Loudness is in the genes

The teenager I started to speak with, turned his head to stare at me. You’re too loud, he said, I don’t like loudness. Fair enough, I responded, dropping my voice to a stage whisper, does this work better for you? This was a family counselling session, and it seemed to me that the boy was habituated to pushing buttons. His intent may have been only to embarrass the adults, but his statement gave me food for thought. Perhaps, culturally we are indeed rather loud in this country. ‘Privacy’ hardly exists; even personal conversations tend to be broadcast to all and sundry.

 

 

It must be the result of social learning. But surely it didn’t happen in a day, and has been ingrained in us over generations. It shows up our cultural roots - the agrarian background, the traditional collectivism, and the societal divisions based on birth that has been the practice of our ancestors. Sharing everything within the biraderie (one’s own kind, family or caste) was common within these social groups. Their information pool grew as a result; it nurtured interpersonal ties, and gave the group the strength of unity. Social allegiances were inward, and the wellbeing of the community trumped that of individuals.

These bonds were routinely reinforced through various activities, especially those of religious festivals, whereby the entire community was able to come together. To be loud was to feel at home, included in the crowd. Entire villages grew around this biraderie of strong intra-group ties. People didn’t need to whisper; it was safe to holler across cultivation fields and large ponds. Where everybody was somehow related to everybody else, there were no secrets. 

Mostly for economic reasons, this scenario has changed today. Many village people migrate to the towns in search of work, and their own kind therein is minority, like small fish in big ponds. Still, the loud communicative patterns are carried forward from village to city. They may now own mobile phones, but they still holler in answer to phone-calls, unconsciously attempting to bridge distance between members, as in the past.

Loudness many also be a technique meant to establish some level of interpersonal positional authority. Parents and teachers do it to ensure compliance in children.  Age, in Indian traditions, is hugely respected, even if the difference is only of a few years. The form of address tends to change, in response to social perceptions. For instance, in Hindi, there are three distinct forms of address. Anybody a little older assumes the right to address younger people as ‘tum’ rather than ‘aap’. Amongst peers, the form is generally ‘tu’, which testifies to their mutual familiarity.

Although in cities, many diverse families house in close proximity, the loudness continues - albeit here, it is for a different reason. More people, more establishments and more vehicles lead to rising levels of white noise.  As a matter of course, people go up the scale to compensate for the hustle and bustle of everyday living. The loud to drown out ubiquitous external sounds. And, because we forget to adjust in more confined spaces, raised voices in ordinary conversations become normal, not an obvious sign of conflict.

Thus, loudness must be embedded in our genes. For women in a patriarchal society, however, loudness is new learned behaviour of social assertiveness, a measure to protect their comparatively new self-dependence. Through generations, men have had tacit social sanction to shout at their mothers, wives, sisters and daughters. Women, perceived as second-class citizens, are thus dominated verbally, and sometimes much more. Any man on the street, unwilling to change with the times, and considering himself superior to women, would expect similar subservience from them. Women now need to be loud to ensure that boundaries are kept, and they are not aggressed upon. Being shouted at by a woman in public is extremely shaming for the Indian male! 

Culturally, we are loud, but our communications are faulty, since the collectivistic element of our heritage is almost lost. A new togetherness has not been built with the diverse city elements; rather the traditional concept of the biraderie diminishes. The extended ‘family’ of yore has been left by the wayside. The social universe grows smaller, and we hardly know who lives next door. We routinely become members of various social groups, but our allegiances to them are tenuous. 

The outcomes of public arguments may depend on the vocal strength of each side, as is often clearly proved with our state and union parliament representatives - members rush into the well of the House, shout slogans, and so on, to crank up the decibels. They need to understand that mere loudness is hardly the substance of good, communicative governance! Similarly, our inherited speech patterns need reexamination too, if we want others to actively listen to our words of wisdom.

Need to know temple culture

The sight of naked figures on temple architecture is disconcerting for a foreign traveler to India. She asks, in her blog, why these compromising positions should display at a temple. Obviously, at Western places of worship, nothing unprepossessing like them exists. The apparent social indiscipline upsets her organized mind, and the expectation of what should be. Clearly, there is a clash of cultures.

Organization gives meaning to everyday life in the West, a social control apparently missing in more organic cultures on the other side of the world. In the temple arts of India, erotic compositions in full view are usual. Male and female figures may be bejeweled, bedecked with flowers, but otherwise naked. 

Why? One thing for sure, the social context differs – certain artworks are dated around 6-2 millennium BCE. However, since paper trails documenting this remote past are inadequate, the conceptual reasons for the artworks must be left to conjecture. Numerous include have arisen in attempts to explain the practice. 

These include: 

• Sign of happiness, auspiciousness and prosperity: that the figures are motifs to bring good fortune.
• Mock the ascetics: that the intent is to ridicule the esoteric practices of the extreme sects. 
• Code language: that the compositions carry a deeper spiritual meaning. The figures are not about the humans but symbolic representations of attributes of Nature. 
• Conceal the magico-propitiory yantra: that the figures are a distraction, used to conceal the important points of specific ritualistic designs. 
• Non-duality: that the male and female elements are opposing forces that complement each other, and ultimately become One. 

It is known, however, that there were restrictions on the dissemination of knowledge. It was strictly on need to know basis, in the sense that only worthy receptacles could receive knowledge. Not segregation by birth, but by ability. Truth to be revealed to a person depended upon their level of spiritual preparedness for it. Seats of education were the gurukul, the ashram or temple home of the teachers, who were priests and also householders. Knowledge was not open to the uninitiated, neither was entry to the temples. 

For instance, the Rig Veda, the oldest of the written scriptures, which dates around six millennia BCE, is an epic poem with over ten thousand verses. The verses can be chanted in three different meters that change their interpretation of divine truths.  Students would be allowed a particular meter only after they were deemed fit and ready for it. Else, the hidden meanings would be kept secret. 

The Hindu temple arts of India were created over several millennia, from ancient to medieval times. They are often carved or painted in intricate designs on solid rock. In some places, they are within caves in the mountainside. Unknown artists laboured over them, with rudimentary chisels and hammers, and organic colours of the time, to create sculptures and murals that have survived the ages. Their models were not live humans, but products of their imagination.

Objectification of gender is not the purpose in temple art. The lack of clothing on the figures signifies divinity, when the light of complete self-awareness renders external coverings redundant. The gods and goddesses depicted are meant to be numerous forms of One Supreme Being - the one that becomes many. The figures and their relationships are heavy with symbolism; male and female elements complement each other in their representative powers.
 
Stephen Knapp writes:

In the Vedic tradition it is common to see the pairing of the Vedic male Gods with a female counterpart, thus combining both sets of powers and qualities that each would have. We can easily see this in Radha-Krishna, Sita-Rama, Lakshmi-Vishnu, Durga-Shiva, Sarasvati-Brahma, Indrani-Indra, etc. Thus, we have the combination of male and female Divinities that make the complete balance in the divine spiritual powers.

Fact is Hinduism started out as a philosophy, not as a religion. Neither in ancient society was a woman barred from intellectual pursuits. Women as a group held high positions in society. The verses of the Rig Veda (the oldest of the scriptures written down about six millennia BCE, but likely composed far earlier) extol the prowess of over thirty women sages that were held in the highest esteem. 

The temple compositions retell stories from the mythology, the scriptures and other ancient texts. The multiply arms, heads, or animal parts in the portrayals also have symbolic meaning. The female elements in the compositions are not subordinate to the gods. The goddesses ache instead for victory in battles against male elements! In their pose, prototype and expression, they exude power. 

For instance, the image of Durga, the warrior goddess is shown to have eight arms. This means that she is able to combat in eight directions simultaneously that the male gods cannot! The ‘battle’ signifies the conflict of good and evil. Actually, ‘gods’ and ‘demons’ represent the strengths and weaknesses of a person, and the conflicts between them, rife moral dilemmas. 

In subsequent ages, Hinduism transformed to an orthodox religion with deity worship and ritualistic practices. Changes wrought by invasions, conquests, annexations and colonization of the country buried the gender equality of ancient India deep into the sands of time. The roles of sages, apostles, prophets and avatars became the prerogative of men in subsequent ages of patriarchy. The feminine gender was made to believe that they are the secondary sex, and thus their objectification justified. 

The point is the ancient temple arts communicate imagery of a bygone social context different from that today. Artefacts still standing, are possible testimony to the different reality. There and then, the female was at least equal to the male. Walls and architecture bear proof of the pride and power of female sexuality. Over time thereafter, women's groups appear to have lost sight of their identity, their social power, and, in the words of present day thinkers, their erotic territory. The pilgrimage for the modern woman should be to rediscover their social worth and value through relevant lessons from the past. They need to find power within their self, to chart for the future, the culture of enlightened gender roles. 

Must they be ugly?

I never really considered a social context to art before.  Artists idealize gods or royalty, create something incomprehensible or objectify sexuality. At least, it so seemed in my experience. A friend recently passed on to me Linda Nochlin’s collection of essays that I initially looked at only to be polite. But then some insights caught attention - the social power of gender portrayed in and through art.

Nochlin’s focus is the social status of women - or rather the lack of it - depicted in the structure and theme of the artworks. She investigates images painted by both male and female artists in the West, between 18-20^th centuries. It is interesting to note that in the art world as in any other organization, for female workers, the glass ceiling is imminent, among other things. Their being out of sight, so to speak, makes no difference!

In the essay Women, Art and Power, Nochlin writes:

… representations of women in art are founded upon and serve to reproduce indisputably accepted assumptions held by society in general, artists in particular and some artists more than others about men’s power over, superiority to, difference from, and necessary control of women, assumptions which are manifested in the visual structures as well as the thematic choices of the pictures in question.

Her sentences sometimes feel a sea of words, and I cannot claim to have understood all pronouncements of the book, but some perceptions make absolute sense. She points out how prevailing social contexts have strongly influenced the artists. Their works reflect the thought and guidelines of behaviour in the society of the times. These notions appear as subtext in the pictures about women and by women.

 

 

In the eighteenth century, assumptions about women being the secondary sex were clearly stronger than they are now. Women were conditioned to prefer death to defying conventions. Gender was objectified in art as in all aspects of everyday life, and so was class and race. The hierarchical divisions were rigid, immovable. For instance, a painting of honourable British women in colonial India during the sepoy mutiny, entitled In Memoriam, portrays them heroic in the face of danger. How so? The women do nothing at all to survive, but properly await their fate.

Nochlin explains:

Now there are at least two discourses articulated in this image. One is the overt story of heroic British ladies and their children during the Sepoy mutiny, fortifying themselves with prayer as they are about to be assaulted by savage, and presumably lustful, natives. The other discourse, less obvious, is the patriarchal and class-defined one which stipulates the appropriate behaviour for the lady, and it implies that no lady will ever unsex herself by going so far as to raise a hand in physical violence, even in defense of her children.

She says that the original image, considered too graphic for the delicate sensibilities of the upper crust Victorian society, had to be painted over with the Scottish rescuers appearing at left replacing the “presumably lustful” Indian rebels! 

For eons, respectability for women has meant the confines of home and family. Women are honourable in the community as long as they are weak, passive, nurturing and domesticated, available for the needs of their husbands, and with no real needs of their own except to be of service to preserve the social order. Women artists have been hard-pressed to find acceptability and self-expression outside the entrenched social rules. They have had to be subtle in their approach; else risk caricature. Case in point, Nameless and Friendless by Emily Mary Osborn in the nineteenth century that describes in more than a thousand words the plight of women in the harsh reality of the time.

The young woman artist/model, stepping outside the home, possibly facing hard times yet unwilling to lose her dignity, is nevertheless subject to keen male scrutiny and condescension, both for her person and her work. It is surprising that, despite this painting of 1857 being created by woman herself, it was described in a 1970 art publication as Gentlewoman reduced to dependence upon her brother’s art. Perhaps the standard received wisdom carried forward is that women are incapable of creativity. The female artist too must adhere to that social norm and deny talent to her female model...but does she?

The slightest aggression amongst women or other signs of being unsexed would banish them from the respectable class, and put them beyond the pale of ‘normal’ or ‘human’. Women social activists have thus been portrayed as poor, ugly, demonic rabble-rousers, destroyers of the social fabric. It would seem that these social have-nots strive, in frustration rage, to reverse proper power equations. Apparently, the mere attempt at being a change agent renders a woman certifiably insane! 

Some women artists of earlier times have adhered to the popular myth in their creations. Perhaps, riding the traditional bandwagon has been the only way for them to survive in the man’s world. Sadly in the process, they do themselves and their own representative group no service, because the association renders capable women untouchable - poor, mad and ugly – and open to derision. 

 

Many closet feminists suffer emotional pain in private at their own public obeisance to gender inequality. Unable to cross the invisible social barrier, they confess cloying the deception to the pages of their personal journals. In an essay on the works of Florine Stettheimer, Nochlin quotes a telling poem written by the artist and poet, but published only after her death:

Occasionally

A human being

Saw my light

Rushed in

Got singed

Got scared

Rushed out

Called fire

Or it happened

He tried to extinguish it

Never did a friend

Enjoy it

The way it was

So I learned to

Turn it low

Turn it out

When I meet a stranger---

Out of courtesy

I turn on a soft

Pink light

Which is found modest

Even charming

It is a protection

Against wear

And tears

And when

I am rid of

The-Always-To-Be-Stranger

I turn on my light

And become myself. 

Ah, yes, on the other side of the world in India as well, feminine initiative is traditionally discouraged. This image of assertive women being dark and disorderly has endured through mythological epics created over two and a half millennia ago. Durga, the sylvan deity, is the epitome of beauty and grace as wife and mother. But in her role as the warrior goddess Kali, she is depicted as so frighteningly bloodthirsty and uncontrollable that few women would want to identify with her fearsome (outcast) image or be inspired to action. Of course, only the intervention of husband Shiva, shames her into remembering her place, and brings the Kali fighting evil outside back home to her senses!

The at best patronizing attitudes to women and women’s work have resisted change in many parts of the world. Women must think, feel and act exactly as males at home or in society decide for them, or else. In social fundamentalism even today, women and girls seeking education or employment have been brutalized, defaced by acid, shot, raped and murdered; punished for transgressing some gender role or dress code dreamed up by men to reiterate authoritarianism. 

It is more than time to rectify this demeaning outlook. Many women artists have used deconstruction techniques to make their point, to expose and deny the standard received concepts of beauty. Hannah Hoch’s Pretty Girl is an intriguing photo-collage from, I believe, the 1920s. This woman artist was earlier considered marginal, but it seems to me that her bold perspective and courageous rejection of the pervasive patriarchal order puts her far ahead of her time.

Nochlin writes:

Pretty Girl is in part a savagely funny attack on mass-produced standards of beauty, the narcissism stimulated by the media to keep women unproblematically self-focused. At the same time, the collage allegorizes the arbitrarily constructed quality of all representations of beauty: the “pretty girl” of the title is clearly a product assembled from products …

I must confess that as a very ordinary spectator, my unconscious search has been for aesthetic harmony in art images. I remember once visiting a photo-art exhibition in USA in the late 1990s. I forget both theme and name of artist, but it seemed an ugly, unabashedly cynical display of larger-than-life male genitalia. Possibly I was both naïve and prudish that I found the pictures off-putting, although other viewers appeared unfazed. I thought it a deliberate intent to elicit reaction, which I found repugnant. Was it necessary to assault the senses to draw attention? I took it as narcissism hidden behind the right to freedom of expression, laziness in actually harnessing creativity, and a banking on gender to carry the work.

Nochlin’s essays push me, the reader, to rethink my own premises. Definitely there are thought-provoking aspects to art I overlooked before. I wonder today if I did that phallic photographer a disservice in my negativity. There might have been a social comment in the work that escaped me. Perhaps the artist attempted to shock viewers into a conscious awareness of the effects of overindulgence. The graphic images might actually have highlighted the increasing social preoccupation with the pursuit of pleasure in developed society. That technology scales new heights, but the minds of men remain entrenched in overt, self-absorbed and even deviant sexuality… I don’t know, maybe…  


Reference for this post:

Nochlin, Linda. "Women, Art, and Power and Other Essays". ISBN 0-06-430183-4 (pbk.) Icon Editions. Westview Press USA & UK. 1989.

Under the cover of lies

I heard the other day that a young man of my acquaintance fibs. He is now adult and working with a multinational concern in his campus-recruited first job. Educated at a reputed institution, he is the former frat boy who survived gruelling initiation rites to learn the ropes of organized living. The family is immigrant, which makes the achievements more impressive. Yet, He lies, says his father, matter-of-factly. I question a person's deceiving where he need not and even fabricating rationales to compound the lies - more from curiosity about the motivation behind the pastime, than from a moral high ground.

The saying is: You can fool all people some of the time, you can fool some people all the time, but you cannot fool all people all the time. But these old adages are hardly a deterrent! Lies have become an accepted form of social communication. Its practice is active across all of humanity, and knows no social barriers, age, education and gender. Although the purpose behind the action may vary in each case, do it enough times and lying becomes an end in itself.

For little children, their little untruths are a defence against a world where everybody towers over them. The motivation is fear, of being punished or deprived of rewards, mainly in physiological terms. They may give in easily to the joy of scribbling on walls or table tops, but the spirit is unwilling to take on adverse adult responses. Denial – even with the tell-tale crayon dust under the finger-nails, shows up their powerlessness. The same may be said for the poverty-stricken, the illiterate, the very elderly, and women that have no control over their lives. The lies are their survival technique before intimidating authority. The young man I mention is hardly in the same boat; he is of age, his destiny is in his own hands. Perhaps he has just not been weaned off the childish habit of fibbing.

It may also be that deception is the game he is now hooked on playing. In the age of information, new generations grow more accustomed to shades of grey than to the moralistic black and white of yesteryears. In the childhood of our time, the emphasis at home and in school is on honour, sacrifice and other virtues of righteous living – extensions of social collectivism in part, in part catechism. The story books we love to read transport us to the fantasy world of magical creatures, and each carries a lesson to learn. In school, to pass the class, we have to pass the moral science test. Right and wrong becomes clearly demarcated in the mind. Indeed, pithy proverbs pop out of long term memory at inopportune moments, to create doubt, dilemma, discomfort and the omnipresent burden of guilt. The moral science subject is now obsolete in schools, perhaps to reduce pressures on impressionable minds. The social learning at home too is in abeyance because families have shrunk, and both parents are employed. The books that fascinate the earlier generation have lost their allure. The young are left alone to role-play in the virtual reality that appears at the touch of a button. Fact is they know more about video game plots than they do about human values.

Furthermore, blatant lies have become the weapon of manipulation in today’s world. Lawyers, for instance are said to be liars by profession, scarcely concerned any more with justice. They weave webs of words to twist and turn perceptions of events, projecting as the absolute truth the perspectives of their own clients. In similar vein, the search for political power in any organization requires mastering the art of persuasion whereby a molehill may be made to assume the proportions of a mountain, and vice versa. The point is to bring down opponents wresting from them the reins of power. In corporate industry, the Madoffs, the Lehmans and the Lawsons of the world use their genius with numbers and technology with the same cynical disregard for human values to defraud their victims and even their own organizations of currency notes in the millions. They call it hustling, spinning elaborate cons to dupe the unsuspecting. There is no remorse in scamming the elderly and the financially weak out of their trust and their life savings.

Cynicism permeates the interactions of groups with other groups. There is take rather than give in this predatorial world that transposes going for the jugular from the wild into the organizational process. To use subterfuge to get close to the prey and to then move in swiftly for the kill is an act that plays out regularly in everyday life. People learn to be less disturbed by lies, which in fact interweave into their social masks. These hide their true natures or conceal their vulnerability. The motivation is again fear, but in psychological terms, because nobody wants to lose. To be the winner, the game must be played and played well. The humans tend to forget that their minds have evolved beyond that of the other animals; that they actually need to adapt to the world of other people, rather than to orders on the food chain.

The heroes the young emulate are in virtual reality, sometimes perceived as more real than real life may be. The ploy set up for immediate rewards can turn into the long term habit they wear like a second skin. They may begin to live the lie, believe in the illusion, and be caught up, unable to escape, in the traps they build for others. Like addicts, they seek the next score, the next adrenaline rush, and the next win in the games of their own making. Lies may become the compulsion that pushes people to deny their true self. Peel that cover of lies away and there might be a frightened child within, afraid to grow up, making believe his maturity. 

Endangered species, the super-rich!

Democratic freedoms seem to mean different things to different people, as events in different countries show. On the recent riots in London, we posted the thought that, among the socially disadvantaged, long-term frustrations with systemic inequality, may have finally boiled over into displays of violent dissent.The taxpaying public affected by the unrest has had little sympathy for it; the super-rich has remained cocooned. 

To sections of society, the sudden budget cuts could have felt like the last straw in the suspension of civil rights. However, reader from UK argues that benefits have been the actual source of the problem, having largely nurtured grifters seeking to appropriate what they do not earn. Their freebies threatened, these people planned the criminal activities.

He shares with us his indignation:

In Britain we are faced with reducing a huge debt and everyone is paying the price… benefits are one of the causes of the debt in the first place … Here even those with nothing can achieve a better standard of living IF THEY CHOOSE TO WORK HARD but many don't [and] they choose to take money and do nothing. There are some who cannot achieve anything and need help but there are also many who just can't be bothered.

The perception there is not so much of spontaneity in the protests, as of deliberately orchestrated lawlessness. Organized groups of criminal elements fanned out to stretch police resources thin, so that the looting could continue without inference. 

Our incensed reader adds:

… it's a good thing I'm not mayor of London otherwise I think I may have used Chinese or Syrian tactics and issued machine guns to the police and told them to fire at the knees and then arrested those people in hospital.

The palpable disgust of the salaried class probably stems from the economic pressures placed on them. In the dodgy economy, they are asked to share sacrifices with austerity measures. They carry the brunt of the tax burden, and as they see it, it is their contributions that ensure survival of the non-payers.

Powers-that-be perceive broken sections in society. They do not however, perceive the sustained political and corporate contributions to the moral collapse. The general solution resolved seems to be to stamp out the gangs with stiff sentencing of the looters caught on camera, and further cuts in their benefits.

But these stern measures would do nothing to address the searing sense of deprivation. Rather, the administration’s iron hand would underscore their disconnect with the ordinary population - pejoratively, the underclass. The social alienation that already exists may even be compounded as criminality in the targeted groups.

Meanwhile political establishments tend to coddle their super-rich. The tax payments of the moneyed class are minimal, which bloats their returns on investments. This tacit political support of the social hierarchy has widens its divides, with the rich simply getting richer. Billionaires in fact, are protected as if they are endangered species.

Warren Buffet comments:

OUR leaders have asked for “shared sacrifice.” But when they did the asking, they spared me. I checked with my mega-rich friends to learn what pain they were expecting. They, too, were left untouched. While the poor and middle class fight for us in Afghanistan, and while most Americans struggle to make ends meet, we mega-rich continue to get our extraordinary tax breaks … 

The Western perspective generally is pro-business, and the prevailing social climate relentlessly projects consumerism. Media entertainment and advertising tend to portray acquisitions as the most important goal in life, at the expense of honest human achievement.  

Booker points out:

Today, whenever my world-weary eyes alight on a "youth show" it merely resembles a glossily edited advert for celebrity lifestyles, co-starring a jet-ski and a tower of gold. And regardless of the time slot, every other commercial shrieks that I deserve the best of everything. I and I alone.

When sensation and consumption pervades the environment around them, few can escape the social learning. Consumerism burns in the hearts of the have-nots, especially the youth, although they have not the ready means to fulfill wants. It needed but a slight push to tip over the building dissatisfaction - and so it happened in the mass looting of consumer goods.

Severe punishments hardly come across as the best way to fix what seems broken in the emotional mind. Ordinary residents in parts of the city are instead applying a much more novel balm to social wounds – they continue to adorn walls with post-it notes. Placed on damaged buildings by the community’s silent majority, the messages form a mosaic of human feelings. Social psychologists consider the visual impact of the daubs of colour the critical, public counteraction to aggression.

Barford reports:

"Charming, sentimental, concerned, non-destructive, clever, responsible and recyclable, these Post-it messages represent very different values to those so atrociously revealed last week … human beings use visual markings to claim areas - so people are partly reclaiming their streets by putting down a territorial element" …

The completely non-threatening message boards not only invite participation, they also spread comfort and solidarity among the people, healing the trauma. During the riots, many individuals lost touch with themselves, as violence became their only way to communicate. The walls of love, with their reminders of eternal human values, may serve to relocate communities.

The super-rich of the land also need reminding that citizenship is an important social responsibility. In place of selfish self-interest and extraordinary breaks, they need to exercise their democratic freedoms to sacrifice and share with the less fortunate others of society. Perhaps then the pains of social divides may cease, and us-and-them groupings be rendered obsolete in Diversity. 

References for this post:

1. Barford, Vanessa. “England riots: What are the Post-it note 'love walls' all about?” bbc.co.uk. BBC News. 17 August 2011. 
2. Booker, Charlie. “How to prevent more riots” guardian.co.uk. The Guardian. 14 August 2011. 
3. Buffet, Warren E. “Stop Coddling the Super-Rich” nytimes.com. The New York Times. August 14, 2011. 
4. “England riots: Broken society is top priority – Cameron” bbc.co.uk. BBC News. 15 August 2011. 
5. Gilligan, Andrew. “London riots were orchestrated by outsiders” telegraph.co.uk. The Telegraph. 21 Aug 2011. 
6. Power, Nina. “There is a context to London's riots that can't be ignored” guardian.co.uk. The Guardian. 8 August 2011.

A parody of social unity

The global village concept has relied on technological advancements to unite the world. The informational networks become crucial to keep people connected. They are considered the routes to celebrate diversity in societies growing increasingly multicultural. However, as the London riots demonstrate, the spread of dysfunctional attitudes make a parody of social unity. 

Globalization opened up markets beyond national borders. The Internet was meant to bring together diverse cultures. Economic development was expected on one hand, and spirituality on the other. The assumption has been that the new knowledge facilitates the ready acceptance of differences. And yet, London burned...!

Over several days, flash mobs all over sprang into action faster than they could be controlled. The systemic machinery was caught flatfooted. Violence became contagious with diverse groups joining in on muggings, robbings, lootings, arson and pitched battles with police.

 Addley writes:

… familiar and well-loved streets were turned, for a time, into alien, frightening battle zones … shocking because of their speed and unpredictability, but also because of their geographical and socioeconomic scope.

The British Prime Minister opinioned that pockets of society  were sick. The impression might be that criminal gangs were responsible. However, is that the troublemakers were not clearly identifiable as such. Shockingly, they cut across society – not only white, black, Asian, men, women, children, old or young alone, and neither local nor outsiders, but strange combinations of all of these.

Technology was used effectively to organize the rampage, leaving authorities struggling to keep up. Blackberry messenger, facebook, and twitter spread word like wildfire among the rioters. In the context, social mobility took on new meaning.

Lewis and Harkin write:

… territorial markers which would usually delineate young people's residential areas – known as 'endz', 'bits' and 'gates' – appear to have melted away. "On a normal day it wouldn't be allowed – going in to someone else's area. A lot of them, on a normal day, wouldn't know each other and they might be fighting … This is bringing them together."

Some authors identify alienation, anger, boredom and mischief as the common factors in the chaos.  Some say the long police history of heavy-handedness with the underclass has boiled over. Others point to government policies forcing brutal cuts and austerity measures onto populations. The ordinary experience widening social inequalities, while the richest ten percent reportedly become one hundred times better off at their expense.

In the present context, Power comments:

…consumerism predicated on personal debt has been pushed for years as the solution to a faltering economy … Decades of individualism, competition and state-encouraged selfishness – combined with a systematic crushing of unions and the ever-increasing criminalisation of dissent – have made Britain one of the most unequal countries in the developed world.

I should think that the sense of inequality perceived among social groups is more than a recent occurrence - in fact, a legacy of past imperial practices over populations. Essentially, the interpretations of life naturally differ with cultures. In Western philosophies, for instance, goals have traditionally based on the idea that people have but one lifetime to make an impact.  Since survival is of the fittest, individualism must be favoured. Through centuries, the outlook broke new ground, but it also broke moral and ethical boundaries. 

Western explorers have sailed boldly into unchartered waters to discover the ends of the world driven by the spirit of adventure. The self-reliance and openness to new experiences allowed finding new frontiers. They pushed gathering of new knowledge beyond existing limits.

Tales of wealthy foreign cultures by numerous travellers spawned expeditions to unknown regions also in search of gold, spices, silks, and so on, initially for simple trade in oriental goods. However, economic depressions, internal stresses and market protectionism changed the Western outlook to territorial takeovers. In relentless pursuit of the capture and control of treasured resources, traders became political extensions of their monarchies abroad.

Political fractures within and between communities were exploited to divide and rule.  Ultimately continents were successfully colonized. The English, for instance, were able to boast that the sun never set on their empire. The people they assumed power over were perceived livestock that could be used and abused in slave and labour trades.

Western expansionism flourished also because the foreign lands were peopled by deferent, inward-looking cultures. The Eastern philosophies upheld collectivism, and the ideal of community before self. They tended towards peace of mind, harmonious reciprocity and cosmic karma. However, they were manipulated to lose even national identity for several centuries.

Globalization has most benefited the corporate world, and mostly those located in the West. It enables companies become multinational, to employ skills from a global workforce. But at the same time, rapid changes in reality have been far more than most people could cope with. Despite new markets, local availability of jobs for the underprivileged is rendered uncertain, because outsourcing is common. This cements cross-cultural animosities, although the divisive practice is an indigenous product honed over centuries.

Technology has indeed transformed reality. However, economic and political power games have resisted change. The informational networks have also juxtaposed social issues of past and present in people's minds. They have enabled greater awareness of differences against similarities between diverse people. 

Issues of the present reactivate memories of past racial and cultural inequalities among minority groups. Although demographic migrations post-globalization turned societies heterogeneous, interrelationships between social fractions are ambiguous at best. Distinct cultures coexist in society, but have hardly reconciled with the values of others, especially the majority. Habitual thought and practice remains entrenched in ethnic perspectives. Thus, social divides harboured in the mind never really close. 

The historical wounds of inequalities among minority groups and other social have-nots  also carry forward, mounting tensions generation to generation. Their collective rage might even make the past indignities feel real in the environment here and now. It seems a shame that the rioters turned to destruction as the only way to communication.  It is perhaps more shameful that despite claims of celebrating diversity, Western powers-that-be are yet to get over selfish consumerism, and to harmonize relations with all others that share the same universe, including those within their own societies.

References for this post:

1. Addley, Esther. “London riots: 'A generation who don't respect their parents or police'” guardian.co.uk The Guardian. Tuesday 9 August 2011. 
2. Lewis, Paul and Harkin, James. “Who are the rioters? Young men from poor areas ... but that's not the full story” guardian.co.uk The Guardian. 10 August 2011. 
3. "Imperialism in Asia" wikipedia.org. Wikipedia the free encyclopedia. 25 July 2011. 
4. “The story behind the mugging that shocked the world” Reuters report. stuff.co.nz.  Stuff.co.nz. 11/08/2011. 

Talking: Co-constructing knowledge

Synopsis: Diverse members of the team can contribute inputs from different angles. The group gains more insight of reality.


Clear distinctions of space and time exist in people’s minds in diversity.

Getting across

The more dimensions there are, the more the requirement for a better understanding of issues and their circumstances. Diverse members of the team can contribute inputs from different angles. The multiplicity helps the collective thinking become more rounded. The group gains more insight of reality and considers creative innovations to resolve them.

Issues and problems that create obstacles to workflow arise from different situations. They may also have different contexts and run different courses. The solutions then need to be designed to fit.


Two cognitive levels

Members verbalizing their inner speech are then vital to finding these new courses of action. Our intellectual development occurs at two cognitive levels. According to social scientist Lev Vygotsky, these are:

· Actual development: where the individual is capable of independently dealing with issues and solving related problems.
· Potential development: this constitutes the "zone of proximal development" where the individual needs assistance in dealing with challenges. The interactions with others are crucial for guidance or collaboration.

Learning continues through our lifetime in the zone of proximal development. Much of it is collaborative in nature, impossible to separate from the social context. As we gain in experience and expertise, the learning consolidates as actual cognitive development.

Learning

Learning does not occur simply with the intake of book knowledge. Vygotsky argues that all cognitive functions originate in, and are products of social interactions. By interacting freely and openly, we put the knowledge to test. In the process, we are always learners.

Consolidating learning also depends significantly on the individual's internal drive to understand and promote the learning process. With this inner drive, we develop even as we age. Without it, we tend to resist change.

Collaborative learning methods diffuse the required motivation person to person. In the process, learners develop teamwork. Individual learning and successful group learning are thus mutually related. Collaborations build up an atmosphere of mutual trust, respect and acceptance within the group. The system thus builds its own culture and values in diversity.

Co-constructing

Through the social interactions, individuals in the group can receive other people’s points of view, as well as present their own. Just talking together allows them to discover new ways of communicating their thought processes.

A close knit group, even with members of different cultures, develops a common language – like slang or verbal shorthand - that bind group experiences together. From shared learning, the cognitive structures may be utilized in new or innovative ways. People become more effective in adapting to environments and to change.

Being averse to ‘conflict’ among people of the system could inhibit creative thought or prevent its expression. To discourage talking amongst the collective is to retard processes of collective learning and problem solving. Fact is we don’t construct knowledge just by ourselves, but largely ‘co-construct’ it with others in the environment.

Comments/opinions, anyone??

References for ‘Talking’ and 'Problem solving' blogposts:

Social Constructivism
Why Vygotsky?

Talking: Focus on agenda

Synopsis: Minimizing personal contacts in organizations also minimizes lateral communications, preventing people from just talking to one another to create a common culture.



Differences, most organizations believe, will lead to conflict.

Talking

So they prefer to minimize personal contacts between members of the workforce. Keeping focused on the business agenda ensures a conflict-free work environment. It prevents time being wasted or interpersonal issues being raised. The trouble is it also minimizes lateral communications, preventing people from just talking to one another to create a common culture.

People are constantly talking around issues and solutions - in their minds. It is a conscious, purposive reflection on experience and learning. New perspectives are integrated into existing ideas, abilities and actions. This inner speech includes thinking slightly ahead of the present moment. That is, extending reasoning into the future, where outcomes will be met.

Its decisive power depends on each individual’s links with environmental factors, like other theories or other people. When people are familiar with one another these links are strong, and they are encouraged to share their thoughts and focus on issues and problems.

Culturally defined

Language and culture play a large role in our intellectual development. They actually define us, in how we tend to perceive worlds beyond our sensory data. Colour and shape that we see externally is transformed in throughput, to make sense as the things we see around us.


We assign meanings to environmental objects accordingly. For example, our eyes might see something round and black with two hands. Our minds then interpret the incoming data to mean ‘clock’.

More views

Diversity causes dimensions to multiply. Increasingly societies are becoming composed of various demographic groups. This means that the individual has to contend with more cultures, more languages, and more views than ever before.

Homogeneity among people makes communicating easy. Words, nuances and connotations are easily understood. But getting sense and meaning across those not sharing the same culture and language is harder, obviously because the words or signs that they will correctly understand need to be found.

Weak social and language skills inhibit group discussions. Cultural barriers stop people contributing their own thoughts to the group. Many in the workforce simply await instructions for task assignments.


Effective talk

Just talking outside the business agenda is an important aspect of social interactions. Heterogeneous groups get to know one another’s backgrounds, and can clarify boundaries, and express opinions, intentions and solutions. It helps in teamwork to fathom where one is coming from, or intending to get to.

Diverse people need to be just talking together to share knowledge, experiences, perspectives, and even feelings. It makes them aware of denotative and connotative words. They begin to catch on to undertones, nuances and idiomatic turns of speech.

Their interactions facilitate increasing the multicultural workgroup’s knowledge base and problem solving capability. The team members explore and present fresh angles, processes and options. The group, alerted by disagreements, can focus critical attention on the obstacles that are stalling the flow at work, or may do so in the future.

Cont’d 2…co-constructing knowledge