You may be the exception, but generally speaking I feel that we have become very self-absorbed. We have insulated ourselves from our neighbors and our community, from the next city, the next country and the next continent.
This is not natural. Didn't Jesus say that we should look after the 'least' amongst us? History shows that indigenous peoples lived in communities and were very caring of each other.
What happened to us? I believe it's because we have been brainwashed through watching television. We have been turned into rather self-centered, gimme, gimme consumers.
Why would consumerism do that to us? In the 50's it was possible to live the American Dream on one person's wages. Have a home, car, send the kids to school, take vacations, be healthy and have a retirement. Studies show that we aren't any happier now than we were then, even with so much more 'stuff'.
With 'globalization', this may be the first time that our children won't have the opportunities that we had.
Now that we have to live in McMansions, with multiple cars and flat screen TV's, we are in such debt that we no longer have the time or inclination to think about anything or anyone but paying our bills. There's no time to look around and see what is going on with our neighbors, our politics or our planet. All we want to do is flop in front of the TV to 'veg' out.
In 1943, Abraham Maslow showed in his 5 level Hierarchy of Needs, that when people are shackled by worry about their survival, they can't move to the next levels; those of friendship, self-esteem, respect of others, problem solving, morality.
Watching TV we accept what we are told and don't have the inclination to question the facts presented, even if somewhere in our 'gut', something doesn't feel quite right, there's no time to check further, and we would rather not have to think too much.
So does it work to keep us afraid and in survival? If we don't watch what our city does, our council members might make decisions we aren't happy with. If we are always looking for that money saving deal then our local businesses might have to close. If we don't watch or interact with our politicians, they will work for the lobbyists who do pay and interact with them. If we don't watch what we are doing to our planet, then we and our children will have to live with the consequences.
It's our choice. It might not be easy, but can we unshackle?
florencev
29 Comments
whenever i drive to work i see it - whether it be someone cutting me off, someone speeding to pass another, people not using turn signals (my pet peeve)
then theres those people who are always on their cellphone as soon as they leave the house - no common courtesy for others when they are driving with cell in hand
or what about those on their cellphone when you are at a store waiting in line and they are ahead of you yapping away?
sadly it feels like so many only care about themselves anymore
:(
I disagree that we are more insular than in the past. With vastly improved communication and information sharing technology, people are far more aware about what's going on in the world around them. Some people choose to ignore it, but we can't do much about that. But I can quote several disasters in the last few years in which people around the world have responded. I'm not just talking about governments. I'm talking about individuals -- including those in the US -- reaching into their wallets to help out. Praying for them. Many personally making the journey to help with direct assistance.
As for consumerism -- people have been complaining about that since as long as I can remember. Have things really gotten that much worse? More importantly, since the 1950's have things gotten worse for the less fortunate, or better? While there is consumerism for sure, hasn't the prosperity, for the most part, lifted all boats?
There seem to be a few contradictions in your arguements:
First, you complain about "globalization", and yet at the same time are worried that we don't pay attention to what's happening in the next country.
Second, you quote Abraham Maslow to show that we can not exibit higher levels of behavior until our basic needs are met. Most of us have met our basic needs -- at least the ones in which whose character you are concerned about. And yet, in the rest of your post, you are implying that we are not exibiting "friendship, self-esteem, respect of others, problem solving, morality." In fact, we maybe need to go back to survival mode to fix things. So -- either Abraham Maslow was wrong, or there is something incoherent about your arguement.
1. i dont need a lot of stuff
2. when i die i dont want to leave a lot of crap around *L*
i think i was more materialistic when i was unaware of the fact i was materialistic, now i realize the most important things are my health, my family and my friends
and you are so right - people buy all this crap then they spend their life worrying about how to pay for it all.
i hope people wake up and realize a lot of stuff doesn't make ya happy!
I have to go to an Air America radio event in Seattle, so I won't have enough time to reply to ibravo's post.
love that randi rhodes
Yeah i was surprised he has been for impeachment but ya know he seems to have a handle on what the majority of americans are feeling, and really i think the majority want bush impeached.
:)
"Before our white brothers arrived to make us civilized men, we didn't have any kind of prison. Because of this, we had no delinquents. Without a prison, there can be no delinquents. We had no locks nor keys and therefore among us there were no thieves. When someone was so poor that he couldn't afford a horse, a tent or a blanket, he would, in that case receive it all as a gift.
We were too uncivilized to give great importance to private property. We didn't know any kind of money and consequently, the value of a human being was not determined by his wealth. We had no written laws laid down, no lawyers, no politicians. Therefore we were not able to cheat and swindle one another. We were really in bad shape before the white men arrived and I don't know how to explain how we were able to manage without these fundamental things that (so they tell us) are so necessary for a civilized society."
Regarding Maslow, I believe that he amended his hierarchy table after his original proposition, but I have always been uncomfortable by the placing of "belonging" above "safety". The recorded experience of, for instance, comrades in war ( or other "team") situations is frequently to abandon concerns for their own safety to assist team members or other vulnerable individuals. Whereas Maslow's hierarchy is proposing the opposite.
However, to align these particular perspectives with so-called consumerism is, in my view, to demean the better qualities of human endeavour. "Consumerism" is no doubt related to that stage in capitalist society where basic needs have not only been met but are being exploited to such an extent as to drive the masses almost mad with choice. And where a whole branch of that society is committed to promoting consumption of unnecessary ( to survival) items by positing them as highly desirable and possibly even necessary for fulfillment of a happy and successful life.( I am talking about 'marketing' and 'public relations' in which I have spent the majority of my career).
To address another point: jbravo said, " The people we hang out with aren't our neighbours -- but are our coworkers, fellow churchgoers, or fellow enthusiasts". I absolutely agree with his concerns but disagree with his view of "neighbours". I point to a famous judgement in English law known to all law students as ," Who is my neighbour?" In the famous case of Donoghue v Stevenson, Lord Atkin made a statement which has become a principle of English law:
"The rule that you are to love your neighbour becomes in law, you must not injure your neighbour; and the lawyer's question, Who is my neighbour? receives a restricted reply. You must take reasonable care to avoid acts or omissions which you can reasonably foresee would be likely to injure your neighbour. Who, then, in law is my neighbour? The answer seems to be - persons who are so closely and directly affected by my act that I ought reasonably to have them in contemplation as being so affected when I am directing my mind to the acts or omissions which are called in question."
So your neighbour is not necessarily someone in your street, but all those people with whom you come into contact on a daily or regular basis, or on holiday etc. Or surely any other human being that you may come into contact with in any context.
florencev, you mentioned Jesus. In the parable of the Good Samaritan Jesus says, " "You shall love your neighbour as yourself" and was actually taking the principle even further by saying that one should love your enemies. Very hard to do.
And back to consumerism! There are now hundreds of books on the subject. It is an art (?science) form in itself. Everyone has a view but the pigs still keep going to market....( To quote a 1980s UK text .)
I simply don't go with blaming the media. Some form of it has always been around. Now it is electronic. We all have a responsibility to our children, any children and each other. The media is run by our consent. In a free democratic society It is within our remit to make sure it is is run responsibly and not blame others when it fails.
I'm with John Wayne, " Get off your horse and drink your milk".
Stop wingeing and do something about it, if it offends you.
The man who reads nothing at all is better educated than the man who reads nothing but newspapers.
- Thomas Jefferson
sounds like an unsophisticated (or simply smartarse) textbook.
It's best - as I think you imply -- to leave Maslow out of this, because he's talking about something different. But I agree with 7th and LBP that there is a problem here (that I'm to an extent sheltered from in my neighbourhood).
So your neighbour is not necessarily someone in your street
True, but that doesn't mean someone who stands by while local shops close down (if they can afford to shop in them) or refuses to support local shopkeepers fighting council proposals that would adversely affect shopkeepers and customers or to sign a petition against yet another supermarket, but donates to Tsunami Relief because a rock star mentions it, loves their neighbour.
I simply don't go with blaming the media.
I don't, on the whole, go along with monocausal explanations. So I agree. (Oh sorry 7th, I just repeated what you said!) But people haven't access to perfect information (one reason for the failure of markets to act in the way some people think they act), and the media don't always help. 'Run by our consent', well, only in a very theoretical way.
Bear with me as I try to articulate what it is. Several states are requiring that we switch to those curly lightbulbs to help save the planet. Increasingly, folk who don't use "green" products and services are being subjected to disapprobation. By a little more than a year from now in the USA, by governmental fiat, anyone wanting to watch TV will have to have a digital set _ the current CRT-type of TVs won't find anything because all TVcasts must be digital by mid-February 2009. That means all non-digital formats such as current video cassettes will be virtually worthless because they won't play on digital TVs. That means all VCRs will have to be replaced.
Of course, unleaded fuel already has long been required. So has fuel containing at least a certain percentage of ethanol. Maybe these and similar requirements will be seen as the precursors.
Because, the "it" that's happening is that we are being required _ required, mind you _ to have a particular type of product or to do without that function. Not a particular brand, but type. All in the name of doing what's best for the greatest number of us.
Probably the reason I can't readily come up with other examples of this trend is because it's barely begun.
Of course, there has been a long history of requirements that stuff can't be of a certain something _ no lead in paints, no coke in Coke, no DDT in insecticides, no PCBs in electronics, no freon in refrigerants, no fluorocarbons in aerosols_ well, you know all this.
But only now are we being required to have a particular type of product. ... I think ... hmmmmmmm
Maybe the next step will be that we're required to have the product itself !! By law, that everyone must have a digital TV so as to be able to be warned of coming catatrophes, perhaps. Or maybe, a cell phone _ not necessarily an iPhone, but still ... Or, maybe, an automobile, so you can get out if evacuation is ordered. ...
Superconsumerism! Sure would cure some of the problems of the economy, but yet another step on the well-paved road to Hell ... *siiigh*
My CRT is fine for digital TV (which I have now: the US went for HDTV, we went for digital). Perhaps yours will all be digital HD? (That would rule out CRTs.)
Here people on low incomes will be given money towards the cost of their enforced change to digital (the cost is, unless a TV set is very very old, a cheap set top box, the gain, subscription free access to 30 or so channels, plus digital radio), but still I foresee problems.
Of course, there has been a long history of requirements that stuff can't be of a certain something _ no lead in paints, no coke in Coke,
That reminds me (talking of trusting businesses...) Coke introduced Dasani to the UK as a specially pure water. So people assumed it was spring water. It was found to be a) treated tap water b) potentially carcinogenic. (They pulled the product and gave up plans to market it in France and Germany ans spring water.)
But that's an aside... I'd say that as your government is more in bed with business than ours (though sometimes I think, not by much...; still, the difference in the lobbying systems, related to the political systems/structures, is instructive) a government imposed superconsumerism (if consumerism is the right word) may be more likely there.
Or maybe, a cell phone
There are more cell phones here than there are people (even I have two) and there are text message warning plans.
It's pretty late. I just got back from seeing the Air America radio hosts. The event was streamed and C-SPAN was also there. They were all great. I was very impressed with Cenk Uygur of the Young Turks. Ed Shultz and Mike Malloy nearly came to verbal blows, but cooler heads prevailed. I did take some pictures which I will try and post somewhere, but don't hold your breath!!
thom hartmann wanted to see more of air america on sirrius satellite radio, and allegedly according to big eddie - hartmann started a campaign to get more air america shows on sirrius n to bump the jones radio hosts off.
big eddie didnt take too kindly to the campaign - and isn't a fan of either of those guys..i hope they eventually put their differences aside and maybe when XM and Sirrius merge - they will.
And I honestly don't really miss it- :) Forces me to get out and be neighborly
I am pretty neighbourly though but then I live in a place where that's easy, I think architecture and planning have a lot to do with it.
i barely watch tv - except for keith obermann and i tend to watch cnn news (hopefully someday ill get bbc news instead)
Hey you know AdGuy always gets the last word! ;)