A Nation of Placebo Addicts

Essentially, it strikes me as dis-empowering and potentially opening people up to exploitation that we do not address the role of placebos. Many, if not most are aware of their existence, but the ramifications seem to make no difference in how we approach healthcare, as well as other areas.

The power of the placebo effect is essentially to "trick" a person into feeling better. That is, by applying a neutral intervention (therapy, pill, or other treatment), the person is able to heal or to speed recovery. This improvement is often attributed to the "natural power of the body to heal itself", but there seem to be a couple components that make it more than just wishful thinking. First, of course, the 'patient' believes that the intervention will work. This is crucial, and the part that leads to mis-attribution to super-natural causes. The second is the setting and/or provider, which lends credence to the intervention. Think about the difference between getting a prescription from a respectable, older-looking person wearing a white lab coat in a clean and modern clinic versus being tossed a bottle by a ratty, greasy guy in torn jeans outside the local mini-mart. Similarly, the difference between listening to your favorite music on a quality sound system at home versus sitting quietly in the audience of demure sophisticates at an intimate performance versus being in a raucous crowd of drugged-up hippies at a standing-room-only event. The setting influences your experience, for better or worse. These two factors, personal expectations of and the setting around an intervention, lead to how successful a placebo is. Being explicit, or telling a patient, about a placebo can actually have little impact on the outcome.

How much better would it be to use this power intentionally? Properly asserting that the power lies with me, rather than outside myself, we could build a more whole society of confident people. Of course, it would be vital to acknowledge the limitations of placebos, and continue to rely on appropriate treatment for medical conditions. However, adding in that it is important how we perceive our own treatment—the positive or negative attitude we hold—could improve our odds of success. At the very least, it highlights how treatment is a joint effort between provider and patient, rather than a supplicant begging for healing from a god-like Doctor, as it has historically been portrayed. This is where the dis-empowerment comes in.

Additionally, there is potential in utilizing this tendency in order to dismiss quackery and scams. By assuming that a positive belief will tend to improve chances of success, we can analyze failure more critically. Recognizing the tendency to 'fall for' something we want to work, but that does not perform, could be important. When something succeeds, we may be more likely to examine whether it was due to sheer placebo effect. From media to "alternative medicine", knowing that we are improving conditions for ourselves just through our approach. Because we believe in the TV personality (the 'setting' of the 'treatment'), we could question whether it was the placebo effect all along. Rather than relying on "experts" we could get better at spotting quacks and fraudsters.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Placebo

https://www.health.harvard.edu/mental-health/the-power-of-the-placebo-effect

This One Simple Trick....

When we try to pick out anything by itself, we find it hitched to everything else in the Universe.

The above quote comes from John Muir, an important figure from the 19th century.

Life is never one thing at a time, but that is how we tend to convey or discuss things. The singular focus of an essay, the headline that conveys one idea, the single-solution presentation, or the click-bait advertisement are at once attention-grabbing and succinct enough to "drive engagement". One major contributor to this is the endless demand of time from so many competing areas. With limited time for comprehension, the tendency is to be pulled to shorter and shorter answer-focused outlets. So much of what we read, watch, and listen to is designed to be consumed quickly—and often to provide the answers without the understanding an audience deserves. Worse still is the exploitation of this time crunch by those who wish to sway opinion, and provide not just quick, but emotionally manipulative material. This allows them to dictate what is important and what should be done about it to a credulous, if weary, audience.

The concern here is treating others as means to one's own ends, which is what describing and treating people as "consumers" or "customers" does. Working our own ends upon others as though their value is only what they can provide us is simply in-humane. Once more, however, this is an expedient solution to the quandary of how to deal with others, and not just in a business context. Essentially, we have here the "How to Win Friends and Influence People" approach, which shows how to use tricks to get others to submit. It is a perspective that has inveigled its way into popular consciousness through much of the self-help industry. This approach is not actually about helping oneself to be a better human, improve connection, or understand others, rather how to achieve goals despite the needs, beliefs, and actions of others. The scam-or-be-scammed view on life reduces us to mere exploitation machines, each desperate not to be duped. It also makes the world a worse place to live in. Thinking of others as obstacles to be overcome, rather than fully human beings with goals and inherent dignity of their own is—and here I will be blatantly prescriptive—wrong. It creates a world where people tend to experience insult and disregard, which entices them to do the same. This attitude then spreads, influencing more people, and continues the chain of desperate individuals attempting to dupe others before they get duped. By pointing this out, I actually do hope to influence you, but in the other direction.

The inherent difficulty of writing [because I write, but this also applies to visual or audio works] is how it does not—and cannot—convey reality. Both intentionally and unintentionally, writers use what's pertinent, important, attractive, or persuasive. This immediately narrows what can be included, and reduces the full context to something more easily digestible. At best, it is a distillation of the nebulous and illumination of the dimly understood. Too often, it is bullying or prescriptive and lacks respect for the reader. I can only hope that my own efforts are about starting or expanding conversations by sharing from an unusual perspective. As we come to it now, at the end of an essay it is common to make the "call to arms" or present an "actionable item" which will solve the elucidated problem. Simply, we need to get better at nuance. This, however, necessitates a number of other steps, such as: comfort with uncertainty, expecting disagreement, accepting differences, willingness to change (opinions and more), and devoting time to topics. These are all just thoughts, however, until some of you readers decide to act on them; in essence, this does not matter until you make it.

At least, I hope, the wending path of this blog post suffices to demonstrate the continued truth of the included quote. It may be that is the message, that when we begin to consider others, we find it leads back to ourselves.

Business as Usual

Interesting things can be done a number of ways or take a multitude of forms. If there were only one type of flower or bird, they would be boring. Useful, even essential, but dreadfully monotonous to only see one shape and color repeated endlessly wherever one looked, like grass. Playing a game that has only one outcome or way to progress is dull; the excitement of playing is in not knowing what will happen. Whether I win or lose, how we get to the end is novel each time — in a good game, anyway.

People talk about business as if it were interesting; there are entire TV channels and reams of magazines devoted to discussing business. The truth is that business is boring. Not in the sense of filling out forms or collecting data about productivity, although that is certainly tedious. People act as if there is some variability in business or there are novel discoveries waiting to be made in conducting business. While advertising and methods of payment have certainly changed over time, the business of selling is unchanged and unchangeable from ancient history into the future. All it consists of is getting more for something that what one paid. Whatever it is, from bikes to jewelry, clothes to food, babysitting to writing, every single action in business is determined by this simple, underlying principle: buy low, sell high. Whether it is goods or services, the only thing that matters is that I get paid more for something than what I paid to get it. There is no mystery, no novelty, nor any innovation here.

You knew this already. Everyone has heard "buy low, sell high" or that business must turn a profit. This is so commonplace that we don't talk about or recognize it; because it is so ubiquitous, it is trivial. The only thing interesting about this is the mystical, reverential attitude people have about "business". It places emphasis on a tool, the simple practice of conducting trade. Concurrently, this attitude extends to those who conduct it. The reason for pointing this out is simply to question the legitimacy of this worship of business and suggest that the attention paid to the subject would be better spent on other pursuits.

Keeping Down the Jonses

In medicine, the term 'anosognosia' means the patient cannot recognize their own condition. A person literally cannot conceive of the issue or connect the cause with the effect of their own suffering. This is similar to — although distinct from — when we cannot examine own situation as objectively or dispassionately as an outsider could. While this is a common and important human flaw to be aware of, it is different than the patient's blindness: the inability to connect varying symptoms with the underlying disease. It is also different than having others mislead or deny information that would allow one to understand the problem; the term gaslighting may come to mind for some. We need to be clear about these different causes and conditions in order to recognize how to fix our situation. The objective here is to expand the conversation and provide better tools for examining our collective problems.

Additionally, individuals and groups attempt to exploit ignorance, confusion, and desperation by offering self-serving explanations. It is the reason we have scammers, fascists, demagogues, and "influencers" explaining away all problems as due to "godless living", "too many immigrants", "raising 'soft' children", "not 'grinding'/'hustling' hard enough", etc. The insistence that these are all personal or individual issues, despite impacting every person in the society. Claiming that mass shootings are just "lone instances" or "disturbed individuals", rather than the result of choices and influences that pervade the culture. Demanding that nobody look at the arrest, sentencing, and incarceration of minority persons — let alone the violence surrounding law enforcement towards same — as a systemic problem. The 'individual responsibility' narrative serves to maintain things as they are, and benefits those who feed off such conditions. If we were to (or were able to) examine our situation with objectivity and allow for systemic or systematic oppression, we could find solutions that we could not otherwise.

However, the suggestion here is that there exists a greater case of anosognosia than even the collective blindness to violence, inequality, or suffering that people live with every day. In fact, I propose that it is the root cause of those symptoms. It may seem odd to refer to conditions as diverse as police shootings, economic inequality, theft, houselessness, addiction, everyday callousness, political apathy, excessive imprisonment, despair, and extractive practices as anything other than causes themselves. This is due to the blindness — often enforced by self-interested parties — which society has about these terrible conditions being outgrowths of a pervasive condition which supports them. Yet, after seeing the connections, one can recognize a great number of issues as symptoms of that underlying, unacknowledged root cause. Whatever name we know it by, the notion that there is some immutable scale of more and less deserving persons dictated by natural principles. The assumption that there are people who should not have power, privilege, or prestige. This is the underlying belief that makes it possible for otherwise caring and compassionate people to blame victims and excuse the mistreatment of others, thus allowing a system of oppression and suffering to continue.

Let us briefly examine one example as practice at seeing the pattern. While houselessness (previously, homelessness) has been around a long time, people in the U.S. are experiencing it in greater numbers over the past few years. There are a number of rationales for ignoring it, many bordering on the absurd. For this example, set aside budget and history, let us set aside the mundane world and imagine instead that all humans, no matter their limitations or choices, deserve food, shelter, health, and autonomy. If every person were thought of and treated as worthy and deserving — and our systems were oriented to actually ensuring the life and liberty of its citizens — then nobody could be unhoused. If the life of any person living "on the streets" was valued just as highly as any celebrity, it would be impossible to allow that person to continue to live in those conditions. Once, and only when, this ridiculous attitude is abolished, will we begin to progress into the future.

It is only because we allow ourselves to believe that there are deserving and undeserving, worthy and unworthy, valuable and disposable people that so many forms of suffering continue. It causes us to fear being put into the "unworthy" group and look down on those who are called "unworthy". It leads to systems which thrive on and contribute to the prejudicial notion of hierarchy.

The First Step in Fixing a Problem is....

Not so much a mystery as it is an assumption. Anyone in a recovery program will recognize, "The first step in fixing your problem is admitting you have a problem." Others might say it is, "...defining the problem", "...understanding the root cause", or "...recognizing there is a problem". These are all very pithy and goal-oriented. You may have surmised, by this point, that I have a suggestion which differs from these. This is correct, and not only that, I believe it is a vital difference. The baked-in assumption is that we can fix the problem, since the sentence begins with, "...first step in fixing...". It is here that we have already lost a large number of people, because they do not believe a fix is possible. It may seem strange or illogical to imagine that anyone could think we are just stuck with problems, that there is no solution for some things. However, this is the issue underlying many conflicts in relationships and life: one side thinks we can fix it and the other side does not.

In a previous post, I made mention of growth and fixed mindsets. These terms refer to the belief that either change for an individual is possible or not, respectively. In terms of nature versus nurture, one with the fixed mindset will hold that nature wins out and cannot be changed. This can be expressed, "Some people are just born bad" or "You can't fix stupid". This may seem to some as an antiquated notion, something that has been superseded by progress and scientific discovery. However, the fact we can hear people continue to use such expressions should be enough to demonstrate the tenacity of this perspective. It is this attitude that poses a barrier in fixing problems, ironically enough. Those with a fixed mindset will work around the difficulties that others present, assuming that there's nothing to be done to change those others' actions. "It's just the way they are," they will shrug to themselves as they assume the other person cannot change. Rather than pointing out this other person's actions as being problematic, looking for ways to fix the situation, or even contemplating how to address the problem, these folks will take it upon themselves. This situation or attitude may begin to seem familiar, as you contemplate times in your life when someone acted this way.

The point here is not that people are incapable of change, and certainly not to berate anyone for thinking such. Having experienced such change in my own life, I hold with the growth mindset and can attest that it can happen. Because of this, I can believe that the same is possible for you, even if you currently hold a fixed mindset. My hope in writing this is to point out how the presuppositions we do not recognize can end up sabotaging our efforts to make things better. Therefore, my suggestion is that the first step in fixing a problem is simply to believe change is possible.

The Trouble with Philosophy

First, because it is too easy to assume that we share an understanding of what is meant by a word, let us agree on a simplistic definition for laypeople. Philosophy means both thinking about general principles and the overarching beliefs about how things work because of those general principles. Throughout history, philosophy has drawn from outside human society and psychology for rules or understanding of the ways in which things work. From prehistoric religions to the Hellenistic Period of idealized forms, the guidance philosophers offered tended to disregard the human in favor of the super- or extra-human. For example, Pythagoras theorized some very real mathematical instruments still in use, but was also responsible for a religion around mathematics. The heart of religion is bending reality to fit belief, rather than forming understanding based on observation of reality. This insistence that the world acceded to numbers, or that certain numbers were 'sacred' and 'powerful' and could influence reality, was important to Pythagoras and his followers. Despite it's popularity, it did not actually describe a truth or become the basis for a science or society. There are diverse more recent examples, more or less connected with academic philosophy. It is also important to note that our typical interaction with philosophy is informal and generally comes from family and community. This is because we can overlook our own philosophy, since we do not immediately think of it as being such. It is simply the underlying set of assumptions that silently guide how we interpret the world around us, our worldview.

Certainly, philosophy as a discipline has given and continues to give us tools to explore reality and question how we examine it. The fields of ethics and logic are contained within the realm of philosophy. This post does not seek to undermine its real work and advancements, but only to interrogate its limitations. Specifically, has this historic tendency to treat philosophy as an outgrowth of mysticism been a hindrance? Has it created a shared fallacy of some "immutable, eternal truth" or constant, unwavering order to existence? Rather than allowing us to accept that we have an incomplete and ever-evolving understanding of reality, or that we understand the universe through our own (limited) lenses, does this pursuit of perfection blind us to our role in that understanding? The point being that the desire for or expectation of an immutable and total answer may stall our advancements. Blindness to steps taken and insistence that an eternal truth is the only acceptable measurement could be a real threat to progress.

Further, if this has been the case, have we shaken off that tendency? Even after the Enlightenment and Humanistic advancements, this could still be a factor. Have we divorced our philosophy and philosophical pursuits from the need for a mystical basis? A belief that our flaws make us incapable of arriving at valid, if incomplete, conclusions could persist. Have we accepted that we will not arrive at an eternal and immutable truth via our philosophizing? That we are not seeking to understand a rational 'actor', but rather that we are examining an imperfect species' view of a neutral universe? If we do not accept and embrace these tendencies, and factor into our philosophy that central tenet, we may still be sabotaging ourselves.

I suggest that answering these questions could only benefit the field and humanity.

Proposal for a True Universal Currency

How we currently calculate the value of an item is purely economical, in the pedestrian sense. Some version of: “I’ll pay a little more than the total price of components, production, transportation, and sale of the item”. Let us look at a small example to understand the process better. In creating clothing, the demand for various other components was also born; in order to make one thing, we need various tools, ingredients, or processes. The basis for clothes is thread, which can come from sources like cotton, wool, or newer artificial fibers. Any of these require land, water, and effort in order to cultivate, harvest, and produce. While animal or artificial fibers require somewhat different ingredients, they are similar enough for our discussion. Land must be cleared for farming and/or factories, requiring energy for labor and machinery to make a plot usable. The crop must be cultivated, and most often water is involved, requiring further energy output for reservoirs and distribution networks. Finally, once ready for harvest, energy must be used to gather it for processing: reaping crops, shearing sheep, or manufacturing plastics. Additionally, fibers can be stored for the future as well as transported to where the fibers will be transformed into usable thread and then clothing. If we are to create enough thread to clothe a population, there is tremendous infrastructure and construction necessitated. While shoppers see the price of a shirt, the production of that one article is repeated tens of thousands of times requiring a tremendous apparatus that extends beyond just the shirt company. To arrive at a final price, many contemporary examples would also include government subsidies, tax breaks, undercutting competitors, advertising, and on ad nauseam. Additionally, we are not accounting for the loss of habitable land given over to industry, the toll on workers (physical or otherwise), or the environmental impacts of various practices. There are many costs which only get calculated later if enough people raise enough of a fuss. Once established, technologies become more political and decisions have more to do with what industry will allow to be considered than the actual components. In short, what gets considered a “cost” is subjective and often poorly understood. This illustrates some of the underlying problems with the current system. It would be better to have a simpler, universally applicable, and objective way to arrive at the value or cost of any item. As you might expect, there may be such a thing, but we must first explore some basic science in order to make the connection.

First, notice that the word “energy” appears a number of times in our example above; whether electrical, physical, mechanical, or chemical, the work done can be expressed as units of energy. While we may be accustomed to using this term in various ways, for our discussion here we need to think of it as it is used in physics. This means two things: energy exists along an electromagnetic spectrum and only some of it is useful. Energy exists on a scale from radiation at the high end to heat at the low end. It moves "down" easily, i.e. standing in the sunshine warms you up. However, to convert heat back into electricity it takes more energy than we get from that change to heat. We can generate electricity using the falling water at a dam to turn an electromagnet, converting potential mechanical energy into electrical energy, but we would not be able to draw the same amount of water back up into the reservoir using the electricity we gained. This is because there is always some amount of loss in converting any form of energy into another. Once energy translates from light into heat, it is no longer available to perform tasks; once the water is boiled, that heat cannot be used as electricity again. Next, everyone recognizes that it is easier to destroy than create; it takes time and effort to make the sand castle, but it will quickly fall apart on its own. That is entropy: the tendency towards loss of order and need for energy to maintain order. Further, entropy is a universal process. While the news mentions "peak oil", "post-oil economics", etc., which are different ways of expressing our limited supply of petroleum, the same is true of all energy sources. You may remember learning in school that our Sun has a lifespan, and will burn up at some point in the future. More broadly still, there is a finite amount of usable energy in the entire universe and when that is expended further change will be impossible, expressed as the "heat death of the universe". Recognizing this might encourage some to “conserve energy”, but the purpose of this post is just to point out the limitations of our current financial reckoning and suggest improvements.

With this understanding, of both the limitations of current economic accounting and entropy as a basis for the true representation of costs, we can construct a system which would express all activities as consumption of our total energy “budget”. Thus entropy would become a basic unit of currency and evaluation at once. For true cost-benefit analysis, we could do no better.

Speeding Through Life

Many are aware of the practice in production of "speeding-up" a manufacturing line. A popular example is found in The Jungle, where slaughterhouse workers are told to move faster in their work. This is desirable for the business, as more product means more money; however, it is largely deleterious to workers. In a slaughterhouse, workers are in dangerous surroundings using devices meant to inflict harm. Cutting muscle from bone is helpful when converting a carcass into meat, but a mistake can result in that same cutting of the human worker. In any industry with repetitive movements, the necessity for breaks is clear and the push from supervisors to keep on the line is harmful. Many industries want to mechanize to further increase output and profit, but the closest they have is to treat human workers as if they were machines. One way to do so is by insisting they get few breaks or vacations and longer work hours. The threat of firing is most often used to coerce workers to continue even after their bodies have begun to fail. It is the promise of having employment choices which convinces most people that capitalism is a beneficial system. This requires that there be other options available, of course, and it is often not true for low-skill, entry-level, or rural workers. When factory workers are told they can work harder at the only plant for hundreds of miles or be fired, the choice is either sacrifice their lives slowly on the line or quickly by not having income. Of course, working conditions have been an issue of public discourse for well over a century, and there is little to add. However, we can look at how these same practices are being introduced outside traditional industries and even beyond the workplace.

You may think that because you don't work on a production line that you would be immune to the harmful practices of manufacturing. However, increased costs of living induce people to work longer or accept multiple jobs in order to survive. With the advent of email, text messaging, and expectations of being 'always-connected', workers find that they are asked to give more of their time to their employer. If your job haunts you at home or wears on you during your commute, that is a cost you assume on behalf of the business. Additionally, the spread of "grind mentality" makes it seem appealing to 'always be hustling', or that you are missing out if you are not 'grinding'. In this, every aspect of life is an avenue to be exploited for gain and turned into a "revenue stream". Even if you aren't 'on the line' at a plant, you are inundated with messages that you are slacking and should be busy doing something. This all adds stress to takes time away from the everyday tasks, chores, and recreation people consider their actual "life". In this case, the entire society becomes the manufacturing plant and every citizen is a harried worker. Job insecurity, fear of missing out, pressure to compete, conspicuous consumption, and substandard wages all combine into workers feeling dis-empowered in general, and now not just at work. Even recognizing this tendency and the changes we experience as things get worse requires time, which is the very resource that is being taken from us.

Learning from Lies

We spend a good amount of time listening to music, absorbing news, browsing social media, watching shows and movies, so what are we actually learning from all this? How many people learn exclusively through popular culture or media? How many develop ideas about behavior in a relationship or at work, or other social expectations? What about beliefs, attitudes, or views about what is normal? For example, what are the messages you got from your favorite movie growing up? These are a few basics of media literacy (although more attention has been paid to evaluating validity in recent years). The impact of passive consumption—simply meaning times when critical analysis is suspended—is what we consider here.

Of course, no one 'expects' media to be models of how to behave; we are meant to learn those from our families and cultures in childhood. However, the inescapable tendency of being a social creature is to project ourselves into those stories and relate to the characters. This is a power of stories, to make a personal connection and change our awareness through that connection. Additionally, many children are not given tools to evaluate media and parents are too busy working to spend time on more than the basics of child-rearing. The same trap can befall a child who does learn from their parents, but is never given the tools to interpret their parents' examples. Obviously, stories are dramatized to keep us engaged, but does that prevent absorbing messages about behavior as well? This question is implicitly being asked in recent conversations about how news covers shootings, or even what events are chosen for audiences. The very act of including something in a broadcast and spending time on it gives that news item importance. The FBI's own information shows that the U.S. is significantly safer now than in past decades, yet the belief most commonly expressed in media is that of increasing danger.

Just knowing if something is true or made-up is not enough since both create an impact. We need context to accurately evaluate what we experience, and critical thinking/media literacy is about analyzing context. In recognizing how these media and messages are shaping society, we have an obligation to ask critical questions. We are also within our rights to demand these media be responsive to our analysis.

Why Villains Always Lose and Heroes Are Reluctant

It is odd that heroes in entertainment are the ones who just react to the villain's plan. Superheroes in comic books and movies, the "good guys" on TV shows, and even in literature and documentaries. From Bond to Batman to Brockovich, the individual the audience is supposed to identify with, who conveys the morality of the story, is not the one initiating change. In Joseph Campbell's hero's journey, it is the passive protagonist who is forcibly taken away from the known world and endures events which unfold around them. Why is it that we are meant to idolize the person in the story whose motivation is to stop the plans of others? This is a question about the psychological impact in the real world on the audience: us. If it is the case that we grow up with the notion (conscious or not) that being a good person means reacting or waiting for someone to rescue, what sort of expectation is that? These are the stories we share with our children. If we expect children are smart enough to pick up on the morality of the tale, do we really think they miss the message that the focus of "good guys winning" is just to stop the baddie from completing their scheme? This is the ideal we inculcate in our society: do not plan, do not attempt to influence others, and do not seek to shape the world, because only villains do those things. Just sit back and allow things to unfold, only taking action when something "bad" happens. Change is aberrant, and to be endured; events are out of our hands and happen to us, rather than because of us. The person who initiates or explores, who takes action, is somehow wrong. This means that having a plan is suspect, and the good act to prevent others from completing their plans. In short, our stories tells us to be reactive.

There are some arguments to note in this examination. First, that this narrative flow arises from human thinking and therefore demonstrates a natural occurrence reflecting the basics of storytelling. After all, conflict is drama, and drama drives interest; it makes no sense to tell a story that is not interesting to the audience. Second, that due to complex social networks, humans benefit from reactivity and passivity. These approaches maintain stability and conserves traditional structures that work, allowing steady and safe progress, rather than upheaval. Finally, that proactivity can lead to overbearing interference or invasive progress. The reason they are villains is that they are over-reaching in their plans, and should seek only to change their own lives, or at least set more humble goals. While these are fine points, they are more complex or deal with rational thinking, and the problem is more like subliminal messaging. The basic idea that good people only act to stop villains is so simple and pervasive that it is only a question now that we are examining it. Before now, it would have seemed unnatural to think of such a fundamental aspect of the stories we have heard all our lives. Most of the arguments around these three points can be allayed quite simply. We can recognize that stories could be just as compelling with protagonists who see problems in the world and begin to construct ways to overcome them, upsetting the status quo and building coalitions towards the betterment of all. There are a few of these stories already.

I will mention here just how good Black Panther is, and how well it illustrates my points. Certainly, one part is about how a prince becomes king, the hero's journey. However, the entire movie revolves around the tension between tradition and modernity, centered on maintaining morality in a changing world. The central character does not drive the action, because he is again reacting to the events being imposed by the outside world. T'Challa's idyllic life in Wakanda is ended by the murder of his father. Afterwards, his smooth transition to sovereign is interrupted by the return of a cousin (N'Jadaka) who was left to die by that same father. We get to see how stability can become stagnation and that the certainty of accession does not grant perspective. Here, we have an encapsulation of the entire discussion about villain versus hero, proactive versus reactive. The villain is right, has a plan, and in the end everyone benefits from his vision; however, the entire movie is about the hero who has to be dragged into the present and face the world because of the actions of that villain. T'Challa was not setting out to discover the best course of action for himself or his nation, he did not even recognize the problems of the world as important, and would not have questioned the policy of isolation on his own. It was only through the actions of N'Jadaka that Wakanda gained a ruler who was capable of appropriately leading.

It should give us pause when the villain is beaten, and the hero goes back to waiting for something else to go wrong. Why are they not planning how things can be better, or challenging themselves to prevent the need for such extreme plans? How are we emulating that reactionary model in real life?

How Success Can Lead to Failure

Historically, it seems there has been an acceptance of "successful" peoples' actions, methods, and recommendations for others, as though wealth or popularity conferred a sort of impunity and entitlement that those without were meant to subscribe to. The belief that the "powerful" and "elite" must know what they are doing, and inherently are to be trusted and obeyed. While in feudal times lords and ladies had both social and legal prerogatives, this was shifted during the European Age of Enlightenment. There was a sense that those in power were fallible and human, therefore structures should be enacted to combat such troublesome tendencies. During the more recent era (let's say from the Industrial Revolution) that seems to have swung back towards expansive privilege, and came to include "tycoons". It may be that these robber barons were given social cachet as their wealth allowed these individuals to craft a positive public persona. We ended up with the notion that the wealthy "can do no wrong" inculcated into public consciousness. We could seek explanation in psychology, and the desire for idealized role models; however, it is unimportant for this introduction. The point is to notice the shift in attitudes towards more or less latitude given to those "in power". A frightening example in recent years is the trend of "celebrities" who are "famous for being famous". This seems to mean that they are given status, afforded media attention, and discussed by everyday folk simply because they reached a threshold of public awareness. This recognition indicates no greater education, simply that the person has skills and resources enough to become noticed. A feat, we must recognize, that is easier in recent times with the prominence of social media added to the dearth of "news savvy"; if you disagree, I would point out how serial killers and, more recently, various "shooters" became household names. After some amount of time this recognition allows them to build a "following". Once established in the public consciousness, they can expand out from the initial event they became known for (in this I refer to sports figures and local political operatives—hopefully not murderers). This aspect demonstrates how people in the public eye are given no small amount of deference and power by those who listen or watch them, and how this is problematic.

Whether it is a celebrity product endorsement, an economic pronouncement from an industry leader, or just a fad hocked by an attractive also-ran, the attention paid to these individuals comes at a price. Not just because the latest diet does not work, the product is shoddily made, or the economic plan is self-serving, but also because it takes the thinking and discussion away from citizens. Inherent in the history of this issue is that "they know better"; that royalty, tycoons, or celebrities have a better understanding of the situation than those who are in it. It seems like some sort of confabulation between being trained and informed as a professional and just being popular. It can be alluring to trust: someone else has already done the tough job and all I have to do is agree or disagree. However, citizens are not only meant to be informed and engaged, but also the public should have a sense of how to analyze and discuss issues. If regular citizens are not involved in their own government operating in their best interests, and instead rely on industry or popular figures to make those decisions, the democratic process is suspect. The function of a public hearing and of voting is to get as many of those differing experiences of the problem under discussion and come up with a solution that will address it as best we can. The skills to do that work are not commonly taught in our schools, or discussed at the dinner-table. Most people do not have the time or inclination to learn how to come to consensus, and that is aside from having time to actually use such skills and discuss public issues. The other side to this is that without a wide section of the community involved, many aspects of issues get missed. Above, it was noted how professionals are expected to come up with solutions, and that expectation extends to the successful. The notion that we should listen to "experts" over those impacted by a situation becomes increasingly problematic. Look at recent discussions of 'race' and policing. How can we expect to make the best decision without getting an accurate picture of the issue? It would be like expecting a medical doctor to diagnose a condition without any tests or background from the patient. At that point, it is just guesswork and the treatment is more likely to fail. This exposes the biggest problem with handing over agency to someone whose credentials are just having been on TV: the image is not the reality.

Finally, there is the problem of disposability. The tendency to get rid of someone because of the slightest perception of impropriety. What this means is so subjective as to be meaningless, but every scandal is another possible end to a career. This demand for perfection traps not only the celebrity, but the citizen as well. In order to remain an ideal, these people are required to live up to unrealistic expectations. Those who aspire to public office face meeting those unachievable standards just to have a chance. This is only reinforced when a public figure makes an inevitable mistake and is thrown out. Most situations are multifaceted and need some unpacking to understand, and we rarely get that in public discourse. I am gladdened to see some public figures (a current example would be Senator Fetterman) having real-life struggles that do not immediately result in resignation. To admit frailty and failure—to be human—and still retain agency and engage in discourse as we are. Of course, I hope the Senator recovers, but moreover, I hope this is a sign that we no longer demand the impossible from each other and are instead able to accept human limitations while engaging in public discourse. This can only help more citizens to become involved and allow the bumptious process of democracy to flourish.

Country Folk, City Folk

Often people point out the divide between urban and rural, most often emphasizing beliefs that result in greater disconnection. For example, "folks in the country are all uneducated and backward" or "city folk are rude, stuck-up, and useless". Having lived in both areas, I think there is a fundamental attribute which is misconstrued, and there is much more in common than we give credit for. Many who live in tight quarters will romanticize the spaciousness of "country living" and imagine having nobody for miles around as some idyllic existence. There are strains of "rugged individualism", of course, running through this idealized rural setting. Also, some notion of it being a place where people can "really count on each other", that "folks still know their neighbors", and where a handshake counts as a contract. These are, of course, characterizations and stereotypes that may bear some resemblance, but do not encompass the reality of their lives. The same urbanites who simplify the rural life also distort their own experiences, seeing themselves as sophisticated, progressive, and productive while not having practical skills or producing great advances for society. It is true that in the city, folks are more free to pursue their interests and have anonymity to make mistakes. There are innumerable opportunities, as well as like-minded people to share interests with. The flip side of "the city never sleeps" is that it is noisy, crowded, and littered with the waste of all that living--not all of it wrappers and chewing gum. Country folks will imagine that a crook or druggie is hiding behind every corner, and there is nowhere to find any peace. Someone owns every square inch of space, and you have to pay somebody to do anything in the city, even just sit down. It is also easy to interpret that city "sophistication" as arrogant or pretentious. Conversely, rural folks will disregard all the difficulties of being away from cities as a 'small price to pay'. Less money in taxes does mean fewer services and poorer outcomes a greater percentage of the time. There is also just as much of a problem with mental health outside the city, although it can look different. Rural people either discount it as "just the way they are, they're harmless" or don't see it because those struggling never come into contact with others. These are just some of the ideas that seem to circulate and infiltrate the two groups' thinking. This leads to wondering if there is anything to connect them, so vast is the divide. Here is the central problem which all the emphasis on differences creates: it seems as if all that exists are differences.

However, let us turn to a simple example to examine how a fundamental difference in circumstances can create these divisions, despite having so much in common as people. No matter where one lives, there is always the opportunity to encounter disaster. For those in rural areas it is a matter of course to be prepared for such events, since there is no guarantee of rescue. Folks in urban settings do not expect to be facing the emergency alone and may only prepare for short-term needs. This brings up the reason behind these differing approaches, which is, once more, a circumstantial rather than an innate difference between the two groups. City folk are accustomed to being surrounded by others, both living in close quarters as well as having an abundance of services. It is unimaginable for urbanites that they would not be able to obtain some random item in the middle of the night. It becomes the underlying expectation and seen as a positive; if a drain clogs, someone gets sick, the power goes out, or a chair breaks, the urban person has a plethora of options to call on. In the country there are limited services available during any situation, and one can only hope the hospital is open past 9. The point being that these circumstances create the conditions for different expectations and modes of living. A person from the city encountering trouble in the countryside could be forgiven for not knowing how to handle adversity in an unfamiliar setting. This situation could lead to those rural folks thinking the urbanite "foolish, unprepared, ignorant, and pampered"—but only judging by rural standards. Similarly, the country bumpkin fixing their truck in a parking lot of the city is practically a trope. A rural person in the city might come prepared for everything that could possibly go wrong and believe no one is friendly. This could be seen by the urban individual as "paranoid, un-trusting, stubborn, and embarrassing", since they have such differing expectations. This is each judging the other by their own standards, and being unfamiliar with the ways of that other. The urban neophytes who fantasize about a rural life fail to recognize the basic similarity to their own situation. Shared in common is the need for support from time to time. Country neighbors do not help because they are more idealistic or a better breed, but out of the same necessity that drives those in the city: reciprocity. The truism of "this time you, next time me" is the same all over. It is a simple calculus that we cannot do it all on our own and therefore need to be that good neighbor so someone will be there for us next time. It is an almost-unrecognized necessity that 'of course we help each other out, because we are all we have'. This is not exploitative, altruistic, pessimistic, nor noble, it just is. Folks in both settings will disregard the importance of others in their lives, because it is the unrecognized background of living.

Of course this is not the explanation for every difference or contention, as stated above. However,  because we live in times with such apparently insurmountable differences, it can be helpful to recognize how such a basic issue could create ill-will between two peoples who are not that different after all. Possibly, instead of focusing on the perceived differences we could begin to notice the similarities, and that could lead to better understanding. Once we begin to see that there are alternatives to the distancing stories that people tell, maybe there can be bridges built and improved relations.