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.