from say “this is an outrage”. Part of the reason for this is the diversity of media sources with their own agenda and emphasis. It is difficult to get a straight story now unless one has much more time on their hands than we generally do have, and so people are simply fed what they want to hear (part of the polarization phenomenon). As such things as the shambolic cash-for-kids bonus demonstrate, people will vote for somebody (apparently rightly) if they think they represent their interests. However, politics has become an exercise in marketing in this regard- little consideration of the general public seems to take place and the manner of the focus may have taken a turn for the superficial, thus further defeating the purpose of even going to the polls. The status quo, thus, can be summed up with “as long as I have a roof over my head, food in my belly and something to watch on the telly, I’m happy”- not what the pioneers of democracy originally envisioned, and certainly something that paves the way for a sneaky politician to insinuate totalitarianism into a farce- not unlike a wolf eating its way into the sheepskin clothing it wears from the inside.

Earlier, I said that how vehemently one defended their views was essentially a reflection of how vehemently they were willing to defend themselves. There is no real contradiction between the “polarization” and “apathetic” profiles- where one joins the polarized fray is where there is some personal axiology or personal interest at stake. The common feature through all this is an apparent lack of depth, be it from insufficient education, insufficient reflection, or dogmatic conditioning/brainwashing. But I also think that there is a more fundamental social mechanism that contributes to individual narrow-mindedness within such a burgeoning population.

It is related, in a way, to an earlier point I mentioned about the prerequisites to survival in modern times. Given that we believe that every individual should (ideally) be given the opportunity to achieve their greatest potential (whatever this means), this will run up against the tension explained by the notion of entropy, which essentially means that one has life at the expense of other things. Between beings, this is plainly manifest as competition- and specifically the “hot-housing syndrome” that I mentioned last year (which is more than ever apparent now) is a simple example of the effects of the belief that everybody should have the best of everything- it is not feasible and incurs a mounting cost just to attain a “satisfactory” standard. So too does the same apply, perhaps to a limited extent, to the job market. The demands made upon an individual in an era with no job security and rising costs of living as well as increasing economic inequity requires that one concern themselves with simply adapting to the system to simply survive. Nevermind the philosophical conundrums that one might encounter by virtue of the nature of their job or existence- even if one were capable of considering such, it is too much of a strain on a brain which must direct its attention elsewhere- mainly to climbing social ladders with generally superficial concerns that ensure that one presents the right image. Very often I hear “well I’ve begun to think about these things but then I thought it’s too hard so why should I bother”. Also very often, I hear that people are so busy living their lives that they do not even have time to reflect at all, and this is essentially what I am driving at here.

Certainly it is not the only one, but presuming that this is indeed a source of narrow-mindedness and avoidant cognition, I wonder just how significant it would be- this might depend on just how applicable the model which it was based on is. In the broader overall scope, everything has a common effect- the reduction of insight and constructive debate and the division of people into ineffectual yet potent factions. The cultural mechanisms that evolve from this only serve to exacerbate the process, thus I find it difficult to dispel doomsday theories short of a drastic change in the political climate in the very near future (coming from god-knows-where), and, since I have little knowledge of the workings of such, I am hoping that somebody could point some source of hope out to me, or at least why I would be wrong to think that we are running out of options and a large-scale conflict is imminent. As I see it, however, the current trend of polarization is a positive feedback loop- for the conditions are such that the notion of a clear ‘winner’ develops, and while this measure exists and is acknowledged sufficiently (i.e. by a majority), people will be forced to accept it or increasingly face the pressure of being a ‘loser’ if they deem such a measure irrelevant. Thus what is required is for a majority of people to spontaneously realize that the measure is indeed irrelevant such that the perceived ‘loss’ is rendered moot- a Catch-22 situation. The public body as a whole is well described by analogies involving momentum and inertia: it will likely take an unavoidable, catastrophic situation to grind our current gears of society to a halt and have it move in a more productive direction.

As a final note, I also find it particularly apt (and damning) to reflect upon my own use of this space in light of what I have just said. Generally, I am adverse to conflict, but I am even more adverse to people disagreeing with me in any way that might indicate that they would be opposed in any way to what I identify myself as. This is unreasonable- well there are plenty of reasons for it but nonetheless it places an unfair expectation on most people I converse with. This results occasionally in arguments in which I unnecessarily lay down the heavy on some unsuspecting sod who did nothing much to provoke such. Also, I generally do not join communities that would source a lot of differing viewpoints…well that’s actually not entirely accurate. I do participate in communities where differing viewpoints are encouraged for as I pointed out earlier there is not much point to academic mutual masturbation if one is looking for a testing ground for their beliefs (it is a nice ego boost though- something I probably could do with sparingly). However, in a world where rhetoric is king, and condescension, strawmen and outright dismissal by fallacious appeals to self-proclaimed authority are the go, I am simply left not feeling confident that I will be acknowledged in a way I deem suitable. Thus I lay most every thought I have in this particular ‘public’ space, but implicitly well within my own private domain, such that if others would want to question me more closely, they have to take a more personal interest first. This kind of behavior is indicative of certain insecurities that I do my best to deal with but in a world of growing hostilities, like the other individuals in this fragmentary social strata, I rely on a small group of friends with whom I identify and while I am more open to dialogue than most, in my mind, the people whom I judge as deliberately failing to engage in such can go get stuffed for they are beyond the hope of recovery.


* If anybody can supply me with/direct me to more detailed information and insight into the political happenings globally, especially around Europe, I would be most grateful.