Stories and Politics

"The universe is made of stories, not atoms."
                                                    -Muriel Rukeyser

The building blocks of life.

I like this quote a lot. The story is a metaphor of change and progression (no examples come to mind of stories that are ever stuck in one place), so when applied to the universe we can see that it is capable of change in itself. This quality is further established by saying it is not made of atoms. What it is referring to in my eyes is not the tiny particles of matter, but physicality itself. It's a metaphor for a world constructed by immobile substance incapable of any alteration.

Just for the sake of noting, Mark in class had a different take on the subject by saying every element of the world is defined by a story. Atoms themselves have a story about how they came to be.

From what we talked about in class, stories define our world, and the large variety of stories illustrates the infinite possibilities of becoming. The stories that we are told the most have the most power, thus we attribute them to being (or at least as close as we can get). These are meta-narratives because they are big stories told to explain the world we live in.

How does this fit in with politics? Easy. The meta-narratives of the day are what constitutes as real, or being reality. The cool thing is that in english "real" comes from "regal" or pertaining to a king. The Spanish are much less subtle as "real" in Spanish means royal. The ideal King is one who reigns over everything he can see. What he cannot see is not royal, so thus not real.

It's definitely interesting, especially considering that the best way to keep power is to keep the stories told in your favour. The concerning factor behind this is that politicians will do anything to create and stay in this positive light as much as possible. Jean Cretien himself said that a good leader wins elections... nothing to do with moral character. The reason I dislike politics is due to the fact that you rarely seem to get a straight answer from politicians for the simple reason that not doing so is a more effective tactic. They use careful wording, with multiple interpretations so there's always a back-door.

I can agree my opinion seems cynical, however the existence of "The Prince" would say otherwise. It's essentially "How to be a Leader for Dummies" by Machiavelli in the 16th century. Featured inside are ideas like,

"Criminal acts do not show real virtue because crime lacks glory. The solution presented however is not to avoid crime, but to make sure crimes do not languish over ones whole career, but are done at a stroke. This, Machiavelli says, changes criminal virtue to virtue because it allows glory."

...The only problem with criminal acts is a lack of glory... so here's how to make it glory... wow. It's pretty sketchy and it also happens to be a novel carried around by many political figures. Now I'll admit I haven't read it myself, but just looking up chapter summaries will demonstrate shocking ideas, all aimed at staying in power.

So what can we do as a people? Be well versed in the issues. Rhetoric is a powerful tool in our world, especially since it is the medium our stories are told. When it comes to politics, the best thing we can do is to make educated choices and stand up for what we deem is right. As I've said before, sometimes a vote cast in ignorance is just as bad as not voting at all.

Never stop questioning.

Neo-Evolution and You

http://www.ted.com/talks/harvey_fineberg_are_we_ready_for_neo_evolution.html

The video basically goes into the three different possibilities for human evolution. The first is that we have ceased to evolve by forcing our environments to adapt to us and removed the isolation necessary for it to occur. The second is that evolution is impossible to stop and is always working behind the scenes (isolation necessary for it to occur will definitely be present if we colonize planets). Lastly there is neo-evolution, which is essentially when we take our evolution into our own hands.

Fineberg doesn't impose an opinion as far as answering the question posed, however delivers enough background information to come to our own conclusions. What might occur in society should neo-evolution take root?

Ask and you shall receive.

The name of the film is Gattaca and it's easily one of the most inspirational movies I've ever seen. More than that though, the protagonist (Vincent) lives in precisely the world illustrated by neo-evolution. In his world, "natural conception" is replaced with a screened procedure to ensure the best possible genes are given to your child. It's still a product of the two parents, just the "best" combination. You can determine everything about your child (gender, eye colour, no inheritable diseases, etc.) before impregnation. Your estimated age of death is determined seconds after your birth. In this society, genes are so important that they are your resume, your status, your very identity. Nature is everything.

Aww, what pretty brown eyes.

There's a ton of different things to look at from a Nature vs. Nurture perspective, but, relating back to what we discussed in class, I'd like to focus on the society. Just before concluding the Ted Talk, Fineberg expanded the possible traits to improve from memory and fitness to characteristics like empathy and how competitive you are. As he says, we could use this to make society "better", but what precisely does that constitute? Would we conform to one set of characteristics or choose to diversify (some traits for one group of people and some for others)?

In Vincent's reality there was a great deal of choice offered to the parents in the creation of their child in virtually every aspect of their character. They could be mold them however they wished, but that ultimately "success" seemed to be the end many strove for. So much so that society was diversified by the collection of certain genes making one person superior to another. They were the Elite. Work ethic or personal dreams didn't matter if you didn't have the right genes to back it up. Although an apparently optional process, it became a mandatory procedure if the parents wanted their child to amount to anything.

I think the scariest thing is that this line of thought isn't science fiction anymore, but becoming our reality. Although not guaranteed, we currently have methods in place for individuals to choose the gender of their future child (a vital option for areas with a one-child policy). If this concept were in the same extent as Vincent's world, it wouldn't take much for the government to manipulate the process slightly to silence genes capable of say, potential criminal conduct (tendency towards violence or depression for instance). The potential to shape a society of peaceful minded individuals is a possibility, but merely a single optimistic outcome. How much should be allowed to change? Where do we draw the line?

With genetic manipulation of a potential life, we're really playing God. Moral issues aside, we just aren't capable of seeing the long term effects of our actions. How could a society function if everyone was incredibly driven for instance? Would the society thrive or fall apart as these individuals were competing for success? Or how would one try to force genetic diversity? There isn't one right answer, but the important thing to take out of this is that we have to begin drawing lines now. Although preventing genetic disease is fantastic, I believe that tinkering with personality is too far. There are just too many unknowns to map an entire society around. More importantly, a government should be created to best suit its people, not the other way around.

On an individual level, I think nurture plays a greater role than nature, but that doesn't mean that I'm going to choose the ink for my son or daughter to write their story with. We each have our blank pages to fill and what makes life so interesting is the fact that the authors aren't built, but simply phase into existence. Each to weave their own unique tale.

Never stop questioning.

Influence - Advertising

"The secret of my influence has always been that it has remained secret."
                                                                                                         -Salvador Dali

Very simple quote. The secret to powerful influence is in its subtlety. If people realize that they're being influenced they are much more likely to ignore the message, or even lash against the attempted manipulator. True influence slips through the outer barrier and into a person's subconscious. Advertisers know this and have experimented countless times to do so with mixed results.

My favourite quote from The Persuaders was:

"They are the ones who make clutter. They are therefore also the ones who are always trying desperately to "break through the clutter." That's the line you always hear in ad agencies, "We can break through the clutter with this." Well, every effort to break through the clutter is just more clutter."

It quickly and concisely portrays the "white noise" effect of influence. Companies are always trying to find that element to give them the competitive edge. Something that will not only catch your attention, but mesmerize you.

A message that transcends words.

We witnessed the evolution as words like "delicious" or "bright" lost meaning and brands were forced to use their commercials to convey the feeling behind the product. Subtly placing them in movies, while even creating narratives surrounding them in television programs. Two more interesting concepts however were Market Guru Rapaille's idea of the "subconscious code" and the idea of "cult worship".

Rapaille's concept was that the human mind is actually quite illogical and that every word; be it coffee, car, or even mother, all have a mental imprint in our minds, forming this mental highway or subconscious code. All one has to do is to break the code and suddenly companies have the key to a vast majority of consumers. It's still a work in progress in some cases, but it ties in with the next idea. "Culthood" is essentially what all companies are striving for. They want their products to not just be an item, but a very lifestyle that they live (such as Linux Users, Apple, WWF fans from the film). It sounds a little far fetched, but combined with Rapaille's code breaking and the concept of cult "branding" will become much more mainstream in the future.


A world where advertisement owns our subconscious...

So if this were to occur, where exactly would this line of thought take us? As said in The Persuaders,

"Once a culture becomes entirely advertising-friendly, it ceases to be a culture at all. It ceases to be a culture worth the name. It has to have the constant mood that shoppers require."               -Mark Miller, New York University

I especially like this analogy because in it the individuals are literally replaced by shoppers. There are only those shaped by advertising. This is dangerous because it means the media will control our definitions of everything. What men are, women, how we should act, speak, the possibilities are limitless. Yes I suppose you could say society already implies such rules for how we should act, but in many ways that's to keep us safe, not in the interest of being used. Telling us whatever will bring in the highest numbers.

The further integration of advertising is unavoidable, along with the messages they send. All we can really do is encourage you to think for yourself. If we really don't like the message put forth by a company than the product needs to be boycotted by the people. This is far from an easy answer, but if the messages of advertising are unavoidable we should really do our best to ensure the messages are those benefiting a culture, not a shopping mall.

Never stop questioning.

More Individuality - Masks

“If I'm going to sing like someone else, then I don't need to sing at all.”
                                                                                           -Billie Holiday

“Don’t ask what the world needs. Ask what makes you come alive, and go do it. Because what the world needs is people who have come alive."
                                                                                          -Howard Therman

There was a lot we talked about in terms of individuality a few days ago, so to avoid a complete mass of hypocritical ideas here's some of the concepts we talked about, but I didn't get to last time.

-Is individuality "good"?
-Are "copycats" or "posers" being themselves?
-Is it right to judge people as being true to themselves?
-Can people pretend to be someone they're not?

 I'm going to get that first point out of the way immediately because I do believe individuality is a great characteristic we possess. The ability to see things differently opens up possibilities and solutions that may not be possible to view looking a single way. True it allows the possibility of conflict, but it also opens the door to new ideas. I like new ideas because, although we cannot conventionally achieve "perfection" (or being), there is always room for improvement. Be it law, education, etc. If we stick with a flawed system, we will only ever get flawed results.

As for "posers" it's a bit trickier. These are the kind of people who will intentionally scratch up their skateboards, walk around with them without truly knowing how to even ride them. These are people who want to be judged as "cool". Could they be hiding who they are? Mark from class argued that "who we are" is untouchable, we just play many, many different roles as we go through life. I like that a lot, but it kinda forces you to wonder if you can ever break free of your mask or see through that of others. I think so and think that some people are capable of being "themselves" most of the time (a rare few) because they hold a strong inner confidence that is who they are. As for the others, it requires an intimacy not typically reserved for all to see. We all wear masks at some point.

There are instances where copying other people however can have dire consequences. I remember a video a few years ago where celebrity look-alikes started believing themselves to truly be the people they were impersonating. They felt a loss of identity. One instance in particular was when one man was kidnapped by Saddam Hussein to serve as a body double. When he eventually returned to his family years later he appeared to have adopted many of the harsh personality quirks (abusive to women for one) of his role. I can't even imagine the stress undercover cops must have trying to hold one identity while not letting the "original" go.

What face to wear today?

In this light, the masks we choose to wear can ultimately hold much greater influence than we may realize on the person they hide. The more you put into the mask the more it will affect you in turn. How does one hang onto their identity? I can't say I've been in that situation, but if I were to guess it would be by linking ourselves to a strong inner desire. A passion for music for instance could be the chain one uses to anchor themselves to who they are, no matter the face they wear. Why would we bother to do that if change is supposed to be good? I think the reason why is because the mask we wear isn't always a good one (or we agree with), sometimes it's for survival.

Can we really judge people based on their mask? We all know the saying "a first impression is never right", but it is effectively an evolutionary safety mechanism. If we see a bear in the woods our instinct is to judge because it will keep you safe (assuming your mental judgement is, "Holy crap a bear!?! Walk away slowly!" opposed to "I wanna pet it!!"). For judging others it's a bit of a toss-up because, to use the cliche, you really shouldn't judge a book by its cover. Never assume you know someone based on a first impression. People will surprise you, so always be on your toes.

The idea of people wearing masks is an interesting one, especially when you consider it in terms of their creation to fit in with "society" (more on that later). If we know that everyone wears masks, how can we ever trust anyone to be who they say they are? I think the reason we can is because the masks we do wear are often just an extension of who we are. Yes, there are huge exceptions, however I feel a lot of the time the masks we wear do have some reflection of who we are, perhaps a little more confident or outgoing. If you're having a bit of an identity crisis over which is real, just act without thought and it'll come to you. I think the easiest mask for you to portray is your own skin. Not necessarily the easiest for society to accept, but the important thing is to always stay true to yourself. Whoever that may be.

Never stop questioning.

Individuality

"Most people are other people. Their thoughts are someone else's opinions, their lives a mimicry, their passions a quotation."
                                                                                       -Oscar Wilde

Ah, Oscar Wilde. A master of the written word. Anywho, I feel like this is a quote that we have all thought about at one point or another. When you think about it, we are learning from the very second we are born (maybe even before we're out of the womb). How far fetched is it to say that we are the products of the opinions, ideals and attitudes of others all combined into a singularity? The entity as a whole. You.

I'm referring to the person in the direction of the above point.

If this is true, we could be comparable to a quilt. A patchwork of different ideas coming together as one to make up who we really are. This quote could have created complications as to whether there are truly any "new" ideas, however Oscar Wilde did not say all people are mimicries, just most. In The Merchants of Cool, advertisers strove to track down the estimated 20% of teenagers who are trend setters. They hoped to find the "next big thing" to market before it became "cool" (the second it becomes cool it's dead in society). In that light it becomes a cycle. We display to these merchants what is cool and they in turn sell that image right back to us. We adapt, move on to the next trend and the cycle continues.

From the sounds of it, the majority of the population is ultimately just copying one another. Are "You" and "Unique" the same thing? Perhaps the true secret to being original is like the following quote states:

"The secret to creativity is knowing how to hide your sources." (Albert Einstein)

Clearly he is a wise man.

Mitch and I discussed this and he believes there are original ideas we have. We can hear another opinion, ponder it ourselves and choose to add it to our cumulative knowledge or not. I argued however that the fundamental knowledge he is utilizing to judge the ideal may very well be the product of mimicking others in itself. Is that a bad thing though?

One of my favourite quotes from Paulo Coelho goes something along the lines of, "a fool is one who constantly quotes wise men" and to some extent I agree. It's one thing to ponder the musings of others, yet completely another to just quote them for the sake of quotation. You have to think for yourself. I remember reading a headline that smarter people are those who actually didn't go to school. Heck, a high percentage of millionaires are dropouts. Education can be seen as one of many mediums that mold us into puppets. We are told exactly how to do things, while also what is and isn't possible... definitely a fun little tidbit now that we're almost done high school.

I had a point to this. Got it. Copying, bad or good? I choose "or". Yes, a great deal of who we are is a collage of other's ideas, but we are in ourselves a unique collection of these different thoughts. I believe that our original, unmimickable experiences provide us with our own perspective, leading to new ideas. I may be shaped by one idea and another as well, but the two together can create something new and exciting that we couldn't have seen before. Like yellow and blue making green. A real life example is a university student went into engineering her first year and switched for biology. Though she continued through biology for her PhD, that mathematical influence she got from engineering gave her a unique perspective different than that of her peers.

At the same time we shouldn't act like herded sheep. Thinking for yourself is vitally important in life because it allows you to strive for what "you" want, not what society deems you should aspire for. Whether or not it's even possible is debatable, however I do think that on some level we are unique. We have different eyes in which we view the world and they're not something that we should allow to be closed without a fight.

Never stop questioning. (The next few entries will be much more concise)

Society - Men and Women

So we've been looking a fair bit at the ideas behind "What is a woman or man?" in class. The world of advertisement has apparently made answering this question incredibly easy. According to the majority of ads, women should be passive, seductive, innocent and, most importantly, physically beautiful (quantified as generally thin except for the breasts and arse). Men on the other end should be the epitome of strength. Be it physical, mental or emotional, true or not.

Now naturally we look at these ideas and see them as ridiculous and we should. At the same time though we have to ask ourselves... where did the media get these ideas from in the first place?

Think faster Bobo!

I never took a psychology or family studies course, but I did have the privilege of reading over someone's shoulder during theatre rehearsal. The book was all about what men look for in women and what women in turn look for in men, but essentially how relationships function between the two. Not reading the entire tome, one experiment did stick out. In it men and women were shown individuals of the opposite sex wearing a  fast food uniform, clean casual clothes and a suit. For men, the study showed that they were more attracted to the women of greater physical beauty regardless of their attire. Women were more likely to be drawn to an unattractive man in a suit than an attractive one in a fast food uniform. Conclusion.

Women are more likely to be attracted to men of status.
Men are more likely to be attracted to women of physical beauty.

Some people have already realized this.

Now these weren't set in stone rules, however the trend was very much apparent. If it is true it's a pretty depressing statistic because it correlates precisely with the messages put out by advertising. Before jumping to the conclusion that this mindset is "because of the ads"... what if they're just holding a mirror up? Sending the message back that we're giving off, we pick it back up from the media and it becomes this big cycle. Evolutionary speaking it makes sense. Dominant men would be more likely to survive (passing resilience to their offspring) and more "attractive" women were more likely to be fertile.

Similar ideas can be seen in today's society, with the stereotypical idea of the man needing to be providing more for the family financially, the woman often transitioning to a "stay at home" parent more often than the male. These are troubling ideas because it causes men to blindly seek ambition solely for the sake of ambition, and forces women to believe that image is everything. Are these ideas right? Definitely not.

The real question we should be asking is whether we are able to escape these apparently instinctual ideas of "man and women" or if it's hardwired into our nature. Being a bit of an optimist I would like to think yes it is something we can move away from. A great deal of change has surfaced in the past hundred years with women leading a much more active role in society (being able to vote in Canada in roughly 1917). This change can actually be further exemplified in recent society. Just a few months ago British Prime Minister David Cameron went on paternity leave. A random example I know, but at the time I was shocked. However, after thinking it over, I realized how respectible such a decision was. The existence of paternity leave in itself demonstrates a lessening of the gap between the traditional roles of men and women.

Whether or not men and women will ever be considered complete equals I'm not sure. Not that one will be superior to the other as a whole, but in specific circumstances perhaps (would you prefer a women or a man to babysit your children?). It's understandable for some discrepancy because women and men are physiologically different (not that one is smarter than the other, but think differently? Definitely). I do believe however that we can lessen this gap significantly by challenging the ideas of "men" and "women". Women should be allowed to push themselves towards ambition, while men shouldn't be afraid to take a step back (which I feel is probably the more difficult change society has to face, easier to strive for power than relinquish it). More importantly though is that members of the opposite gender must also be open to accept these role reversals.

There will always be those who would challenge this change, but ultimately I feel that it is much wiser for one to not only be open to change, but encourage it. New ideas need space to breath and grow to come to fruition, especially if this truly is a world of becoming. I'm not talking about an overnight instantaneous change, but society can aim towards true equality step-by-step. If a society's ideals are defined by the beliefs of the majority, then we must change our own individual beliefs so that they may one day catch like wildfire.

"Be the change you want to see in the world." (Ghandi)

Never stop questioning.

Society and Men - Advertising

Tough Guise: http://video.google.ca/videoplay?docid=-9632437500432634#

I thoroughly enjoy how witty the title of the above video is. Again an awesome video, but you can get away with watching the first ten or so minutes to see the main message of the talk.

First off, I really thought that this was a nice change of pace from the traditional idea that women are the only people affected by advertising. It is an issue for women, without a doubt, but they're not the only ones. The idea of a man having to be physically strong, violent and generally dominant is an idea that has existed for some time, although it is interesting that the speaker pointed out how it seems to have become a greater and greater factor as time has passed (larger guns for actors in films, bigger biceps in children's toys, etc.).

The speaker really drove the topic home when he pulled out the statistics of male violence opposed to women. Taking a look at the ideas surrounding us, it doesn't come as quite a shock that dominance is a huge aim in the media towards answering the question of "What is a man?".

But we can't all be Chuck Norris.

I was watching a sit-com the other day and it connected to this issue very deeply. The man of the family refused to watch a romantic movie because he thought it was sissy, though his wife thought he should show his sensitive side. He ends up watching it himself and gets very emotionally attached to it, even crying. His wife finds out and is touched, but when they finally sit down to watch the movie together she is turned off by his "baby" attitude. Now, being a sit-com, I expected a touching solution to this problem. Perhaps the wife learns to accept her husband for who he is and the husband agrees to tone it down a bit. Instead when the wife confronts him on it he lies, telling her that he was just joking around about it. She believes him... that was it.

Disappointing According to Jim. Disappointing.

Shows like these are usually pretty light-hearted, but I couldn't let go of what this "solution" meant. The man was forced to put up a guard for how he was really feeling, hiding a part of who he was from the person he shouldn't have to hide anything from, his wife. What does this mean for their marriage? In terms of the sit-com obviously nothing, but if it were in real life I feel like there would be problems. The episode just seemed to resonate the message from the talk that men have to put up this tough exterior.

So what can guys do to combat this image? I feel that that shouldn't be all that a man is. Nobody should feel weak all the time, but at the same time showing weakness at times I believe can be a strength (especially since society has the idea we should be otherwise). The talk itself featured examples of highly respected men who break the stereotypical image and I thought that was great to illustrate. Men feel they need to be strong to get any respect and it's a terrible thought that they have to hide a part of who they are. No one should have to hide what they really want. Ultimately I feel that men should try to throw away their "faux" strength and replace it with true strength. The confidence that comes from being who you really are. No matter what anyone else thinks.
-Never stop questioning.