Author
|
Topic: The age of selfishness
|
rasmus
malcontent
Babbler # 621
|
posted 09 October 2002 12:18 AM
quote: I left for Hong Kong in late 1998, returning just over a year ago. It was the first time I had ever spent a chunk of time outside Britain. I recommend it. You will never see your own country in the same light again, especially if you choose to live outside the west. You will realise that "our world" is a small and declining fraction of humanity, a fact that we are largely unaware of in our post-imperial hubris. I had left these shores with a feeling of unease. Far from sharing the widespread euphoria for New Labour, I was deeply troubled by what seemed to me to be its transparent vacuity, its devotion to hyperbole rather than substance. My disquiet about my country, though, was not confined to the Blair "project": it also had something to do with the state of the culture, with the rise of celebrity, the coarsening of tone, a loss of meaning, though I found it difficult to give expression to these thoughts. [...]
Over the last decade or so, there has been a general trend in western societies towards mass populism, "rabble" democracy, and a "consumer is king" cultural mentality. Many programmes on television reflect this, from Big Brother to Jerry Springer, as does the rise of politicians like Silvio Berlusconi who, more than any other political figure, epitomises the new culture. The roots of much of this lie, not least, in the extent to which the market has become all-pervasive. The ubiquity of market values came as quite a shock to me after nearly three years away: when you live with it all the time, somehow you become unaware of the extent to which it is progressively invading the culture. The market mentality has moved well beyond the original areas of contestation into health, education, old age, culture, relationships, morality, personal behaviour and childhood. The market as the measure of all worth is visibly on the march, seeping into every pore of society. Market hegemony, however, is not the only reason for the trend towards individualism. It is also a consequence of a seemingly unstoppable movement towards personal freedom. In any trade-off between the social good and personal freedom, the latter has progressively won out. The old rules and boundaries marking personal behaviour have been eroded, sometimes even dissolved. Rules are to be made and remade, there are no absolutes. [...] I must admit that I now view the balance between social good and personal freedom differently from before I left England. Broadly speaking, while appreciating the downside, I still felt that the trend was positive. Now I hold a different view. The combination of marketisation and unrestrained individualism are profoundly corrosive and are undermining the social ties that bind us together.
The age of selfishness
I corroborate the observations made by Jacques. When I returned from India after 4.5 years, it was with completely new eyes. Actually, that was a major experience of politicization for me. [ October 09, 2002: Message edited by: rasmus_raven ]
From: Fortune favours the bold | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
DrConway
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 490
|
posted 09 October 2002 01:42 AM
Sometimes people who've never travelled beyond a nation's borders can be just as keen at seeing the problems faced in the industrialized nations as they relentlessly pursue the idea of I me my mine and screw the rest of the world with no thought for the consequences.I also note that a lot of travellers to other countries don't always gain any appreciation of what the West is doing to itself and to the rest of the world - I submit Gordon Campbell is a perfect example of someone who has not gained a whit of compassion for anybody but his Howe Street buddies for all that he's been in Africa. The problem is that people are inherently lazy. And it's easy to appeal to peoples' inner lazy fool by appealing to the selfish side of someone. It takes work to be generous. It takes no effort to just grab for something and take it with no thought for who you took it from. Even people who aren't inherently mean-spirited towards poor people probably feel less and less able to fight against the tide and atomize as time goes by. "Activist burn-out" is a symptom of this.
From: You shall not side with the great against the powerless. | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
bittersweet
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2474
|
posted 09 October 2002 05:21 AM
quote: In any trade-off between the social good and personal freedom, the latter has progressively won out.
I notice that product branding increasingly, and directly, confuses personal freedom, consumption, and social good. The other day I saw a billboard for Diesel jeans, which seemed to associate the shirtless, rebellious (homeless?) youths in the photo--well, their jeans really--with a nebulous activism. I've had a gut feeling lately, that everything in this gilded hemisphere seems so slight. That the "developed" world I live in and take for granted may in fact be a house of cards. (Well duh, you say--of course it is. But what we know intellectually isn't as disquieting as facing up to what we know in our hearts). I don't mean this arena is only an economic house of cards, one supported by the undeveloped world. I mean that whatever this is--I guess the word is "society"--feels ever more spiritually bankrupt. I used to be able to filter out that sensation. Now it's not so easy. Maybe if I bought a pair of Diesel jeans and became a (ahem) self-styled activist I'd feel all better.
From: land of the midnight lotus | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eauz
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3057
|
posted 09 October 2002 03:19 PM
Although I had spent it in Belgium which is going with the "Western" Flow, I had a change of characteristic in myself, when I was over there. I spent a year as an exchange student, and I learned a lot about myself, and how much I used to not care about any other countries but USA and Canada. Once I was over there, I learned about countries I've never hear of, and I just got a totally different feeling of change there as to here in North America. I guess us North Americans have never felt that change because (a)Our Countries are Extreamly Large (b)If you were to drive like for a couple hours in Belgium going any direction, you would end up in another country (France, Luxembourg, Neatherlands, Germany) But if we do that here in North America, we just end up in the same province (unless PEI ) and they pretty much speek the same language as you. And World Affairs are more important to them than to us. Sure 9/11 happend, but it seems the USA rather than figure out the problem, they just resolved it with Bombs. Like they always do. I also, found myself buying less brand products like Nike and other companys, and going with the more "no logo" clothing...etc... But, having taken that Exchange program last year, learned 2 things, How to speek French, and How ignorant North America is to the World.
From: New Brunswick, Canada | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
lagatta
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2534
|
posted 09 October 2002 03:30 PM
As a woman, I find the comments made by Martin Jacques, supposedly a Marxist, deeply disturbing. He rightly skewers the individualism and disposibility of relationships in Western societies, but harkens back to a reactionary utopia in which biological family relationships are more important than chosen, elective ones. I feel far more drawn to people with whom I have a shared history of political action and intellectual commonality than the folks I encountered at a family reunion a couple of years ago, with whom I could share nothing but meaningless pleasantries and certainly not talk about the real priorities in my life - transforming society and "changing life", in the words of Marx and Rimbaud, as quoted by the Surrealists. Many people have emigrated from traditional societies, not only to the First world but to the burgeoning cities of the South, to flee starvation and hopelessness, of course, but often also to escape the stranglehold of traditional social relationships.
From: Se non ora, quando? | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
Debra
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 117
|
posted 10 October 2002 08:55 AM
I think it's funny that many who do not want children say those that do are selfish and vice versa.Point of fact we are all selfish. For those of us who eat meat we are selfishly interfering with another beings right to exist. Vegetarians and vegans are selfishly interfering with a plants right to exist (the are after all living beings too). We are by nature selfish in order to survive. I do think that there are some consequences to society becoming too anti child as it were, because children require us to prepare for and care about the future. In many native traditions any major decision required thinking about how it would affect the next seven generations. I think we could use some of that.
From: The only difference between graffiti & philosophy is the word fuck... | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
angela N
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2705
|
posted 10 October 2002 05:48 PM
We can not talk about declining social values in a society that has such cultural variance. Common values are dependent on cultural conformity.For those of you who have travelled a bit, it is easy to see what it is that we are missing here in NA, there is a lack of culture that is a natural result of having no common heritage, it’s the reason that we find it so easy to move around and pick and choose friends, buy and sell our homes - live in different communities, have a distant (if any) connection to family. We can reinvent ourselves at random. All this will result in a feeling of non-connectedness. We are a nation of immigrants(save First Nations), we can potentially have no common bond with our neighbour be it, language, custom, religion, politics, ethics, race. (This is also what makes us so bloody polite - simply placing your hand in a particular place could be a grave offense to a specific culture - the same gesture could be a sign of romantic interest in another) However, it’s also the reason that we are so progressive, open-minded, tolerant, likely to intermarry, aware of cross cultural differences, and capable of looking at those differences with interest and curiosity where other, more homogeneous groups are more likely to see the differences with skepticism fear and intolerance. We can not have it both ways.
From: The city of Townsville | Registered: May 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
'lance
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1064
|
posted 10 October 2002 06:57 PM
quote: We can not talk about declining social values in a society that has such cultural variance. Common values are dependent on cultural conformity.
I think you're right. It may be that Martin Jacques is bemoaning the loss of a Britain that hasn't really existed in twenty or thirty years, if it ever did. quote: For those of you who have travelled a bit, it is easy to see what it is that we are missing here in NA, there is a lack of culture that is a natural result of having no common heritage,
But this, I think, doesn't necessarily follow at all. I don't know what it could mean to say that any society has a "lack of culture." Lack of cultural homogeneity is not the same thing at all. quote: However, it’s also the reason that we are so progressive, open-minded, tolerant, likely to intermarry, aware of cross cultural differences, and capable of looking at those differences with interest and curiosity where other, more homogeneous groups are more likely to see the differences with skepticism fear and intolerance.
I suppose the rate of intermarriage is increasing in North America, and perhaps people are less alarmed about ethnic diversity than in other societies. But to a large extent, I find such blanket statements more self-congratulatory than meaningfully descriptive. As Pico Iyer says, just a few miles outside the wonderfully multicultural Toronto, say, are communities where a non-white face is scarcely to be seen, and where more people than will admit to it like that state of affairs just fine.
From: that enchanted place on the top of the Forest | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
angela N
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2705
|
posted 10 October 2002 09:38 PM
quote: But this, I think, doesn't necessarily follow at all. I don't know what it could mean to say that any society has a "lack of culture." Lack of cultural homogeneity is not the same thing at all.
Lack of culture, Lack of cultural homogeneity...please explain the difference when we are speaking of the 'national culture". quote: I suppose the rate of intermarriage is increasing in North America, and perhaps people are less alarmed about ethnic diversity than in other societies. But to a large extent, I find such blanket statements more self-congratulatory than meaningfully descriptive.
So you agree (you suppose), but will not trouble yourself to explain. You will however, take the time to insult me, how nice.
From: The city of Townsville | Registered: May 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
'lance
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1064
|
posted 10 October 2002 11:09 PM
quote: So you agree (you suppose), but will not trouble yourself to explain. You will however, take the time to insult me, how nice.
I agree to a limited extent with some specific parts of what you said. But as I see it, such sweeping generalizations as quote: we are so progressive, open-minded, tolerant, likely to intermarry, aware of cross cultural differences, and capable of looking at those differences with interest and curiosity where other, more homogeneous groups are more likely to see the differences with skepticism fear and intolerance.
are commonplaces in North America, particularly in Canada. And yes, I do see them as self-congratulatory (that is, collectively so) and with far less foundation than most people who make them suppose. They gloss over, albeit unintentionally, a lot of ugly realities, both historical and contemporary. I had no intention whatsoever of insulting you; nor, as I see it, does criticizing what someone says amount to insulting them. But if you see it differently, fair enough; there's probably very little more I can or should say.
From: that enchanted place on the top of the Forest | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|