It may not be borne out by research and data, but in recent years Americans have become more civil to each other. For instance, in New York City, once the benchmark for rudeness, it's now common to hear "pardon me" and "sorry" issuing from the mouths of New Yorkers shouldering past each other on the streets or in the subways.
When asked, those living and working in New York even stop to give directions. In fact, it's not hard to imagine a tourist, when asked about New York's infamous reputation, reply: "New Yorkers rude? That's one of those urban myths, right?"
New York's civility is partly due to one-time mayor Rudolph Giuliani's heavy-handed war on crime as well as his attention, however petty, to "quality-of-life" issues. But it's also a result of national enforcement of civil rights codes in the workplace and schools. Educators and those in the private sector have learned to tread lightly around the sensibilities of students, co-workers and those they supervise. Also, once the US economy abandoned production in favor of service, companies sought to out-do each other in courtesy.
Sure, the political correctness and superciliousness grate. But there's an even more disquieting downside to the new civility.
The rise of the labor movement set the foundation for many of us to move up a class. We subsequently floated another class higher on the stock and housing bubbles. In the process, we turned our backs on unions and, instead, began to identify with the rich, who tend to be more discreet about airing their views in public. Also, though fifty years have passed, traces of the damper McCarthyism put on public expression may still linger.
The net effect is that, except with those close to them, Americans are less willing than ever to discuss controversial issues. It's as if the old saw that warns us about bringing up politics and religion in mixed company were ratified as the twenty-eighth amendment to the Constitution.
For instance, in New York, not only once the rudest, but the most blunt of American cities, it's almost impossible to hear, among those commuting, working or walking the streets, any reference to Iraq.
Even though most Americans now find themselves in agreement that the war must end, old habits die hard and we still steer clear of the subject. Besides, despite sharing the same general view, we don't want to be a buzzkill and empty the room. In part, that's because we're paralyzed -- either with indecision about whether or not to withdraw our troops immediately or by our inability to convince the administration to reverse course.
One can make the argument that our reluctance to speak is only a reflection of the failure of TV and network news to focus on Iraq. But the very paucity of coverage makes that argument tough to swallow -- the smaller the dose of Iraq footage, in fact, the more jarring its contrast with our lives.
To put a kind face on it, refusing to talk about not only Iraq, but the economy, our relations with Iran and the depletion of our oil reserves can be seen as a statement that the world the Bush administration and corporations have made for us is not our world. But continuing to dodge the American and Iraqi deaths that dog our nation's days does irreparable harm to our psyches.
Small talk is the grease that lubricates the gears of social, business and community relationships. Also, more than ever, it serves as white noise that screens out the outside world and lulls us to sleep.
The only positive that can be chalked up to avoiding controversial subjects in favor of small talk is that it's not all-out denial, but only avoidance. Still, just as much as denial, avoidance subverts the civility which, standing in stark opposition to the savagery of its government, has become a hallmark of American life. In fact, when that civility is used to fend off news of our government's misdeeds, it's no better than the barbarous behavior of our government.
Russ Wellen is the nuclear deproliferation editor for OpEdNews. He's also on the staffs of Freezerbox and Scholars & Rogues.
"It's hard to tell people not to smoke when you have a cigarette dangling from your mouth." -- Mohamed El Baradei, Director General of the International Atomic Energy Agency
but I think, there is another issue here too: Ordinary people and their lives are so unstable now that any side effort, even a slight one can topple the equilibrium and the life will go awry. OK, here is a simple example- you decide to go with your friend to demonsrate, you are arrested and fined and..lo- and behold- what is the direct result? A criminal record, nothing more. Now does that mean that you need a revolution to erase it? Guess what, even if the war in Iraq ends, the criminal record will still be there. I am a bit cynical but many people, especially the ones in middle ages ( a funny defiinition) see that in this light and.. avoid, avoid, avoid.. I cannot judge here but Emperor Napoleon, that cool- headed bastard and genius did not say his famous,' Do not do good deeds.' for nothing.
by
Mark Sashine (44 articles, 19 quicklinks, 228 diaries, 3254 comments)
on Monday, May 21, 2007 at 8:09:06 AM
I can't say New Yorkers ware ever rude, but they did tend to be blunt -- call it authentic --, and speak in 'colorful' ways, but even more they minded their own business. To some extent I think was because one is surrounded by people, and everyone builds a bit of wall of isolation just for psychological defense against social overload. You don't start talking to stranger without good reason, but when you do you will generally get honesty and openness -- after all -- you don't know them and will probably never see them again.
But Iraq? What can be said about about Iraq? Or Bush or the rest? What can be done? That's the core -- what can be done? Why waste time talking if nothing can be done? That, I think, is the underlying force: people don't think they CAN be involved or make a difference -- a feeling the government tries hard to create. Even finding out what the facts are, through the clouds of disinformation and propaganda, is difficult and time consuming. The government has become expert in obstruction, of justice, but also of the people's will. And people generally just want to 'have a nice day'.
Organizing is difficult, time consuming (for many people who are already pressed for time), expensive (for many people already trying to stretch their funds), and a thing they have been trained not to do on their own. Without organizing nothing will change, but most people don't know how to organize, or it never occurs to them that they can do it -- except perhaps on a very local level, for local problems, and even that is a challenge. In truth, most people in most times were not good at organizing -- they looked for a "leader" -- a boss -- and especially under authoritarian governments (or other 'official' organizations, such as churches, schools, businesses). That's the paradigm -- the cultural hegemony -- which must be changed. If we don't do that then no one will have nice days.
by
Blue Pilgrim (0 articles, 3 quicklinks, 2 diaries, 998 comments)
on Monday, May 21, 2007 at 1:40:32 PM
If Russ Wellen's article framed the question well, then Blue Pilgrim just nailed the answer.
Blue Pilgrim, did you just toss off that last paragraph (beginning "Organizing is difficult...") or did you write and rewrite? It's very tight, succinct. And deep. I'm reading carefully and I can't find anything to question. Being a satarist (in a parallel life) I find this very hard to say but... I agree. Well, I think I do. I'll keep digging.
I see a thumbnail of a complete thesis in that one paragraph. Elaborate. Expand. Please.
by
Max Ward (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 43 comments)
on Monday, May 21, 2007 at 4:37:50 PM
I did both, really -- I tossed it off -- but behind is several years research and writing (much of it at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/intermindcollective/ ). I've pretty much arrived at the conclusion that we need 'anarchism' -- not the wild stuff or even the stuff misunderstood by so many, but what I often call distributed leadership. It actually is largely derived by the modern humanistic psychology and management theory which started taking off in the 1970s: Maslow, Rogers, Drucker, Ouchi's Theory Z, Singe, and many others. "Anarchy" really means no chief -- no *authoritarian* hierachy (although hierarchical structures can be used for practical purposes, if set up and controlled by the group). It's about power, in the end, and who has it: the royalty or the people.
It works well, even though it's usually done in the context of the old factory/owner paradigm. Some it can even be found in the Navy's Chief Petty Officers training manual. Consensus decision making is sound, but it needs to be developed: too often it gets bogged down with bad techniques and communication. Comapanies who tried the "new managment" often failed either because the bosses never let go of power (and employees were hesitant to take responsibility), or because they -- bosses and employees - never understood how to implement it properly.
There's much more at that Yahoo site, but I still haven't written it all up in one neat thesis -- although I guess others have covered most of it. Still, it's techniques and principles, but it can't be like a cookbook recipe becasue groups will be different, and they need to evolve their own methods and group cultures to suit their own characters, and educate themsleves not just by studying external sources but by paying attention to what is happening within themselves.
But this is happening now -- scattered, and perhaps not as fast as might be -- but groups have formed, and they are starting to network. Even this web site is a part of this young movement.
Fear? It's a factor, but it's really just one more thing to be handled; the greatest fear is that within us, not something Bush and gang spreads around, but fear of change or being different, fear of putting oneself forward and being embarrassed, looking ignorant, and fear of being responsible and not being able to handle it. That's much of what our early education -- school, church, parents, TV -- the whole culture -- has taught us to be. Fear of having doubts, or being wrong. That's the fear which is the real mind-killer.
by
Blue Pilgrim (0 articles, 3 quicklinks, 2 diaries, 998 comments)
on Monday, May 21, 2007 at 6:24:51 PM
The word I'm getting here in the Midwest is hopeless apathy. People don't think they have a voice; don't think they can do anything about the situation, and are smothered by conspiracy theories about the "international XXXXXXX conspiracy". You name it, people are creating a monster opponent about it and they are reluctant to do anything to rock the boat===a very comfortable boat for many of them, with gas guzzling vehicles, which they are buying more of on a daily basis despite today's gas prices--mini-mansions still are getting sold. So, what we have are folk who have abandoned their social responsibilities, hiding behind real or imagined fears of dangerous conspiracies, while they continue to scarf down the bounty of the petro-state.
For many, these alleged conspiracies serve as convenient excuses for sitting on their butts and wallowing in material excess.
by
M. Davis (37 articles, 1 quicklinks, 11 diaries, 131 comments)
on Tuesday, May 22, 2007 at 7:12:05 AM
I hadn't heard that about the dispositional change in New Yorkers -- an interesting anecdotal datum if nothing else. Like you, I wonder if there are any scientific studies to support it. Maybe there's some kind of standard attitude test that shows a general shift in New Yorkers. One would think New Yorkers are more likely to show behavioral changes more than any other group since they were at the eye of the 9/11 storm. There must be some poll-watching wonks out there who could point to some pertinent studies. I'd be willing to bet New Yorkers have shifted in some dimensions much more than the U.S. at large. Which dimension? There must be some objective correlates to the subjective horror they lived through.
Good article (good comments too). But I noticed you didn't mention fear explicitly. Neither did panurg in his comment. Neither did Blue Pilgrim. Even in Hermann Göring's money quote where he claimed "it is always a simple matter to drag the people along," fear isn't mentioned. But the concept is implicit in all four cases. I beg everyone's indulgence while I do say it.
FEAR. FEAR. FEAR. FEAR.
Fear is the emotion that clicks on reptile brains. Once reptile brains are on, compliance is easy to instill in a populace. The Good Germans went before us, as Göring knew. The Good Americans are following, as Karl Rove knows.
by
Max Ward (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 43 comments)
on Monday, May 21, 2007 at 4:05:51 PM
We have got to remember in the 1980s and 1990s it was politically incorrect to talk about politics or religion in public. we have been programed again. The republic rats love it.
by
Ron McCallie (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 74 comments)
on Monday, May 21, 2007 at 5:59:02 PM
I unconsciously bring up Bush, the war and all associated issues, at every chance. 3 or 4 years ago when I was doing that, more often than not I had an argument on my hands. (I live in an area that is highly Conservative Republican.)
Now, however, 65%-75% I get agreement. A Republican won (narrowly and only because the Democratic candidate ran a weak, amateurish, campaign, . however, the senator in 2005 five was a Dem winning by about 2-1. There is hope yet. Now if only someone would give Nanct Pelosi a kick in the seat we might not see them blow another easy victory, because with her attitude and 20 Dems voting with Bushites as often as not, many may vote for the Independent in 2008. I hope not, but...
"Now if only someone would give Nanct Pelosi a kick in the seat we might not see them blow another easy victory, because with her attitude and 20 Dems voting with Bushites as often as not, many may vote for the Independent in 2008. I hope not, but..."
Both parties have now shown they want the war, both have shown they are part of fascist machine. Yes, dems are more neoliberal than than neoconservative, but they didn't stand up for Constitutional rights either excpet in a very token (read propagandist) way. With very few exceptions, Dems want to look good to liberals, but actually be good, which would rock the fundraising boat, and annoy AIPAC, the military industries, big pharma, and so forth. They don't represent the people, the Constitution, or what is right.
We need to break the two party system -- I have no doubts about that. As for the war, there is as much chance of ending it via a new Republican slate as a Democratic one (particularly if Paul gets in). It would be helpful if we could reduce the number of gangsters in office, regardless of party, but it's really the two-party death grip on the nation which must be broken.
Playing the Republicans against the Democrats in their rivalry to be the top gang may help with that, but voting for third-party and independents candidates will be more helpful, and enough people finally shout "I'm mad as hell and I'm not going to take it anymore" and get out of the damned mind games the fascist establishment has enmeshed so many people in, all the better. It's not like we have to, or always had, just two parties, or even that a dominant party had not gone away.
It may well be that any vote will be irrelevant, in a rigged system, and other actions will be needed, but voting against the machine is at least a good start, and may even be enough to reverse course.
by
Blue Pilgrim (0 articles, 3 quicklinks, 2 diaries, 998 comments)
on Tuesday, May 22, 2007 at 5:48:09 PM
There surely is always hope and this site and the people on it are the living proof. But we, all of us who undertstand what is at stake must also understand that the primary cause of the defeat of progressive trend in the US life and reverse of the proper course was only one: lack of determination and lack of the sense of purpose on the part of the 'progressive coalition'. While the forces of darkness are always smaller than the forces of goodness, they are also always leaner, meaner, more efficient and also always know what they want, at least at the start. Alberto Gonnzales does not fight for ' his sense of justice' whatever it can be. He fights for his seat, for his perks, for his comfortable life and for his sense of security. He knows his interests very clear. We here ( and this site reflects it) are all good people but we are either reluctant or ambiguous in expression our own selfish interests which drive us to oppose Bush and Co. Instead we try to be hypocritical ( sorry) and sing songs about our own progressive visions, etc. Yes, we have those visions. But those are tools only in our real fight for OUR perception on how the country must function to benefit people like us. The only difference here is that we consider that what benefits us apparently benefits other people; we are willing to share. Biushies do not. It is literally a fight for survival, make no mistake. We thus must proclaim it: Bush is bad because his interests are bad, he is a traitor and a vampire, he wants to kill us all, this country is ours and our interests are the interests of the country. We have to show that we know what we want. So far we only managed to point at their badness. Our goodness is questionable exaclty because we do not properly sell it. Here is wisdom: Iraq war besides being immoral and criminal puts us all in mortal danger. Show that. Scare the hell out of the people in the perspective of vendetta lasting for centuries. It is true, actually; I hope we all understand that a million dead will not go unpunished. Tell them that our interests dictate to stop that madness and make our children to be able again to roam freely around the Globe. Tell them that. It is your right. It is your duty also.
by
Mark Sashine (44 articles, 19 quicklinks, 228 diaries, 3254 comments)
on Tuesday, May 22, 2007 at 6:15:33 AM
One of the semioticians -- Maybe Saussure -- maybe Pierce -- I forget -- said that words are defined by what they don't mean. Lots of defintions are like that -- not what somethng is but what it isn't, and sometimes primarily by what it is not.
When the pundits and mosnters say "you keep saying what you don't what but never what you do" that's not logical. We can say we don't want murder without saying what people should do instead. In fact a huge number of the laws are stated in terms of what is prohibited, and the COnstitution itself says what Congress is not supposed to do.
Mayber the collective we do not know exactly what we want, and that's alright -- that's complicated and has to be worked out -- on a continuous basis -- but we can stll say we don't want dictatorship. The alternative to a completely and rigidly planned out world is not dictatorship -- is, in fact, just some other dictatorship. The roots of the fanaticism is that the fanatics think they CAN figure everything out by themselves, and then make everyone else do that.
Consensus and evolving thinking is inherently against authoritarianism. Lack of clear purpose determination is not bad as longt as people kepp working and trying; Bush and the fascists sure as hell have clear purpose and determination, but look what that has brought. Consensus is a process of developing and refining shared vision, and even changing it when we see where thngs are going or what we have done. It's the opposite of obsession and attachment. Divergency as much as convergency. Diversity over uniformity.
Yes, single minded fanatics can focus great energy, like a laser beam, but a laser does not illuminate an area as well as even a single candle. You can't light your way through a dark forest with a laser. We need a balancing of focus and organization on the one hand, and freedom and diversity on the other, to have a well-functioning society and move ahead to a better future.
by
Blue Pilgrim (0 articles, 3 quicklinks, 2 diaries, 998 comments)
on Tuesday, May 22, 2007 at 3:40:51 PM
but was it Herbert von Karayan, who said,'Nothing great is achieved if there is no dictatorship.' That laser comparison is good too. Still, here we face someone who pursues his interests in the environment (USA) where such pursuit is considered aa virtue. We thus should not hesitate to show that we also do just that. Yes, our America is different then theirs and we are pursuing it. Yes, in that pursuit we should be as ruthless as them. And we have to be that way because if we wake up dead it would be ironic that someone remembers us as lights in the darkness. I would rather be alive.
by
Mark Sashine (44 articles, 19 quicklinks, 228 diaries, 3254 comments)
on Tuesday, May 22, 2007 at 6:51:41 PM
That ruthlessness may be needed -- and what is ruthlessness except policy based on reality? But what is the reality? That's the difficult part to know.
I had a brief conversation about unions the other day, and (of course) the matter of union corruption came up, and the union bosses selling out the workers. Sure that happens, although it's undoubtedly exaggerated by the patter from the bosses. Still -- it does happen.
We can say there are things to do to minimize union corruption, and to get workers more directly involved -- and yet there is an inherent problem. On the one hand 'right to work' is good since otherwise individual rights are violated, such as being forced to join a union, and obey what might be unfair union rules. On the other hand, a union isn't very effective unless solidarity is a basic value. Unity is needed to gather enough power to effectively oppose the corporation (and the corporately controlled government).
I might say that unions (and the attitudes of workers in this hegemony) need to less authoritarian, and I think that's true -- but sometimes we do need a consolidated position. And in any case we can't be apathetic, letting government bosses, union bosses, or company bosses, political bosses, or even ersatz populist leaders, go their way without observation and supervision from the people. Sometimes we need people to agree to agree to an action, even that action is not there preference, or if they think it's a bad choice, but simply to enable the group to act -- the basic value of solidarity -- but that can easily get out of hand.
There are some things most everyone (of "us") can agree to and pull together on, and we can unite on those despite differences in other areas. The main thing we need for this is communications and critical thinking (including the ability to change one's mind in light of information). When we talk about the "masses" -- turning the country around) this gets very difficult. This war was horrible from the start, and the facts were available, but it's been several years before even a moderate majority of people realized it, and there is still disagreement about what to do and when (withdrawal, timetables, etc.). Even in the end not everyone will be on board: there are still those who really do still think the Vietnam war was justifiable.
I think even in the mind of an individual we reach decisions on incomplete, ambiguous, and even conflicting information -- how much more difficult for the 'collective mind". But there are methods and skills which can help us do that, and we need to learn and employ them. The collective mind is in the process of deciding to get out of Iraq (and do some other things), and we have to keep sharing information and analysis until it reaches that critical level and the popular will and energy builds into national action. The ruthlessness here is not giving up.
by
Blue Pilgrim (0 articles, 3 quicklinks, 2 diaries, 998 comments)
on Tuesday, May 22, 2007 at 8:48:37 PM
