The human brain, with its incredibly complex network of connections, is certainly one of the most complex structures in the universe. It has the ability to perform an unimaginable number of operations each and every second, yet even with such advanced computing power, the brain relies on simple models of the world in order to function adequately. Recent research suggests that we build our visual map of the world from combining a mere 12 distinct variables; we fill in the dots, as it were, by using past mental maps. Without spending too much time on the neurobiology of brain functioning, I would suggest that such models of the world are the correlates of our mental paradigms, which we use in order to understand the world in which we live.
Our paradigms work extremely well in a world that is relatively stable. Our minds and brain are "designed" (I am not commenting on whether by an Intelligent Designer or by unintelligent Evolution) to continually scan the environment for change. Any change is dangerous until and unless proven otherwise. As technology began to alter our environment, for most of human history, the changes were in the direction of greater stability and safety. After all, much of technology actually insulates us, sometimes literally, from environmental vicissitudes. Compare our existence to the pre-historic hunter-gatherer. We have extremely reliable food supplies, climate controlled environments, protection from the invisible terrors (illness, infectious disease) that were once thought to be capricious acts by the Gods, etc; except for those unfortunate times of paradigm collapse, ie war and natural disasters, life for technological man has been, on the whole, much more stable and predictable than for our ancestors. Even war, with all its disruptions, had a more predictable course, eventually resulting in a clear winner and clear loser, and both winners and losers knew what was at stake.
The Cold War and, especially the period between the end of the Cold War and 9/11, represented a unique period of illusory stability which was shattered by 9/11. However, the underlying changes to our society had been eroding the sense of stability and undermining our paradigms well before 9/11; such underlying changes are accelerating.
Understanding how paradigms shift and what happens when they collapse can be helpful in understanding the pervasive sense of insecurity that is shared across the political spectrum in the Western world (not to mention in the rest of the world, torn between modernity and the wish for an Utopian, regressive past.)
For an individual, adapting to shifting paradigms can be extraordinarily difficult. It is a truism in Psychoanalysis that we do not interpret unconscious impulses and the defenses against the knowledge of unacceptable unconscious thoughts and feelings, until a good deal of preparation has ensued that gives us some assurance that the patient can tolerate knowing the intolerable.
In the political sphere, our old paradigms have been shattered. The world of the 90s was a world in which people could confidently discuss "the end of history". The fact that this was usually an over-simplification and often an incorrect interpretation is immaterial. The point is that people adopted the view as a way to support their own internal paradigm that imagined a peaceful world full of people just like us who only wanted to make money in the markets and believed in consumerism above all. Many people reacted to the collapse of the old verities by beginning the process of educating themselves to the new paradigm, of a world that was rapidly shrinking, still filled with pathology and dysfunction and less safe and secure than ever. At the same time our personal world was plagued by constantly accelerating changes, from the small (a "hot" new cell phone every few weeks) to the large (increasing insecurity over sexual and gender roles due to changing mores, insecurity over healthcare and employment due to unprecedented, rapidly changing business conditions, etc.) Many resisted recognizing that anything had changed. The fullest expression of such denial occurred last week in the LA Times piece suggesting that 9/11 was not such a big deal after all. The foolishness of such a position can be seen anytime any of us travel by plane and have to take our shoes off, not to mention the panic that ensued in Boston by the artful placement of some blinking lights. Recall, our minds are arranged in such a way as to react to anything out of the ordinary as a danger until proven otherwise. Throughout the 90s, there was no danger beyond losing money in the markets. It was party time. Today, blinking lights are terrifying and can paralyze a city. I am not suggesting that we should or shouldn't be panicked by blinking lights; I am suggesting that such panic is now part of our reality and that it reflects a significant paradigm shift.
What happens to a society which can no longer depend on its paradigms to last indefinitely; when even the illusion of permanence is unsustainable? When the near future has become unimaginable and unrecognizable, the sense of extreme dislocation can only escalate over time. The most stark current example can be seen in those who, with no particular scientific expertise, are convinced that life itself is at risk from global warming, even as the UN's worst case scenarios say nothing of the kind. Some people on the right who are convinced that South American immigrants are going to destroy our country, in the absence of any hard evidence, sometimes exhibit similar hysteria. (I base this on reports that by the third generation, Hispanic Americans have essentially become indistinguishable from "real" Americans on every measure that the Social Scientists can devise.) In such a climate, where personal and societal anxiety reinforce each other, it becomes increasingly difficult to discern real danger. Those who focus on one apocalyptic danger to the exclusion of all others can easily deny the very real dangers that confront us.
America has always tolerated change; in fact, our political system essentially institutionalizes revolution. Every 2-4 years we have the opportunity to throw out the old and bring in the new. (Despite the claims of the crypto-totalitarian leftists and rightists that there is no difference between Democrats and Republicans, what happens every 2-4 years is by all definitions, revolutionary.) One of the more positive outcomes of the 2006 election is that the Democrats will need to more directly address the contradictions in their own rapidly failing paradigms. The recent attempts by the Democrats to avoid debate on their proposal to oppose the surge in Iraq (it was the Republicans who voted against cloture) represented an attempt to avoid addressing the contradictions in their Iraq positions, but this approach is not likely to work as well on the domestic front.
(As Kelly so aptly put it in response to Good Ole Charlie's comment last week:
... this applies to any public good: healthcare, education, social security, police protection, national security, arts/entertainment ... the list goes on.
Universal. High Quality. Affordable.
Choose any two.
The Democrats can try to avoid choosing, but their ability to spend the next two years in opposition is problematic when they control both houses of Congress.)
Capitalism is a system which adapts to, incorporates, and encourages change. Utopian systems typically attempt to institutionalize stasis, which is why they are always doomed to fail.
Systems that can more easily incorporate change are much more stable in the long run; life is based on the stability of dynamic change. When a system attempts to resist shifts in its base paradigms, it risks collapse when the paradigms disastrously fail. At this point in our history we are groping toward a new paradigm with a very significant portion of the population clinging to the old, failed and failing paradigms. Finding creative ways to adapt to changing conditions is always more difficult than clinging to the old ways and trying to force the new conditions to fit the old models. It can only work for a limited time, however, and the longer the delay in adapting to the present and onrushing future, the more disruptive the outcome when the old paradigms finally collapse.
Recent Comments