What is it that is making the human race so fucked up? I mean, I kinda get the impression that a good deal of people that I meet and have met (present company excluded, of course) really enjoy trying to push buttons and piss one another off. In fact, in order to have a healthy social life, it almost seems imperative that you be the sort of person who enjoys paying out, and being payed out in return (and don’t get me wrong, it’s good for a laugh either way – at times) but I can’t help feel that this is a pretty fucked up way for us to interact! I know what yer thinking (or, I think I do) – that it’s all in good fun, and no one gets hurt, and deeply underlying it is really a sense of respect, and it teaches you to laugh at yourself. And those points are really hard to counter, I mean… interacting in this way does well to keep egos in check and stuff.
But, we don’t all think the same, and it kinda seems to me that if you aren’t the sort of person that can flow with that kind of thing quickly, then you’re going to sink in that sort of tide, occasionally at least. It comes down to insecurities, there’s no doubt, and the fact is that there are insecure people everywhere – myself being one of them. If you try and respect people’s insecurities, you end up reminding them of the fact that the insecurities are there, and most people don’t like that. It’s that “nice guys are dull” attitude. If, on the other hand, you help them to ignore their problems, by having a laugh at pointless shit (and reminding them that this isn’t the place to discuss such depressing stuff) it’s great on a social level, but is it (ultimately) going to help anyone? If, like me, you’ve got the sort of deep insecurities that requires something like a shift in global consciousness, then it seems to me like your rooted, and no one is going to help you because they’ve all got their shit to deal with, and no one has been prepared to lend them a hand, so you just end up feeling an outsider most of the time.
Having two sexes doesn’t help the cause much either. I’ve been a Jungian supporter for years, but most people seem to be Freudian in their take on things. Jung felt that there is so much more to human beings and our interactions than just sex. Freud figured our psychology was all based around sex – and so the two stopped being friends after about 20 years (think about it, 20 years is a hell of a long time, big debate that one). The way I see it, the problem with the Freudian take on things is that it’s all about being impressive to the opposite sex – ah, correction – looking impressive to the opposite sex. This is great for the sort of attitude you want to generate in a right-wing capitalist society, i.e. make it easy for yourself to look impressive for that special someone, so long as you’re prepared to sell yourself out. But I still think Jung was right, and as evidence in support of his difference with Freud, I point to the way that right-wing capitalism seems to operate.
People want to impress their partner (or prospective partner). Given that capitalism works on a ‘look after yourself’ attitude, it doesn’t really matter if you want your partner for your own selfish reasons – in fact this is better off in the long term as you’re going to have the kind of insecurities that may well need medical attention down the track (private cover, of course). Advertising plays on this like crazy and tells people that the way to impress their partner is to own widgets, and is supported by sit-coms and soap operas that give people subtle hints as to how they should react in certain situations. In order to purchase said widgets, you have to have money. In order to get money, you have to do something for someone else – generally speaking. Theoretically (I love that word), your boss is well aware of that, and is more than happy to get you to waste your life (and probably a whole heap of resources as well) doing something you otherwise really aren’t interested in doing.
So why does this work? Was Freud right, and it really does all come down to sex? If that’s the case, then it seems to me that we’re pretty much screwed up as a society. But what if (and this is the global consciousness raising stuff that acts like my own personal viagra – which I’m sure ya’ll are happy to know) we take out the insecurities? What if people started to face their problems honestly and openly rather than hiding behind a bit of a jab here and a few laughs there? Would we be prepared to put up with being exploited all in the name of widgets? I somehow doubt it. What would it do for our sexual relations? I would like to think that it would help us all to mature a bit in that regard – and stop us from doing something that seems just a bit false simply so that we can impress others, and we all might have to actually start being a bit more considerate of and compassionate toward those we profess to love in order to get that love in return! At the same time, this should stop us being impressed by simple little traps that may not necessarily lead to a happy hereafter, as we would surely become less in need of instant gratification to ease the wounds that our insecurities brought about. And (who knows!) I might then finally be able to find a woman that I’m actually happy with (Goddam it Freud!)
Peace Ya’ll!
(P.S. 10 points to anyone that can spot the major irony here, and 5 for picking the minor one)
« Zippidy-doo-da (Portishead Style) Spammers get desparate. »
Okay … by way of rebuttal or maybe just a different perspective…
Firstly, I don’t see the causal link between being impressive to the opposite sex and the right wing individualism ideology … at least it is not as cut and dry as you contend.
Secondly, I don’t think that the acquisition of widgets as the primary mechanism of impressive behaviour. I actually think that the phenomenon of self and peer deprecation that you describe in the introductory paragraphs can be interpreted differently. Here I go …
1. Women rate a sense of humour as the most important parameter a man can have to be attractive. But what is it that a sense of humour is demonstrating … a) confidence b) communication c) intelligence (or wit) and in the case of the type of humour in point d) not taking yourself seriously… now this leads to point number 2.
2. Australia tends to be a culture where laughing at yourself is a sign of perspective and not being “up yourself”
this demonstrates that you are able to analyse and realistically asses your strengths and weaknesses.
So if we sum up what I am contending as the sexual imperative for the behaviour described … it is simple … males vying of the attention of the opposite sex (as always) engage in an (increasingly codified) conflict to display specific traits. The nature of the conflict selects for the traits that are favoured by the opposite sex … In this case confidence, intelligence, engagement (communication) and specifically to this case “the ability to laugh at yourself”.
I contend a totally Darwinian/ Freudian explanation for the behaviour above
AND THOU SHALT NOT MAKE POLITICAL AND VALUE JUDGEMENTS ON THE MECHANISMS OF NATURAL SELECTION!
Okay Alex … dialogue initiated … destroy my arguments please!
Tubs
Very well (Interlace the fingers, stretch and… click!) You’re right in that the aquisition of widgets is only considered as a prime motivator for relationships among a smaller subset of the large (well, pretty damn immense) community in which we live. However, I remain unmoved on the idea that; since Freud’s time, a society has built up around taking advantage of the notions that he raised regarding our sexually suppressed state.
In many ways, this has been a good thing – it has allowed for a more open exploration of the issues, and the long awaited (and much needed) emmancipation of women from heavily masculinated bullshit (there is no term better than that, in my view). The tide has since gone out on sex roles, and taken the ship with the jury on it with it. This means that each individual has the ability to define for her or himself where he or she stands in terms of having a sexual identity – something that I believe is unprecedented in the human race, and very much appreciated too.
However, things aren’t so clear cut. I think what I tried to communicate before was a bit poorly put together, so please allow me to refine what it was that I have said (but keep the gist in mind while you read on).
Our society focuses on the young and the physically beautiful in order to sell more product. The reason for this is that time is money (or rather, has become money) in the eyes of those for whom money is the prime motivator – which generally means that those who acrue enough to get their point of view accross to a wide population get to have their say (and choose to do so) seem to have the tendancy to use time as efficiently as they can to acrue more. The young are full of life, the beautiful attract our attention, and the physically beautiful attract it quickly – as we are certainly sexually driven creatures. (Just for the record, Jung was not opposed to sex, and neither am I for that matter!) What I am concerned with is the fact that Mr. Freud’s theories have led to a society that seems focused on promoting sex as a purely physical act.
The thing is that Freud was right, and so this society “works” quite well under those paramaters – so long as you aren’t a rainforest or something equivolently incapable of sticking up for yourself, that is (an important point that will not be raised again). The ideas about sexual liberation that he was pumping out were absolutely spot on. But that was in the Victorian era, when the sight of a girls knees were considered rather risque (woo-er, check out those knoblers!) I’m arguing that we need a balance – that we have reached a point where sexual freedom is being used for exploitation by those who (selfishly, I might add) see the benifits of having money and want more. What I think Jung realised was that sex is only a small part of an entire persons life, and so; for the good of both the individual, and the society in which the individual lives, it should not be an over-riding thing (no pun intended).
But, the fact is that sex is an over-riding thing, and we live in the society that we do. And (getting back to the path that will lead me to the cannon that will annhialate your meagre barracks) what is our society good at? What are we driving toward? Do we have any sort of purpose at all? Are we really a society, or just a bunch of individuals? It seems to me that all this attention on the sexually prowessed and/or alluring is making us ignore some pretty important stuff (and it’s doing so because Freud was right in another respect – sex is very important to us all, the secure and insecure alike).
I’m just not convinced that allowing ourselves to be constantly prone to our sexual urges is the way to go. It seems to me that there is no foresight. We’ve focused on one aspect of our being so much that everything else seems to revolve around it – and to the point where we’re (ahem… excuse the following conspiracy theories) killing truelly troubled innocent people on a massive scale (I call any number of people more than the number I know massive) so that we can get more oil and look more sexy in our motor-vehicles – not to mention make news stories out of it all and sell sexy products during the interim. (Have you ever noticed that the Burrka isn’t sexy? I’m sure you have. Have you ever wondered why comercial current affairs programs love (or, at least, loved) to show Islamic women in them so much. The local nation of Islam is going through a fuck load of shit because of our incredible urge for instant gratification – to get off as quick and as high as we can. How can those that have chosen the path of Islam see that as free? Oi-yoi-Yoi! I feel sorry for the poor buggers – and that prolly doesn’t help them either, I mean, who wants to be felt sorry for?)
Ok, I’ve found my cannon, and I’m clutching it with glee (ah… I mean the controls… with glee that is… uh, yeah). Let’s aim at point 1 (a very good point by the way, lots of well appropriated sub-sections, all of which I would like to possess in great abundence – but I notice you left out modesty, bummer for me then because now I just sound false. By the way, do modesty, wit and confidence go hand in hand? Where is the balance to be struck? Is modesty sexy? Maybe it was sexy in Victorian times? Who can say really, perhaps I should offer more irony points over this one – I’ve always wanted you to consider me sexy Anthony – and you’ll notice that my knees are always covered in your presence. Anyhow, I digress…) Sub-section d) is my target – not taking yourself seriously.
Hmmm… It’s an ambiguous one really. On the one hand, yes – it shows the propensity to accept that nothing really matters and that one is prepared to have fun, regardless of the personal consequences; to be able to bring out that inner child, able to be consumed with delight at anything without fear over possible detriment to the ego. (And lets face it, Cindly Lauper didn’t just get bubble skirts right – girls do just wanna have fun after all!) But is that really compatible with confidence and intelligence? Confidence, perhaps, intelligence, also perhaps, but what about confidence over one’s intelligence? Doesn’t being confident over one’s intelligence allude to the fact that one might be wrong – and in so doing suggest the possibility that one can’t be totally confident regarding one’s intelligence? Or perhaps intelligence is entwined enextricably with the ability to keep an open mind, and be always alert to the ebb and flow of the reality of the situation. (Perhaps intelligence is multi-facetted? I say this, for in order that an idea to develop, it surely needs time – at times – and confidence in what has been developed to a point which allows for development to occur.) I would actually vouch for my parenthasised notion – in line with my above arguments – for as you will recall, I feel that time is a worthy cause to keep in mind. Additionally, I think in order to allow things to develop, one must – to some degree, at the very least – take oneself seriously. If we believe Television, sex can be over in thirty seconds. I am confident, immodest in saying that I have never had that problem (and hopefully witty) – although, maybe I just haven’t met the right girl yet – lucky her when I do.
Point number two also raises my cannon. Why should I submit to the culture of Australia? Why, for that matter, why should I submit to any culture? I’m a being striving to (not only sound, but actually be) intelligent -not just in this forum, but as a personal life goal – a point that cannot be denied – and as such, I like irony. (As you may have guessed) I have an ironic statement in mind – “Think for yourself; question authority” (from “How to Control Your Brain” by Timothy Leary).
Is there any reason why I should be worried about not thinking like your average Aussie? I’m sorry, but the threat of being labeled a terrorist just doesn’t cut it for me, I just don’t believe the Australian media over that one. As far as being “up yourself” is concerned, I must confess that I long to be challenged, it’s part of what makes me tick. And this is why I suggest that we should find a state of communication in which we can challenge one another openly, without the need for “increasingly codified” conflict, for (selfish as it may ironically be) I long to live in a world where people aren’t affraid to tell me where they are really coming from, and so I cheers this (third, or possibly fourth – bugger!) glass of quite fine white wine to you Tubs for providing me with some bloody honest (and most intelligent) feedbach, ah… I mean back. Yep, am on my way to being pissed, so should cut this there me thinks.
Love ya man!
Promethius.
Hey Tubs,
Thanks for stating out loud what I’ve felt for ages — that Aussie humour is often used as a vehicle for asserting hierarchy within a group of men. If only I could begin to state just how much of a problem I had adjusting to that. I think I only really cottoned onto it in late highschool, early university.
Funnily enough, I’ve never believed that there needs to be a social hierarchy. I guess I’m a little bit of a Cornucopian when it comes to social issues, intrinsically believing that there’s enough “social proof” to go around in any group of friends without taking away from the attractiveness (to the other sex) of anyone.
Sean