Art of the Impossible, Cont.

So okay, we'll throw out all the pesky realities that mire us in the status quo.  All the reasons we can't do something.  All the world-weariness and cynicism that makes us accept a society that is often less than it could be.

Take a deep breath, let out all the preconceptions.

What do we want society, and the economy, to look like?

Well...first of all you have to admit this is pretty subjective.  As my brother likes to say, there is an "is...ought gap".  That is, you can say "about 44 million Americans have no health insurance" or "33,363 Americans died of gun use in 2013", all of which are statements of 'is'.  Facts.  This is the case (unless the facts themselves are disputed, of course).

But what ought we to do about those facts?  You can say this is the case, but what someone thinks we ought to do based on those facts can vary wildly from one person to another.  We ought to have more accessible healthcare, and the government ought to provide it.  Or the private sector ought to provide it.  We ought to have stricter gun laws.  Or we ought to make it mandatory to carry a gun.  Or the good old classic - There ought to be a law! 

These are actually subjective statements, based on what you value, and part of the reason why we have such heated discussions over these is that people come to such wildly different ideas about what ought to happen.

So, for example, I think everyone ought to have access to a good quality education, have the opportunity to succeed through their own efforts, etc, etc.  But if you asked me why I believed that, it would depend on my personal beliefs.  I have a hard time understanding why anyone else would think it's better NOT to let people have access to a good quality education (and really, most Americans agree that this ought to happen, support for a good education is a rather consistent polling point.  It's just that people disagree very strongly on the best way of making this happen.)

As I said, with that ought I'm not saying anything about which particular path is best for achieving that goal.  It's not based on a fact, per se.  It's based on my personal values and beliefs.  (Okay, yes...we can build up some evidence for why people should care about an issue.  Evidence, for example, that a strong middle class provides stability and wealth to all, including the top 1%, and should be encouraged.  Then again, stability is another subjective value.  Yes, of course, most of us prefer stability to living in an unstable environment...but again, it's a value.  The value of not worrying that you or your loved ones will be murdered, or die in poverty...something that seems self-evident.  And yet there are always people who seem to thrive in chaotic environments.  Who, to quote Littlefinger, believe that "chaos is a ladder".  We again come to an ought that is subjective.)

So if we want to throw out all the pesky possibilities, and reach for the impossible, we have to first grapple with what, exactly, we ought to see in a better, more perfect society.  And understand that will always be subject to debate.

Art of the Impossible, Cont.

I said I wanted to discuss the impossible, and immediately I feel compelled to write about just why and how this is not easily done.  Mostly, I think, people in our day and age have come to appreciate just how difficult it is to create lasting change.  Whether it's the legacy of our Civil Rights Movement, or criticisms for how foreign aid has actually hurt Africa, or the shrinking of the middle class, or the difficulty in coordinating international efforts to stop environmental destruction, we seem to live in a time where we are forcibly reminded of our limits.

I think that's part of why dystopia appeals.  That, and we have a really hard time imagining any 'perfect' world that doesn't sound boring.  Like in the movie The Matrix, when Agent Smith says the attempt to create a happy matrix was a disaster...people didn't accept it.  Or the old joke about how when someone dies they want to go to heaven for the climate and hell for the company. 

Besides which, there's a long historical legacy of failed attempts to create a utopia - like New Harmony, Indiana (an economic failure after two years), or the Oneida Community (not sure it counts as an attempt at utopia, the wikipedia site says it was a Perfectionist religious communal society) that eventually turned into a silverware company.

There seems something intrinsic to the human condition that defies attempts to build a lasting utopia.  To create perfection.

So why bother?  Well, here's the thing.  We can't always predict the consequences of change, and we're terrible at predicting what changes will make us happy...but change IS inevitable.  And the people who shape that change, who help direct that change in certain directions, are the ones who help dictate what the future holds.

Mistaken at times, sometimes idealistic, all too often wrong - the future is shaped by those who dream of something better.  Different, at least.  Since some dreams are only 'better' for that particular person.

And the ideas that spur development can pay off in ways you don't predict.  I'm not talking about big utopian goals here, more the fascinating interplay between science fiction and technological development.  Like the classic example of Star Trek's medical tricorder, which is coming closer and closer to an actual reality.

Change is inevitable, and envisioning the possibilities can become a self-fulfilling prophecy.

The Art of the Impossible

I read an article the other day that was thought provoking for a variety of reasons.  I clicked on it for the title, of course ("Sci-Fi, Fantasy and the Status Quo").  I stayed with it despite the discussion on Hillary Clinton.  Or perhaps because of it.  It was one of those articles I didn't necessarily agree with, but didn't necessarily disagree with either. 

I know I've wondered, myself, at the appeal of monarchy in the sci-fi/fantasy world...though I assumed it had to do with making relatable characters.  That is, it's kind of hard to have a hero off fighting the evils of bureacracy.  And it's hard to make a President quite as much of a character as a King or Queen. 

I've also wondered, sometimes, at (what sometimes appears to be the left's) obsession with creating dynasties.  That is, the Kennedy family seemed to keep coming up in politics ever since JFK, and now we've got the Clintons.  Whereas Reagan, revered by the right though he is, has not had his children enter politics.  So far as I know.  I have to admit, while there may be more political dynasties than I'm really aware of (families more under the radar unless you know who is who) I've always thought the presumption on a family name to smack of something - unAmerican.  Like aristocracy or something.  Yes, we had John Adams and John Quincy Adams; George Bush and George W. Bush.  And FDR was related to Teddy Roosevelt to a certain degree.  That's quite enough, to be honest.  (I also wonder about that article some time ago, how Democratic donors met and decided to back Kamala Harris.  I haven't fully made up my  mind on her yet, but it seems sort of premature/presumptuous and a sign that the Democrats haven't really learned that it's a mistake to crown someone 'heir' before we've even started the primaries.  I dunno, I suppose I can't blame them for doing what they can given their political preferences and resources, but it again smacks of the oligarchy I'm afraid we're becoming.)

But those are all sidebars to conversation I wanted to have.  Namely, the point this article made that science fiction and fantasy are the art of the impossible.  I could make my own guesses as to why dystopian fantasy is so appealing right now, but again it's not the discussion I wanted to have. 

See, I've sometimes thought about how capitalism is just one more 'ism in the world's history.  That is, we had feudalism, we had the Roman system (with it's slaves), and there's no reason to believe capitalism is the end all and be all in terms of socio-economic structures. 

The problem with having this conversation, however, is that it is bogged down in all the Cold War baggage.  That is, the fight between capitalism and communism has made it pretty much impossible to suggest alternatives without sounding like you are, again, unAmerican (since support for capitalism goes hand in hand with being American) or a commie, or what-have-you.

And to be honest, there are some things I think capitalism does very well.  Better than some.  I kind of like having continuously better technology.  Smarter, faster smartphones and computers that can store all kinds of things.  I see the importance of incentivizing people by allowing them to benefit from the risks involved in building a business, investing, researching, etc.

Yet I feel like the Cold War era politics have made it impossible to discuss some of the flaws in our socio-economic system.  The loneliness endemic to our modern way of life.  The throw-away-culture that doesn't bother learning how to make things last. 

And the perennial challenges of fairness, justice, and the distribution of power.  That is, do we truly have a level playing field when certain companies dominate their industries to an overwhelming degree?  And how can we say it's a meritocracy when so many people are disadvantaged in terms of their school choices and more, all before they've even reached maturity?  (That's not even getting into larger issues). 

The funny thing is, the critiques are not actually new to me.  I learned some of them through the Catholic schools my parents sent me to, where we were taught how sad it is that our pop culture is so focused on superficial things (like appearances, designer clothes, etc.) 

Which happens to be some of the same criticisms the jihadists have of Western society, tbh.  See, while I vehemently disagree with their tactics and old-school beliefs (killing innocent people, believing women should wear veils, etc) I do see the appeal of trying to build a community dedicated to serving God (i.e. "Muslim" means "one who submits or serves God", shari'a law is supposed to describe the path required to build a community of faith.  There are different interpretations of all of this, though the hardcore jihadists tend to believe the harsher, less forgiving, and more brutal forms.) 

I underlined, bolded, and italicized 'community' because that's the key draw, I think.  The thing we ourselves (and outsiders) see missing in our modern society.  That loss of connection.  And the importance of serving something greater than ourselves, though I don't necessarily feel it has to be God.  Or rather, there are very good historical reasons why we have a separation of church and state and I don't feel like repeating the religious wars of the 1600's, so I'm emphasizing the universal bits.  Humans are social, and they need to feel a sense of purpose. 

So if we accept the criticism from the article I originally linked to, if we say that science fiction/fantasy is the art of the impossible and that we should let our imagines run wild, to picture what could be (but isn't), what would I come up with?

Update

I'm over in Indiana visiting relatives for a but, but this fit in too well with my recent posts not to share.

Cuddle Parties and the Death of Platonic Male Touch https://melmagazine.com/cuddle-parties-and-the-death-of-platonic-male-touch-596048c79745

Charlottesville

I haven't posted much because a close friend suffered a personal tragedy last week, and I went to be there for her and her family.

Meanwhile, the world has gotten even crazier.  I have to admit the reports from Charlottesville are disturbing, and I'm worried about what it means and where we're headed. 

I saw this on Facebook today and found it very disturbing - https://m.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=1637545369612833&id=100000721566451

I hope and think that this won't get out of hand.  That many people are disgusted by these extremists.  I hesitate even to call them right wing extremists, tbh. In some ways it does remind me of the Sunnis and Shiites in Iraq, you see.  Things in Iraq really started to get out of control after the bombing of the al-Askari mosque, which led to an escalating cycle of violence.  There are people in the United States who seem to WANT to ignite a race war, like Dylann Roof.  I personally think they are idiots trying to unleash hell, but there are always people who seem to think they will win any such war and will gain something if they can do so (think of the Algerian independence movement, or the underpinnings of the break up of Yugoslavia, or - yes- the violence in Iraq after that bombing)

So far, the US as a whole has resisted any such thing.  For how long, though? 

If this FB post is accurate, the extremists need to be shut down, and shut down hard.  While respecting their right to peacefully assemble, and to engage in free speech.  But home invasions?  Drive by shootings?  That's not peaceful assembly, and it needs to be shut down hard.

More on modern expectations on masculinity

Back when I was a young junior officer in the US Army, some friends and I would visit various places when we had an extra long weekend.  Tucson, Nogales, Las Vegas, Rocky Point, Phoenix...

Since we were junior officers (and not exactly rolling in resources) we'd often share a hotel room or two.  For us women, that was nothing...but it was always rather hilarious to see how the guys sorted out their rooming situation.  Inevitably someone would be uncomfortable at the idea of sharing a bed, and would sleep in a chair or on the floor or something decidedly unlikely to ensure they had a good nights sleep.  Tbh, I always felt kind of sorry for them - trapped by some stupid notion of how men should behave, worried about I don't know what (that someone would roll over in their sleep and drape an arm on them?  Or some stranger would see them and assume the worst?  Or...I dunno, it all seemed rather silly to me) and made me kind of glad I'm not a man.

I didn't have to deal with stupid, silly little BS.

I call it stupid and silly, because on one level it is...and another level it's deadly serious, and devastating.  Tragic.  I said it was hilarious to see the men sorting out sleeping arrangements, but it's also kind of sad.  Like, we want our men to be proud and stand strong.  To be independent. To challenge the status quo.

And then we trap them with social expectations, so that they can't actually be all that. Not when it comes to anything that goes against current norms of male behavior.  How can they be men, and be so utterly dependent on social approval at the same time?  So unwilling to say "screw what people might think, I'm going to sleep comfortable tonight.  Only an idiot would assume two men can't share a queen sized bed in a hotel room without something happening."

What's crazy is that so much of this is...recent.  This is not the way things have always been.  It's not even the way things have always been here in America.  I read Doris Goodwin's book, Team of Rivals, where she mentioned that Abraham Lincoln often shared a hotel room with other men when traveling the eighth circuit.  That it was fairly common at that time, and nobody considered it erotic.  Actually, I'll share a bit more of her book here:

Their intimacy is more an index to an era when close male friendships, accompanied by open expressions of affection and passion, were familiar and socially acceptable. Nor can sharing a bed be considered evidence for an erotic involvement. It was a common practice in an era when private quarters were a rare luxury... The attorneys of the Eighth circuit in Illinois where Lincoln would travel regularly shared beds. (58)

Men used to be able to share hotel rooms with no problem, to express affection, to say they loved each other.  This page has a bit more on the topic, to include pictures of men showing affection to each other.

Now?  Now there's a code for masculine behavior that seems, as an outsider looking in, stifling.  It's a caricature of manliness.  Restrictive.  And, as my previous link showed, it can also be quite deadly. 

It forces men into a prison, one that keeps them from fully being who they can be, and keeps men from forming the connections they need to feel happy, to live life fully.  To stop feeling lonely.

In a strange twist on the conventions, the men who most act in keeping with our modern caricature of manliness often seem like the ones who are the most afraid.  And, as a result, they are the most isolated of all.

Men, friendships, and society

https://medium.com/@remakingmanhood/why-do-we-murder-the-beautiful-friendships-of-boys-3ad722942755

Found this today and posting from my phone.  It fits in with something else I'll post shortly.