'Disillusionment does not equate to disempowerment'
Every now and again you read something that has the potential to completely change the way you see things. Yesterday, I received an email from a wise man in response to my last blog, 'Smoke and Mirrors'. It gave me a renewed sense of hope and I want to share it...
Hi Chris,
I enjoyed you blog and it highlights many of the fundamental issues about the world we live in, and how we interact with each other, what is the nature of our society, and what is the role of democracy when we are constantly confronted with multi-layered perceptions and contradictions.
As you rightly point out, our understanding of the world is based entirely on perceptions, and can only be so. You say that the truth does not exist; it may do so, but we can only perceive it through many filters – some of our choosing, such as the newspapers we read or the TV we watch, but some we cannot control. It is no coincidence that the main tool of political power is through the control of the media – by patronage in democracies, or state control in dictatorships. The twist in the plot comes when the media, controlled by ‘moguls’ or monopolies, is able to ‘flip’ this control and are able to dictate the policies of the government or political parties by virtue of their dependence.
What is the ‘system’? Well in a world of multi-national corporations and international banking systems, the concept of ‘nationhood’ is quickly becoming eroded. There new lines of influence and allegiance that transcend geographical boundaries and traditional heritage. We can choose our own identity based on ideas, wealth, culture, religion. Those in power are nervous of social media and the internet, because it by-passes the existing editorial control mechanisms.
The price we pay is the diminution of electoral power and democracy. Sponsorship and bank rolling of political campaigns and lobbying systems ensure that the working of government is skewed towards vested interests, rather than those of the electorate. Likelihood of election and re-election in ‘free’ democracies now correlates to the campaign budget and not the strengths of policies.
Adam Curtis says that the UK does not have the equivalent of Surkov – I think we do, but it is not created by the political elite. It is a conglomerate of corporations rather an individual. Are the ‘political elite’ simply pawns in the larger game? The comparison he makes between the current UK government to that of Russian oligarchs is very apposite. Could that explain the current popularity of London for their homes?
Russell Brand makes interesting arguments and stimulates debate. However he is very easy to undermine because there is a blurred distinction between the opinions he is expressing and his ‘persona’ – I think he even named his UK tour the ‘Messiah Complex’. It is also easy for his opponents to highlight the contradictions between his own life and his hyperbole. Many other people simply can’t understand what he is saying!
The solution does not lie in apathy or inaction. Disillusionment does not equate to disempowerment. As Margaret Mead is quoted as saying:
Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world. Indeed, it is the only thing that ever has.
Just ask Malala Yousafzaiof, or the Muslim working in a kosher factory who saved the lives of 15 Jewish Parisians. Their actions are likely to resonate around the world far more effectively than any political speeches.
So when you ask how we rally against something intangible, the answer is we can’t; but Russell Brand is wrong, we can make a difference in how we live our lives, how we impact on the lives of those around us, and how history shows that good deeds will eventually outshine cynicism, self-interest and the abuse of power.
‘The boy and the starfish’ may be dismissed as a cliché, but still resonates.
The other important way we can make a difference is by telling their story…
Hi Chris,
I enjoyed you blog and it highlights many of the fundamental issues about the world we live in, and how we interact with each other, what is the nature of our society, and what is the role of democracy when we are constantly confronted with multi-layered perceptions and contradictions.
As you rightly point out, our understanding of the world is based entirely on perceptions, and can only be so. You say that the truth does not exist; it may do so, but we can only perceive it through many filters – some of our choosing, such as the newspapers we read or the TV we watch, but some we cannot control. It is no coincidence that the main tool of political power is through the control of the media – by patronage in democracies, or state control in dictatorships. The twist in the plot comes when the media, controlled by ‘moguls’ or monopolies, is able to ‘flip’ this control and are able to dictate the policies of the government or political parties by virtue of their dependence.
What is the ‘system’? Well in a world of multi-national corporations and international banking systems, the concept of ‘nationhood’ is quickly becoming eroded. There new lines of influence and allegiance that transcend geographical boundaries and traditional heritage. We can choose our own identity based on ideas, wealth, culture, religion. Those in power are nervous of social media and the internet, because it by-passes the existing editorial control mechanisms.
The price we pay is the diminution of electoral power and democracy. Sponsorship and bank rolling of political campaigns and lobbying systems ensure that the working of government is skewed towards vested interests, rather than those of the electorate. Likelihood of election and re-election in ‘free’ democracies now correlates to the campaign budget and not the strengths of policies.
Adam Curtis says that the UK does not have the equivalent of Surkov – I think we do, but it is not created by the political elite. It is a conglomerate of corporations rather an individual. Are the ‘political elite’ simply pawns in the larger game? The comparison he makes between the current UK government to that of Russian oligarchs is very apposite. Could that explain the current popularity of London for their homes?
Russell Brand makes interesting arguments and stimulates debate. However he is very easy to undermine because there is a blurred distinction between the opinions he is expressing and his ‘persona’ – I think he even named his UK tour the ‘Messiah Complex’. It is also easy for his opponents to highlight the contradictions between his own life and his hyperbole. Many other people simply can’t understand what he is saying!
The solution does not lie in apathy or inaction. Disillusionment does not equate to disempowerment. As Margaret Mead is quoted as saying:
Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world. Indeed, it is the only thing that ever has.
Just ask Malala Yousafzaiof, or the Muslim working in a kosher factory who saved the lives of 15 Jewish Parisians. Their actions are likely to resonate around the world far more effectively than any political speeches.
So when you ask how we rally against something intangible, the answer is we can’t; but Russell Brand is wrong, we can make a difference in how we live our lives, how we impact on the lives of those around us, and how history shows that good deeds will eventually outshine cynicism, self-interest and the abuse of power.
‘The boy and the starfish’ may be dismissed as a cliché, but still resonates.
The other important way we can make a difference is by telling their story…
Dad xx
Comments
Post a Comment