Imagery in being lonely

“I wandered lonely as a cloud/that floats on high o’er hills and vales/when all at once I saw a crowd/a host of golden daffodils…”

Wordsworth, I think it is, who turns the mundane sense of sight into exuberant imagery. I can almost see for myself, the riot of colour in the countryside unblemished by the clutter of housing projects raising ugly fingers to the sky. Who can remain lonely with words so effused with joy! Easy it is to escape the daily demands of tasks, the negativity of co-workers, and ethical conflicts, to float away light and carefree above the humdrum, in communion with Nature, at one with her creations. 

But then, before my inward eye, flashes a different memory. I relive my leaden-footed foreboding all the afternoon my son fails to return or call, my repeated rings to his cellphone going unanswered; my uneasiness turning to anger with the policemen at the door seeking male family members to speak to, and my thinking 'there has to be a mistake' at the sudden mention of death. 

Here too is imagery, but, seared in indescribable pain, it locks in replay for a lifetime where no words can bring solace. I realize that the ‘lonely’ state of being varies with inputs of the emotional mind. I see one as a moment of quiescence awaiting direction, open to new experiences.  Like the eagerness of youth when resonating words, or slivers of wisdom, cut through the mists of confusion to shower light on the way to go forward. The readiness to meet head on all that the future brings unfazed by portents of failure; the undeniable urge to become, to combat challenges and, come hell or high water, to adapt to new reality. But the other state is different yet. A friend comments that our emotions appear to hang like garlands around dates on the calendar. Fact is the dates per se are not important, but associated events are. Snapshots of another place, another time, these past happenings burn into memory, and remembrances trigger the outpourings of emotions. 

I see again the astonishment on faces at the police station as I arrive alone. Nobody seems to want to speak to me, as I demand to see my son. They probably are afraid of women going berserk in the throes of grief, and tell me that since it is late night, it is best to return next day in the company of other relatives.  I refuse to leave my son ‘unidentified’, and eventually, they put the evidence before me - his personal effects. During the long wait for completion of the paperwork, I struggle to comprehend my reality. The other women there, eager to share their problems, look offended at my lack of empathy or response to their venting. I feel a disconnect with the immediate surroundings, in spiraling descent into the murky depths of impotent despair. Even a decade on, I touch my helplessness before the inexorable power of circumstances. 

Finally, against the backdrop of the callousness of the cadaver handlers, and their inquisitive chatter about me, I am confronted by the irrefuteable. I first recognize my son’s toes, the clothes on his body that look as clean as when he left that morning. I half expect him to jump up laughing uproariously at having fooled me silly  – and then I see the blood. The shock returns now as then, at the sight of his face smashed almost beyond recognition from the road accident that killed him, his one whole eye seems to stare into mine, his mouth open in a soundless scream… I wonder if I am delusional or in a momentary burst of light, the vision really does appear of an effulgent presence, before whom there can be no bargaining, and to whom I beg acceptance for my son. When consciousness returns of the dark, dreary environment of the morgue, and I am aware of silently mouthing the gayatri mantra (Sanskrit prayer), while my body seems to bleed profusely inside.

I wonder how other animals deal with such pain. Surely all their behaviours cannot be written off as mere ‘instinctive actions’ – what about the tiger mother battling ferociously to protect her young, elephant herds standing in respectful silence before the bones of their ancestors, the loyal companionships of dogs and other house pets? Relationships obviously matter to them as they do to us. Perhaps we are yet to fathom the depths of their conscious thought or feelings because they communicate differently. Their acceptance of the inevitable is definitely stronger, as is their dignity in moving on from personal tragedy.

My world shattered in an instant and I still grope to find the pieces. I am horrified that I, as parent, have failed in duty to protect, and that I outlive my son. Why did destiny have to ensure my being left behind? In my reasoning, had we left life together, we would hardly have been missed - not for long anyway. Truth is my focus had been on making him independent of me. I would relate as a lesson of life, the story of Flint, the baby gorilla that grew up so dependent on his mother, he just could not survive her death. ‘I won’t be around forever’ I would din into him. My intuition failed me there, because I never once visualized the necessity of my training likewise as well.

Humans mourn loss not so much for those who leave, but for their own voided future. Kubler-Ross theorizes five stages to the grief that must follow – denial, anger, depression, bargaining and acceptance. They have no specific time or order for appearance, they may or may not at all display in individual sorrow, and people may even be stuck in one stage or other.  

I must own to being laden with shades of anger from both within and outside of me. It came as aftershock that many distanced from me, fearing ‘infection’, and some dissected the event in secret joy at having escaped the attention of Yamraj (lord of death). Others of the extended family, especially the elder male relatives, voiced belittlement at not being consulted first, blamed the event on bad victim behaviours, bad parenting and bad fruits of karma. The social response was near unbearable then, and it bothers me that my son is now so easily forgotten. I cling to memories as all I have left of him, while to others he is lost without trace in the sands of time.  

Fact is the social fabric has not evolved with time, but has simply been adulterated. Through centuries of collectivism, community rituals dealt with occasions, both happy and sad, to continually refresh the cultural context giving meaning to life events.  Today, overlays of the individualism learned from other cultures have diminished their importance. Whether residing within the country or abroad, modernity has meant that only remnants of traditions carry forward, often as superstitions. In the electronic world, the social solidarity traditional group activities once generated to coincide individual and collective well-being are no more. Instead the interpersonal bonds have weakened, while fear and uncertainty abound about coping with the unexpected.

Technology is no substitute for the psychological development of people. The over-dependence on rationality to carry the day leaves the emotional mind backward and retarded. Individuals tend to adopt defence mechanisms – anger, judgement, selective memory and so on, to protect against the external. But memories are the internal stressors, reminders of devastation that, because one cannot change, one must endure. A random thought or association triggers feelings of profound loss or failure. That experience of defeat most unexpected is not at all easy to work out of, for alone or in the crowd, one is lonely. Unless the memories and their emotional attachments are put in perspective, they tend to grow unnoticed, and like a bomb buried live, just wait to explode someday.

The bureaucratic inheritance

It often seems to me that, whether or not they are related by blood, people living together begin to resemble one another over time. Perhaps in eating the same foods and breathing the same air, sameness pervades. We might assume that people unconnected by blood or proximity, differ widely. And yet, in similar organizational structures, members begin to look alike, think alike and behave alike although separated geographically. Those that go before must leave behind something lasting in the structure to anchor time, because the sameness prevails over generations.

The bureaucratic structure, for instance, is our colonial legacy. In organizational shape, it is pyramidal, a hierarchy of levels. The flow of authority and information is top down, and bottom up, obedience is norm. The bureaucratic structure is meant to be impersonal, and the process theoretically, is to be rational, logical and impartial in governance. It was introduced into India by British colonizers. But the very nature of colonization superimposes the concept of the alpha male onto the organizational pyramid. In tune with the ascent of man on the evolutionary chart, the higher echelons of the hierarchical structure are considered superior to people on the rungs below.

The colonial bureaucracies overlaid superiority of race onto the caste hierarchy already prevalent in the region. The Indians realized that despite their knowledge and experience, their organizational aspirations were limited because even junior officers of the British civil service would lord it over the local populace.

The bureaucracies enabled imperialism keep a tight rein on their empire spreading overseas. Educated Indians were inducted to clerk for the colonizers, and to liaison between cultures in the sub-continent. They were called the ‘Baboos’ that looked and dressed Indian, but protected the Crown, furthering the imperialistic goals. Rather like the ‘trusties’ of the prison system, wherein certain prisoners elevated fractionally above others, serve to keep them in line. The Baboo culture was likewise despised by either side.

The colonizers used the Baboos to do their dirty work but hardly respected their racial differences, while the rest of the country hated them as stooges of the foreign establishments. The Baboos responded to the negativity by creating their own fiefdoms within the structure. They became the backbone of the system, indispensable to its functioning. On the one hand, they could interpret and translate communications as they wish, and on the other, withhold information and benefits to the public at large.

Indians are good with cultural traditions; we are loath to disturb the continuity with the past. Customs, practices, norms and habits handed down generation to generation are perceived sacrosanct. Despite the complete change in the social environment, bureaucracies in India meticulously preserve their 200-year old colonial traditions. They thus socialize into disrespect for subordinates, while the ordinary public is the common enemy to protect against.

Consequent to the colonial influence, the character of the pyramidal structure transforms to unfriendly, intimidating and prohibitive. Up and down the bureaucratic hierarchy, countenances are as grim and unbending today as they have been during the British Raj. Especially in the public interface, mistrust and impatience radiate. Communications base on anger management - that is, the lack of self-control characterize the hierarchy. Imagine a blend of parent-child behaviours, rigid and willful at the same time. Obviously, manners get lost in the upward mobility, and often also the work ethics.

Fact is technology thrives, but the traditional mindsets remain entrenched. The change with democracy and independence of the nation, is simply that nobody wants to be the low man on the totem pole anymore. As noted Indian entrepreneur Narayan Murti observes:

In India, we tend to look down on people who do jobs that require physical work or involve disciplined execution and accountability.

As a result, the first impression of any bureaucratic setup in India is poor. The ambience carries a general air of neglect. Governmental or government-related organizations in India may have expensive machinery or other goods strewn carelessly along the corridors. They may have the financial resources to fund other organizations. And yet, black cobwebs sway from the ceilings in the buildings, dust settles on every surface, and the stench of bathrooms hangs thick. Heaps of files, spill their contents onto desks, shelves and floor. Spatters of betel nut juice stain wall corners in the stairwell, while potted plants serve as ashtrays.

The dirty, unkempt look is likely also a façade to put off the public. The disorganization may be intentional, because almost hidden from view behind the mountains of paper files, the Baboos of today continue to protect their territory. Emotions otherwise denied, flow down and out in angry outbursts as individuals seek to assert themselves in the new India by demeaning others. The beat postmen express their angst by delaying or losing mail. The staffs in government offices pretend to be too busy to entertain queries or move files along. Railways employees mess with reservations, even on complimentary passes awarded to the elderly freedom fighters of India’s independence.

The lateral relationships within the pyramid are tight, however. These informal connections are assiduously cultivated to form the social buffer zones, safe to download in. Large numbers of employees unionize together. By themselves the unions may be weak, but they forge outside political affiliations, whose patronage strongly back their workplace confrontations. The attraction to employment in the bureaucracy is job permanence. Employees are confident they cannot be fired because of swift retaliatory union strikes; hence irrespective of actual work done, their wages shall be paid at fixed intervals. Further, the lack of conflict on the lateral plane ensures that the organizational boat remains on an even keel, with little competition between peers.

The Diva writes elsewhere:

For many organizations, conflict is bad - by definition - and they go out of their way to prevent it. The word ‘challenge’ itself becomes sensitive because it may question premises and upset comfort zones. However, the elimination of all discord has consequences. The organization may rarely or even never question its assumptions. It may turn off and lose its creative sparks … The ultimate danger is the rise of the mediocre, rewarded for lacking the ‘superstar quality’ to rock the boat.

The point is this carried forward in time existence tends to atrophy faculties of effective decision-making. The bureaucratic runaround is thus born as indecision is passed around, desk to desk. Members of the organization become champions at dithering. With sudden, unexpected changes in the global scenario, they are invariably caught on the wrong foot. Thus, the most recent downslide in the Indian markets has been attributed to faulty decisions and planning. India's much touted economic ascendancy is now falling behind.  

Bureaucratic structures in India need to wake up to the reality of their increasing incompetence with competition. Their people need to challenge outdated assumptions of leadership styles, philosophies and value systems that have become the unquestioned organizational traditions over the last couple of centuries. Unless the dependence on these outmoded systems and processes is changed, the colonial inheritance will ensure that bureaucracies in India remain locked in the mindsets of a different age.

Challenge of the abstract

Since money became the normal medium of exchange, financials have led the critical thinking process.  Tangibles like income growths have made sense, while anything more abstract is considered impractical. With numerous financial downturns, realization dawns that to ignore abstract processes is to overlook their strong motivational forces.

The error in financial thinking, authors perceive, has been in carrying forward assumptions – e.g., assuming the words ‘strategy’ and ‘plan’ to be synonymous. The difference they hold is that ‘plan’ concerns with mission statements, goals, and budgets, while ‘strategy’ should necessarily investigate the multiple factors causing environmental change. In other words, the former depend on standard received wisdom, and the latter is often called upon to break new ground.

Rumelt writes:

A real strategy is neither a document nor a forecast but rather an overall approach based on a diagnosis of a challenge. The most important element of a strategy is a coherent viewpoint about the forces at work, not a plan. Discerning the significance of these events is harder than recounting them.

He further illustrates the faulty thinking:

In the 1990s, for instance, IBM’s basic model of layering options and peripherals atop an integrated line of mainframe computers began to fail. Demand for computing was up, but IBM’s way of providing it was down. Likewise, newspapers are now in crisis as the Internet grabs their readers and ads. Demand for information and analysis is increasing, but traditional publishing vehicles have difficulty making money from it.

Businesses suffer from their short-term definitions of normalcy going south. Fact is the characteristics of normal transforms with time, and strategy should include most if not all its new possibilities. After every crisis, a new normal invariably arises to represent reality, different from what has gone before.

Davis writes:

The new normal will be shaped by a confluence of powerful forces—some arising directly from the financial crisis and some that were at work long before it began.

He also points out that increases in the number of college graduates, and the entry of women into the workforce have boosted incomes in the past few decades. He regards both these factors as one-time influences that are spent forces today.

Thinking along the lines of standard received wisdom fosters perceptions of the future as extensions of the past. End result: crisis. That means reality has undergone change, but perceptions remain entrenched in the past to render responses to challenges incohesive. The appropriate thinking strategy for the future, must factor in possible directions of change, to make sense in the future.

I rather believe that the greater fault in the utilitarian mode of thinking is to evaluate individual worth in monetary terms. People have become comfortable with the bottomline of money ruling all transactions. They audit others in cost-benefit terms as well, although factually, the diverse people issues that are thus left unresolved contribute more to business failure than do the numbers.

Further, human motivations are more complex and unpredictable than volatile markets may be. Now, it may be that education and employment for women have become commonplace enough to lose significance as contributing factors in financial circles. But in the abstract emotional mind, their effects may be in transition to influence behaviour at a later time.

For instance, in the more orthodox regions of the world, men have social worth as breadwinners; women as homemakers have none. The feminine gender brought up to forebear, have traditionally appeased the male ego in social equations. They have been diffident in interactions, overcome with embarrassment in public conflicts with men.

The tacit social expectation is of continuance of the conditioned behaviour. Even in matters as trivial as standing in a queue, men of the region tend to routinely cut in ahead of women, banking on their learned aversion to making a scene or drawing public attention to themselves.

Although various Parliaments invoke legislations to support the weaker gender, these measures appear to merely showcase the benevolent patronage of women. In India, for instance, a bill to reserve a third of Parliamentary seats for women has been introduced. Political parties are under duress to field women candidates, and their leaders promote the candidature their own female relatives for the posts. The obvious intent is to retain governing control as puppeteer behind the scenes.

Women in these societies need to confront head on the social learning of their second-class citizenship. The point is women’s attitudes to work and relationships are yet evolving from thinking about assertiveness to acting upon it. In small strident measures, the educated and employed fractions have begun to question men taking for granted the social inequality. We may expect the emergence of a new trend when the silent majority absorbs this need for change.

In the more liberal Western nations, political leaders are also prone to utilizing gimmicks to centralize power. Reporting on party plans to raise female electoral support in UK, Street Porter writes:

Yvette Cooper, with her new no-nonsense hairdo, won plenty of coverage for her speech at the Labour Conference last week and was even referred to as a potential new leader - you can hear Labour spin doctors hard at work promoting this fantasy scenario, which is as likely as her husband Ed Balls running my local yoga centre … Cameron says he plans to increase the number of women in key posts in his team. A recently leaked policy document written by existing advisers was full of laughable suggestions about how to win our votes. A drinks party at No. 10 to celebrate successful females in business? How patronising is that!?

She writes further: 

Justine Thornton (a successful barrister) is now reduced to being touted like a handbag on the arm of hubbie Ed Miliband, styled in a non-controversial High-Street frock, and forced to endure the ghastly ritual of the 'Conference kiss' in the full glare of the media. Ed even gets his cleaning lady to wash the family car. Cameron is no better. When he held a barbecue for President Obama in Downing Street, the macho men cooked the meat while Sam Cam was reduced to dishing out the salad! 

Financial analysts call for change in the thinking process as essential to prevent further financial crises. Human factor analysts need to advocate the same, because the strategy with humans seems to remain in continuity with attitudes of a bygone era. In issues of gender and culture, historical stereotypes and prejudices are readily invoked in place of actually understanding the present. 

However, although it seems absurd to apply financial terms to people issues, there is one notable exception. Housewives, who live with more inequality than others precisely because no remuneration is involved in their social contributions, need this evaluation. These women have also learned to devalue their own worth. They tend to say they do nothing when asked about their occupation, although unpaid and unappreciated, they carry the brunt of responsibility for managing the household and raising the children.

Luhabe, a woman entrepreneur from South Africa, recommends that stay-at-home moms should be given 10% of their husbands' earnings at the least, so that the choice to be a housewife is not not made with resentment.

As Curnow quotes her view:

"And money is the currency that we use to define value of a contribution to the world, so why shouldn't we do the same for the work of bringing up children, which I think is probably the most important contribution that the world should be valuing." 

This idea would definitely resonate with all women around the world saddled with marital and familial responsibilities! Traditionally, the homemaker earns little respect and appreciation for the caring services they freely dispense around the clock. In having to pay up, husbands, and etc., would be compelled to value woman’s work by the same standards they value their own.

Dominant social groups continue to think, plan and act in the same old ways expecting to prolong the status quo advantageous to them.  In this process, to either recycle stereotypes or to perceive people as commodities becomes habit hard to break.

Factors thought to be insignificant in finance, may be highly significant in the emotional world of people. In discounting this fact, the understanding of reality remains skewed. The thinking about people needs to change drastically, and be distinct from financial thought, because the abstract challenges of Diversity are far too formidable to ignore.

References for this post:

1. Curnow, Robyn. “Why women need a 'mommy's salary'” cnn.com. CNN. October 13, 2011.  
2. Davis, Ian. “The new normal” mckinseyquarterly.com. McKinsey Quarterly. MARCH 2009. 
3. Rumelt, Richard P. “Strategy in a ‘structural break’” mckinseyquarterly.com. McKinsey Quarterly. DECEMBER 2008. 
4. Street Porter, Janet. “Women don't want fluffy gimmicks - we want power!” dailymail.co.uk. Mail Online. 3^rd October 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. 

Social: 2. Consequences of organization

Nations with organized social structures boast of being developed. The organization throws a ring of safety around all its members, assuring freedom and security without discriminations. It is meant to ensure that people know their functions and respect boundaries in society.  The success of the system lies in the strict maintenance of the structure. But in the process, the contexts of gender often fall through the cracks. 

The assumption is that people living in the developed nations lead other regions in being far more enlightened about the meanings of freedom and equality. Less developed nations have more orthodox societies, where women generally swathe in traditional attire in deference to dominant attitudes. Their social choices are few, even of dress.

Modern women especially in the West, flaunt their liberation from bondage.  They choose revealing clothing to emphasize their achieving control of their own bodies. In the post-feminist era, feminine fashion choices are statements of personal identity.

However, the men appear to not share the women’s perceptions of themselves. Gender equations tend to remain conservative, as they were in the past. The men may instead perceive the modern women’s fashions as signals of sexual depravity, inviting exploitation.

For example, at a law school in Canada, a visiting police officer reportedly declared to his youthful audience that, “women should avoid dressing like sluts to avoid being victimized”.  Clearly, the conditioning persists that the onus of responsible social behaviour rests with  women. 

The stereotypical thinking reinforces  the practice of victim blaming, especially if it should be a female. Media reports also carry the same, perhaps unconscious, gender bias regarding gang-rape of young girls. As Freeman points out:

• A newspaper in New Delhi reports the words of the mother of a perpetrator: "If these girls will roam around like this, then the boys will make mistakes."
• On another occasion, a newspaper in New York notes that "[The 11-year old girl] dressed older than her age, wearing makeup and fashions more appropriate to a woman in her 20s. She would hang out with teenage boys at a playground …"

In UK, gender equality is widely claimed by men, as well as women of substance. And yet, the already powerless fail to find compassion within systems accustomed to conventional ways of thinking. The plight of victims’ seeking redressal is akin to jumping out of the frying pan into the fire. Victims of marital rape discover to their cost that their perspectives are neither understood nor considered.

For example, news media reports:

Last autumn, a 28-year-old mother began an eight-month prison sentence for "falsely retracting" a rape allegation against her husband, despite the court accepting that she had suffered prolonged domestic abuse and had withdrawn the rape accusation under pressure from her husband.

In effect, the woman, a rape victim hostage in her own home, is accorded no mercy for being so.  The adjucators of crime are unmoved by the situational context. In the sentencing, the system evaluates her offence as the greater social evil. The moot point being overlooked is, as Gentleman writes:

The nature of rape as a crime that usually occurs in private, with only the victim as a witness, makes it challenging to prosecute. How to handle allegations of rape that are subsequently retracted by the victim is an equally fraught part of law. When is it in the public interest to prosecute the woman for perverting the course of justice?

The pillars of the social structure uphold the civilized tradition that ‘all men are equal’. But for women in any patriarchal system, the reality is very different, and it matters little which part of the world they are in. 

Gender issues take on stereotypical colouring even in the minds of the makers of law. UK’s Justice Secretary is keen to intoduce legislation to give suspected criminals a fifty percent discount should they plead guilty before trial. The move, meant to be an incentive to decrease the time people have to spend in Court over trials, may actually be a boon for repeat offenders.

A news report explains the concern of some judges:

The plans could lead to a defendant being sentenced to three years in jail, but having this reduced to 18 months and then only serving nine months - or even less if eligible for a home detention curfew … [it risks] becoming an inappropriate reflection of the original culpability…

The discounts would serve to put rapists back in circulation far quicker. All they would need to do is plead guilty to soon resume where they left off. The Secretary also makes a distinction between “serious rape” and “date rape” - i.e., 17-year-olds having intercourse with 15-year-olds.  In his wisdom, the latter seems rather more acceptable, and less necessary to punish. 

Similar attitudes exist across the pond in USA, where the Learned Courts have upheld organizational rulings against a schoolgirl raped by a fellow student. Smith relates:

HS was 16 at the time she complained she was raped in 2008. Her attacker was charged with sexual assault, but after a plea deal, admitted misdemeanour assault and got a princely sentence of no time served. She was told to keep a low profile at school to avoid attracting attention…in 2009 when she attended a basketball game as a member of the cheerleading squad and was ordered to cheer for her attacker…

When the girl refused to shake pom-poms for the basketball player at a school event, she was suspended from the team. She then challenged the suspension in the Courts. Smith reports on the legal outcome:

The initial court ruled against her, an appellate court upheld that decision, and the supreme court refused to hear the matter … The result? A student exercising her free-speech rights has been ordered to pay a penalty to the school district, on the grounds that her original suit was a "frivolous lawsuit".

Seccuro was drugged and raped repeatedly at a college party. The emotional trauma she suffered scarred her for life.  When she reported the crime to authorities, she was asked whether she had had sex but didn't want to admit that she wasn’t a ‘good girl’. Eventually her attacker was sentenced to ten years in prison, but was released in less than six months, perhaps because he was white and educated. Twenty years later, with "spiritual awakening" he wrote to apologize for the "collateral damage" his alcoholism had caused. 

Notions of gender domination and objectifying women may have changed little despite the claims of the post-feminist era. Many men, outwardly liberal, harbour in mind implicit theories of gender inequality that guide their actions. Their latent prejudices diffuse into the social organization. It should be of little surprise then that despite the general fall in recorded crime in England, serious sexual crimes have risen by about six percent over the twelve months ending in December last. 

In the atmosphere of acceptance in the new millennium, the men may actually grow to expect decreasing social censure in their playing out dominant sexual fantasies. Freedom may come to mean the licence to exploit. In Ireland, women protestors taken into custody for demonstrating against oil pipelines were joked about by the arresting police officers, recorded as saying “Give me your name and address and I'll rape you.” 

Development largely refers to  advancements of technology, and thence economics, communication channels, weaponry, infrastructure and so on.  Although it is generally assumed that openness of mind arrives in the process, evolution of mind does not at all keep pace with the technology. In truth, the structure of organized society itself may be constraining change. 

Similar to elsewhere, the people of developed nations rely on conventional wisdom to guide their actions. The habit of not fixing what ain’t broke, tends to perpetrate change-resistant patriarchal attitudes within the organization just as before.  Women awaiting organized rescue, wait in vain.  

If they are to wrest equality inside the existing structures, they must innovate social confrontation of the organized discrimination. Seccuro motivated herself to seek the justice her attacker had so long eluded. And in Canada, a new women's movement sprouts across the country - SlutWalking!

References for this post:

1. Davis, Rowena. “Irish police chief apologises for officers who joked about raping protesters” guardian.co.uk. The Guardian. 8 April 2011. 
2. Freeman, Hadley. “Rape is not a compliment” guardian.co.uk. Comment. The Guardian. 30 March 2011. 
3. Gentleman, Amelia. “'Restoring confidence so victims report rape is key'” guardian.co.uk. The Guardian. 19 April 2011. 
4. Jones, Sam. “Recorded crime falls despite rise in sexual offences and knife-point robbery” News. guardian.co.uk. The Guardian. 20 April 2011. 
5. Pilkington, Ed. “SlutWalking gets rolling after cop's loose talk about provocative clothing” guardian.co.uk. The Guardian. 6 May 2011.
6. Seccuro, Liz. “Dear Rapist…” News. guardian.co.uk. The Guardian. 30 April 2011. 
7.  “Sentencing plans 'would not reflect severity of crimes'” News report. bbc.co.uk. News UK. BBC. 6 April 2011. 
8. Slack, James. “Tearful rape victim challenges Ken Clarke over 'disastrous' plans to halve sentences of attackers who plead guilty” dailymail.co.uk. The Daily Mail. 18th May 2011. 
9. Smith, SE. “Cheerleader's protest after assault was not 'frivolous'” guardian.co.uk. Article. The Guardian. 5 May 2011.  

Evolved appraisals

Synopsis: Frames of anticipations help us choose. They highlight options according to our degree of preference – that is, whichever is most significant to us emotionally.


We actively examine and re-examine situations, as we adapt.

The appraisals

We instinctively conduct appraisals. The quick survey-and-analysis precedes our goal-seeking behaviour. The appraisals are an evolutionary process developed at two levels:

• The primary appraisal defines our involvement in situations.
• The secondary appraisal considers solutions to the issue or problem perceived therein.

Through these appraisals, we first examine whether or not the situation is relevant for our personal wellbeing, and then we decide on actions to cope with it.

Anticipations

The primary appraisal occurs before conscious feelings and emotional responses, and in fact serves to turn them on. If we don’t feel involved with what is going on, we experience no emotional arousal. Our interest in the situational outcomes wanes, and so we forget about it or do little willingly. But if we do feel involved, we move on proactively to the secondary appraisal. We focus on ways of handling the situation - like what we can or should do about it.

Situations stimulate our decision-making, and give us the opportunity to make choices. Suppose, for example, we are considering a vacation, and there are two locations to choose from. One is perfect in all regards - except that the weather is unpredictable. The other is less perfect but the weather is usually good.

How do we choose? We evaluate our emotional anticipations regarding each location. The possible pleasure of the first site with good weather is weighted against the possible displeasure with bad weather there. Combining the two gives an average feeling of anticipated pleasure. The other location is similarly evaluated with weather and other attractions to obtain another anticipated average. The two averages are then compared. The location with the ‘greater average pleasure’ in outcome then tends to be selected.

The framing effect

Visualizing possible outcomes within these frames of anticipations help us choose. The frames highlight the options according to our degree of preference – that is, whichever is most significant to us emotionally.

Our choices are sometimes buoyed by expectations of certain outcomes only. We also tend to be hasty when the data available is not judged appropriately, with lack of time, information overload, divided loyalties or stress. In all these situations, the focus of attention is limited and so are explorations or assessments of the environment. We are guided instead by excessive optimism about certain outcomes or fears about some others.

Assessing reality

The framing effect is an unconscious bias. Researchers at Ohio State University point out that greater anticipated pleasure or greater optimism tend to produce greater risk seeking, whereas pessimism causes risk aversion.

Fact is, the choices we make are proved ‘correct’ only by future consequences. The emotional involvement starts the decision-making process. Emotions generalize understanding between our two brains - the rational left, and the intuitive right hemispheres. It is important to integrate the inputs of the two sides of the brain to accurately understand reality. Our evolved appraisals are necessary for our actions becoming effective.

Comments/opinions Anyone??

Problem solving: Integrating differences

Synopsis: People respond not to the external stimulus, but to their perceptual interpretation of its significance.


People tend to perceive the world through cultural frameworks, and accordingly, understand reality.

First language

Thought structures generally develop along cultural lines. People prefer to express themselves in the language they are comfortable thinking in. From their socio-cultural interactions they are actively involved in constructing their knowledge of the world. This is a collective activity. Conceptual schemes are generally bound to background, and so is the language used to transmit them.

In the cross-cultural context, the dependence on a specific first language imposes certain limitations to the perceptive outlook. Thus, meaning is given to the world in a culturally defined sense. People learn to respond to stimuli in characteristic ways, in interactions with the environment and other people. Multilingual abilities enable people to widen their perceptual fields and recognise different cultural contexts and realities.

External and internal

External stimuli motivate people to react with characteristic (learned) behaviour. Some researchers say people respond not to the external stimulus, but to their perceptual interpretation of its significance. The motivation to think and then act beyond the cultural limits comes from within.

Other researchers point out that both external and internal motivations operate in learning. Because it occurs through social activity, learning is tuned to social rewards. However, the drive to learn depends on the individuals themselves.

Cognitive development

They argue that all our cognitive functions – like voluntary attention, logical memory, and formation of concepts - originate from the social interactions we are exposed to as children.

The cultural socializing is the process of being integrated into the prevalent knowledge community. This motivates learning. Guidance of teachers or elders, and peer collaborations influence the understanding of, and the attitudes towards, organized and unorganized routines.

Therefore, development occurs first on the social level, from significant interactions between people. It then proceeds within each person, on the individual level. People eventually learn to think in a particular mode - convergent or divergent - as a result of their actual relationships with others. They also learn to be individualistic or collectivist.

Using resources

Convergent thinking provides technical depth and expertise generally associated with academics. Divergent thinking contributes to people being streetsmart. Globalization brings together people of different cultures, with perspectives developed by such different thought processes.

It also shows up clear distinctions of space and time in people’s minds. Clearly, having the same culture and language helps to understand others and be understood by them. People sharing the same workspace may think, feel and act differently in each situation. But companies and their decision makers sometimes tend to become hidebound over what ‘works’ in the attempt to conserve resources and preserve structure.

How cognitive resources are actually used in problem solving should then depend on circumstances, and not on our comfort zone with one or the other process alone. Sharing perspectives bring to view areas or dimensions that are unusual or being overlooked. For effective problem solving, these group participations are important, even critical for the system’s healthy survival.

Comments/opinions, anyone??

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

Social Constructivism

Why Vygotsky?

Problem solving: The value of obstacles

Synopsis: ‘Speechifying’ enables understanding relationships between objects and things in the surrounding environment.


Obstacles interrupt the normal flow of activity, and their doing so attracts attention. We get to thinking about situations, and become aware of problems in terms of what was and is or should be. We then devise ways of getting around the impediments.

Thought and word

We initiate activity for survival reasons - to adjust to the environment in a new or different way. The break in pattern is the critical stimulus . It activates the thinking process. We:

We initiate activity for survival reasons - to adjust to the environment in a new or different way. The break in pattern is the critical stimulus that alerts us. It activates the thinking process. We:

a) become aware of the problem, and
b) express becoming aware by speechifying.

Thence in words and opinions, our thoughts become known. The meanings attributed to words or drawn from them lead us to concepts associated with problem solving. The connecting link between thought and word grows and changes as our cognitive processes evolve.

Ways of thinking

People of all cultures are able to think critically about issues and find solutions to them. But in the total group, they generally utilize their faculties in either of two very different ways.

· Convergent thinking: This implies a focus on rules and precedence – a dependence on
methods, and procedures independent of the social context. The same conditions always apply. Answers derive from universal theories in a logical, stepwise manner. Like the algorithms that we can look up in a specific ‘book’ of standard received wisdom, they serve solutions processing information to save time, effort and resources.
· Divergent thinking: Divergent thinking is focused on situated learning. This involves observing and reflecting on each unique circumstance. The thinking process is unstructured, providing spatial associations. Solutions lie within the elements of problem, derived by changes in their existing relationships. The local context is determinant, and problem solutions often innovative.

Nonsense talk?

Critical reasoning in problem solving is thought to develop from childhood ‘nonsense talk’. This is the ‘egocentric speech’ that Jean Piaget identified and earlier considered just transitional to socialized speech.

Social scientists Vygotsky et al now believe that nonsense talk instead relates directly to the problem solving process. Observational studies with children show that they tend to verbalize far more than adults do when faced with a problem. The ‘speechifying’ enables their understanding relationships between objects and things in the surrounding environment.

In the course of social interactions, it is a guide to their activities of:

· releasing tension coming up against difficulties or obstructions to goal achievement
· expressing thought and feeling about the issue or problem
· following up action to resolve the specific difficulty or obstruction
· changing direction of activity, if initial outcomes are unsatisfactory.

Egocentric speech in childhood transforms to inner speech in adulthood. The audible verbalizing simply goes underground. Although we become quiet outwardly, inner speech continues its earlier function within the confines of our mind.

In the process of growing up, most adults learn to contemplate issues and problems in silence. They tend to verbalize only afterwards, to offer specific opinions about the situation arising, or solutions to resolving it.

Cont’d 2…integrating differences

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?