Today a
small private plane crashed off the coast of Jamaica with several people
aboard. Earlier this week pop star Justin Bieber was arrested in Canada while
private celebrity nude pictures were hacked and released to the public.
Although much of the hard news media is talking about ISIL and Ukraine, they
also—along with most social media—cant leave the latter issues alone. From the
personal/private, the public/pop culture, to the international stage, our live
are obsessed and consumed by conflict. None of us would claim to like conflict,
but we all seem to relish in it when it involves the Other.
Yesterday,
at the museum, we all had to concentrate on an art piece for 75 minutes. My
piece, “Untitled”, by Q. Le’, was a commentary, by a Vietnamese artist, on the
Vietnam War and pop culture. I think that, while at the museum, I somewhat took
the piece for granted. I appreciated the piece, but it held nothing new for me.
I grew up knowingly obsessed with the Vietnam War. I have watched Apocalypse Now easily over 100 times. I
read NAM in high school. Yet I know
nothing about the Vietnamese people outside of the context of that specific
conflict.
As a
self-proclaimed media junky I cant help but wonder, what is our, my, obsession
with conflict. Is it because it presents a challenge? Does it make us feel
better about our own lives to see others suffer? Or are we genuinely searching
for a way to problem solve? I would like to believe that thoughtful engagement
with a conflict will lead to, or help work towards, an end to a specific
conflict.
The Vietnam
War ended 40 years ago, but the art piece that I engaged with was created in 2002.
This tells me that the war may be over but some personal/emotional conflict
still remains. Likewise, the Cold War and the Iraq War are theoretically over,
but violent conflict still is taking place, specifically due to those
scenarios.
Our text
speaks of “Party” and “Other” in regards to social conflict dialogue. It seems
to me that as long as we have the Other we will always be at odds and involved
in conflict. Maybe this is just the way of the world. Maybe we will never
realize an end to conflict. Yet we would do well to disallow the media and pop
culture from defining whom the Other is. I am not as connected to nude
celebrities and pop stars as the media wants me to be. I have no affinity for a
rich man who’s plane crashes off the coast of Jamaica. Yet, I am connected to a
working class African. I share a common thread with a parent in Iraq and the
Ukraine. I am an Id and an Ego. I am me...and for some I am the Other.
I am the opposite. I strenuously avoid exposure to conflict. I avoid television because everything there is framed around conflict. Conflict has become fetishized. In media, we are implicitly - and even explicitly - being asked to take a side, to identify with one over the other, to form an opinion. This is the foxification of our collective understanding of the world. We’re not watching the news, it’s entertainment. Similar to you, Ellis, I find myself asking is why we’re entertained by this? It doesn’t feel good. Or does it? And if it does, on what level is it pleasing us, collectively? How does identifying with one over another, hearing every tiny detail of murder and tragedy, and compulsively identifying ‘right’ from ‘wrong’ touch a pleasure center in our brains? A goal of my life has been to become conscious of and reducing the number of opinions and judgments I spontaneously form. Popular culture is antithetical to this. I’m not interested in sports, I don’t read popular fiction, I am extremely careful of what films I choose to watch. The conflict-centric nature of our popular culture is boggling to me. It is purposefully constructed and I see that manipulation very clearly. “Like this!” “Fear and revile the Other!” “Be like this (buy this product)!” “Protect yourself from Them (buy this product)!” I’m am curious about the concept of radical honesty - but only if the space for it is co-created. Yes, conflict is ever-present but in reality, most of it lies safely in our heads. Currently I’m visiting an old friend who moved to another state several years ago. She has an 18-month old and I’m noticing that I have judgment around her parenting style. Her child is safe, well-loved and will be a fine human (after a little bit of therapy lol). I’ll be quiet because it’s not worth having conflict over - it’s just my opinion. She has said to me about ten times this visit, “Give me your honest opinion about….” all tiny things that are unimportant and that I have no opinion about. In this, we are collaborating on sharing a safe space, not on radical honesty. But if she invited my opinion on her parenting with an open and honest inquiry, I would share my perspective. But not until then.
ReplyDeleteWhat if we thought of human enlightenment like a tree whose lowest branches hold the most basic fruits and the ones most easily accessed? The lowest branches producing the more primitive human emotions like anger, jealously, resentment, vengeance, judgment… Maybe most people grab these fruits because they're easily reached - it doesn't take much effort to access them. It's easy to let yourself get angry, to allow resentment to settle in, to judge… Maybe the richer fruits grow higher on the tree but they're harder to get to. We must work harder to climb the tree and reach those emotions and maybe not everyone makes it there. Those that do can choose from a more enlightened set of emotions; patience, forgiveness, understanding, empathy. Maybe we only appreciate these emotions once we better understand their importance and how to use them. Maybe our culture contributes to this by bombarding us with dirty laundry? Maybe turning off the TV or caring less about sensationalism and celebrity is part of the answer but I think if your opinions and actions are formed from the trees highest branches than at least you're not letting the lowest common denominator emotions rule your day.
ReplyDeleteHey Joe. I really like your concept about the emotion tree. It reminds me of a nature vs. nurture discussion I had with a professor after class a few years ago. Is it that we, as humans, naturally go to those less developed emotions out of nature, and later develop the richer emotions over time? Or could it be that most are unable to reach the richer emotions because of natural empediments, hinting that perhaps those who can reach higher on the tree are able to do so due to an ingrained natural ability? Or maybe it's both. Just an interesting thought that was spurred on by your comment.
ReplyDeleteI don't know… it's a work in progress for me. I was chatting with Ellis about it a bit this week and would like to explore the concept a bit more. I guess I'm starting to believe that certain, more primal emotions are more easily "grabbed" by human beings. To me they seem to be the ones that are less refined like anger, jealousy, vengeance, judgment… Many (most?) people grab them because they're easy - it's easy to get angry, easy to judge. But if we can climb the tree and get to the higher branches we'll find empathy, patience, graciousness… and those to me seem more nuanced, mature and maybe harder to reach for many people. I'd like to think more about the nature vs nurture aspects of it. Let's chat about it over a ginger beer some time.
DeleteSuch great things to think about! Great visual, Joe. I think there's truth in this. If we think about it, how hard is it to be kind to a rude person, to a person who forgot their manners or to someone who we deeply feel has wronged us? Previous to grad school I worked in a mental facility with both adults and children and it was enduring, trying and just sometimes soul wrenching. No matter what I knew walking into the job there were just times--mostly during the times I was being physically assaulted by a patient--when I jumped (no, leaped!) to judgment, resentment and all the other lower hanging fruit you mentioned Joe, even though I understood they were not their behavior and I was not the issue. I knew it was a deeper, more painful problem and I was smart enough to know it had nothing to do with me. But during that moment, my feelings were not that reasonable. When I walked away (rarely during the moment) is when empathy set in--the higher hanging emotions were then reachable for me. I knew that they didn't have the tools to express themselves in a way that could reach someone or something to meet their needs. Even asking for something was hard and unfamiliar. With that being said, I wonder if this isn't a larger issue or a different question of access (to those higher branches, to other emotional wells), language, skill or the tools to be able to express themselves in a way that is helpful in meeting their needs.
DeleteWhen we really think about it, those quick emotions, the easy emotions, the lower hanging fruit are still...well, fruit. They serve a purpose, no? They're often cautionary tools, sirens that tell us that something doesn't feel right or our boundaries have been crossed. Of course they're not always right, as they're feelings, but they're important. They (these emotions) can be useful when we learn how to hold them right and use them in fruitful way. So, I wonder if this isn't a question to a larger issue? I’m not sure it’s that some are not bearing of such fruit (the higher fruit), but rather, a question of ability to reach that fruit and using it when needed?
Killer image, JOE. I truly believe that you are on to something there.
ReplyDeleteIn regards to the defining of parties and others, I think the concept of conflict is perpetuated more than the notion of "othering". In order to satiate the interest of the whole you must continually define the party at a rapid rate, while the other is just kind of left as an undefined variable.
I think that the power lies in how we define the party involved and their prior knowledge, their aspirations, and their intentions because that is where the juicy details lie as we look to create our own understanding of the conflicts as they transpire in breaking news in tabloids (do people still read these?) and internet articles.
Sometimes we are attracted to something out of it's prominence in our lives more than a passion for it. I don't mean a physical prominence so much as an emotional or psychological one. Conflict holds interest to me for this reason. When I applied to this program, I began my statement of intent with a story about the only fist fight in which I have ever been. It happened on the playground in 6th grade. I haven't been in a fist fight since then, but I will never forget it.
ReplyDeleteThe prominence that conflict holds in my life is an aversion to it. Ironically, through that aversion, an attraction is created; I am attracted towards the academic study of conflict in order to resolve conflict around me. This may seem a strange sequence of events, but it's not so far-fetched. After all, every liar must be as equally concerned with the facts as a seeker of the truth, in order to intentionally obfuscate those facts. As such, I have a great attraction to conflict, in that I am opposed to it.
I am also attracted to the challenge of genuinely solving conflict around me. I tend to serve as the counselor among my friends, always willing to hand out sound advice (which I am often less inclined to follow on my own). By no means do I believe that all the worlds conflict can, or should, be solved. Conflict is the most powerful force for change that I can think of off the top of my head.
One last thought: Joe, if conflict is associated to more primal human emotions, like anger, jealousy, vengeance, judgment...and anger leads to hatred...and hatred is the path to the dark side...are we therefore taking our last steps towards becoming Jedi Masters by completing our Masters in Conflict Resolution?! Food for though. ;-)