The typical way to judge a person’s beliefs and place in society is comprised of asking what they do. What about instead of focusing on the person to determine this, we asked what this person’s assumptions and expectations out of society were? Assumptions and expectations are rather vague words, so they might be better understood as what a person views as a service or commodity in their life; a resource that guaranteed to be available for use when needed. For example, many Americans assume that electricity, running water, and gasoline will be available at all times. The result of assuming that these consumables are readily available is that the mind is able to focus on other matters and thereby provide without the burden of worrying about such things. Most of my life I’ve had a hard time understanding how people can commodify these things and result in extreme anguish when they are removed. I suppose I’m such a essentialist that I assume or expect very little. Anyways, if one can determine this about someone, the core beliefs and world views can be revealed. Gas, electricity, and running water are expectations of nearly every American. Other items, such as money, the internet, a filled refrigerator, a mowed lawn, and a quiet house, a serving spouse, keep to themselves neighbors, a slice of pie every night, etc, can more readily identify these qualities. In fact, for many, the context in which people find themselves could theoretically define them more than what they actually create in life. That is, that life could be defined and understood more by what they’ve surrounded themselves with and consumed than by what they’ve contributed.
That last statement isn’t meant to condemn those that consume more than contribute; only that certain kinds of contribution can only be given if their environment is sufficiently guaranteed. An engineer may need a large quantity of money in order to support a highly controlled environment in order so that he might focus on just his work. A governmental leader likewise may need an even greater amount of environmental control in order to have sufficient focus to analyze data to make proper governmental decisions (now I'm not saying that governmental expenditures are free of suspect, there are surely members who by corruption indulge). Without these, focus is taken away and that person can no longer give to society in those ways.
A natural understanding of this system is that some portion of individuals will contribute more than they consume. However, their contribution is likely to be from industrial labor and thereby do not need such a highly focused mind in order to guarantee the product they are to yield.
Thursday, May 19, 2011
Defining Individuals by Their Societal Expectations
Labels:
consumer culture,
creating,
essentialism,
expectations,
industrialism
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I wonder about the differences in contribution between those that have a lot to worry about and those who take many of life's basic necessities for granted. For example, single young adults with incomes. They can contribute a lot to society by focusing on specific narrowly-focused areas that most people don't think about. Others of us, who have kids, or other obligations need to balance career focuses with family focuses and such. If someone lives life on a day-by-day / week-by-week budget, then life can be much about treading water, and not about doing anything to enhance the world around them. But, perhaps living one's life in a worthy manner, no matter how mundane at times, is a good way to make the world a better place (one person at a time, making the most of their life).
ReplyDeleteIn many ways we are blessed to live in a country where many of life's necessities can be easily acquired with hard work and a decent education. Many of us can focus on things outside of the bare necessities. But, that also means that we can focus on frivolous things as well... things that only serve to distract us, waste our time, and make us fat.
Not sure where I am going with this, but nice post. I wonder how the decisions in my life - marriage, kids, career - are shaping what I can focus on and accomplish in life. That's the double-edged sword of making life-altering decisions. When you take one direction in life, it can make other life-directions less accessible, but without committing to some direction in life, one can float through life without a strongly-defined focused. Which is worse, to commit to a handful of focuses in life, or to never commit and keep your options continually open?
Hmmmm...interesting post. Makes me think about myself and what I contribute and take from society. I'll have to admit that I tend to take more than I contribute. But really, even the day-to-day, week-to-week people can contribute to society. They can volunteer their time or like Jeremy said just live a life in a worthy, good-for-society manner.
ReplyDeleteI like you line "That is, that life could be defined and understood more by what they’ve surrounded themselves with and consumed than by what they’ve contributed." Makes you think of life in a different life. I bet that most people could be defined by this definition than by what they contribute. But by their non-contribution, they actually are contributing something which is essentially nothing. oO simply their money in certain areas of the economy over others. Contributing to how the future of American culture, behaviors, habits, and society will act in the future by setting such an example as they do. By doing "nothing" they are actually doing something. They defining themselves by what they consume and surround themselves around.
Janelle
Wow, sorry for all the typos and miss-spelling. I obviously didn't read over that very well. I sound like a tard.
ReplyDelete