Tag Archives: structure

Rippled Resonance

© Lori Fisher 2014

© Lori Fisher 2014

I read a recent article on the United Press International website regarding a Princeton/Northwestern study that concluded that the US structure is that of an oligarchy rather than a democracy, with the US government representing not the interests of the majority of citizens, but those of the rich and powerful.  The comments regarding the article were interesting – from the most academic (defining oligarchy/plutocracy and highlighting the symptoms that have been present from America’s birth and documented in this analytical study), to the more casual opinion, of “duh.”

A blog response from The New Yorker questioned the validity and methods of the study.  Among the 75 comments for that post, there were still some hang-ups on definitions, regarding a republic versus a democracy.

A BBC news article suggested potential responses to this study, which primarily included resignation to the fate of not living in an equal world.  Sounds about right for a media outlet that depends on structure to survive – maintain readers who somewhat believe the content of what is displayed and supply the preferred controlled solution of ‘no action, just kick back and maybe discuss, but ultimately just accept.’

MSNBC.com released an article as well. Just in case the reader did not have a direction for processing the information in the article, the media outlet provided a means of directing any blank thought or irrational emotion by providing a poll with just one question (which, I guess is supposed to be the most important), “Do you think the wealthy have too much political power?”  The pollster had three options when responding. There was a “Yes…” a “No….” and a “It isn’t perfect but the system is still sound.”   Really?  That’s it?  Where’s the choice for “I am not privy to enough unbiased information to answer”, or “I have no idea how things really work in  government, except for what I have seen on TV or ‘made for TV’ news” or “I don’t care, where’s my iPhone” or even the answering-a-question-with-a-question choice of “Do ‘the wealthy’ actually have the power, or are they simply responding to their role in a controlled structure, handing their ‘power’ off to engrained fears about security, money and social judgement?”

Are the conclusions on how the US government makes decisions now valid since academic institutions have deemed them to be true?  Should society or an individual have to wait for recognized studies conducted by intellectuals or academic institutions to verify what may have been already thought or felt?

And how does a ‘validated’ label change alter our attitudes about living within this system? Do we care much?  Is there even an action to take? Do we drop out of school, quit our jobs, stop going to the grocery store, pay attention to the companies we support with our consumer purchases, ride bikes, pay attention to what’s in our food?  I suppose no matter what the label, if someone is comfortable, there would be little motivation to change the day to day routine.  Unless, maybe there was a movement that gathered steam, delivered ideas as guidance and solutions, and provided a leader who could communicate all of it effectively – oh, like an election campaign, I suppose.  But, even then, is that still waiting for an “authority” to validate ideas, thoughts, feelings that were already known?

Is it a method of thinking for people to look for a leader (or ‘authority’) who believes (or says they believe) the same, then give energy, time and power over to them, as an investment perhaps?  On a personal level, do we think we need a leader or group to validate our opinions or beliefs and to give us the security to make a choice or decision? Maybe we do as a society; maybe the process is too much responsibility otherwise; maybe this has been learned.

From another perspective, what if people simply did their own thing? Without violence, without gathering, without groups, without anything except personal choice and power.

Perhaps there is no actual vision for the “right” path or way to go, but maybe there is the feeling that the current path is not quite right. What if no other authority was needed to verify or validate and an individual simply ‘left’ the current path and strictness of the structure? Not for a spotlight, not for recognition, not for vengeance, not for saving fellow humans.  What if the leader for you was you?  So the challenge for finding a leader would ultimately be finding yourself.

Would this create change?  Would it even matter?  A friend reminded me of the ripple effect concept.  The power of role model and example. What if someone simply stopped participating in the expected flow of life – stopped buying groceries and planted a garden – stopped eating at fast food restaurants and ate only locally sourced – stopped identifying themselves as a consumer, or even for that matter stopped identifying the system as a democracy.  What happened to the practical?  Identifying something for what it really is, based on how it functions and impacts…. then going from there. Can you live physically in a system that you have detached from ideologically, or have detached from the symbolic meanings?  Is it even possible?  Is there space outside the structure?  Without a overarching authority, how far would the ripples go?

© M.R.Collier, A Way of Your Own, 2014

 

The Structure

Just when I thought I had this internal conflict figured out, or at least a resolution decided on, I realized that something about the circumstance, the item, and the purpose stuck around and I couldn’t sell or throw away the issue. The book, Lean In: Women, Work and the Will to Lead by Sheryl Sandberg came into my possession in January and has felt like an emotional albatross ever since. I had read reviews of the material and had seen online interviews and parts of lectures given by the author regarding the book and something about the presentation of the content gave me a sick, sinking feeling.  The whole concept of a woman measuring herself against the ‘white male standard’ and looking in that direction for the definitions of success and leadership just doesn’t fit and I don’t want to waste any of my energy perpetuating such an outdated vision. But, the crazy thing is that I haven’t read the actual words for myself.

I was ready to sell that book, but felt horrible since it was a gift.  Nevertheless, I was going to stick to my guns….then, I saw reports regarding the World Economic Forum.  The media presented highlights of the wealthy and powerful individuals and business/government representatives that met in Switzerland to discuss global economic issues. I read a related CNN article that pitted two journalists against one another. The male journalist said that the people who realistically make the decisions about how the world operates are at this meeting.  The female journalist said that the people who work for the wealthy and powerful matter as well.  The article presented itself as a class, power-struggle argument – should those without abundance be pissed and lash out at those with vast amounts; should those who have be content to believe that they are in a bubble of longevity, detached from those who have not?

My reaction to the initial reading about the forum was curious because, as I wrestled with what I thought was an internal conflict dealing with one item (the book), I realized that the topic of the World Economic Forum gave me the exact same heart burn.  Two seemingly different topics that had flowed into my line of vision since the beginning of the year that caused the same hiccup in my brain.  Could it be that this is the auto-reaction to which I am doomed for 2014, or do these two items share something other than the creepy crawly pit dagger sensation?

So, with my admittedly periphery knowledge of both things, I compared them to see what could be the common denominator.  Structure.  Structure of a system.  They reflected a common structure through which concepts, agendas, discussions and subsequent plans of actions are based and must be measured against to come to fruition.

I understand that modern society survives within a certain structure, but is this structure the one that we should believe in and perpetuate?  I’m kind of blown away and insulted that (a)maintenance of this structure, (b)patching up this structure or (c)trying to make this structure work better are the only options that mainstream outlooks want me to believe are even in existence.  Why is it presented that the only choice is to find solutions that work within this framework? Perhaps with further analysis, I will find the initial question or awareness about the system that is presented, the conversation about recognizing the concepts that are in place, the structure in which we hold ourselves as a society and if we would even want to perpetuate and give our energy to that vision of the world.  Okay…so, further research – I guess that means reading that book…..sigh.

© M.R.Collier, A Way of Your Own, 2014

Sexism: Loop Spin Twist

I have been thinking about sexism and the part I play in reinforcing the fences created by others (and possibly myself) that ultimately bound me tighter. Talk about frustration loop.  At times, this one feels insurmountable, even though I know that just a small twist of the perception could release a tunnel of light revealing an entire scene that I never knew existed. I just haven’t fully developed that twist, but I’m working on it.  Here’s the progression…..

The Loop:

Boundaries can remain invisible until they are crossed, or at least attempted. Then, they can come to life maybe as a block, or a shock, or simply dead weight trapping the contained in place. Sexism is one of the many actual expressions of boundaries reinforced by society standards, expectations and rules. Sexism has polluted my existence since I ran into my first boundary and didn’t like it.

When do I experience sexism?  Every time I walk out the front door.  What about inside the home?  When I read the news?  When I watch a TV show?  When I talk with my parents? When I have a conversation with my significant other?  When I write in my journal?  Wow, yes, even when I write in my journal. What re-occurring voices have lodged themselves so tightly in my brain that I think they have been there since I was born and are hissing slow leaks of sexist BS, playing on fears, enhancing doubts?  When am I sexist towards a man, or to another woman?  Here is the scary thing – am I even aware of it?  A behavior and mindset so engrained in my setting that it is difficult to identify that the process is even going on.

Spinning:

Recently, I saw an article regarding an ad created for the organization, UN Women. (http://www.unwomen.org/en/news/stories/2013/10/women-should-ads). They had used the initial words for searches including “women cannot…”; women shouldn’t…..”; “women need to…”; “women should…” and allowed the google ‘auto complete’ feature to suggest the search most likely to be used.  Those search suggestions declared discriminatory and sexist sentiments.  At first, I could hardly believe it and yes, I tried out the searches myself.  They came up with slightly altered sayings but none of them positive, all judgmental and highlighting the limits of women’s stature in this society.  I was pissed off.

I suppose the ad had done it’s job.

I really don’t need this ad to remind me that sexism and discrimination are still prevalent in my world.  I experience it, view it and read about it daily.  Most behavior is so socially acceptable, I probably only consciously register half of the BS flying around.  And since the normalized behavior is the real danger of being forgotten, ads such as this one serves as a reminder.  At the same time, the endeavor is still manipulating.  The chosen searches were addressing women as subservient, submissive children in the first place, choosing commanding and authoritative words (should and shouldn’t; need to and cannot).  Of course, this could be part of the point; I can get that.  The searches are judgmental and authoritative to begin with.  The thing is, I would never need to ask for guidance from google (or any other portal to the internet) what women need to, should or shouldn’t, or cannot.

I think that the genuine message in this ad was unfortunately the text that was the hardest to see.

“Women cannot accept the way things are”;

“Women shouldn’t suffer from discrimination anymore”;

“Women should have the right to make their own decisions”;

“Women need to be seen as equal”.

It’s okay to bold that – right up front, not hidden behind shock value. Those are commands that everyone should be able to demand with clear authority.

 

The Twist:

Over the summer, I read Frank Bruni’s New York Times Op-Ed article titled “Sexism’s Puzzling Stamina.”  Inspiration for the piece came from a photo taken during a Congressional Hearing regarding sexual assault and harassment in the military.  In the photo, only a couple of women could be seen.  Women were in the minority, when the hearing was specifically about the sexual assault of women.  In the article, Bruni, as well as most who commented on the piece were baffled, puzzled, and frustrated that sexism continues in our society.  And their frustration was contagious.  For instance, I tried to imagine that the opinion article had been written by a woman. I had to ask if it would have been published, or if it would have had the same responses.  And then, I stopped myself from going down that “what if” road paved in jaded confusion and blame.  That’s the cycle and there has got to be another way to approach the topic.  Perhaps that is why all the “isms” are lingering; good people who want brilliant change and goodwill get stuck in patterns that ultimately feed the internal anger, but never lead to fruitful solutions.

Mr. Bruni’s article points out that there hasn’t been much development on getting rid of sexism.  I think all the “ism”s are continuing full force in our society.  Still going strong, and maybe now we are adding a few.  I think age-ism is definitely one that doesn’t get enough press.  So, why is sexism continuing in a rampant march down the middle of our culture?  I know that we live in a patriarchy; we define winners and success primarily through power struggles; and many things in our culture tend to be judged against a white-male standard. Perhaps it’s a domination culture.  How often is that ole “survival of the fittest” argument given with a shrug and helpless hands gesture?  Like we can’t seem to help it because we’ve given our power over to a saying that’s been around for a while and pounded into our brains. It’s a rampage of isms, defining ourselves by them, defining ourselves by our differences from others, deciding that certain traits are more valuable than others.

So, if I am worried that I may be continuing sexist behavior, reinforcing the normality and perpetuating the boundaries, to my friends, colleagues and even myself, what tangible things can I do?  Monitoring every behavior seems an ominous undertaking. But what about an umbrella effect. Intention. Intention encompasses all of my behavior, action, and communication.  What’s my intention?  Let’s take “positive empowerment.”  Intention transcends emotion and perhaps even compassion, empathy, sympathy, unless maybe that is my intention.  Focus on the intention of positive empowerment.  Anytime I engage with myself, my significant other, a bus driver, a customer service rep, hold the intention.  It applies not just to me, but to the interaction.

Is this an alternate perspective that is possible?  Well, I just thought of it while submerged in this chaotic culture.  Intention and awareness of how one interacts is not beyond mainstream capacity, I think.  I suppose we have learned how to normalize certain intentions already.  For example, the intention of social self preservation and the use of guilt, persuasion, or compromise to achieve it.  Perhaps recognizing intention is not beyond this world’s capability and could perhaps be a new direction that is within reach.