In many ways our cultural evolution is really devolution. What does this say about where Haint's world will be in a century or so?
Look at commerce for example. We've gone from cheering for the Jean Val Jeans (Les Miserables' hero who redeems his life on part by proudly providing good jobs and lives working people in a French village) to cheering for corporate tycoons so far removed emotionally from the lives and welll-being of their employees that they might as well be living in different countries. You're right, they ARE often living in different countries so let's say different universes.
And really they ARE in different universes, aren't they? The Ken Lays and Donald Trumps and Carly Fiorinos have no more feeling for the lives of everyday people making, oh say 34K as they do for Martians with three eyes and indescribable mouths. The language may be ostensibly the same but they sure can't converse. Of course, the Trumps and Lays can send messages down to the Martians below but the Martians don't seem to be able to send messages back up the chain, do they?
But back to evolution or devolution. When Victor Hugo's hero redeems his life and character by spending it making better lives for the villagers, we all felt uplifted. When he was chased for an old "crime" we all felt betrayed by the supposed system of law. Why? Because we realized that Val Jean's greater good moves him past the relatively puny crime.
Now, we cheer unbelievable egotistic posturing in business leaders who would just as soon throw their workers against each other in dog pit fights to the death as look at them. As long as their is an endless supply of workers to feed their egos and pockets and egos again, these "leaders" don't care what happens. How so different than the fictional hero of a time that we suppose to be less ethical, less advanced than our own.
What does this say about us and our society that we applaud the cruel and grasping, instead of the caring and giving? Perhaps it says that we are not moving forward as we would think or hope. Perhaps it says that we should rethink the way we want the future to look. Hugo did, and saw a world where leadership was a trust, not an entitlement.
Perhaps in Haint's world, we should see if that is true as well.
Tuesday, January 31, 2006
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
I wonder, though, Joy. I imagine Hugo would have easily recognized the likes of Lay and Trump. Surely, such arrogance has always been part of the human condition. It's true that as technology makes the world grow smaller -- and the acts of the arrogant potentially more destructive -- we're in greater danger in some ways. But maybe devolution isn't the right term. Maybe it's hyper-human-nature. It's not that people are getting worse; it's that they badly need to somehow become better and wiser.
Very well put, Hankthedog. I like your term, hyper-human-nature, much better than devolution. It is so true, unfortunately.
Thanks!
Thank you for the food for thought.
Post a Comment