11 September 2002 | Draft
My Reflecting Mirror World
making my World Summit on Sustainable Development (Johannesburg,
2002) worthwhile
- / -
This paper is a contribution to reflection on viable strategies
for sustainable development on the occasion of the
UN World Summit on Sustainable Development (Johannesburg, 2002)
Introduction
Challenges to governance of my world
Problems of my world
Reframing my "overpopulation" problem
Organizing my world
My management failure
Context
Interface management
Rainmaking in Joburg: making my Rio+10 worthwhile
Mirrors of my world
Configuring the mirrors of my world
Governance through metaphor
"Sustainable development": configuring divergent understandings
Self-possession and governance
References
Introduction
To what extent is the world around me merely a mirror of my very own successes
and failures in world governance -- in governing "my world"? It may
indeed suit me to hold the world at arm's length -- as an object with its own
dynamics quite beyond any responsibility of mine. And there may be many ways
that this can be understood to be a useful, healthy, minimally presumptuous,
perspective.
But there is some value in reflecting on the ways in which every thing I encounter
in "the world" is engendered by me. This may be especially useful
with respect to the values I attach to phenomena of the world -- whether rain
is "good" or "bad", for example. But there are ways in which
it is also the case with respect to how I organize and group features of the
world -- whether those I perceive as part of "my people" (tribe, ethnic
group, peer group, etc) or those most definitely not ("aliens" , etc).
There are ways in which people with whom I regularly interact carry significance
which derives primarily from what I project onto them -- as the psychotherapeutic
professions spend much time in demonstrating. And of course, physicists delight
in pointing out how objects like a "table" (which are particular configurations
of atoms) acquire the shape on which we agree through a very complex process.
Hence the interest in the social construction of reality.
The approach taken here assumes that the challenge of the times may be associated
more with how they are understood rather than what they are understood
to be -- more with how they condition, and are determined by, thinking and less
with the effects they appear individually to produce. This is my challenge in
making my experience of the World Summit on Sustainable Development (Johannesburg,
2002) worthwhile.
Challenges to governance of my world
Clearly I have to discover imaginative ways to deal with:
- some 200 countries and territories claiming different degrees of sovereignty
in my world -- what does such "sovereignty" imply in relation to
me in functional terms?
- a multitude of intergovernmental and nongovernment institutions and networks
claiming some form of relatively unique functional competence in my world
-- what is this "competence" in relation to my own?
- a significant number of multinational corporations and business networks,
and their national counterparts or agents, in my world -- what is this "business"
that they are performing on my behalf?
- personalities and VIPs of varying degrees of charisma and power in my world
(eg Bush, Hitler, Mandela, Pol Pot, Mother Teresa, Berlusconi, Dalai Lama)
-- what is this "charisma" and "power" in relation to
me?
- elite groups and networks supposedly operating behind the scenes in my world
(Club of Rome, Bilderberg, CIA, KKK, elite meetings) -- what does "elite"
and "secret" mean in in relation to me?
- several hundred religions claiming moral and ethical authority over the
values applicable in my world -- why have I engendered so many distinct "religions"?
- a range of criminal networks and activities influencing decision-making
at every level of society -- what is "crime" and what function is
it performing for my world?
- several hundred intellectual disciplines, deploying thousands of models,
through which I am strongly encouraged to view the phenomena of my world --
what are these "disciplines" and who are the "intelligent agents"
I have engendered to acquire knowledge through them?
- thousands of problems touching upon every aspect of my world -- what are
these "problems" that are so so closely related to suffering in
my world?
- thousands of strategic plans of action and policies in response to the problems
of my world -- are these simply wish lists I have engendered to give me a
sense of engagement and to assuage my conscience?
All these phenomena play off against each other in ways that make coherent understanding
increasingly problematic for me.
Problems of my world
The following paragraphs are developed from an earlier paper
(Opportunity: reframing problems through metaphors)
My world as a whole is beset by a range of problems about which I repeatedly
express my incapacity to provide a response. I have effectively delegated responsibility
for such action to others to whom I have attributed greater power.
It is useful to challenge the thinking trap of "problem-solving". The approach
to problems may then be reframed by asking myself what a problem is "trying
to tell me" -- or, better still, is the problem as understood in effect a metaphor
for something I would prefer not to understand? From this perspective "institutionalized"
problems may in effect be a sort of metaphorical euphemism -- a package which
it is better not to unwrap. Problems are not only nasty in themselves, they
are also nasty in what they imply about myself -- however much I endeavour to
occupy the moral high ground as a disinterested change agent, victim or innocent
bystander.
Consider the following prominent problems in my world:
- Poverty: I am exposed to a great deal of poverty in my world -- and
I consider myself relatively impoverished compared to many. My concern about
poverty tends to focus on objects that I do not have -- even when I do not
need those things to enable me to achieve a degree of well-being. Somehow
my well-being is intimately related to things that I do not have -- even when
I have most of the things that many in my world only dream of having. And
of course, once I obtain the things I feel I am lacking, I find that there
are other things that I lack which still define me as poor in my own eyes.
Is it possible that what I, and my world, really suffer from is some poorly
diagnosed chronic poverty of the spirit?
- Hunger (including malnutrition): I am constantly hearing that millions
of people in my world are threatened with death by starvation. I am able to
keep this challenge at a distance -- despite the pictures in the media --
but it is a constant drain on my spirit. All is definitely not well. Is this
problem signalling the existence of a subtler and more widespread form of
deprivation -- a malnutrition of my psyche and a spiritual hunger which I
am even less capable of addressing? This would be consistent with my concern
about the artificiality and superficiality of experience offered in the emerging
"information society" or "global village" -- and with the desperate attempts
to increase the level of "realism" by increasing the quantity and degrading
quality of violence portrayed in the media. Do I now need a "murder-a-night
to feel alright"? What does this say about my sense of superiority towards
the public hangings in times gone by? To what extent is my imagination appropriately
nourished at this time -- despite the surfeit of imaginative material available?
What are the foodstuffs and vitamins of the spirit? What is the nourishment
for the spirit that I am unable to cultivate and harvest? Is this a skill
now lost to my world?
- Disease (and pain): There are many kinds of disease in my world
with many suffering chronic pain. Beyond the physical pain are the many forms
of mental illness, stress, neurosis and personality disorder -- especially
in the "industrialized" parts of my world. Why am I so unhealthy?
The many types of disease are useful indicators of the different ways in which
I tend to fail to come to terms with my world -- and of the remedies that
I seek as appropriate. Why, for example, do I invest so much in supporting
the curiously dysfunctional dynamics of a pharmaceutical industry and a medical
profession that are so well-nourished by disease? The question is whether
such diseases are effectively diseases of my imagination and of my imaginal
deficiency. To what extent is the illness and pain in my world a consequence
of my inappropriate thinking and framing?
- Substance abuse (including drugs and alcohol): Surely the substance
abuse in which I engage is signalling a desperate need on my part for different
modes of thinking, feeling and experience than those encouraged by a society
I have created for myself -- now governed by antiquated thinking patterns
which have been only too effectively institutionalized in "acceptable" modes
of work and leisure? Again, since many that I have set up as role models in
key positions in such institutions also use drugs or alcohol "to relax", what
should I be learning from the level of stress -- and schizophrenia -- at which
the prevailing mode of thought is requiring them to function? Is my substance
abuse not effectively offering a remedy for the imaginal deficiency and mechanistic
patterning characteristic of "acceptable" individual and collective behaviour?
And consequently would not substance abuse become less necessary if my society
acknowledged more imaginative opportunities? What is the incidence of substance
abuse in the other cultures of my world whose languages make very extensive
use of metaphor? To what extent is it useful for me to perceive my relation
to the prevailing thinking pattern as a form of "addiction" -- a habit that
I do not know how to kick?
- Unemployment (including underemployment and absenteeism) : Unemployment
is a major concern in my world. It is no longer fruitful to argue that a significant
proportion of unemployment is simply due to laziness, reluctance to learn
new skills, lack of initiative or lack of opportunities. Is it possible that
the prevailing mode of thinking, that I encourage, is inhibiting my peoples'
ability to imagine new forms of action of value to others, encouraging many
to perceive existing employment opportunities as worthless both to themselves
and to others, as well as impoverishing the manner in which they consider
what to do with their lives? Is unemployment telling me that much of the work
on offer in my society is not worth doing -- and that much which is done is
pointless? This would certainly be consistent with many criticisms of the
consumer society and of industrial exploitation of the environment. Perhaps
it is also saying that what I value doing, or am obliged to do, is not appropriately
valued (as "work") in an economic system that I have allowed to be governed
by an inadequate mode of thinking. This would certainly be consistent with
the debate about the economic value of housework. Contrasting employment with
recreation (as opposed to unemployment) is somewhat ironic in that unimaginative
leisure opportunities are increasingly incapable of offering "re-creation".
Is the level of unemployment also indicating that I really do not know to
what I could usefully and meaningfully devote my resources? Worse still, is
it indicating that I have dissociated the challenges to human society from
opportunities for "work" because of the way such challenges are perceived
within the pattern of thinking that I have allowed to prevail?
- Ignorance (including functional illiteracy): Is the level of ignorance,
even in my "industrialized countries", telling me that much of the
knowledge on which that judgement is based is not worth learning? This concern
has certainly been expressed in debates about existing curricula. Is it suggesting
that for their psychic survival my people are educating themselves along pathways
that are not considered meaningful, or indicative of intelligence, within
the pattern of thinking that I have allowed to dominate? This is suggested
by the immense resources devoted to music and to "alternative" therapies and
belief systems. Is it suggesting that my people feel deprived of an imaginal
education, faced with the formal (even rote) learning so frequently considered
most appropriate (especially "to the needs of industry")? This is suggested
by the enthusiasm for graphics, cartoon books, science fiction, fantasy and
the archetypal portrayal of cult figures of the music industry. Is my concern
with the ignorance of many, including myself, concealing the fact that those
to whom I have attributed most expertise and power are really quite ignorant
about how to navigate through current and future crises -- an ignorance compounded
by my incompetence?
- Homelessness: Many people in my world lack adequate shelter. Is
the lack of appropriate shelter, even in my "industrialized countries",
indicating that, with the current pattern of thinking that I have allowed
to prevail, I am ineffective in my ability to provide, construct, or acquire
cognitive and affective frameworks to shelter my people appropriately from
the turbulence of the times? This would be consistent with concerns about
alienation in modern society. It would also follow from the recognition that
many traditional frameworks and belief systems have been torn down or discredited.
Even where my people are well sheltered, it is often in houses or apartments
that reflect an impoverishment of architectural imagination -- as reinforced
by unimaginative building regulations and construction economics. Is my imaginal
life so impoverished by the media that I engender that the ability to provide
a hospitable "interior decoration" for my psyche has been degraded? Have I
lost the ability to understand how to create "hearth" and "home"?
- Wastage (including environmental degradation): Is my insensitivity
to the processes of wastage and pollution, for which I am personally responsible,
signalling the existence of an indifference to the "salubrity" and "sanitation"
of my imaginative life? This would be consistent with the concern expressed
by some of my non-western cultures and constituencies at the indifference
to "spiritual purity". There is little consensus on what is or is not healthy
for the psyche -- just as I am no longer clear, with the increasing extent
of pollution, to what extent which foodstuffs are safe. The depletion of natural
resources associated with wastage calls for reflection on the possibility
that my western-inspired culture is depleting its psychic resources in ways
that I have yet to understand? Can the imaginative resources of a culture
be depleted to a point of "bankruptcy" and how can such resources be conserved
and "recycled"? Do empires fall through imaginative failure?
- Crime (including corruption): A major criticism of my development
aid process is that the resources are diverted away from those most in need,
despite agreements to prevent this. Various forms of bribery or "commission"
are a common feature, even in my "industrialized countries". In
any position (and notably in intergovernmental agencies), my appointees endeavour
to obtain perks and privileges for themselves, for relatives or for friends
-- whether this is limited to pilferage of office supplies, extended into
the imposition of a "socially acceptable taxation" (or "sweetener") on any
transactions which they control, or developed into a full-blown criminal activity.
What can I learn from this degree of self-interest and the associated rule-breaking
propensity? Is this an indication that my people cannot survive within the
mechanistic regulations which emerge from the current pattern of thinking
I have engendered -- or at least choose not to do so, and feel free not to
do so when possible? This would be consistent with the admiration for people
"who can get things done" despite the rules, because they are capable
of imagining more subtle opportunities. To what extent is corruption associated
with a more creative world view -- as reflected in the term "creative accounting"?
- Inequality and injustice: Inequality is a major feature of my world
and is a source of much protest. The few are privileged in relation to the
many. But this inequality seems indeed to be a reflection of my own attitudes,
for I do indeed treat some features of my environment as of greater significance
than others -- and would not know how to do otherwise. I am indeed partial
in my preferences, notably with respect to the attention that I accord to
one person rather than to another. This treatment may indeed be said to be
unjust. But how could I give attention equally to everyone, if only because
of my obvious handicap in being confronted more frequently by the few that
are near me -- in contrast to the many that are elsewhere, who might rightly
complain to be unjustly treated in consequence? Is there some more fruitful
way of responding to those who are apparently less significant to the dynamics
of my world -- and of responding less enthusiastically to those who seem to
make my world more meaningful?
- Immorality: There are many standards of ethics and morals in my world
-- and various efforts to form them into a universal standard. They are put
forward as guidelines for behaviour that would be minimally harmful. And yet
my various proponents of such different value systems continue to engage in
the bloodiest conflicts in defence of their respective frameworks of "harmlessness".
What are these competing frameworks that I engender? Why are the universal
frameworks so unmeaningful to those who identify with more specific frameworks?
Why is no universal framework that I have engendered an adequate vehicle for
the diverse individual and collective identities in my world? Why do such
frameworks somehow negate the diversity that I would claim to value?
- Unproductivity: A prime concern is with economic productivity and
the relatively unproductive nature of my "developing" countries
and regions -- all according to monetary criteria. My "countries"
are now traumatized by the need to increase productivity and "market
share" in competition with each other. This is considered to be a healthy
characteristic of my world -- although clearly the hope that any country could
increase its market share, as more countries become productive, is clearly
illusory in the extreme. It is also curious that the more productive countries
need less productive countries in order to remain competitive. Given the extent
to which many in my world are having to become reconciled to being "unemployed",
and therefore "unproductive", it is unclear why I have to be so
convinced of the vital importance of productivity -- or why I have to tolerate
such a degree of frenetic activity in my world. Is it so impossible for me
to engender a more graceful way of sustaining the movement of energies within
the world?
- Insecurity (and violence): Concerns about personal and collective
security are a major feature of my world. Many have reason to fear violence
from others. Why is it that I entertain myself so frequently by exposure to
dramatized representations of such violence -- which are so characteristic
of the products of the cultures of my world, especially as reflected in the
media? Why is it that security is so closely associated with boredom and that
risk is so closely associated with feeling alive? Do I engender violence in
my world to inject a sense of life and risk -- whatever the price? Why is
it that I can tolerate the exposure of some to high levels of violence and
insecurity -- perhaps deploring it, but certainly without evoking any effort
to remedy the situation? Does the insecurity of others, and the violence exacted
upon them, obscure from my awareness my own profound sense of insecurity and
the violence that I so casually need to do to others, if only through my agents?
- Nuclear proliferation: Many have pointed to the degree of risk associated
with proliferating nuclear power stations and weaponry. A chain of accidents
could trigger complete disaster to life on my planet. Is this some form of
ultimate existential risk with which I choose to stimulate my world and my
sense of reality -- in order, paradoxically, to feel alive? Does the nature
of the risk carry learnings that would be of most value to a more insightful
mode of life?
- Degradation of the environment (including ecosystems and species):
There is widespread recognition that the environment of my world is being
severely degraded and may well be close to collapse. Ecosystems and species
that I have engendered are being annihilated by those whose livelihoods depend
upon them. Healthy ecosystems are being "poisoned" by lethal pollutants,
genetically modified organisms, and introduced species -- that somehow I accept.
How is it that, despite lip service to the contrary, I am so tolerant of this
process? Is it that my ability to be conscious of the full richness of biodiversity
is highly constrained? Consequently is the loss of this or that ecosystem
(or species) essentially irrelevant to the dynamics of the reduced ecosystem
(with its minimal range of species) of which I am most directly aware? Is
this somehow a measure of my own impoverishment -- reflected in the concrete
jungles that are increasingly the habitat of my awareness? How is it that
I have lost any sense of the irony of importing exotic species (provided that
they behave) to populate artificial niches in such concrete habitats? Worse
still, how is it that my conceptual framework attaches no sense of the importance
to the dynamics of species in the wild, rather than to those restrained in
pots or cages -- or by enclosures or chains? What degree of self-mockery do
I celebrate with a dog kept on a leash?
- Over-exploitation of energy resources: A great deal of energy is
necessary to keep the industrialized parts of my world operating coherently.
Basically I unashamedly use any energy I can get -- and without regard to
whether there is enough for the neighbours and children that I have engendered.
I am extremely reluctant to impose any constraints on that lifestyle and the
sense of identity that is sustains. However I am dimply aware that there are
other parts of my world -- from which a significant proportion of my energy
is obtained -- and that they cannot possibly achieve the energy intensive
lifestyle on which the coherence of my daily life depends. I am also dimply
aware of the highly problematic situation I am creating for future generations.
Unfortunately I am effectively a vampire -- with an unrestrained tendency
to flatulence.
- Disinformation and spin: My world is now almost entirely governed
through media spin. Any conceivable viewpoint can be solicited from the highest
authority -- appropriately rewarded -- including denial that there is any
spin. Whilst only a proportion of the "evidence" is now obtained
through biased research, bribery or torture, I no longer engender any authority
to be trusted to distinguish "truth" from "lie" in my
world. Consequently all authoritative pronouncements I engender are now suspect.
Ironically those who benefit most from such spin now despair at the lack of
collective trust in their affirmations.
- Water shortage:
- Uncultured:
I can configure such problems into seats at a kind of shadowy "roundtable"
that effectively underlies every meeting such as my Johannesburg summit. Each
such shadowy figure has its particular role to play out in my psychology [see
diagram linking
to roles].
Reframing my "overpopulation" problem
The following paragraphs are developed from an earlier paper.
The previous section provides an integrative focus that is absent when these
problems of mine are projected away from me onto "the world", where
mutually exclusive perspectives retain some measure of credibility. But, however
valuable, it is not sufficient for me just to see my problems in a new light.
The key question is whether they enable some new approach to them. The ultimate
test is the case of "overpopulation", which seems to be at the origin of many
of the problems outlined above.
Are there more fruitful ways of comprehending the issue of overpopulation --
given the range of ways I have engendered for minimizing this as a "problem"
:
- Overpopulation as a non-problem
- Opposition to birthrate reduction
- Opposition to contraception
- Opposition to discussion of sexual relationships
- Political evasion of the issue
Because of all the above factors, my reflections about the "overpopulation"
issue take place through euphemism and indirection. Use of sexless, sanitized
categories like "family planning" to refer to an extremely charged
issue makes it questionable whether my thinking has been inappropriately constrained
-- if I have any real intention to respond to the problem in a more innovative
manner. The sanitized terms, which are in effect euphemisms when they are not
deliberate avoidance mechanisms, can be viewed as a sort of "metaphorical dissociation"--
using metaphors to distort perception of the problem. Paradoxically, the sexless
quality of "family planning" impedes any imaginative response by me to the issues
involved -- especially to those aspects exacerbated by the media, given the
natural interest in sex. This sexless quality is rendered even more unrealistic
given the widespread use of sexual metaphors in informal discussion.
The question with which I am apparently unable to deal is how the tremendous
amount of psychic energy articulated (however inappropriately) by this metaphor
is related to the "fertility" issue. Is it that the use of this basic metaphor
for "doing" or "being done to" channels -- as a form of sublimation -- some
of the energy that would otherwise go into sexual intercourse? The contexts
in which the metaphor is used must certainly feedback onto the perception of
sexual intercourse.
The challenge of "family planning" and "contraception" is that these are essentially
processes of "not-doing" and as such do not excite imagination in my world --
except for those I have engendered who are inclined to philosophies of inaction
(and action through inaction). It is questionable whether the metaphors for
such processes are sufficiently meaningful in competition with the richer sexual
metaphors. It could be argued that the "contraception" issue involves only the
prevention of contraception, not the prevention of sexual intercourse, and therefore
does not detract from the energy of sexual relations. This brings into focus
the core issue of whether "contraception" calls for any modification in my attitude
to sexual relations in order to be successfully implemented by those gripped
by a variety of powerful metaphors of sexual relations. Specifically is there
a possibility of discovering metaphors that would enable those in my world to
articulate their attitudes to sexual relations in a manner consistent with the
objectives of "family planning"?
The social conditions of my world are widely characterized by turbulence, insecurity,
savage competition for resources, deprivation and the like. The privacy and
intimacy of sexual intercourse creates an environment in which those I have
engendered can experience a sense of security, caring and personal value, whilst
at the same time offering them opportunities for imaginative self-expression
and enjoyment away from the censure of wider society. It is a world in which
they have a real (if brief) opportunity to fulfil their desires, to experience
a sense of personal integrity and to repair the psychic damage suffered in daily
life.
But, as a metaphor, this private "world" also encodes many of the problems
and dilemmas of the "sustainable development" of my wider society -- the macrocosm
mirrored in microcosm. It is a world in which one partner may seek to dominate
and subjugate the other, a world of resources which may be exploited until they
are depleted beyond any measures of conservation, and a world in which the frustrations
of wider society may be given a new, and often crueller, focus -- often without
any court of appeal. The shared intimacy may decay into alienation.
It is into this world that my "family planning" initiatives endeavour to insert
"contraception". But little is said concerning the implications for the psychic
life of those concerned. The matter tends to be discussed and described using
plumbing metaphors, in "practical, down-to-earth" terms. And undoubtedly this
may be totally appropriate for those of unimaginative temperament who believe
that problems can be "fixed" with an appropriate device -- or for those who
are so desperate that they will use anything provided it works in practice.
It is not clear that this approach is appropriate to others in my world, and
especially to those for whom contraception acquires some symbolic significance.
In this sense it is useful to consider how contraception can function as a metaphor.
The danger is that I encourage its use in ways that result in a form of "conceptual
contraception". Understanding its potential, and limitations, as a metaphor
may suggest other approaches:
(a) Preventing, or aborting, completion of a process: With the increasing
mechanization that I have brought to my understanding of society, and the
increasing fragmentation of fields of activity, there are few integrative
processes of which people I have engendered are personally aware. The processes
to which people are exposed in society are increasingly embedded in bureaucratic
procedures, manufacturing cycles or information systems. Most processes are
subject to "production deadlines" -- including academic research. There are
few opportunities for process completion, which it could be argued is vital
to the psychic integration of the individual. Even in manufacturing there
is increasing recognition of the merit of allowing people to personally complete
a process (eg assembly of a car). For those for whom the significance of the
sexual process is not limited to the act, but includes the socio-biological
consequence (and possibly religious implications), to what extent does contraception
become a metaphor for a restraint which is increasingly intolerable in an
alienating society?
How is contraceptive technology to be understood in the light of Heisenberg's
observation that the purpose of technology is to arrange the world so that
people do not have to experience it?
(b) Reproduction and impotence: Reproduction is a basic purpose of
sexual intercourse. But in how many ways are my people currently able to reproduce
themselves, and how many of these are increasingly frustrated in the modern
society I have allowed to emerge? People can, for example, feel that they
are reproducing themselves by impregnating an individual or group with a pattern
of ideas -- possibly to be passed on to future generations. To a lesser degree,
but with more immediate impact, my people "produce" themselves before an audience.
Indeed professional performers, especially before mass audiences, describe
this process in explicitly sexual terms -- even as "better than sex".
Similar arguments might be made for the plethora of documents so creatively
produced -- creating the "document overpopulation" acknowledged
as information overload. Such forms of reproduction (harmonics to the sexual
process) are either increasingly unavailable to many or of decreasing significance
-- to the point that people experience a sense of impotence. To what extent
then does this place an unconstrainable burden on the physical process that
used to compensate for this inadequacy in some measure?
(c) Rechannelling sexual energy: Does contraception have no effect
on sexual energy and the way it is channelled in my world? It can easily be
argued that it is a liberator of sexual expression. It is less clear how it
affects the quality of that expression. It is possible that exploring the
limitations of the "channel" metaphor (see Lakoff and Johnson, 1980 on the
conduit metaphor), and that of contraception in relation to it, might suggest
a more appropriate approach. The use of such mechanistic metaphors inhibits
recognition of less polarized insights into the movement of sexual energy
(such as through diffusion or resonance processes, for example). The standard
argument that access to a television at home reduces fertility needs to be
reviewed in this light. What function is the television exploring and how
is it affecting the imaginative life in relation to the need to fulfil sexual
desires? Is the television an example of a wider class of opportunities for
the movement of sexual energy that obviates the need for sexual intercourse
in my world? What is the function of dance and partying in this respect? Do
these suggest the existence of processes which are metaphorically equivalent
to intercourse, but diffused beyond the confines of the switch metaphor (making-it,
or not)?
(d) The "developer mentality" of family planning: The community of
international development agencies I have engendered seldom questions the
attention to the "developer's" view of development -- by which land, for example,
is "developed" when it is "cleared" of unproductive trees and wildlife, drained
of unnecessary surface water, and segmented by access roads permitting construction
of any required buildings. In arguing for greater literacy for women, UNICEF
indicates that four years of schooling enables women to plan smaller families,
to space the children for the better welfare of all, and to make use of preventive
health care. It is quite unclear what effect the rationality of such procedures
has on the imaginative life of those who accept them, and whether any resistance
to them arises from a repugnance analogous to that of "romantic" conservationists
towards the initiatives of developers. To what extent is psychoanalytical
expertise used in population programmes?
As with the other problems, discussed earlier, it might then be possible for
me to move on to the metaphoric implications of the global dimensions of "overpopulation"
in my world. Somehow the proliferation of the human species I have engendered
has become an absolute good. The action of any inhibitory feedback mechanism
has itself been inhibited. What an ironic confusion I have made of "aid",
contraceptive "aids" and the proliferation of AIDS. The same phenomenon
may be seen with the proliferation of information and products -- and any form
of creativity. I should be able to explore all such processes as metaphors of
a human attitude in which withholding or holding back is inhibited. This suggests
the need to discover attractive metaphors for "withholding".
Organizing my world
My basic difficulty is that, in responding to over-population and the other
problems above , I tend to be trapped into very particular perspectives. Essentially,
rather than finding ways of responding more closely to the reality of my world,
I tend to be persuaded by efforts to organize my world in ways that reflect
preferences for organizing my mind into rather simple sets of logical categories
-- and then populating those categories in ways unrelated to the reality and
dynamics of my world as I tend to experience it. As has often been remarked,
my world is not organized in a way that matches the organization of my university
faculties -- it is somewhat more complex, despite assumptions to the contrary.
Typically I have little resistance to the construction of more buildings --
irrespective of the land that is used in the process, or the ecosystems that
are degraded as a consequence. Buildings are simply reflections in concrete
of simple sets of categories in my mind. They stack (into housing units and
high rises) and nest neatly (in building complexes) -- and paths of communication
can easily be developed between them. The same is true for roadways and rail
links. It is especially true for the facility with which land and rivers can
be concreted over to avoid having to deal with the messy inconvenience of earth.
Such construction ensures that water flows in a controlled manner along logical
pathways according to my more simply defined needs. The fact that my logical
decisions may subsequently result in dangerous flooding because of the removal
of apparently unnecessary buffers can easily be set aside. And, given the increasing
shortage of surface land, why do I not give more attention to living below the
surface -- surely more practical than the attention given to creating space
habitats? My thinking seems to ber deeply flawed.
I tend to adopt a similar pattern of thinking in relation to the biological
diversity of the environment. There may well be several million species of plants
and animals in my world -- as some of my "intelligent agents" report.
However I have great difficulty in distinguishing more than a handful in practice
-- although I can sometimes appreciate their differences in photographs and
documentaries. How they relate to each other within ecosystems and food webs
is not something about which I am particularly conscious. As a consequence,
I must confess that I find it extremely difficult to worry in practice about
the fate of most species of which I only have the faintest awareness -- although
I am willing to subscribe in principle to the value of their preservation. However
I do recognize that since I engendered these species, the current rate of loss
might well be understood as being like the dangerous loss to my body of nerve
endings and sensitivity -- of which I am barely aware. Essentially, and at a
great rate, I am losing sensitivity to my environment through the vast array
of sensors to which I saw fit to allocate a detection role in my environment.
At what stage this will dangerously affect my muscular coordination remains
to be discovered -- although I may by then be too disoriented to notice.
As with my simplistic concerns with the biological environment, I have taken
the same approach to the systems of the atmosphere, hydrosphere, and geosphere.
In each case I focus on the immediate value to me of air, water and earth --
and how that can be enhanced. Typically I have used every possible means to
manipulate water courses and aquifers to my immediate advantage, whether damming
them, concreting their banks, polluting them, or simply destroying them completely
through diversion and over-exploitation. To the extent possible, I have done
the same with the air using weather modification techniques -- of which global
warming may well turn out to be the ultimate form. As to the earth, again I
have literally moved mountains, dug canals and cut tunnels. In all cases I have
engaged in these activities in response to what seemed logical in the short-term
and irrespective of the cautionary words of those sensitive to longer time cycles,
or of those who attach non-economic value to such natural features. Curiously
I have encouraged this instrumentalist attitude with respect to my peoples'
bodies -- with much piercing, cosmetic surgery, and other artificial "enhancers".
I have essentially bought into a process which ideally would remove the "whether"
from "weather" -- with a simplistic tendency to label rain as "bad"
and sun as "good", and little understanding of the pleas of farmers
on whose products my peoples depend. I have bought into processes that eliminate
undomesticated species as pests -- thus losing the songbirds (even though they
may be the canaries of my psychological mine) and birds whose value is now lost
to me (such as herons, owls and eagles) except in romanticized tales or as totemic
symbols of collective identity. I express surprise at the hidden proliferation
of rats to numbers rivalling the human population. I accept the organization
of space to preclude natural springs or waterfalls -- for which I engender unimaginative
artificial emulations, or encourage commercialization of those that remain elsewhere.
Strangely my efforts to eliminate species inimical to man (eg snakes, sharks,
vultures, wolves, rats, vampires, tigers, cockroaches, leaches, etc) have resulted
in their multiplication within human society as metaphors. This is also true
of sprecies denigrated by humans (eg worms, chickens, sheep). People now encounter
"snakes" and "wolves" daily in their dealings with each
other -- to say nothing of "vampires" widely celebrated in movies
(with other "monsters" from prehistory such as "dinosaurs").
Whilst the original physical carrier is on the point of disappearing, the dynamics
they embodied are flourishing and evolving -- now carried by human behaviours.
It is unfortunate that just as ecologists are learning about the systemic function
of even the most disparaged species, humanity's ability to engender their metaphoric
analogues has been restricted to those same disparaged species, whether predators
or scavengers. Is this how I am now foreseeing the management of psychic waste
and necessary culling?
My management failure
There are various ways in which I could describe my failure to manage my world
more appropriately:
- Cooking: in these terms, I seem to have trapped myself in a rather
limited range of cooking styles -- using a limited range of ingredients --
and with little ability to appreciate alternatives. Furthermore, my preferences
are indeed for food products that depend on extensive use of fertilizers,
pesticides, herbicides and a variety of growth enhancers. I have of course
become skilled in distancing myself from any awareness of the processes by
which animals are slaughtered. I am indifferent to the environmental costs
of making exotic foodstuffs available to me year round.
- Gardening: in these terms, I seem to opt for stylized boring gardens
with little variety and a tendency to use of artifacts for enhancement. The
gardens tend to be decorative rather than functional. The need for co-planting
of different species for their mutual health is of quite secondary importance.
Animal species (with their less predictable and invasive dynamics) tend to
be very unwelcome and actively eliminated -- unless they have some function
in pollination. Exotic species may well be favoured over local species --
even if they are dependent on constant care for their survival.
- Team sports: in these terms, our team can not really be said to have
got its act together. I, for one, am continually "dropping the ball".
There is no real sense of what the different team members need to do to support
each other to achieve any collective goal I might envisage in collaboration
with others. Often team members act like isolated individuals in pursuit of
personal glory. Our collective goal may even be limited to trashing any opposition
-- rather than seeking to enhance the quality of our interaction. In fact
my world epitomizes multiple personality disorder.
- Parenting: in these terms, I cannot say that I have performed my
parental duties well. In fact my children might even be seen as having an
increasing tendency to delinquency in reaction to my simplistic frameworks
of values and order. To the extent that my world is a product of consorting
with another, here too I have handled such relationships with far less insight
than is appropriate to the challenge. There is indeed muich that I could learn
from "family values" -- as my Confucians argued long ago.
- Dramaturge: in these terms, all I can say is that I have produced
a really bad play -- however instructive it may be for my future. The play
is so bad that it is not clear how to learn from it in order to improve my
skill. As with the traditional peasant response: "If I wanted to get
there, I would not start from here". My dramatic skills seem to rely
on cliches highlighted by violence and various forms of melodrama with little
ability to provide a vehicle for a subtler message -- which I would anyway
tend to find boring and of limited interest.
- Vehicle control: in these terms, as driver or pilot of some kind
of vehicle (automobile, horse, spaceship, hanglider, etc), again it is clear
that new skills are called for.
- Art creation...
- Military / combat...
- Computer program / network operation...
- Engine maintenance...
Context
A basic question is why I should in any way be concerned about "my world"?
Whether or not my management of it is poor, why should I even strive to improve
those parts of it beyond my immediate environment?
In these terms:
- What is the constant sense of "need to" or "should"
that I experience -- the "still, small voice"? Where does the imperative
come from? Where does the sense of "caring" come from?
- a sense of implication?
- a sense of future threat?
- a sense of responsibility?
|
