The concept of freedom is deeply embedded in the American story and psychology. We are the ones that fled the oppression of theocracy and monarchy to shape a new existence. Indeed, this sense of autonomy and independence colors much that we do and celebrate.
Lately, though, many Americans have expressed a particularly troubling interpretation of freedom, a binary, absolutist interpretation. The choices are 1) externally mandated, dictated structure on one hand (as is the case with monarchy or other non-participatory society), or 2) absolute freedom from structure (as with the popular understanding of anarchy).
This idea of freedom is used to justify uncompromising opposition to any and all restrictive legislation. For example, many who oppose firearm regulation stand on a platform defined by a resistance to any imposed structure, and thus neglect to engage in a meaningful discussion about the particular issue.
A polarized, binary view of freedom doubly misses the mark, by skirting around either side of a third, typically superior option: to participate in designing the structures that govern our interactions. Our country was founded by people dedicated to such an enterprise, and the constitution is revered not only for its elements of liberty, but those that encourage participation. Instead of following that lead, we citizens often behave as if at war with one another, entrenched in some or another extreme position, divorced from the processes of reasonable scrutiny and collaboration.
But this is a manufactured war. The battle lines are created to marginalize meaningful change, which is always rather moderate. It is a play on the psychology of fear to maintain the dominant paradigm.
Here's to hoping that we can step off the battleground and move productively together.
Saturday, April 25, 2015
Take Back the Story
A while back I read a very interesting book: "Program or Be Programmed" by Douglas Rushkoff. It coincided with my first foray into computational programming (for engineering tasks), and it was therefore both relevant and eye-opening. In it, Rushkoff argues that we are influenced heavily by programming, and that by learning about the concepts and methods employed in creating such codes, we gain both empowerment and awareness.
The rise of literal programming (i.e. computational or computer-based programming) has coincided with advancements in another kind of programming: media programming. TV shows are literally called "programming" within the industry, and every other kind of information medium-- radio, billboards, internet, magazines, etc.-- is analogous. They are all engineered to deliver "messages" to us, and this engineering is informed by the sciences of sociology, psychology, and biology to maximize their efficacy.
A quick tour of advertisements from the 50's run in parallel with those of today reveals very clearly the advancement of programming sophistication. This, of course, is a dynamic system which plays off of the evolving cultural sensibilities which are both drivers of- and driven by- the messages that permeate our lives.
This kind of messaging is a quite natural element of a market-driven society. Our social structure, based on the notion that pursuit of individual, short term gains collectively drives an emergent prosperity in society as a whole, carries an implicit imperative to utilize any and all tools at our disposal to pursue our individual interests.
There is a cost, however. It's actually visible on every level of this structure, but it's most famously identified at the large-scale corporate level: the externality. This is the idea that if it is possible to outsource the cost of your action, you will increase the net gain from that action. Highly visible on those larger scales (e.g. pollution, sweat shops, climate change), the externality plays out on a small scale as well - with similar costs.
This concept was popularized in 1968 by Garrett Hardin in his "Tragedy of the Commons," and previously, in 1833, by William Lloyd in a pamphlet discussing shared grazing rights. Both interesting reads.
The severity of the consequences outlined by Hardin and Lloyd has reached a peak in today's society. We are in the midst of the most dramatic, ever-increasing sickening of... everything: our personal health, our social health (sense of connection between one another), and our ecological health.
On all of these levels, the trend is pointed toward an inevitable tipping point. The foundations of our civilization are actually in peril. Few will debate this point reasonably.
My proposal (probably not original) is this: let's take control of the messaging; take control of the story. We need to recognize that the media messaging is designed to reinforce the status quo. Our messages should be re-designed from the roots - replacing the mass-produced messages with those that make sense at an individual level, and with a longer timeline in mind.
The number of absurdities that we have come to regard as normal and acceptable is incredible. I hope that we might start to "see" the programming and take control of the message. Our story needs to be more about the space between us -- connections -- and less about the discrete entities (people and things).
The rise of literal programming (i.e. computational or computer-based programming) has coincided with advancements in another kind of programming: media programming. TV shows are literally called "programming" within the industry, and every other kind of information medium-- radio, billboards, internet, magazines, etc.-- is analogous. They are all engineered to deliver "messages" to us, and this engineering is informed by the sciences of sociology, psychology, and biology to maximize their efficacy.
A quick tour of advertisements from the 50's run in parallel with those of today reveals very clearly the advancement of programming sophistication. This, of course, is a dynamic system which plays off of the evolving cultural sensibilities which are both drivers of- and driven by- the messages that permeate our lives.
This kind of messaging is a quite natural element of a market-driven society. Our social structure, based on the notion that pursuit of individual, short term gains collectively drives an emergent prosperity in society as a whole, carries an implicit imperative to utilize any and all tools at our disposal to pursue our individual interests.
There is a cost, however. It's actually visible on every level of this structure, but it's most famously identified at the large-scale corporate level: the externality. This is the idea that if it is possible to outsource the cost of your action, you will increase the net gain from that action. Highly visible on those larger scales (e.g. pollution, sweat shops, climate change), the externality plays out on a small scale as well - with similar costs.
This concept was popularized in 1968 by Garrett Hardin in his "Tragedy of the Commons," and previously, in 1833, by William Lloyd in a pamphlet discussing shared grazing rights. Both interesting reads.
The severity of the consequences outlined by Hardin and Lloyd has reached a peak in today's society. We are in the midst of the most dramatic, ever-increasing sickening of... everything: our personal health, our social health (sense of connection between one another), and our ecological health.
On all of these levels, the trend is pointed toward an inevitable tipping point. The foundations of our civilization are actually in peril. Few will debate this point reasonably.
My proposal (probably not original) is this: let's take control of the messaging; take control of the story. We need to recognize that the media messaging is designed to reinforce the status quo. Our messages should be re-designed from the roots - replacing the mass-produced messages with those that make sense at an individual level, and with a longer timeline in mind.
The number of absurdities that we have come to regard as normal and acceptable is incredible. I hope that we might start to "see" the programming and take control of the message. Our story needs to be more about the space between us -- connections -- and less about the discrete entities (people and things).
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)