Swimmies in the Deep End

I'd like to point out that this was greatly inspired by a friend of mine, for now we will call Owl. I was reading her blog and felt a spark of blogging inspiration. Thanks Owl!

A few blogs back I was inspired to critique and explore my major, sociology. I wrote a few questions that I thought were necessary, but forgotten in the classroom. I have one more:

Can our understanding deepen?

That is, can we understand ourselves, collectively and individually, at deeper and more inclusive levels?

The term is often called holistic. It's how one thing builds up on another, increasing depth, complexity and development in response to environment and change. There's a little bit of physical proof, sitting inside your skull right now. It's your reptilian brain stem. The very, very early state of the brain which handles our bare instincts. Wonderful thing. Causes problems sometimes, but necessary nonetheless. And it was necessary before we could develop the mammalian brain. It's not that the mammalian brain was predetermined, or pre-destined by some archaic, dogmatic faith or oppressive scientific law. Nope! It was, for the most part, spontaneous, intelligent reaction to adversity. So many variables go into evolution that I won't even try to explain them all, or even pretend I know half of them. What I'm getting at here, though, is that evolution exists. It naturally builds on previous states to emerge a new trait. The previous aspect is right there, doing what it always has. The reptilian brain is not "unequal" from the mammalian, for the two could not exist without each other.

So holistic things are inter-dependent as well. We have a world that is a wonderfully complex, hidden dynamic. Like an organism, there are parts, whole-parts making up other whole-parts. Is it any wonder, then, or even truly arguable, that our consciousness, our own mind does not reflect this harmonic universe? Is it any wonder that new stages of awareness, built on previous ones, can pop up in response to our own development and potential growth?

When a child is not raised in contact with other human beings, parts of his or her brain are actualy undeveloped. Because of this, you can make an argument that any such "evolved consciousness," is entirely dependent on your upbringing. That's only partially true. Yes, we are social beings. We need interaction to develop. But that interaction, that level of understanding that is imparted onto the next generation, has shifted and grown observably. You can witness the emergence of worldcentric thinking, pluralism and humanities as more dominant thought processes, as technology, globalization and worldviews emerge and interact.

So, what is more simplistic here? Can evolution, seen so colorfully enriched in our modern perspective, really be labeled "linear?" Or is it perhaps the view that, even in the deep end, we must wear swimmies that is truly the simple one? If people are diving in, there's no need to stop them. Just accept them as you accept the multiplicity of perspectives. Embrace depth with inclusiveness. That is the meaning of integral.

Relative Pitfalls

There was an awesome presentation today in sociology, where a student had to describe the development of societies. She presented it as an introduction in a basic linear chart: Hunter-gatherer, Pastoral, Agrarian, Industrial, Post Industrial. Afterwards, my professor raised the good point: Try to see the different societies as co-existing. They are not necessarily linear. She asked the class:

"What dangers does this sort of evolutionary thinking provide?"

Student hands shot up, and one by one they called out the dominant flaws:

"It can be oppressive , as if those other societies are "less" human than our society."

"It assumes that the best way to go is Industrial, when it really isn't necessarily so."

"Marginalizes those who are in the lower "levels."

All good points! Of course, I had to play devil's advocate once again. I raised my hand and asked, "But what are the pitfalls of not at least including linear-development in a greater, very relative scheme?"

I continued, "It's like throwing the baby out with the bathwater. You can't just dismiss the developmental aspect of societies. Yes it's not completely linear, but it's not to say it doesn't exist. Maybe if we embraced a vertical and a horizontal thinking system we could understand it better, because it is complex."

The class raised their hands again, repeating the same arguments as they did before.

I tried to clarify myself, throwing out the word "holons," and described a few metaphors (Galaxies, solar systems, planets, increasing complexity). The most that I got out of it was that it was interesting that, "linear views in social sciences persist."

Alas. This is just a ramble. An irritated ramble. It's alright though, as frustrated grip fades, I'll just end this with a passing but important point:

To hold relativism to an extreme is to undermine your own value. No one view is right, except for that view. Accept all cultures, beliefs, societies as equal, except for values that don't agree. And I'll leave that paradox for any readers to poke at.

Wonder

For you nerds out there (I guess - is a sociologist considered a nerd?) I'd just like to take a moment to reflect on my chosen major - Sociology. I have been taking classes for about two semesters now, and hopefully am gaining somewhat of an idea of what it's all about.

What is it, essentially? The study of the human collective. It's psychology, plural. Heavily tied into anthropology (that's very similar, with an empirical twist). Since I'm starting this major late into my college career, I'm actually going backwards and taking the introductory class this semester. We're learning the basics: how to do research, research ethics, culture, class, economics, Marx and Weber - all that good stuff.

Now, in my more particular socio classes, we seem to be focusing on these general topics:

1. Class Struggle

2. Gender

3. Globalization

4. Statistics

5. Suffrage

6. Race!

7. Gender!!

8. Class!!

Yes. Something definitely repeats in that list. We are heavily interested in, it seems, class and gender struggles throughout the world. How do the oppressed battle the oppressors? How does matriarchy struggle for a presence in patriarchy? How does race bias affect societies? It seems like, in other words, we're going over the major developments of the last century: gender, class, and race. These are really important issues because they are still issues. In many of my classes, the professors urge us to try to understand the delicate and complicated problems we face, even in the industrialized world. All in all, I'd give the focus a hearty B+.

The only thing I would really like to see more of, and so far am not, are other issues that may be harder to distinguish if we're looking on the surface. It takes a little digging, and a little remembering - but whatever happened to wonder? Or C. Wright Mill's "Sociological Imagination?" I don't want to sound idealistic, but can't we enchant our research with this wonderful tool? We have a great set of lenses to utilize: empirical research, statistics, data, sociological terminology. But what of wonder, adventure, thinking outside of the box? From dabbling into sociological books and talking with my professors, it seems they too are quick to admit you will not find such a spirit hidden readily in scholarly jargon. 

In fact, one of my professors even admitted that many books often tend to be a show of intellectualism over any honest, heartfelt questions. So I ask this one: Why can't we wonder? The answer of course, is redundant. Of course we can! There are a few gems in sociological research (Sidewalks) which attempt to narrate the research and make it accessible for everyone to learn from. It's in this spirit that I guess I am writing, too.

And in that case, let me wonder a little with you. These questions, right now, I'd like to ask without imposing concepts, and thus a bias:

1. What makes us tick, really? Not just economics, biology- those are a part of it. But really, what makes us tick?

2. What fundamental assumptions to we use to create how we see our realities?

3. Or even, can our basic assumptions about the world, and our relation to it affect every aspect of our reality - from individual actions to entire civilizations?

4. What discoveries has wonder brought us?

5. Because we believe we are born into the world, and not out from it - does this make a difference? Can it describe why things are the way they are? (Not in good shape for civilization, it seems.)

6. Let's allow ourselves to just wonder, and see what arises.

These and so many questions have arisen during my classes, but alas - they are never 'satisfied' or rather, no meaningful answer is given. To add to the starting point of criteria in our classes, I'd love to see us crack open Alan Watts' book, "Man, Nature and Woman." It explores our fundamental assumptions about humanity that run deep into culture, history and pour out in the present. The belief that there is a "self" and "other" for instance, creates a duality that seems to birth every opposite in the cosmos. These points, risen by Watts and many eastern philosophers (and sociologists in their own right), could do wonders for helping us understand ourselves, singular and plural. Why not start sailing the inner-cosmos, as well as the outer? To borrow the shamanic label, it's time for sociologists to embrace the psychonaut. 

Orwellian Now? U.S. considered "endemic surveillance society"

In a recent post on Digg.com, I found this interesting link about surveillance in societies across the world. It contains a detailed map of the level of surveillance and free speech in each nation. The United States now joins Russia, China and the UK as one of the most heavily watched societies in the world. Although we do wish to be safe, I wonder - is this the direction we wish to be heading? As the famous sociologist, Robert Merton coined the term: Have our actions in the recent years led us to unforeseen consequences?

Here is the diagram:

Wolves and Angels; An Integral Reflection

The following piece was inspired by a class I am taking at Fordham University. Our assignment for the semester is to critically analyze any modern social movement. And, without any exaggeration on my part, 2/3rds of the class are writing about civil rights, pluralism, and sensitivity. The remaining classmates, including myself, are writing about consciousness, suicide and evangelism. For those of you who are familiar with Integral lingo, I suppose this class would be gravitating heavily toward the "green" meme, or pluralism/sensitivity.

And that's fine.

Two weeks ago, we had to present our topics. Unfortunately, when students that dared utter terms like: development, levels, lines, integral, unified diversity, map of consciousness, hierarchy of meaning,

They were on me like white on rice.

I was instantly given looks, raised eyebrows, questions with a mildly condescending tone.

"How can this be applied on a practical level?" I was asked by someone, with nods of agreement from other classmates.

"What are they doing to help people?" Another suggested.

I can understand where they are coming from, for sure. Our school is relatively progressive, heavily focused on the arts, liberal sciences, sensitivity, cultural awareness, etc. Yet, when the mention of unified diversity hit the air, they were wary and skeptical. This was disconcerting to me, as I was hoping to gain a spark of interest from the class (Integral is a rare topic in the university). My ego was smushed.

So the irony here began to set in. They had no problem being intolerant to the evangelical movement, agreeing whole heartedly that it was oppressive and backwards, shaking their heads at the in-class film, Jesus Camp. Yet, when something that is authentically unified comes along, like the mention of integral theory, they attack it! Strange, no?

And without further delay (Sorry for the ramble folks), here it is:

Wolves and Angels; An Integral Reflection

And we had it all. Upstairs in the student hall at least a hundred fliers, with a dozen different things to do. The world was at our fingertips, right there in our classrooms, and it was in very bad shape they'd tell us, very bad shape.

You could travel to Africa with foreign aid projects, discuss gender and race with the sensitivity club, and taste fine exotic foods in MultiCulture club. And this was all very progressive, so they would tell us. I had begun to have my doubts.

We sit in classrooms and discuss the same theme: Oppressive, hungry, needing world. Woe to you and we, the more fortunate, should extend our efforts. Sensitivity. Awareness. Effort. Assistance. The students are rallied up, in a very subtle way, to help. Yet I noticed, as each took their turn discussing one strife or another, that there was a level of enjoyment in it! Yes, hidden there, in the words of liberty, sensitivity, multiculture, there was an escape. Dare I say, it? No, I needn't, shouldn't. The escape was simple: If we all could immerse ourselves in these ideas, this diversity, we would be safe, we could make a meaning out of our lives and wish the demons away. These students were not actively wishing anything but their own security. The ultimate narcissism, it seems for us here in school, is through ideals. And this, if I were to say it aloud, would have them at me like a pack of wolves, who had just forgotten they were supposed to be angels.