Ever since a good friend and amateur bassist introduced me to the sound of the double bass last year, I’ve simply been drawn to it. Its complex and storied sound feels aged like fine wine. In particular, I appreciate jazzy solos where the instrument is plucked and tapped rather than played using a bow as in more classical pieces. In these pieces, the double bass itself feels as if it has a soul that is being expressed by the musician’s masterful interpretation. I only wish I could find more solos online. I wish to share some of my double bass love. Solos by the master, Stanley Clarke, were my first exposure, and only seem to get better with each time that I listen to them. This piece by Israeli bassist, Adam Ben Ezra, is lighthearted and catchy.
It has taken me long enough, but I finally listened to Solange’s music. I regret that my subconscious mind unfairly dismissed her all these years as a lesser-known version of Beyonce. Solange is art. I became curious when her ‘Cranes in the Sky’ won a Grammy in for RnB this year. To be honest, I’d never really understood what constitutes RnB and when I listened to ‘Cranes in the Sky’ for the first time, I couldn’t understand its appeal nor could I appreciate the music video. However, going back to Solange’s works from a few years prior, suddenly her art clicked for me: Lovers in a Parking Lot (2013) really did it for me. I really like the song’s apparent use of rhythmic beats and finally understood the meaning of RnB. Moreover, her funky and eclectic music video really resonates with me. In contrast to Beyonce’s artfully polished music videos, I find Solange’s music videos to be a more authentic expression. After going through her earlier works and gaining a better understanding her artistic style, I’ve also come to appreciate her recent works such as ‘Cranes in the Sky’. Her authenticity and individuality are what make her art.
The concept of a dystopia had a quick appeal to me, ever since I picked up 1984 years ago. Perhaps, it is because of my general skepticism of almost everything. These days, progressives have referenced the similarities between the institutional strategies used to sustain the dystopias depicted in 1984 and Brave New World and the living reality of Donald Trump’s rise to political prominence in the United States. Will the Trump Administration’s use of “alternative facts” become the new normal, akin to “double-speak” in 1984? Alas, I decided to give Brave New World a read to see what I might glean from another dystopian classic.
My impression after the first few pages is of shock at how much foresight Huxley had of the direction that Western society was headed in terms of social norms in relationships coupled with technological development in reproduction and genetics. If it were not completely foresight, then disbelief at how much our society was already heading in this direction in the early twentieth century, how this path seems so incredibly predetermined, and how much our norms are driven, or enabled, by technological advance.
Although the ease at which Trump can generate ‘facts’ from baseless assertions is arguably in line with the managerial tools used to sustain the dystopias in both books, I find that the seeds of a Brave New World-style dystopian society have already been sown in the United States.
First, the norm of open relationships without long-drawn emotional attachment is a natural progression from the currently prevalent hook-up culture. In this current culture, having a one-night stand as a single adult is very normal, while declaring one’s love to a boy/girlfriend is a very big deal and declaring one’s love after meeting a person for one day is utterly abnormal. I believe that a lack of emotional depth in human-to-human relationships is one of the biggest afflictions in America. This lack of emotional depth is precisely one of the key tools used in BNW: keeping people robotically capable at their predestined jobs and satisfying their Freudian needs, but without emotional depth. At any hint of an emotion or frustration rising from within, one is encouraged to take a pill — with all of the opiating effects of drugs and alcohol without the negative after effects. This was the way to maintain a stable society, the fundamental objective, as without attachments to loved ones and religious convictions, etc., there would not be jealousy, violence, or war. This kind of engineered norm was made possible by superior technologies in this society, which gave rise to superior contraceptives and a complex and precise system of reproduction via test tubes, solely.
The second similarity is the reproductive technology. Today, test tube babies are already possible. With our increasing understanding of the human genome, we will be able to conduct gene selection in a precise manner one day and can already identify certain genetic diseases in fetuses. Though tinkering with the cells during fetal development like in BNW is not yet practiced (or not much), to my knowledge, selection of babies is already prevalent. In countries with a preference for males, female infanticide is not uncommon. With the technological advancement of sex determination of the fetus, abortion was often used for the same purpose. In Norway, all children receive injections so that they do not grow past a certain height, deemed too tall and thus subject to shorter life expectancy. When parents are made aware that their pre-born children carry certain genetic disorders, they may be given the option to abort. Technology often moves faster than ethical debates, because people are often reactionary to ethical dilemmas.
In my view, elements of BNW-style dystopia have long existed in Western society, before the rise of Trump and other far-right populists sweeping Europe. And I’m not sure that Trumpism substantially tips our current state of affairs towards a dystopian society. In general, my takeaway from these authors’ dystopian visions is that a healthy skepticism is a good thing and that there must be checks and balances not just within government, but over who has power in a society. Neither, the government, the private sector, or “the people” must be all-powerful. We cannot entrust rule to elites completely, even if they are technocrats–who are seemingly, a most deserving elite.
In this wave of far-right populist nationalism and living under the reign of “alternative facts” I’m starting to question what’s right and what’s wrong. Over the course of my education and life experiences, I’d come to hold a set of ideals and facts close to heart and mind. But, these thoughts do not satisfactorily explain for me, what’s happening in many parts of the world today. I earnestly believe(d) that reason and kindness are two fundamental forces that characterize the modern civilization that our kind has progressively developed over millennia, and that modernity and it’s associated net peace and stability are here to stay. I was convinced that democracy is indeed the answer. Of course, it’s no perfect system, but I really thought that among the choices, it is the system that works the best in bringing forth the kind of society that we want to live in and we would want our kids live in. It’s democracy, but not just that, it’s crucially about having strong democratic institutions that are supposed to last the test of time, working to foster the persistence of righteous policies and norms, while putting a brake on overzealous tyrants or well-meaning people who make bad policies that sometimes slip through the cracks and get elected into high office. We are told that in a democracy with strong institutions, one individual–even the one at the helm of the nation–has very limited power and cannot exact that much impact, whether good or bad.
My confidence in such a system has faltered under the state of current affairs. The first hit for me was on June 27, 2016 when ‘Brexit’ happened as angry, old Britons expressed their displease with the influx of migrants from Eastern Europe and the Middle East. People chose emotional release over rationality and restraint. Britons denounced the learned elite and instead of paying any attention to the academic reports on the drastic consequences of a ‘Brexit’ vote, these reports were instead spun as a sort of intellectual conspiracy against the common and hard-working Britons. Facts were no longer facts, people believed whatever affirmed their emotions.
The second hit occurred on November 8, 2016 when Donald Trump was elected as the President of the United States. No one could have predicted this. Since, I was out of the country for the better part of the campaign cycle and the elections, I was able to afford an extended period of denial. However, since I have been here to witness the inauguration and events that have transpired to date, I can longer afford to be in denial. But, all I can ask is why? and how?
Have we (I) gotten it all wrong? It appears that democracies actually produce winners and losers not so different from the way of monarchies or oligarchies in the past (and present). Historically, there has generally been a ruling elite, a middle class, and an underclass. The shares of which vary across systems and times. The ruling elite is the one that has created the system and has vested interests in it. The middle class is the one that is able to achieve some level of prosperity under the status quo and thus also has vested interests. This group is most dangerous to the ruling elite as they can become prosperous enough to be able to want more. The underclass consists of the losers of the system. These are the people who have real grievances and most likely hold a lot of pent-up anger unless there is a strong moral philosophy, such as Christianity during Christendom, that consoles them that being poor is a virtue. When revolutions occur, it is usually led by the middle class, while using the grievances of the underclass as moral justification and to garner the support of the underclass.
Of course, the rise of Trump is a bit different, as no one would say that he is from the middle class. Perhaps, one may argue that he was not originally from the ruling elite and thus is an example of a member of the middle-class who became strong enough to want more. The Trumpist ‘revolution’ was fueled by his exploitation of the anger and grievances of the white underclass in America. But, then democracy doesn’t seem to produce very different outcomes then say, Qing China. Yes, one would argue that in a democratic system we can redistribute the gains and appease the losers of the system. But, in reality it is seldom practiced perfectly.
Ricardian economics tells us that we are better off with trade than no trade as over time workers who lose jobs in less competitive industries will retrain into the industries in which our country has comparative advantage. But, in practice it is not so smooth. The transition can take decades and in the meantime, these are real human lives and their families who are affected. Yes, because of our democratic institutions we created the Trade Adjustment Assistance fund to help cushion the loss of the workers who lost their jobs and help to retrain them. But, the fact is many Americans who were displaced from jobs in uncompetitive industries, such as the auto industry remain jobless today. Yes, even if imperfect, one can argue that in a democracy, compensation of losers is at least attempted and considered. But, when the compensatory measures are imperfect, while we simultaneously tout democratic idealism, the underclass of a democracy may not be more satisfied than an underclass of a monarchy, regardless of real situations.
Ultimately, people are satisfied or unsatisfied when they compare expectation vs. reality. In a democracy, such as the United States, the reality may not be very bad in an absolute sense, but people also have higher expectations. In contrast, under a monarchy, historically people are not given any expectations for human rights, etc. therefore even if their reality is poor in an absolute sense, it doesn’t mean that they are less satisfied than under a democracy. Holding all else equal, the threat of revolution as indicated by the level satisfaction of the underclass may be similar for democracies and non-democracies.
Scrolling through my newsfeed, I caught a glimpse of a video of a commentator commenting on what it means to be a millennial. It seems there is an obsession with defining this generation. That’s probably a topic for another post.
What caught my attention is when the commentator explained that when we receive notifications of text messages and ‘likes’ etc. accorded by the age of social media, these notifications trigger the production of dopamine in our brains, which is a highly addictive pleasure-inducing chemical. He claims that that is the same chemical that is produced in one’s brain when one takes drugs and alcohol. So, his logic is that just as humans are conditioned to become addicted to alcohol and drugs because of the pleasure-inducing chemicals that are produced during the intake of which, millennials are addicted to instant gratification because of the dopamine that is produced when one is instantly notified of a ‘like’ on a posting on social media.
Taking these claims at face value, I wonder if by his logic, love is also another form of addiction. Certainly, it is pleasurable when we receive notes of endearment and appreciation from a significant other. After starting such a relationship, one begins to expect such romantic gestures from their loved one and wants more and more of such gestures from their loved one, until one decides to drown oneself in such a love by committing oneself to a lifelong bond. Perhaps true love is mutual addiction?
Is addiction always bad? Addiction seems to suggest that one is doing something outside of one’s control. An addicted person is one who has lost his/her agency as he/she cannot express his/her free will. As humans, we seem to value agency as a characteristic that puts us above other living things. Therefore, addiction is naturally regarded as ‘bad’ by robbing a person of his/her agency. If we accept this premise, and accept that love is a form of addiction, does that mean that love is also ‘bad’? Or, accepting that love is a form of addiction, are there forms of addiction that are not inherently ‘bad’? If so, what is that makes some forms of addiction not inherently ‘bad’ and others intuitively appalling?
“Too many of us seek validation rather than truth, greater confirmation rather than greater knowledge.” – quote from an essay on George Orwell’s fierce modesty. I love the concept.
Time and again, I’ve come to learn that cliches do often have some basis in reality. Usually, they seem so intuitive that I cannot understand why they need to be uttered at all. But, there is a certain beauty in certain phenomenon that form the cliches. As I travel through southern Africa, I have come to really appreciate the notion that if it’s meant to be, it’s meant to be. Of course, that notion can apply to many things in life. But, here I’m specifically referring to people/friendships/acquaintanceships. If certain people are meant to be in your life, you will meet them and meet them again (or stay in touch in some way, shape, or form). Expending excessive energy in trying to hold on to people is often fruitless and definitely not an optimal use of scarce time and effort.
Another lesson that I have learned is that even if some people may pass through your life just once, it doesn’t mean that they cannot/will not make an impact. Transient friendships are important and to be cherished as well.
Life is not only a process of learning, but also continuous relearning.
Happiness can be many things or one particular thing. Happiness is different at different times. Happiness can be different for different people.
Yesterday, I felt that happiness is being in the company of those that care about you and truly get you. It’s the most wonderful feeling in the world when you say something potentially vague and those in your company catch your point completely, including all of the critical subtleties.
This grandma is preparing for a new adventure. Perhaps, the biggest adventure of her lifetime.
A few nights ago, I had an extended conversation with friends over a few drinks about our ideas on ‘nature’ vs. ‘nurture’ vs. ‘personality’. My hypothesis is that our ‘nature’ is a primordial seed that determines how we react to external stimuli from the very beginning of our existence. The stimuli that we receive constitute the ‘nurture’. Over time, when met with new stimuli, our reaction also takes into account our past reactions to stimuli and their consequences. This evolving amalgam of ‘nature’ and ‘nurture’ forms our personality.
Today, faced with a new shock to my planned equilibrium path, I hope that my personality is reacting in the right way. A new adventure will bring forth new perspectives and growth–and perhaps, more importantly, a renewed sense of purpose. I don’t think I’m enlightened enough to live without purpose yet.
This new adventure will bring me face to face with new stimuli that I have never imagined. I wonder how I will evolve from here.
I recently watched the movie, Rosewater, directed by Jon Stewart. The amount of meta-ness about the film is almost over the top. The film is about an iranian journalist who was imprisoned for about four months during the Color Revolution in 2009. A material contribution to his imprisonment was his interview with the Daily Show shortly before. As a media platform that pokes fun at actual news outlets and contemporary affairs to bring to light the absurd, the Daily Show by Jon Stewart had sent a reporter to Iran during the protests in 2009 to interview with Bahari. The comedic interview led the Iranian authorities to believe that the iranian journalist was a spy for the American government.
It’s crazy that a comedic fake news shoe could have such an impact. On the one hand, Bahari’s imprisonment is tragic, and yet on the other hand, this tragic event and subsequent movie truly brought to light the absurdity that authoritarian governments are.
Anyway, I hope to think about this more. The Chinese philosopher, Lin Yutang, was absolutely right in that the importance of humor is much overlooked in our society and that dictators lack humor.