Showing posts with label Politics. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Politics. Show all posts
European and American population scales in relation to economic diversity
I wonder if there is a connection between the fact that Europe has countries with more similar population sizes and more equitable distribution of wealth within and between countries (than in the New World). In the Americas, there's "America," powerful and confident enough to call itself by the name of both continents, and there's all the others with far fewer population sizes, and much weaker economies. Within these countries, as well, there's more disparity of wealth. Is the greater economic equality of Europe contributing to a psychological acceptance of or demand for equality? Has the inequality between the Americas normalized internal inequalities? Has the exceptional wealth of the US simply attracted more people, contributing to its large population size, independently of internal politics? Are all the American economies based on resources and immigration first and foremost, and long-term economics second?
Has anybody noticed that the word "equality" has almost vanished from public discourse? It's more taboo than the word "liberal".
Has anybody noticed that the word "equality" has almost vanished from public discourse? It's more taboo than the word "liberal".
God, guns, and gold
A few decades ago it first occurred to me that American conservatism can be boiled down to an obsession with god, guns, and money (or to complete the alliteration, god, guns, and gold). When it came to joining church and state as in "prayer in schools," for example, they were for it. When it came to enlarging the military budget or "using force," or the death penalty, or anything having to do with the satisfaction of death, they were for it. And when it came to any issue where profits were in conflict with people or the environment, they usually sided with profits.
What I didn't realize is that many conservatives are proud to declare this obsession, which implies a different, curtailed usage of certain words and symbols, (or a profound cynicism maybe.). If you grew up with the combination of religion and guns in the home and with making a living, then "god, guns, and money" seems like a good representation of an honest, well-intentioned, and totally ethical philosphy. But these words have other meanings in different contexts. My main question is whether conservatives are aware that these words have additional meanings to other people in their own country and on the planet. Do they know what they are communicating to others? Do they have any empathy regarding their terminology?
from http://www.patriotdepot.com/ggag.aspx
Let's break it down:
God: For conservatives, it seems, this word has unambiguously positive meanings. It implies morality, humility, dedication, principled living, respect for a higher authority. But for many others it could also imply medieval, pre-enlightenment world views, narrow-mindedness, blind adherence to oppressive traditions, institutional corruption due to lack of checks and balances and critical thinking, intolerance of other belief systems, violence in god's name.
Guns: For conservatives this word stands for the right to bear arms in the defense of liberty and personal safety, and for the official mission of the military which is to defend the country. All that seems reasonable. But the word guns also conjures up violence, killing, war, destruction. The US military used to be called the war department. Now that it is much more war-oriented, it is called the defense department, and is the largest in the world and in history. Guns (meaning weapons) are also a huge industry with a long history of illegality and corruption. Guns are a form of power, and power corrupts. Not good, not christian, right?
Gold: I assume what is meant here is economic survival, self realization, productivity, prosperity, entrepreneurship, providing for your family, independence, personal fiscal responsibility as opposed to being taxed or receiving welfare. (I think gold also addresses a preference for the harder gold standard, as opposed to the fluctuating paper we use now.) But the word gold also connotes greed, selfishness, corruption, materialism, shallowness.
In short, the three words could easily be misread as intolerance, violence, and greed.
An additional question: do the promoters of this verbal trinity know that it could come across as essentially anti-democratic? Granted, the words are intended to promote rights: the right to worship, the right to bear arms, and the right to pursue happiness. But, conservatism is usually very protective of existing institutions.
What I didn't realize is that many conservatives are proud to declare this obsession, which implies a different, curtailed usage of certain words and symbols, (or a profound cynicism maybe.). If you grew up with the combination of religion and guns in the home and with making a living, then "god, guns, and money" seems like a good representation of an honest, well-intentioned, and totally ethical philosphy. But these words have other meanings in different contexts. My main question is whether conservatives are aware that these words have additional meanings to other people in their own country and on the planet. Do they know what they are communicating to others? Do they have any empathy regarding their terminology?
from http://www.patriotdepot.com/ggag.aspx
Let's break it down:
God: For conservatives, it seems, this word has unambiguously positive meanings. It implies morality, humility, dedication, principled living, respect for a higher authority. But for many others it could also imply medieval, pre-enlightenment world views, narrow-mindedness, blind adherence to oppressive traditions, institutional corruption due to lack of checks and balances and critical thinking, intolerance of other belief systems, violence in god's name.
Guns: For conservatives this word stands for the right to bear arms in the defense of liberty and personal safety, and for the official mission of the military which is to defend the country. All that seems reasonable. But the word guns also conjures up violence, killing, war, destruction. The US military used to be called the war department. Now that it is much more war-oriented, it is called the defense department, and is the largest in the world and in history. Guns (meaning weapons) are also a huge industry with a long history of illegality and corruption. Guns are a form of power, and power corrupts. Not good, not christian, right?
Gold: I assume what is meant here is economic survival, self realization, productivity, prosperity, entrepreneurship, providing for your family, independence, personal fiscal responsibility as opposed to being taxed or receiving welfare. (I think gold also addresses a preference for the harder gold standard, as opposed to the fluctuating paper we use now.) But the word gold also connotes greed, selfishness, corruption, materialism, shallowness.
In short, the three words could easily be misread as intolerance, violence, and greed.
An additional question: do the promoters of this verbal trinity know that it could come across as essentially anti-democratic? Granted, the words are intended to promote rights: the right to worship, the right to bear arms, and the right to pursue happiness. But, conservatism is usually very protective of existing institutions.
Politically we have three institutions here: the church (god), the military (guns), and the corporation (gold). All three are basically undemocratic. To be sure, many religious denominations have democratic traditions - protestantism is certainly more democratic than catholicism. But the language and the basic relation between humanity and the supernatural is that of the vertical aristocratic state: higher authority, to serve god, glory, lord, king, kingdom. The military, also, is explicitly hierarchical, with higher level members sporting their decorations like the royalty of old Europe. It doesn't use a system of one-soldier/one-vote to promote each person to the next level. And of course its culture is very much about obedience, service, loyalty, honor, uniformity, etc. The corporation, as well, is hierarchical. Yes, there are voting stockholders among "public" corporations, and some companies have worker input or some internal redress system, but generally corporations are run on a top-down model, with appointed positions, resembling the vatican and the defense department much more than the American democratic system. God, guns, and gold, although intended as a philosophy which values the individual over the government, politically prioritizes democracy's more undemocratic institutions. God, guns and gold, sounds to me like a call for everything that the ancestors of most current Americans escaped from.
Besides the assumed absence of god, guns, and gold's negative connotations, there is the greater problem of how the symbols contradict each other. If the first principle is god, which in the American context usually implies christianity, then the other principles need to be viewed according the bible. The new testament makes many diverse arguments, but its ultimate message, by shear repetition, is compassion for the less fortunate, i.e. peace and selflessness. Guns and gold, I would say, represent the exact opposite of peace and selflessness. In this internal contradiction of principles lies the ultimate creepiness of god, guns, and gold.
A philosphy that mixes religion with weaponry and currency seems not only hypocritical, but eager to repeat history. It reminds one of the horrors of history, in which religion, despite its official messages of peace and selflessness, has been used in violent campaigns for very materialistic goals — think crusades, feudal wars, imperialism, colonialism.
Besides the assumed absence of god, guns, and gold's negative connotations, there is the greater problem of how the symbols contradict each other. If the first principle is god, which in the American context usually implies christianity, then the other principles need to be viewed according the bible. The new testament makes many diverse arguments, but its ultimate message, by shear repetition, is compassion for the less fortunate, i.e. peace and selflessness. Guns and gold, I would say, represent the exact opposite of peace and selflessness. In this internal contradiction of principles lies the ultimate creepiness of god, guns, and gold.
A philosphy that mixes religion with weaponry and currency seems not only hypocritical, but eager to repeat history. It reminds one of the horrors of history, in which religion, despite its official messages of peace and selflessness, has been used in violent campaigns for very materialistic goals — think crusades, feudal wars, imperialism, colonialism.
In other words, do its promoters really want to call for a repeat of god using guns for gold?
Americans' knowledge of geography is inversely proportional to their influence on it.
Or, more precise but longer: The influence of the American economy and foreign policy on the world is inversely proportional to the American public's knowledge of the world.
No other country affects the rest of the world as much as the United States, through product and cultural exports, financial policies, and military interventions. Yet, the average American citizen, and especially younger Americans, are comparatively ill informed about world geography. There is a general world trend among youth away from geographic knowledge, but it seems particularly troublesome in the States. It is as if the US, in its educational institutions as well as through its media, presents itself as an island, as an independent universe, a world unto itself, with a few other nations somewhere else with far less significance. The cliché "America is the greatest country in the world" is often repeated, though rarely challenged or tested. "Greatest" implies not only "best" but also "most significant" and "largest."It is a personal opinion, presented as a fact.
I actually agree that the US is the greatest country in some ways— it has been for me, for my kind of needs and interests and emotions. There are many countries that I love, but none of them have such a broad range of aspects to appreciate. I would never claim American greatness as a general fact, as if the word "greatest" could ever be a purely factual statement. I think it would surprise many Americans that the US is not the greatest in these areas:
The US is not:
The most populous (China)
The largest (Russia)
The country with the highest standard of living (Norway)
The wealthiest per capita (Liechtenstein)
The country with the greatest upward mobility, a.k.a "opportunity" (Canada and all nordic European states have higher upward mobility).
This list could go on, and I'll spare you the "best" and "worst" lists where the US is on top. The point is that certain popular assumptions which primitively claim the US as greatest are ill informed. Feeling is not the same as fact. Belief is not the same as truth.
However, considering its size (though not the largest), its large population (though not the most populous), the US is remarkably well off and educated and well-run and democratic and peaceful (internally at least, notwithstanding the crime rate, police brutality, gun paranoia). So, I think this is where the US is truly "great." Countries of similar population size and land mass tend to be much more chaotic and less democratic, mainly because of the difficulty of management, but also because of the absence of a smart democratic system.
But when it comes to the US influence on the world, it does seem suspicious that Americans are not well informed on geography and statistics. Is it intentional (keep the population insular and distracted, while we use them to serve our interests abroad militarily)? It seems that way, but I haven't found any proof it this. Whether this is planned or not, the US underfunds education and overfunds the military, and the effects are not surprising.
Or is it a function of the country itself being so large and diverse, with a kind of "world replication" contained within? I assume this is at least part of it. The US has within it aspects of Latin America (the southwest and south Florida), northern Europe (the northeast and the midwest), the tropics (the Louisiana Bayou and the Florida Everglades), the steppes of Asia (the midwest), the Alps (the rocky Mountains), the deserts of Africa and Spain (in the southwest). The US has Chinatowns and Little Italy's, Korea towns and Little Switzerlands. So, whatever it is that propels people to travel, can be found, in diluted or partial form, within the US, for less. And, the only two borders you can drive to are Mexico and Canada. In most other countries of the world, cars and trains get you to a much larger number of countries cheaply.
There are numerous, well intentioned efforts underway to improve knowledge of geography, so lets keep our fingers crossed.
Link from National Geographic/Roper poll re: geography knowledge:
http://www.nationalgeographic.com/roper2006/findings.html
No other country affects the rest of the world as much as the United States, through product and cultural exports, financial policies, and military interventions. Yet, the average American citizen, and especially younger Americans, are comparatively ill informed about world geography. There is a general world trend among youth away from geographic knowledge, but it seems particularly troublesome in the States. It is as if the US, in its educational institutions as well as through its media, presents itself as an island, as an independent universe, a world unto itself, with a few other nations somewhere else with far less significance. The cliché "America is the greatest country in the world" is often repeated, though rarely challenged or tested. "Greatest" implies not only "best" but also "most significant" and "largest."It is a personal opinion, presented as a fact.
I actually agree that the US is the greatest country in some ways— it has been for me, for my kind of needs and interests and emotions. There are many countries that I love, but none of them have such a broad range of aspects to appreciate. I would never claim American greatness as a general fact, as if the word "greatest" could ever be a purely factual statement. I think it would surprise many Americans that the US is not the greatest in these areas:
The US is not:
The most populous (China)
The largest (Russia)
The country with the highest standard of living (Norway)
The wealthiest per capita (Liechtenstein)
The country with the greatest upward mobility, a.k.a "opportunity" (Canada and all nordic European states have higher upward mobility).
This list could go on, and I'll spare you the "best" and "worst" lists where the US is on top. The point is that certain popular assumptions which primitively claim the US as greatest are ill informed. Feeling is not the same as fact. Belief is not the same as truth.
However, considering its size (though not the largest), its large population (though not the most populous), the US is remarkably well off and educated and well-run and democratic and peaceful (internally at least, notwithstanding the crime rate, police brutality, gun paranoia). So, I think this is where the US is truly "great." Countries of similar population size and land mass tend to be much more chaotic and less democratic, mainly because of the difficulty of management, but also because of the absence of a smart democratic system.
But when it comes to the US influence on the world, it does seem suspicious that Americans are not well informed on geography and statistics. Is it intentional (keep the population insular and distracted, while we use them to serve our interests abroad militarily)? It seems that way, but I haven't found any proof it this. Whether this is planned or not, the US underfunds education and overfunds the military, and the effects are not surprising.
Or is it a function of the country itself being so large and diverse, with a kind of "world replication" contained within? I assume this is at least part of it. The US has within it aspects of Latin America (the southwest and south Florida), northern Europe (the northeast and the midwest), the tropics (the Louisiana Bayou and the Florida Everglades), the steppes of Asia (the midwest), the Alps (the rocky Mountains), the deserts of Africa and Spain (in the southwest). The US has Chinatowns and Little Italy's, Korea towns and Little Switzerlands. So, whatever it is that propels people to travel, can be found, in diluted or partial form, within the US, for less. And, the only two borders you can drive to are Mexico and Canada. In most other countries of the world, cars and trains get you to a much larger number of countries cheaply.
There are numerous, well intentioned efforts underway to improve knowledge of geography, so lets keep our fingers crossed.
Link from National Geographic/Roper poll re: geography knowledge:
http://www.nationalgeographic.com/roper2006/findings.html
The one hundred doctors analogy (re: global warming)
Imagine your doctor diagnoses you with lung cancer. You might want to get a second and third opinion, just in case.
What if you got a hundred opinions from doctors specializing in cancer and ninety-seven of them agree? They don't agree on precisely how much longer you have to live or the exact treatment, but they agree on the diagnosis.
The survey, conducted among researchers listed in the American Geological Institute's Directory of Geoscience Departments*, "found that climatologists who are active in research showed the strongest consensus on the causes of global warming, with 97 percent agreeing humans play a role". The biggest doubters were petroleum geologists (47 percent) and meteorologists (64 percent). A recent poll suggests that 58 percent of Americans believe that human activity contributes to climate change.
Would this propel you to act?
When it comes to global warming and the proposal that it's man-made, ninety-seven percent of those that are most expert on that subject — climatologists — agree. (See link and quotes below). Their agreement is not completely unanimous, but close.
Wouldn't this propel people to act?
If ninety-seven percent (or eighty, or seventy ...) of your doctors agreed regarding your lung cancer, would you take that seriously, or would you suspect a hoax? Would you instead listen to friends of yours who feel uncomfortable with the diagnosis? Would you choose to listen to experts working for the tobacco industry?
It's been repeated often that the denial of the obvious is caused by people's unwillingness to change their comfortable ways, plus specific conflicts of interest. I'm not sure that really explains it. Is it a problem with the lack of dissemination and repetition of information? Or is it the inability to connect world health with personal health? Maybe it's the "gatekeeper syndrome" which is what I call the phenomenon of hearing uncomfortable news and then a respected person tells you not to worry about it.
From news.mongabay.com
A new poll among 3,146 earth scientists found that 90 percent believe global warming is real, while 82 percent agree that human activity been a significant factor in changing mean global temperatures.
The survey, conducted among researchers listed in the American Geological Institute's Directory of Geoscience Departments*, "found that climatologists who are active in research showed the strongest consensus on the causes of global warming, with 97 percent agreeing humans play a role". The biggest doubters were petroleum geologists (47 percent) and meteorologists (64 percent). A recent poll suggests that 58 percent of Americans believe that human activity contributes to climate change.
"The petroleum geologist response is not too surprising, but the meteorologists' is very interesting," said Peter Doran, University of Illinois at Chicago associate professor of earth and environmental sciences who conducted the survey late last year with former graduate student Maggie Kendall Zimmerman. "Most members of the public think meteorologists know climate, but most of them actually study very short-term phenomenon."
Doran said wide support among climatologists does not come as a surprise.
"They're the ones who study and publish on climate science. So I guess the take-home message is, the more you know about the field of climate science, the more you're likely to believe in global warming and humankind's contribution to it."
Doran said wide support among climatologists does not come as a surprise.
"They're the ones who study and publish on climate science. So I guess the take-home message is, the more you know about the field of climate science, the more you're likely to believe in global warming and humankind's contribution to it."
Communism as a failed diet which blames the dieter.
Communism resembles the symptoms of unsuccessful diet programs. It has been tried by many countries: Russia (and its satellite states), China, Vietnam, Cuba, and others. In each case there were initial successes which addressed the failings of previous systems, but soon an inner corruption grew, which ultimately contradicted the initial ideals. Advocates for communism often claim that it was never properly applied or taken over by opportunists or that people weren't "ready" (see: the new man). In some ways this pattern is like a diet in which the dieter is blamed for not sticking to the program.
Imagine a diet which demands the dieter eat very little and exercise a lot for as long as necessary. This is, in fact, a good diet if you stick to it. But the vast majority of people won't and of those who will, many will relapse quickly. The proponent of the diet could argue that the problem lies with the dieters, however, the test of a good diet isn't whether it would work IF people apply it correctly, but whether people ACTUALLY apply it. Statistics matter here. Does it work en masse?
Communism isn't a system that most people are willing or able to stick to. Blaming human lack of discipline or corrupt individuals misses the point. An alternative to capitalism in present form, well worth working towards, has to address its own long term practical functionality, not just its idealistic intention in opposition to existing problems. It has to be a system that improves and corrects itself organically, because of, not in spite of human nature.
In the meantime we've tried modified versions of socialism, or its more reasonable cousin, social democracy, in the West, including in the Americas. They work amazingly well. We shouldn't lose sight of the fact that we have SOME systems that actually work, imperfectly of course, but close to the level of what was only a dream 150 years ago, when aristocracy, slavery, indenture, child labor were still the norm. Neither the self-defined socialists are happy about the present conditions, nor its vocal opponents ( they have the confusion between communism and social democracy defined as a menace to take advantage of for just about any issue), but in practice, socialism has made the world somewhat better, let's admit that.
In the meantime we've tried modified versions of socialism, or its more reasonable cousin, social democracy, in the West, including in the Americas. They work amazingly well. We shouldn't lose sight of the fact that we have SOME systems that actually work, imperfectly of course, but close to the level of what was only a dream 150 years ago, when aristocracy, slavery, indenture, child labor were still the norm. Neither the self-defined socialists are happy about the present conditions, nor its vocal opponents ( they have the confusion between communism and social democracy defined as a menace to take advantage of for just about any issue), but in practice, socialism has made the world somewhat better, let's admit that.
(Note: Capitalism, at least in its more cruel adaptations, also blames individuals instead of the system for its failings. Just think of the accusations re: "personal responsibility," "pulling yourself up by your bootstraps," "relying on government handouts," whenever a larger number of people fall between the cracks. When large scale corruption occurs, such as the savings and loan scandal or the recent banking meltdown, we tend to accuse particular individuals, organizations, or industries, instead of the general system that not only allowed it but invited it.)
Flags are too vague for communication.
For many the national flag is a powerful and unambiguous symbol. Unfortunately, it represents a different set of ideas for just about everyone; its exact meaning is never clearly defined. Does it symbolize only the good aspects of a country, or only the negative, or all aspects? Does the flag represent the country as a whole or only its government? Is it a reference to the past, present, or future? Does it represent those who have fought for it? If so, they would have fought for a representation of themselves — a very circular activity.
When you involve the flag in speech you are using an extremely vague pronoun. Imagine using the word "it" with extreme passion. No one would know exactly what you mean, unless they happen to project as you do. What's clear is only that you are passionate, and clueless about your vagueness.
When patriots employ this symbol they are thinking of specifics, but aren't elaborating on specifics in the larger world context. When people burn the flag, they usually have very specific current events in mind, but the ritual is misinterpreted by the patriots as a disaproval of their own personal and perfectly noble ideals. And the patriotic use, on the other hand is misinterpreted by victims and critics of the flag's nation as approval of the clearly reprehensible. Hence the misunderstanding: "they hate our freedom".
Flags are just a terrrible way to communicate. They were invented for battling armies to identify themselves and to indicate the direction of the wind, so that weapons could be hurled with the proper force and angle. They serve to unify different interests against a conceived external entity.
Flags work well for aggression, but terribly for discourse.
When you involve the flag in speech you are using an extremely vague pronoun. Imagine using the word "it" with extreme passion. No one would know exactly what you mean, unless they happen to project as you do. What's clear is only that you are passionate, and clueless about your vagueness.
When patriots employ this symbol they are thinking of specifics, but aren't elaborating on specifics in the larger world context. When people burn the flag, they usually have very specific current events in mind, but the ritual is misinterpreted by the patriots as a disaproval of their own personal and perfectly noble ideals. And the patriotic use, on the other hand is misinterpreted by victims and critics of the flag's nation as approval of the clearly reprehensible. Hence the misunderstanding: "they hate our freedom".
Flags are just a terrrible way to communicate. They were invented for battling armies to identify themselves and to indicate the direction of the wind, so that weapons could be hurled with the proper force and angle. They serve to unify different interests against a conceived external entity.
Flags work well for aggression, but terribly for discourse.
Experience creates the most stubborn form of prejudice: postjudice.
Prejudice, the act of judging without experience, based on hearsay and conditioning and projection towards the individual, instead of careful examination, is clearly tragic. But, I'd like to propose that "postjudice", which would be the act of judging based on personal experience, can also be tragic. Personal experience is most convincing, and much harder to counter when conclusions based on it are off the mark. Only a maximum of personal experience can counter the impressions of original experience.
If this is a free country, why do things cost money?
Under capitalism people are free, but services aren’t. Under communism, this is reversed.
This above statement is crude, but there's some truth to it. Of course, not all services in the US are privatized. The usage of roads, reception of basic television or radio, public education, etc. are without direct cost, And, whether people are completely free in the US is another, long discussion, since the high cost of living, specific travel bans, and a long list of laws restrict freedom to some extent. However, in the US there is a MUCH greater atmosphere of freedom than in any of the communist countries, past and present. Anyone who has ever been to both spheres knows this deeply. In the US, freedom is an ideological concept, kept alive by the faiths and actions of many sectors of society.
Services under communism arent't really free, but paid for by collective labor, and there isn't much choice in one's contribution to this labor. On top of that there are direct, though subsidized, costs for services and necessities such as rent, food, transportation. The people pay rent, pay for goods, but very little. Meanwhile, in China, which has converted to the weirdest and worst hybrid of capitalism and communism, there are many types of services, such as education, that require private payment.
These aren't the only two choices, as far as systems are concerned. Fortunately, the cynical Europeans have adopted social democracy, also termed market socialism. This system has refereed, fairly well, a conflict between hyper-capitalism and its consequences. In this system, services are nearly free, and people are so as well. There is also the space for complaint, which means that this system, which functions better than all others ever invented, is openly very insecure about itself.
This above statement is crude, but there's some truth to it. Of course, not all services in the US are privatized. The usage of roads, reception of basic television or radio, public education, etc. are without direct cost, And, whether people are completely free in the US is another, long discussion, since the high cost of living, specific travel bans, and a long list of laws restrict freedom to some extent. However, in the US there is a MUCH greater atmosphere of freedom than in any of the communist countries, past and present. Anyone who has ever been to both spheres knows this deeply. In the US, freedom is an ideological concept, kept alive by the faiths and actions of many sectors of society.
Services under communism arent't really free, but paid for by collective labor, and there isn't much choice in one's contribution to this labor. On top of that there are direct, though subsidized, costs for services and necessities such as rent, food, transportation. The people pay rent, pay for goods, but very little. Meanwhile, in China, which has converted to the weirdest and worst hybrid of capitalism and communism, there are many types of services, such as education, that require private payment.
These aren't the only two choices, as far as systems are concerned. Fortunately, the cynical Europeans have adopted social democracy, also termed market socialism. This system has refereed, fairly well, a conflict between hyper-capitalism and its consequences. In this system, services are nearly free, and people are so as well. There is also the space for complaint, which means that this system, which functions better than all others ever invented, is openly very insecure about itself.
Dangerous when organized
There are five things that are more dangerous when organized: crime, violence, greed, irrationality, and selfishness. Organized crime is the mafia; organized violence is the military; organized greed is the corporation; organized irrationality is the church, organized selfishness is the nation.
The danger of organization in each of these cases is acceptance and multiplication. In the context of individual action, all of these tendencies are recognized as wrong or at least problematic. In the context of an organization, the pattern of "people do as others do" (conformity) comes into play. Behavior is no longer questioned, but protected and encouraged by the institution. The institution undermines individual self-criticism.
The danger of multiplication is committing otherwise reprehensible acts on a large scale. Wrong, multiplied, should demand outrage, multiplied, but it rarely does. For example, violence is a taboo for virtually anyone. Whole news cycles are devoted to the outrage of a single, scandalous murder. But violence on a massive scale by the (own) military — this applies to any nation — is actively justified, not only by those involved, but instinctively by large sections of society who consider the military part of the larger institution of "nation".
The individual act is considered a matter of debate, but if organized and multiplied, it can count on significant protection from critique within the institution. This leads to further acceptance and multiplication of the next act.
The danger of organization in each of these cases is acceptance and multiplication. In the context of individual action, all of these tendencies are recognized as wrong or at least problematic. In the context of an organization, the pattern of "people do as others do" (conformity) comes into play. Behavior is no longer questioned, but protected and encouraged by the institution. The institution undermines individual self-criticism.
The danger of multiplication is committing otherwise reprehensible acts on a large scale. Wrong, multiplied, should demand outrage, multiplied, but it rarely does. For example, violence is a taboo for virtually anyone. Whole news cycles are devoted to the outrage of a single, scandalous murder. But violence on a massive scale by the (own) military — this applies to any nation — is actively justified, not only by those involved, but instinctively by large sections of society who consider the military part of the larger institution of "nation".
The individual act is considered a matter of debate, but if organized and multiplied, it can count on significant protection from critique within the institution. This leads to further acceptance and multiplication of the next act.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)