When you land into a foreign country, with different language
and culture, you have to adjust your expectations and actions.
If it is your first time out of your own culture, it may seem
confusing but it actually is quite straightforward when you
get used to it: You have to pull in the normal web of social
mapping and simplify yourself, in a way. You have to drop the
abstract layer.
You focus on the general signs of goodwill. You smile more,
you start to bow unconsciously and keep your arms closer
to your body. At least this is what I have observed in people
who don't assume too many things about the other culture. For
some, it takes a longer time and there are others who seem
not to get it.
This simplification of actions is very useful since it focuses
on signs that can be interpreted by all humans. There is also
a more abstract, mental side of this: You start focusing on
common human experience, like fondness towards children,
for example. So, even if you don't talk the same language
with someone, you can still share in basic human nature.
This seems so obvious as not worth pointing out.
But, there is a strange thing afoot in the memescape. People
seem to be interested in denying this common ground of being.
I am sure part of it is legitimate focus on problems of one
particular group or another, but another side of it seems to
be actually attacking the idea of empathy itself.
The way it is done is to use flawed logic to paint a group
into a corner: "If you are not saying what we are saying, you
have to be outside our sphere of empathy". Obviously this
could not happen (like this) if you didn't have a common
language. You would have to physically do something to make
people jugde you.
What good can we expect to come from dividing people in this
manner? Personally I find even the concept of political
parties suspect, being a tool to divide and categorize people.
Obviously, in the USA it is taken to a ridiculous level with
the two-party rule, but even in a democracy with several
more parties, it still seems to me like the concept of groups
fighting for power is a wrong metaphor for government.
As a side note, the political system is probably the area
where the inclusion of women is most urgent. Reason for
this is because the traditional female governance of villages
as opposed to the male governance of hunting parties seems
to be superior metaphor for governance of countries and cities,
while the male way is better for projects and military
style "get shit done" work gangs. These gangs are being
introduced in the wrong setting when they become polical
parties.
In startup land there is this term "disruptive" which is seen
as positive. I have been very suspicious of this term
for some time, mostly because the way to disrupt is often to
hack together something barely functional and use this as a
prototype to collect more resources. Often these resources
do not end up in a better product. I think the disruption
of empathy is something similar.
When you have (by magic of rhetorics) taken away the option
for me to evoke basic human experience as a bridge to other
people, you have not taken away my empathy for these people
yet, but you have painted me as a person who can only have
more surface level reactions to others. This appearance will
start affecting the experienced reality as well, stifling
the interaction. In fact, taking away the foundation creates
a false foundation where we are not one humanity anymore.
We are groups competing against each other.
It was a side note, but now I see it turning into something
else: Rejecting our common humanity, you have gone back to
patriarchy, ironically. You have rejected the global village
which would be led by more inclusive female vision and
instead you have turned to the hunting or war metaphor of
patriarchy.
Disruption is quite opposite to inclusivity. There are
psychos in high positions who are greedy to get higher.
They will ride any wave you give them. They are willing to
distrupt human decency, honesty, trust, honor, and every
last one of the values that have kept humanity in some sort
of precarious balance. They want to shake the status quo only
enough to make room for themselves to climb the ladder, but
who knows how big a hit we can endure?
When I go to another country, I realize that the people see
me as a member of a different group. Depending on the country
the people may have negative or positive attitudes towards
the group of people they see me as a part of. But as soon
as I interact with them, the attitude towards my group fades
and the basic attribute governing the tone of the
interaction is respect.
When strangers meet there is a foundational level of respect
for another human individual. But this respect can (and
often is) covered and hidden by inter-group expectations.
I find it is extremely hard to talk one-on-one and not give
an amount of respect to the other person. But when two
groups meet, the respect does not bubble up by itself.
People have been isolated for months. They go out to groups
who share their views. Then they return to isolation.
What is the value of social cohesion provided by our random
meeting of strangers and people of different backgrounds
during a regular pre-isolation work day?
