I, Society, Page 2

  This is the power of myth in action.

  Through the storyteller, elements of our psychology and action are symbolised, and they become powerful controlling devices – moral theatre, to be exact.

  But myths are even more than this. For instance, if myths out human psychology, then we can assume that the elements of myth should be eternal. After all, we seem to have been peculiarly human for a long time.

  I think they actually are eternal.

  And this transfers from early myth-media to the modern. Change is not fundamental, but simply culture deep. We can see this in the mythological expression of womanhood.

  In the deep past she was Aphrodite, a sexual and fertile being. The sexuality was taken away in the Virgin Mary. In modern times, the archetype was reborn in the Marilyn Monroe type, and we see the image still in the supermodel.

  What we see here is a continual psychological controlling model using a definite archetype, changed only by the culture expressing it at a particular time. And in each case, womanhood aspired to be as the myth-media expressed it.

  Hence, there are continually created cultural gods, or superbeings, refashioned for every age, which control so many elements of our action and psychology. Yet this powerful force is ignored by academe.

  As such, we have no idea of correctly gauging just how virulent their influence really is. But we do have an indication from the latest myth-media ‘superbeing’ – an archetype that seems to live in an ‘other world’ to us, constantly revered, and making us aspire to be like them.

  We call them celebrities.

  FEELGOOD TELEVISION

  People watch it by the million. Good old television. What would we do without it? Turn on the TV and you can watch whatever you want …

  No, hang on a minute. This is bunkum. Some television is great, but most is pathetic today. It is trivia infested, based more on fun than real entertainment or education. We believe this is because TV producers have dumbed-down. But could there be another reason for it?

  Maybe fun has become an ideology in itself.

  You see, for most of human history life has been a drudge. It has been a matter of work, work, work, with a little time off in order to have fun.

  This is what life was about. And as such, when those moments of fun came, they were to be thoroughly enjoyed and cherished.

  Today, life is easier.

  Work is not quite so hard – unless we want it to be. And it is quite right that it is like this. Hence, we have more time for fun. But could our fun TV be actually geared to telling us that we can have fun all the time?

  Unfortunately, having fun all the time becomes a bore. But maybe modern capitalism realizes this. In telling us life is for fun, boredom is perhaps required for the consumer society we have today.

  For if fun is a bore, fun must always be on the change. And what better way to change it is there than getting you to constantly buy the latest fun product to satiate your need for fun?

  Our requirement for fun is, I’m afraid, theirs rather than ours.

  BYE, BYE LOVE

  One of the greatest themes of mankind is love. Nothing has produced such passion, such adventure, such misery, or such inspiration. But is modern gender politics destroying love?

  We are all aware of those romantic moments from our past, when love was sealed, or the earth moved. If depicted in film, the obligatory orchestra would be playing away. But in reality it was never quite like that. Romance is so often not of the moment, but impinged by a nostalgic look back to such happy moments. But even if we accept that love never really was the fantastic thing we like to imagine, are there still signs that it is even less important today than in the past?

  One indicator is the distinct lack of good love songs in modern music. Gone are the poetic lines that touched the heart. Today, it is more likely to be a tale of getting her down and shagging her. Whether this indicates a lack of romance, or a lack of sentimentality, is open to debate. But if sentimentality be the food of love, play on.

  Perhaps love IS still there to be grasped, but the way we live today doesn’t allow it time to nurture. We live in a capitalist, materialist, consumer society where the height of aspiration is the quick thrill. Such a way of life could easily allow infatuation to grow, but not allow the nurturing of commitment, which is so vital to the blossoming of love.

  Such infatuation, combined with lack of time, equals a courtship that is functional, with less time between last bite and bed to woo. Because time is so precious, everything is planned out, leaving no time for the spontaneity that used to be vital to courtship.

  So the non-wooing, non-romance, non-committal period is over and – good grief! -you’re still together. But under what guise? Is it a total compromise, as it should be to allow the commitment of love to flow? Unlikely. The relationship will be based on gender rights, on who washes up Friday, who vacuums Tuesday, who performs on top Saturday.

  We are too individual today to allow the merging of two people into one couple. We are so sure of ourselves and our individuality that we con ourselves we want nothing more.

  In this respect, the relationship vies for importance along with career, personal space and hobbies. The relationship has allotted time in your busy schedule, and woe betide any partner who tries to impose. For then the relationship is over, as it was always likely to be.

  For in gender politics, the individual is released, and we can never love anyone more than ourselves. And love, and the relationships it spawns, are just that, in a never ending serial monogamous life.

  WE'RE SPECIALIST CRAZY

  Okay, so I have a medical complaint – I don’t, so don’t panic (apart from chronic fatigue syndrome, that is). I’m speaking metaphorically. Obviously, I would want this sorted out, and I’d want the best, wouldn’t I? I’d want to know that I’m in good hands. But do I necessarily need a specialist?

  The easy answer is yes. But I’m not sure this is the right answer. You see, most medical operations are now routine. So couldn’t any competent practitioner perform the task?

  Yes, we need the specialist to train doctors in the procedures.

  But do we need a specialist, whose abilities are hardly tested? Or is it more likely that we have been suckered into the idea of the ‘specialist’ in order to guarantee lots of fat incomes for far more specialists than we need?

  This is a problem I think exists in most areas of life. The specialist seems to have taken over, and is doing very nicely financially because of it. But in most areas of life the tasks the specialist does are quite routine.

  Yes, we need specialists in every area in order to research and train the people who carry out such tasks in society, industry and elsewhere. But I can’t get it out of my head that we have far too many specialists doing jobs that don’t really need specialists in the first place.

  THE FOREVER GODS

  The more I study the mind and society, the more I am convinced the two are interlinked to a far greater extent than we realize. Indeed, not only this, but throughout our existence we have shared specific traits.

  This is what I would call ‘universal psychology’. Carl Jung captured the concept in the ‘collective unconscious’, populated by ‘archetypes’, which appear to be specific personality fragments of the mind.

  Such fragments appear in myth.

  These are the great mythological beings. And this gives us a hint as to the connective ‘mechanism’ between mind and society. This mechanism is culture.

  Of course, culture continually changes. But is this only on the surface? Could it be that, underneath specific cultural expression, there is universality? I’m convinced there is, and it is continually expressed through religion.

  This does, of course, suggest the universality is no more.

  After all, we live in materialist, individualistic and atheistic times, so how can a universal psychology possibly continue into the cultural present?

  Perhaps we need to clarify religion. Regardless whether a God, or g
ods, really exist, there must be an impulse within US that makes us believe, or accept, such deities. And regardless of religion, certain factors can be identified.

  A deity has specific attributes.

  It is ethereal. It is ‘higher’ than man, and omnipotent. It is controlling and gives favour. And it leads to actions in the form of monumental buildings and cultural control by media and hierarchy.

  Place any form of rationality on the concept of a deity and it disappears. Hence, to believe requires a ‘leap of faith’, for it is an irrational concept. But can such a thing be seen at the heart of modern western culture today?

  I think it can.

  Whilst it isn’t in the form of a deity, let us consider the ‘credit’ behind modern wealth and consumerism. As it is the ‘engine’ through which commerce works, it is higher.

  The way credit works means that it is ‘controlling’, as it is fundamental to your and any company’s wealth. By having credit, you are given favour. And the biggest buildings in a modern city tend to be banks and trade centres.

  And it is, of course, an engine of cultural control. Yet, although it exists on paper, if everyone was to repay what they owe, it would very quickly disappear. Thus, it is also irrational and ethereal.

  Credit appears to be the new cultural God-form. In all its specific ‘qualities’ it is identical to the ‘mechanisms’ behind a deity. And thus it confirms that the deity-urge is still with us.

  Yes, it is in very different cultural clothes, but existent nonetheless – and existent despite our urges towards materialism, individualism and atheism. Universal psychology, it seems, will out, regardless what we think, or believe, we are.

  EVIL & MORALITY

  We are all aware of the supposed existence of good and evil. Yet what exactly does the concept mean? With evil, is there a real supernatural force? Or is evil a process of infantile instinctuality? Is it a process where we instinctively want to do something and are unable to say no?

  If so this suggests evil is not quite so absolute. Indeed, I would argue it does not exist at all. Rather, we have good action and bad action. Things are good if they enrich society; bad if they do not.

  We can arguably identify where good and evil came from. They are the opposites of light and dark. To early tribal societies the reality of the sun bringing day and light, and the moon bringing night and dark would have been frightening. Early religions show how supreme gods were represented by the sun, and evil ones by the moon. Even the battle between good and evil can be seen by the sun’s vanquishing of the moon each morning.

  This did not necessarily lead to a distinct good and evil. In eastern religions these two forces became powers of preservation and destruction, represented by Yin and Yang or Vishnu and Shiva. The two forces worked in harmony to bring balance. Only in the western tradition did a distinct good and evil emerge. And we can see a specific politics involved in the concept.

  The philosopher, Foucault, realised the power of knowledge to create ruling hierarchies who marginalised ideals which disagreed with their stance. Achieved through a definition of the normal and abnormal, we can see the process in action in the Medieval witchhunts, with paganism decreed abnormal.

  The process leads to scapegoating and a societal form of denial of the humanity of certain groups. Hence, Nazi Germany becomes barbaric, and it was all the Jews fault! Today, even capitalism manages to marginalize that which disagrees with concepts such as Globalisation.

  Evil is here identified for what it really is – a political excuse to marginalise and retain power. For a world without monsters, we need to ditch evil. Indeed, maybe we need to take a complete new look at morality, evil’s bedfellow.

  If the power structures of a society marginalise, then it is highly likely that the morality a society decrees is equally a process of marginalisation, the supposed ‘evil’ of homosexuality being a prime example. The problem with trying to define a new morality is trying to find examples unaffected by society. There is only one place to look. Nature.

  The idea of nature being a place of death and suffering is a matter of interpretation. We look at it in terms of individuality. Move out of the individual and we find a place of harmony and balance – an amazingly ordered place.

  One of the definites of nature is that there is virtually no murder or theft. There are arguments against this, but as a general rule I think it holds true. We could therefore say that there is a natural morality which forbids such criminal activity in most instances.

  All other elements of human morality seem to be societal – taboos against homosexuality, adultery, etc. This suggests that we should realise a definite natural and definite social morality. Natural morality must always be an absolute; murder and theft must never be allowed. But what of social morality?

  Nature can tell us something about this. The natural world is so successful because of its diversity. Maybe society would be more successful if we aped this concept. Hence, by separating natural morality from the social, we can say that bias and bigotry – the forces of marginalisation which destroy diversity – are immoral.

  This should not be seen as a free for all for any diverse behaviour. Simply that social morality is not an absolute, but a guide; thus allowing diversity to enrich society without fear of marginalisation and being dubbed evil. Indeed, paganism has always known this. The Wiccan Rede: Do as you will, but hurt no one.

  RELIGIOUS, OR NOT

  I don’t class myself as an atheist or a believer in any religion. I would class myself as a Christian, but this is to do with tradition and upbringing rather than faith.

  Atheism and belief are very similar in many ways, particularly regarding the often evangelical nature of their mind-set if they become fundamental. Similarly, they both share an absoluteness that can be crippling for knowledge.

  I WOULD class myself as spiritual.

  I say this because I have an inner feeling that there is more than just the individual and the material. Atheism seems to be an outright rejection of this, whilst belief is to a religion rather than a spiritual inclination.

  Religions are separate to spirituality in that the former is a social codification. I don’t think there is evil in any religion. Rather, religions can be naive, in that they allow the wrong kind of people to rise and then exhibit politics.

  It is this that lies at the root of religious intolerance.

  This is the reason for the damage placed at the altar of religion. Take politics away from religion and I think we would be left with systems that are sublime and innocuous. As long as we also have science alongside it, that is. For as Einstein said:

  ‘Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind’.

  A wise man, that Einstein.

  NATURE PROVIDES

  Alternative medicine is, it seems, big business. Of course, it had to come. Once a market is found, big business will fill it. And the problem is such remedies seem to work. Okay, it may only be the placebo effect, but what the hell.

  Damn! I hate it when big business gets something right.

  Or have they? Well, of course not. It’s just a side line to the good old pharmaceuticals. Don’t worry, they’ll keep pumping out all the artificial stuff to keep as many of us as possible as legalized junkies just to keep the heart pumping, or that killer gene at bay.

  The problem is, whenever I look towards nature, I get the impression it knows what it is doing, and I’d bet you it has provided a natural remedy for all the conditions we currently pump the chemicals for.

  But that wouldn’t be as profitable for big business, would it?

  Yes, I accept the advice that we should never REPLACE conventional medicine for an alternative remedy. That is just stupid. But the reason this is so is because big business isn’t really looking for the real natural remedies that would make them redundant.

  Maybe we should get out of our drugged up stupor and demand they do.

  SPEED OF CHANGE

  It is good to advance. T
he whole of western history has been based on the concept. We are here to change things, and in this way we sometimes improve things, sometimes not. But advance is what we do.

  Yet when you talk to many elderly people today, you get a feeling that our advancement is counter-productive. Even a young fifty-something like me feels this way. Sometimes I just don’t recognize the world about me.

  Does this mean that advancement is not all it’s cracked up to be?

  Are our sciences, technologies and ideas all wrong? Are we marching along a road of advancement at the cost of the human race itself?

  When we look at environmental damage, the speed of fast hi-tech life, decline in morality and rise in mental disorder, it is easy to think so. And yes, much of our advancement IS damaging – to the planet, to community, to our sanity.

  But this, I think, is a different issue.

  The feelings the older generation have are really nothing to do with advancement itself. Rather, it is to do with the speed of change that advancement brings.

  As our hi-tech world races forward, it is gathering speed. Several centuries ago we could expect a major change maybe once a lifetime or so. By a century ago, change could happen slowly, almost unnoticeably within a lifetime. But now changes happen quickly and several times in a lifetime.

  Today the world really isn’t what it was when we were young. And the feelings of not belonging are a reality.

  INDIVIDUALITY

  Hail to you! The individual is king! Long live the individual!

  We live in a world of individuality today. Such a concept is required, for in a mass-consumer world, choice is everything.

  This is what individuality is about.

  The right to grasp our lives and make of it what we will, based purely on our own choice to decide. But how valid are our ‘choices’ in the world at large?