Interesting Times [an opinion piece]
Jul. 11th, 2003 11:00 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
azekeilThis morning I watched some of Kilroy. I know, it's my own fault really. But it got me thinking. The program was about couples where someone had cheated on their partner and the discussion was about people's experiences with being taken back and given a second chance or not. A man was talking about his remorse and regret at his having an affair and wanting to be taken back.
Up until this point it had been a frank and open exchange of views, with no one jumping down anyone else's throat, people just telling their experiences.
A woman responded to this man with the opening line, "How can you love two people?"
My interest in the program abruptly switched off. Well actually that's not true - my level of empathy for the people involved nosedived. I wanted to see what they said about it. Not a lot - it was accepted implicitly by the audience in their deafening silence on the matter. Sometimes it's a shame the show's producers miss a trick by casting their nets wider to get the BIGGER picture, not just what's socially accepted as the norm. I must admit, I didn't watch the program to the end as I was already late for work.
But in any case, it got me thinking. There are fundamental flaws with monogamy. It's by definition posessive, promoting negative behaviour like jealousy. Because it's the socially accepted norm it is also the default, the ignorant choice. It puts pressure on people to 'find the right person'. It promotes a very insular and introspective style of relationship; in standard marriage vows: '..forsaking all others..'.
The woes of peer pressure continue, promoting living together as the natural next step. One that is often taken without much thought for how it will actually work; what each person's needs are, financial and emotional commitments, etc.
Now, before you get me wrong, this is not a post about monogamy bashing. I know a good few people who are in fantastic monogamous relationships. Polyamoury has a whole host of different flaws as well. For example, there are those who get swinging and polyamoury confused, much to the detriment of all concerned. Polyamoury is not the norm, it is difficult for people to accept, an uphill struggle. Polyamoury forces people to communicate. Also, because it is not the norm, it can do exactly the opposite of what it is supposed to achieve; it can close off whole sections of people. Some dismiss it out of hand as alien, but there are also those who consider it but decide it is not for them.
The legal system and businesses in this country on the whole have no concept of polyamoury let alone consideration for it in their policies. Polygamy is illegal: in some forms it would be classified as bigamy.
It can be a lot more difficult to juggle each person's needs in polyamourous relationships, leading to feelings of being left out, and the same old problems of jealousy. There is of course the issue of increased risk of STDs. Not only is there an increased risk but each person must take responsibility not just for their own health but for the health of every other person in the relationship. Many polyamourous relationships have simple ways of dealing with this.
I explored briefly the possibility of alternative living arrangements, such as a commune or some much more cohesive group than tends to be found in society today. As technology has progressed, it becomes less and less important to give back to the community in which you live as it becomes easier and easier to spend your time elsewhere. Increases in transport and further, increases in difficulty in transport have lead to the breakdown of the community as the foundation of our society. Increases in communication have also had the same effect, but have also lead to the formation of new communities, of which LiveJournal is a great example. Communities which can share similar outlooks on life, interests, attractions, and nearly the whole gamut of human interactions. Of course, this is not without downfalls. It is a lot easier to avoid any sort of responsibility for ones actions in these new-formed communities. Only those communication methods which call for an investment in time and emotional effort will be successful in promoting close-knit communities where people can interact profitably. I personally keep most of my interactions to people I can or have met, by way of increasing responsibility and thus the value of my interactions.
In the advent of diminished responsibility, it can lead to people feeling like they don't belong and they can feel overwhelmed with not being able to find a place to 'fit in' or 'settle'.
I want to consider the social, cultural and political ramifications of the perfect transport system; free teleportation. It would allow communities to interact more freely; promote much more interaction between people and cultures that wouldn't otherwise get to interact. It could open up avenues of trade and skilled working that would have been impossible before.
It also has the potential to start more and bloodier wars than ever before. Security would take on a completely different meaning, and potentially be completely unenforceable. Politics would have to be revolutionised. Countries would no longer exist. Cultures would lack the insulation to generate their cultures in the first place.
Take Britain as an example. As an island it has the world's busiest airports and a high population density for a first-world country. It has been an attractive prospect for many people of all cultures to come and live and work here. The advent of cheap and accessible transport has enabled that.
But as a result of cheap and available transport, people neglect their responsibilities to their local communities and move elsewhere or simply interact elsewhere.
If you look at any group of people today, the ones with the most individual culture and the most community responsibility are those with the least available transport and communication.
You can see the lack of responsibility manifesting itself in modern-day problems, such as increased numbers of single parents. The close-knit communities of the past would have frowned on that sort of outcome and put pressure on the roaming parent to stand up to their responsibilities. Of course, that's not to say that that was the best solution. Violence, abuse and inequality were far more rife then.
The point is that I believe that we are going through a societal and cultural revolution. I have no idea where it will end up but slowly and surely the problems faced by everything from communities right up to world politics is facing the pressures caused by increases in availability of communication and transport. Soon it will reach a point where something will snap, and it will have a cascade effect.
These are interesting times.
Up until this point it had been a frank and open exchange of views, with no one jumping down anyone else's throat, people just telling their experiences.
A woman responded to this man with the opening line, "How can you love two people?"
My interest in the program abruptly switched off. Well actually that's not true - my level of empathy for the people involved nosedived. I wanted to see what they said about it. Not a lot - it was accepted implicitly by the audience in their deafening silence on the matter. Sometimes it's a shame the show's producers miss a trick by casting their nets wider to get the BIGGER picture, not just what's socially accepted as the norm. I must admit, I didn't watch the program to the end as I was already late for work.
But in any case, it got me thinking. There are fundamental flaws with monogamy. It's by definition posessive, promoting negative behaviour like jealousy. Because it's the socially accepted norm it is also the default, the ignorant choice. It puts pressure on people to 'find the right person'. It promotes a very insular and introspective style of relationship; in standard marriage vows: '..forsaking all others..'.
The woes of peer pressure continue, promoting living together as the natural next step. One that is often taken without much thought for how it will actually work; what each person's needs are, financial and emotional commitments, etc.
Now, before you get me wrong, this is not a post about monogamy bashing. I know a good few people who are in fantastic monogamous relationships. Polyamoury has a whole host of different flaws as well. For example, there are those who get swinging and polyamoury confused, much to the detriment of all concerned. Polyamoury is not the norm, it is difficult for people to accept, an uphill struggle. Polyamoury forces people to communicate. Also, because it is not the norm, it can do exactly the opposite of what it is supposed to achieve; it can close off whole sections of people. Some dismiss it out of hand as alien, but there are also those who consider it but decide it is not for them.
The legal system and businesses in this country on the whole have no concept of polyamoury let alone consideration for it in their policies. Polygamy is illegal: in some forms it would be classified as bigamy.
It can be a lot more difficult to juggle each person's needs in polyamourous relationships, leading to feelings of being left out, and the same old problems of jealousy. There is of course the issue of increased risk of STDs. Not only is there an increased risk but each person must take responsibility not just for their own health but for the health of every other person in the relationship. Many polyamourous relationships have simple ways of dealing with this.
I explored briefly the possibility of alternative living arrangements, such as a commune or some much more cohesive group than tends to be found in society today. As technology has progressed, it becomes less and less important to give back to the community in which you live as it becomes easier and easier to spend your time elsewhere. Increases in transport and further, increases in difficulty in transport have lead to the breakdown of the community as the foundation of our society. Increases in communication have also had the same effect, but have also lead to the formation of new communities, of which LiveJournal is a great example. Communities which can share similar outlooks on life, interests, attractions, and nearly the whole gamut of human interactions. Of course, this is not without downfalls. It is a lot easier to avoid any sort of responsibility for ones actions in these new-formed communities. Only those communication methods which call for an investment in time and emotional effort will be successful in promoting close-knit communities where people can interact profitably. I personally keep most of my interactions to people I can or have met, by way of increasing responsibility and thus the value of my interactions.
In the advent of diminished responsibility, it can lead to people feeling like they don't belong and they can feel overwhelmed with not being able to find a place to 'fit in' or 'settle'.
I want to consider the social, cultural and political ramifications of the perfect transport system; free teleportation. It would allow communities to interact more freely; promote much more interaction between people and cultures that wouldn't otherwise get to interact. It could open up avenues of trade and skilled working that would have been impossible before.
It also has the potential to start more and bloodier wars than ever before. Security would take on a completely different meaning, and potentially be completely unenforceable. Politics would have to be revolutionised. Countries would no longer exist. Cultures would lack the insulation to generate their cultures in the first place.
Take Britain as an example. As an island it has the world's busiest airports and a high population density for a first-world country. It has been an attractive prospect for many people of all cultures to come and live and work here. The advent of cheap and accessible transport has enabled that.
But as a result of cheap and available transport, people neglect their responsibilities to their local communities and move elsewhere or simply interact elsewhere.
If you look at any group of people today, the ones with the most individual culture and the most community responsibility are those with the least available transport and communication.
You can see the lack of responsibility manifesting itself in modern-day problems, such as increased numbers of single parents. The close-knit communities of the past would have frowned on that sort of outcome and put pressure on the roaming parent to stand up to their responsibilities. Of course, that's not to say that that was the best solution. Violence, abuse and inequality were far more rife then.
The point is that I believe that we are going through a societal and cultural revolution. I have no idea where it will end up but slowly and surely the problems faced by everything from communities right up to world politics is facing the pressures caused by increases in availability of communication and transport. Soon it will reach a point where something will snap, and it will have a cascade effect.
These are interesting times.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
Re: Part II
Date: 2003-07-11 07:54 am (UTC)Were the lords of the manor or monarchs ever more responsible because they belonged to a community?...Does the local squire act any more responsibly?...the local Rotarians/Mason?...the local merchants?...publicans?...parents?...children?
Or do people just behave as they will until someone/something else stops them?
I think you'll find that it is outside pressure that makes people act within certain confines rather than any sense of community...and even then they bend the boundries of what they are 'not allowed to do' as far as they can.
And I don't see how more travel lessens anyone's sense of responsibility...I think I see what you're driving at and I wouldn't disagree necessarily, but at the same time I would point out that as someone who has done alot of travelling in their life, speaking from experience, people who have no sense of responsibility exist everywhere...and are mostly to be found in their local community rather than far-flung...those of who travel the World and/or live in other countries ...for any serious length of time/with any real frequency...by choice tend to be in the minority...so the majority of irresponsible people are being irresposible on their own doorsteps...
So, I don't think the availability, or lack thereof, is the deciding factor with regard to the whole issue of social responsibility..a contributory one, yes, but not as significant as you seem to think
>but I do believe the breakdown of the social structure known as community will eventually lead to some vast cultural change (for better or worse).
I think that's simply a truism
>I would more readily agree that communities used to be formed by people who lacked the wealth/power to afford transport or communications
There is a greater degree of freedom now, yes, but nevetheless many people in the World still cannot afford to leave their own backyard...remember that the World does not simply consist of the affluent West plus a few others...go to India and see the caste system in action...go to Africa and see how many people have the same freedoms we do...Check out the deathcamps in China...
Even here in the West there are still too may people struggling to make endsmeet...look at the housing crisis in this country for instance...ever fewer people can afford to get on even the lowest rung of the housing market...or if they do it's somewhere where there is no work and they have to travel long distances to ensure the employment that will enable them to spend almost their entire day either at work or travelling to and from it...which takes a hefty cutout of their budget, further reducing their quality of life options...
And it's not becaue they would choose that way if they had an option..but because a much smaller minority have the power to maintain a system that benefits them
How free is that?
>One thing I do find difficult to swallow is that although you may be correct, that mass media and globalisation and communication allow people to get a better idea of what is 'normal'
I think you've misunderstood me here..my apolgies for being unclear...What I meant was nopt that these things enable one to understand what is normal...but that they actually define what is normal in the minds of most people - Television. Drug of the nation
I understand your concerns about the homogonisation of humanity in the modern World, but surely freedom to travle is what has made (this country's inparticular) our culture so diverse and enriched...What is the point of worring about the lack of diversity if, in order to ensure diversity, you have to prevent any contact between the different groups?
All very interesting from God's point of view (a SimLife fanatic if ever there wasone), but pretty limiting for the rest of us, I think you;ll agree...
Don't lose sight of realityin your concern about the abstract...yes diversity springs from the well of unique groups of individuals with their own gene/meme pools ... but it equally springs from the fountain of interaction and clashes as groups encounter each other and new environments...no challenges means no evolution means extinction
Re: Part II
Date: 2003-07-11 08:21 am (UTC)Even for those people with little opportunities the opportunities afforded by increases in availability of travelling and communication have already deeply affected their responsibilities to their local communities. Your example of someone who has to work at a location far from their home just shows how little responsibility he has to have in his local community. It's all 'dealt with' by the government, which includes the police to deal with criminal issues, amenities to deal with sanitation etc. All your average Joe Public has to deal with (in the loosest possible terms) is how to earn money and pay taxes.
My point about the breakdown of community is that I believe it is happening. Certainly that statement by itself is a truism.
I certainly agree that all the advances we have don't necessarily make for a better or freer life, but I'm focussing on the changes to society, specifically surrounding the community, that our modern life has on us. Market towns rely on local community. That's why for example farming has had to scale up, because local communities no longer exist - they've been replaced by globalised shopping operations; supermarkets.
I've lived in Indonesia for some of my life and experienced third world countries. They may not have the technological advances over there, but what I remember from my experiences was their cheerfulness, the level of integration amongst their local businesses, the feeling of community. By comparison England is bloody miserable - it's full of people who look at you mortified if you try to strike up a conversation with someone in the street. The whole culture promotes introspection and misery. Anyway, enough of that rant.
Television. Drug of the nation I agree with you on that. Opiate of the masses. Dulls independent thought.
Once again I agree with you - of course I do not mean we should all go off to develop separately and never interact. The point I am trying to make is that by destroying community you are destroying responsibility. Without responsibility I believe there is diminished value to interaction. It ties in with reality. What makes things REAL? If you couldn't die then death would be meaningless. There is so much fiction and religion that covers this topic.
Re: Part II
Date: 2003-07-11 08:41 am (UTC)No..it shows howlittle responsibility anyone else fels towards them...we all let it happen because it his problem, not ours...but then we're all in the same boat one way or another...all wage slaves with or own problems to worry about because we aren't independantly wealthy at the expense of others (The Queen or Rupert murdoch spring to mind)
Also, I don't think that person is showing a lack of responsibilty...we have no way of knowing whether or not they freely contribute to their community in what little spare time they have (weekend?)...they might be a Samaritan...on the PTA...whatever
But first and foremost they are behaving responsibly, by contributing to the wellbeing of their own family...if this is all they can do, that does not make them irresponsible...just short on resources/wherewithal
It is those who could do more, but don't who are irresponsible...and we're all guilty of that.
Furthermore, what about LiveAID, RedNoseDay, etc., etc. People take a more gloabl view of their responsibilities these days...and surely that's a good thing!
>It's all 'dealt with' by the government...
So, in that case, the people fullfilling the roles of police, doctor, dentist, roadsweeper, whatever are all equally irresponsible...they do their job and no more...They're just as much individual Joe Public's as our hypothetical commuter.
>but what I remember from my experiences was their cheerfulness, the level of integration amongst their local businesses, the feeling of community
But the UK was once like that too...and as soon as it became possible to develop big business we did...other countries will go the same way eventually...it's in our nature...people are just people, wherever they come from.
Finally, if you think that community engenders responsibility, then any community must do so, surely...Look at the amount of emotional support people on LJ give each other...often a lot more than their neighbours would...Isn't that taking responsibility?
Re: Part II
Date: 2003-07-11 09:03 am (UTC)Re: Part II
Date: 2003-07-11 09:24 am (UTC)