As usual your nitpicking has made me think deeper about my ideas. I always find myself mentally clarifying, detailing things you've misunderstood, or backtracking on this or that because you've found an error in my thinking. Honing my thinking over and over. All of which are some of the reasons why I keep showing up. :)
But allow me a clarification: I'm sure the original inhabitants of this country would take issue with much of my phraseology and underlying ideas. I was however speaking to a particularly "American" idea and way of thinking that is ingrained deeply not as to whether or not it is correct to hold such a one sided historical view.
And thank you for pointing out Frederick Jackson Turner's writings to me. What I was looking for, though, was something related not to the spirit of the image but how the words and phrases related to it are used in political speech. I was on the hunt for research into how often that kind of terminology is used, by candidates holding which kind of views, and perhaps a study showing that certain words seem to pop up when particular things are happening in the culture or economy. Are there national events or cycles that cause speech writers to trot out certain words? And if we looked at all the correlations would there appear to be something formulaic about it?
This probably exists somewhere and everyone knows about it but me, if so please share. ;)
A few years back when the Army changed it's slogan from "Be all you can be" which was simple, direct, and inspiring to "An Army of one" I thought how inappropriate the motto was for the organization. If any group represents the idea of team building and camaraderie, it's the armed forces. Generally almost nothing about it says "go it alone" or "you don't need anyone else." I think it's a pretty good indication of just how pervasive the thinking is. The current, "Army strong" is probably the result of someone realizing that an army of one is an oxymoron.
We may be waking up to the psychological as well as physiological importance of connection to others. Any article or book about how to live a long, healthy life includes a focus on the importance of having a small group of friends who you can share problems and celebrate victories with. The lone wolf is much more likely to be depressed in his isolation, and I suspect stuck in his ideas which will remain unchallenged and therefore likely not well thought out, because he will never have to explain them or have them questioned by anyone else. The same danger exists in having relationships solely with people very much like one's self.
In one of my favorite books, Howard's End, E.M. Forster uses the phrase "Only connect!" to emphasize the value of relationships. The phrase sounds almost comical with today's constant connection to others carried with us at all times. But of course Forster was referring to real connections with people, and not what sometimes passes for connection today. It seems he would have recognized what we've done though, even before the technology for it existed:
"The more people one knows the easier it becomes to replace them," Margaret sighs. "It's one of the curses of London."
So if scientists and mental health experts, doctors and healthy living experts are telling us that we need more connection for our overall physical and mental health is it possibly just a matter of time before we acquiesce some of our independent spirit for our own good? The hyper individualistic thinking may be something that cannot effectively be changed once it's is entrenched. If that is the case our best hope may be the next generation which is already much more adept at sharing and collaboration. Companies that study trends are turning up the millenials' penchant for sharing instead of owning. They are more interested in access than ownership. Which will probably mean they'll clamor for things like better public transportation. Something their parents cared little about. So the value of us and the power of we may gain strength with time.
But of course, the constant companion question: How to do it optimally without tipping over into group think and rigid conformity?
No comments:
Post a Comment