Women Circle : Ego Discussion : Collective Wisdom

WHAT IS THE EGO? The Ego is formed by our conditioning, our patterns, our stories, our environment. Our Ego is a storyteller that doesn’t tell the Truth. It makes you judge and label things. It makes you fall in love with your own ideas. But we also need a healthy dose of Ego to not get bullied, to motivate us, to remind us who we are, what are priorities are.

 Unfortunately, the Western dominant culture feeds our Ego to the extent that it is sometimes problematic in our interaction with others. The different role models, images and values that it offers make us compete with each other, they make us feel like we’re never enough and need to inflate our self importance to compare to other “successful” people and do “significant” work to feel valued and loved.

 In response to this inflation, we need to protect ourselves: setting boundaries and learning how to deal with other people’s big Ego when it aim to compete with us, threatens us, judges us, etc. Indeed, although it is also important to honor other people’s journey, to learn from them by seeing them as reflection of ourselves and doing our own work, is it equally important to be able to give feedback when people cross the line with your own values and integrity.

Furthermore, when someone is stepping on our boundary (e.g. disrespecting you or others), we have a certain responsibility to question their actions and words because when we fail to speak out by fear of being uncomfortable or making others uncomfortable, when we fail to stand up for ourselves, to keep our stand and integrity, we give our power away, we lower our vibration, we start to devalue ourselves, our self-worth and give others priority over us.

Giving others feedback doesn't have to be a battle. We can do so, for example, by asking them why they act the way they do and try to figure out where are they coming from. Sometimes this in itself is enough for them to change their perspective and bring to light something that they didn't see earlier. Furthermore, coming from a compassionate and loving place, trying to understand instead of condemning and judging seem to be the most effective way to give a feedback that will be received.

Of course such a diplomatic response can be difficult when we are facing someone that is very angry for example, but this is a healthy challenge to test the outcome of your spiritual work: the more we meditate and learn to be with what is instead of trying to control, the more we are able to cope with difficult situations in a way that is not feeding aggressivity, competition and judgement. Responding instead of reacting to challenges.

 A fair dose of lightness is also sometimes necessary in order to not let other people's Ego affect yours. For, realistically they cannot hurt you (except physically which is a different story) unless you let them do so.

In the same way that you can negotiate the impact of other people’s Ego on yourself, you can give your own Ego the same treatment: questioning it, listening and not taking it too seriously.

Eventually, we all need to learn to dance among all of these Egos around us and with our own; learning to accept the ups and downs, the unexpected; becoming used to not being in control, not knowing, yet being ready to face whatever the Universe has in store for us.

This is the Great Teachings of the Feminine that is inherently connected to the Cycles of Nature: embracing both, life and death, positive and negative emotions and feelings. Doing deep work to find these ups and downs within and hold space for other’s ups and down. Like the Princess of Swords, like Kali, cutting through the illusion to reveal the Truth, as hard as it is for us and others and ourselves to hear. And seeing more and more Truth being revealed every day as we remind ourselves to do this work, to be authentic and wholesome.

Dreams of Breaking Free

It’s been two weeks since you've slept

Your life is a constant dream

You flow through it with grace and insanity
 

An angel came down to find you
And it killed you slowly

Everything you knew is torn into pieces
 

A rebirth that was least expected

Between suffocation and emerging to the surface

You let your body die while preparing to shine brighter than ever before

Corporatism and Democracy

A good economy is often associated with the wellbeing of the population, that is, an increase of social and economic rights and benefits felt across society. However, particularly in times of economic crisis, the need for a healthy economy often leads to increasing corporate power, as opposed to the power of common citizens. Indeed, in order to restore economic balance, austere governmental policies shift the focus away from social interest and redirect it towards corporate interests, while hoping that the latter will contribute to the wellbeing of the former. In doing so, governments provide corporations with much power; but is this power been wisely used to promote a good economy for the enjoyment of citizens? The increasing polarization of social and economic disparities seems to suggest otherwise. In fact, many recent social, political and economic developments denote that corporate interests are satisfied at the expense of citizens’ wellbeing.

Indeed, in Canada and elsewhere, the population’s struggle to improve its economic and social rights as well as environmental rights is been undermined by corporations’ foremost interest: increase their profit. For example, recent protests from fast food workers highlight that large multinational corporations (MNCs), such as McDonald, provide their CEO with a salary of 20.71 million USD a year, while their servers are paid at the minimum wage ("CEO Compensation, 2011"). In fact, instead of fairly compensating they workers for their work, McDonald and other MNCs such as Wal-Mart, are suspected to be encouraging their employees to rely on welfare programs. This compensatory gap not only affects the employees of such corporations, but it also cost the U.S. government 1.7 million per year of tax money (Buchheit). Indeed, MNCs do not have a responsibility towards their government, and this betrayal can be observed in the popular practise amongst MNCs to shift their profit from one country to another to avoid paying owed taxes, which could be used to improve socioeconomic benefits for citizens.  In return, however, the government always protects the interests of corporations. For example, the decision of the Harper government to pull out of the Kyoto protocol reflects the priority of the Canadian government to protect the interests of corporations over assuming Canada’s environmental responsibility.

Furthermore, corporations are also diminishing the political power of citizens by influencing governmental decisions. Indeed, not only corporations embody the central key for a healthy economy and, therefore, benefit from favourable governmental policies (especially in times of crisis), but they are also able to influence governmental decision through even more direct means. For example, the largest corporate lobby group in Canada was able to influence the government into adopting free trade agreements which ultimately increased their profit while reducing the role of the state. These free trade agreements, however, have had tremendous negative impacts on the wider population. For example, according to the Canadian Center for Policy Alternative, NAFTA has “destroyed more jobs than it has created, depressed wages, worsened poverty and inequality, eroded social programs, undermined democracy, enfeebled governments, [while greatly increasing] the rights and power of corporations, investors, and property holders” (“Lessons From NAFTA”). Furthermore, their political power is also observed in their financing of political campaigns. For example, in Canada, the current policy regarding campaign funding still allows large financial disparities between campaigns which inevitable impacts the outcome of an election.

However, the government is not the only player empowering corporations: by consuming, working for corporations and embracing their cultural influence, citizens also provide corporations with much social and cultural power. Indeed, some corporations are able to influence the population into internalizing certain values and beliefs from their symbolic and overt propaganda. In addition, the concentration of media ownership, in Canada and elsewhere, is also providing corporations with much social power as it makes it hard to offer alternative views, norms and values. At last, this social and cultural power is replacing the previous democratic possesses of creating culture and beliefs from genuine and traditional sources.

The belief that corporate interests and citizens’ interests correlate is then fundamentally erroneous. As seen above, a focus on a healthy economy merely benefits corporations – CEOs and shareholders – not the workers, neither the environment. Indeed, by underpaying employees while overpaying CEOs and by not fairly contribution to tax money which could be redistributed, corporations add to the increasing disparities between a wealthy few and the majority of the population. Furthermore, the influence of corporation in governmental decisions and in shaping the populations’ values and beliefs induces a feeling that corporatist forces are now dominating formerly democratic political, social, economic and cultural processes. In conclusion, the solution to this current crisis faced by citizens in their confrontation with corporate interests then lies in realizing that the financial interests of corporations are met in the detriment of citizens, and in re-establishing citizens’ wellbeing as the basis on which to construct values and principles for policy making.

 

Work Cited

Buchheit, Paul. "Apple, Walmart, McDonald's: They All Stiff Their Workers as They Get Subsidized by Taxpayers." Truth-out.org. N.p., 29 July 2013. Web. 3 Nov. 2013.

"CEO Compensation, 2011." Forbes. Forbes Magazine, 25 Mar. 2011. Web. 3 Nov. 2013.

"Lessons From NAFTA: The High Cost of ‘Free Trade’." Policyalternatives.ca. N.p., n.d. Web. 3 Nov. 2013.

In Defense of Cosmopolitan Citizenship

               Although cosmopolitanism is an ancient ideology, it has recently experienced a revival of interest due its appealing representation of a possible alternative to the current state-centric system of global politics. Indeed, in promoting the creation and the reinforcement of global institutions, cosmopolitanism wishes to answer the need to better handle global issues such as poverty, inequality, environmental degradation and the violation of human rights. On an individual level, cosmopolitanism also offers the possibility to identifying otherwise than within the restrictive boundaries of the state. Indeed, the concept of cosmopolitan citizenship embraces the view that a sense of belonging can be extended to a common global community, maintained by shared structures, rights and duties. However, many critics have debated against the idea of a cosmopolitan citizenship; notably by arguing that cosmopolitanism is incompatible with the concept of citizenship, that it imposes culturally bias ideas, and that it draws the attention away from more pressing national issues. The following essay wishes to answer these three particular arguments against the concept of a cosmopolitan citizenship and, by doing so, to highlight the contemporary relevance of this concept.

The first critique against the idea of cosmopolitan citizenship argues that this concept inhabits a fundamental incompatibility between cosmopolitanism and citizenship due to the inherent definition of citizenship. Indeed, for the proponents of this view, citizenship is defined by the rights and duties binding individuals to their political community and needing protection and enforcement by institutions (Isin and Turner, 318). For them, the international sphere does not present such a range of rights and duties, nor does it have the institutions to guard and guarantee their application.

For cosmopolitans, however, the concept of cosmopolitan citizenship makes sense within a much broader definition of citizenship. Indeed, citizenship can also be understood in terms belonging and relating to individuals within a community. This definition, as opposed to the more formal and legal version proposed by the advocates of the state-centric view, highlights that people identify with much wider concepts within a political community. For example, people do not identify with the rights and duties that they are subject to under their state. Instead, citizens relate to the fundamental principles of a state such as the liberal ideology and democracy. And, as a matter of fact, these fundamental principles are the ones found at the basis of the cosmopolitan ideology and which have served as the foundation on which was built crucial steps for the human progress such as the creation of The Universal Declaration on Human Rights (Adami, 45). Furthermore, although they currently have limited power, global institutions, (mostly under the umbrella of the United Nations) have been created for the purpose of protecting and implementing these cosmopolitan rights. The success of the International Court of Justice in responding to crimes against humanity is a good example of how supranational institutions can be efficient in handling major universal issues.

The second argument of the state-centric view in regards to the antilogy of cosmopolitan and citizenship argues that citizenship is also defined by the particular rights of citizens to participate and to have their interests represented in the decisions of the political community to which they belong. Indeed, these critiques argue that the international sphere does not provide such opportunity of representation for citizens of the world, nor do they have the institutions to do so. Furthermore, this absence of representation and participation of citizens suggests a lack of legitimacy for global institutions. Indeed, although the actions and the decisions made by global organizations have consequences on people’s lives, these people are not presented with the opportunity to influence these decisions, neither to be part of such organizations (Isin and Turner, 318).  

Regarding this critique, cosmopolitans argue that globalization, and in particular, the fact that major events can impact the people’s lives across the world, has transformed the ways that people think about politics and has foster within them a desire to participate in global politics (Warf, 279). For example, on February 15^th, 2003, people from all around the world protested against the Iraq War as they felt indirectly threatened by this decision (Tarrow, 17). Furthermore, this recent desire for people to participate in global politics can be seen in the increasing number of international non-governmental organizations (INGOs) which provide a means for cosmopolitan citizens to play a role on the international sphere. Indeed, INGOs now constitute a civil society known to have increasingly played a political role in the last twenty years; particularly by covering political lapse from the state-centric system of government such as in the context of environmental protection (“Union”). For example, Greenpeace has been able to influence many environmental protection policies around the world (“Greenpeace”). Furthermore, by providing a means for individuals to be part of the global political process, and by representing people and social movements from all around the world, INGOs also contribute to democratizing and, therefore, legitimizing the political decisions made by the international institutions collaborating with INGOs (“Union”).

Critics of cosmopolitan citizenship also argue that the sense of community, which constitutes another basis of the concept of citizenship, cannot be created at an international level. These critics claim that the lack of a shared history and shared cultural beliefs impairs the construction of a meaningful cosmopolitan citizenship and, therefore, cannot produce a common political ethic which is essential for defining the common good (Isin and Turner, 318-322). Indeed, the infinite diversity provided by the broad range of cultures around the world can impairs the formation of a common sense of community, present on the national level.

In response to this critique, advocates of cosmopolitanism, such as Martha Nussbaum, recognize the role played by education and the media in constructing the sense a community within a state. Indeed, these two forces select particular events and information based on the assumption that they will resonate within the citizens of a community. However, by doing so, they also shape the cognitive map of citizens, their relation with their state, and their compassion of other citizens of the same state. In her essay on patriotism, Martha Nussbaum envisions an education which, instead of being nationally focused in its teaching, would initiate a global compassion within its students (Van Hooft, 25). Furthermore, as events increasingly have global consequences and generate global concern, it is possible to imaging that, in the future, individuals from all over the world will build a common history around important events for humanity, such as the Second World War or the nuclear disaster of Fukushima in Japan.

Now entering the second category of critique from the state-centric view, critics of the cosmopolitan citizenship also fear that the realization of this concept will translate into replacing state sovereignty by a system of global dictatorship which will ultimately promote the interests of global elites. Indeed, although cosmopolitanism believe in the principle of a democratic ideal that wishes to see all members of the global community participating towards a common political direction, opponent of cosmopolitan citizenship believe that the underlying mechanism of such development will promote the universalism of cosmopolitan values and, therefore, the promotion of global elites’ interests (Isin and Turner, 329). For example, although the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and The World Bank (WB) were originally created to protect the economy of countries affected by the Second World War, these institutions are now widely criticized for reinforcing the current global power imbalance, that is, the supremacy of wealthier countries over the rest of the world, and policies which polarize global economic inequality (Makwana).

Certainly, although cosmopolitans generally do not advocate any means to global governance, the concern that further powerful global institutions, such as the IMF and the WB, can promote the interest of elites remains. However, applying cosmopolitan ideas, such as equality and global democracy, to global institutions would actually promote further distribution of resources and power instead of maintaining the current power imbalance and the overrepresentation of wealthy countries in these establishments (Van Hooft, 163).

On a similar note, proponent of the state-centric view argue that the universal morals which design the logic of cosmopolitan citizenship do not subscribe to the cultural differences that exist on a global scale and stand against the current liberal tradition to cater rights according to preference of different members of a same political community (Isin and Turner, 324). These critics believe that actions from the wealthier countries (usually the ones promoting cosmopolitanism) to realize the concept of a cosmopolitan citizenship could influence global politics in a culturally biased manner which would eventually promote their own interests (Isin and Turner, 322).

However, instead of imposing culturally bias ideas, cosmopolitan argue for pluralism. This means that, alike in liberal democracies, their ideology wishes to particularly protect cultural minorities from the tyranny of the majority (Adami, 50). Indeed, cultural diversity exists within nations and is nevertheless accommodated. For example, the Canadian government claims to have built a national identity on the basis of cultural diversity. However, common fundamental principles such as liberty and equality bond Canadian citizens into a common nation. The same logic could then be applied on a global scale. Furthermore, cosmopolitanism generally wishes to focus on already existing similitudes amongst human beings (Adami, 58). For example, The International Bill of Human Rights has demonstrated the opportunity to build strong common grounds from shared universal values, without necessarily promoting in any controversial ideas impeding on nations’ cultural preferences or needs.

Finally, the last category of critique from the state-centric view reproaches cosmopolitan citizenship to diluting individuals’ sense of citizenship towards their respective state. For them, current political movements should focus on the more urgent matter of consolidating and preserving national citizenship (Isin and Turner, 317). David Miller, for example, highlights the importance “to nurture civic virtues within existing national communities” as, according to him, the attention toward the international sphere “loosen the ties” between citizens and their state and, therefore, erodes their sense of a national political community (Isin and Turner, 319). Indeed, over the last forty years, an increasing disengagement of citizens in their national political process has been observed around the world through the lessening percentage of voting individuals (“Voter Turnout”).

In response to this critique, cosmopolitanism proponents argue that citizens are now interested in international events due to the impact of these events on their lives (Warf, 279). Indeed, globalization is undermining national governments’ legitimacy because of their inability to stop global forces such as important economic development (Brown, 53). The cosmopolitan counter-argument is then that it is the overriding phenomenon of globalization that is, in fact, loosening ties between citizens and their respective state – not cosmopolitanism which merely derives from globalization. Finally, cosmopolitans do not wish to see the importance of national matters diminishing over cosmopolitan interests. Instead, they argue in favor of finding a balance between citizens’ duty towards their state and fellow citizens, and towards the human race (Brown, 55). As Immanuel Kant puts it, cosmopolitan citizenship suggests that a “community of humankind [exists] alongside the system of states” – not above it (Isin and Turner, 321).

The current skepticism toward the concept of a cosmopolitan citizenship can be understood as a typical conservative reaction in response to the crisis brought by globalization, such as the global economic crisis for 2008. In the past, similar conservative ideas have attempted to prevent the creation of important global institutions and international rights which are now recognized to be important definitions of human progress towards a more just and equal world. Despite these critiques, the concept of a cosmopolitan citizenship is, nevertheless, more than ever shaping global politics, notably through INGOs and other global institutions. Indeed, in addition to drastically transforming people’s life and their experience of citizenship, globalization has engendered the desire and the need for citizens of the world to play a role in international political decisions as they increasingly feel concerned by the development of international issues. For them, cosmopolitanism then presents the possibility to respond to these new needs by offering an alternative scheme in which international factors would be more appropriately accommodated and dealt with.

 

Work Cited

Adami, Rebecca. "Intersectional Dialogue - A Cosmopolitical Dialogue of Ethics." Cosmopolitan Civil Societies: An Interdisciplinary Journal 5.2 (2013): 45-62. Academic Search Complete. Web. 26 Nov. 2013.

Brown, Garrett Wallace. "Bringing The State Back Into Cosmopolitanism: The Idea of Responsible Cosmopolitan States." Political Studies Review 9.1 (2011): 53-66. Academic Search Complete. Web. 24 Nov. 2013.

"Greenpeace Victories." Greenpeace International. N.p., 1 Jan. 2013. Web. 25 Nov. 2013. .

Isin, Engin F., and Bryan S. Turner. "Cosmopolitan Citizenship." Handbook of Citizenship Studies. London: Sage, 2002. 317-332. Print.

Makwana, Rajesh. "Decommissioning The IMF, World Bank and WTO." STWR - Share The World's Resources. N.p., 5 Dec. 2013. Web. 24 Nov. 2013. .

Tarrow, Sidney. The New Transnational Activism. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2005. Print.

"Union of International Associations." Changing relationships between International Non-Governmental Organizations and the United Nations. N.p., n.d. Web. 25 Nov. 2013. .

"Voter Turnout." Conferenceboard.ca. N.p., 1 Jan. 2013. Web. 25 Nov. 2013. .

Warf, Barney. "Nationalism, Cosmopolitanism, And Geographical Imaginations." Geographical Review 102.3 (2012): 271-292. Academic Search Complete. Web. 24 Nov. 2013.

iEra: The Analysis of the iPhone as a Cultural Object

The iPhone is possibly the most popular object of the North American popular culture. Its popularity is perhaps best illustrated through its immense market which was estimated to be as big as 53.6 million iPhone users in 2013, in the U.S. only (“Forecast”). By reaching such a large portion of the population, the iPhone inevitably influences its social world (the context in which the iPhone exists). However, the iPhone is also subject to be influenced by the social world. Similarly, receivers and producers of the iPhone are affected by and are able to affect the social world, the iPhone itself, and each other. This four-way relationship is the centerpiece of Griswold’s Cultural Diamond model which will be used in this essay to explore the iPhone as a cultural object in North America (Griswold 16). The following essay will not, however, for the sake of content limitation, give an exhaustive analysis of the impact of the iPhone. Instead, it will analysis the iPhone as a cultural object through different angles (the four aspects of the cultural diamond), systematically illustrated by examples.

What is so special about the iPhone? And why has it become a cultural object? In 2007, the first iPhone was a pioneer in combining internet, telephony, music, and a camera in a truly user-friendly way. However, focusing on easy internet usage was Apple’s real strategy to distinguish its products from other smartphones and reaching a far greater market than any other previously existing smartphone (West and Mace). Subsequently, the iPhone became the benchmark of smartphones, elevating the standard of such products like never before and engendered numerous social consequences. Therefore, although certain phenomena described hereafter could now be assigned to smart phones in general, the iPhone was the first smart phone to popularise such phenomena. This section about the impact of the iPhone on the social world will focus on the creation of social division resulting from possessing an iPhone and, on the opposite, the social bonding that the iPhone made possible. Firstly, iPhones create class division as people who have iPhones, intentionally or not, distinguish themselves from others. Indeed, having an iPhone gives them membership to an in-group. For example, iPhone carriers are able to relate and socialize with other members of the group by talking about the different models of the iPhone, participate in the media buzz around the iPhone, share tips about apps, etc. in contrast to the persons who do not have an iPhone – the out-group. In contrast, by providing people with constant and easy internet access, the iPhone enabled people to be much more connected to each other because of the possibility to communicate more easily. Ironically, however, it has also brought people to spend more time on their phone which disconnects them from the real world and other people physically around them (Kaplan and Haenlein 67). Indeed, the iPhone also negatively impact certain users like some corporate users who report an urge to check their e-mails on their smartphone (Turek and Serenko 43). This example illustrates a serious technologic addiction which has been recognized as a “psychiatric disorder” which could lead to serious detriment for a person’s life (Turek & Serenko 44). This compulsive usage of the iPhones seem to highlight a certain need for the users to be in control, when they are in fact losing control of their lives by handing it to the virtual world. The iPhone also impacts its own producers. For example, the success of the iPhone put on a lot a pressure on the producers to keep innovating so to not deceive the expectations.

This year, Eduard Snowden has revealed that the American National Security Agency is able to retrieve information from iPhone users, including text messages and phone calls (Spiegel Online). This information perfectly illustrates how the social world can impact the way receivers of the iPhone use this cultural object and how they perceive it, in this case, as a means for surveillance and centralized power through multinational corporations. It might also simply dissuade a user to purchase an iPhone as his or her next phone. This information could also influence the producers of the iPhone to integrate different functions in their next model to guarantee further privacy. Ideologies and values are other, less obvious, components of the social world that can influence receivers. For example, the value of personal distinction, the social pressure on people to possess the most recent commodity, and the aspiration toward objects which give people a feeling of belong to a privileged class could influence certain users to sell their old iPhone for the latest model. The media and general conversations around the iPhone also play a big role in advertising the release of a new model which brings people to queue for days in front of Apple Stores (Al Arabiya). This desperate behaviour can be understood by the fact that, ultimately, these are the people who will have the real privilege of distinguishing themselves by displaying their new possession as new iPhones always created much hype in the population. However, this ephemeral privilege quickly fades as more and more people acquire the latest model. At last, the social world impacted the creation of the iPhone as this cultural object was obviously designed to accommodate busy and multitasking contemporary persons. For example, the iPhone turns into a GPS, an encyclopedia, or a dictionary when needed, which can save a lot of time.

The role of the producer is also fundamental in understanding a fuller picture of a cultural object. In the case of the iPhone, a particular producer played a significant role in the confirmation of the iPhone as a cultural object. Indeed, especially after his death, Steve Jobs became part of the cultural object itself. His story and his person – as a popular icon who funded of Apple Inc. – contribute to the popularity of the iPhone and the creation its myth-like image. For example, “iSteve”, a comic version of his biography, suggests that Steve Jobs had mystical visions which gave him the idea of the iPhone (iSteve). Many other documentaries and movies participated in the creation of the cult of personality of Jobs, including his best-seller biography which demonstrates the hype around his person (Gustin).  Of course, apart from Steve Jobs, numerous individuals and corporations from all around the world collaborated and contributed to the creation of the iPhone. Indeed, the creation of an iPhone starts with Apple designing and marketing the product. The rest of the production, however, is subcontracted to nine firms located in four different countries (Xing and Detert). By doing so, Apple then affect the social world by contributing to the globalization trend of shifting manufacturing work outside of the United State. Similarly, by having the iPhone assembled in China, Apple reinforces a global capitalism trend in which developed countries take advantage of developing countries by exploiting their cheap labor force and resources (Xing and Detert). Furthermore, the producer’s decision to release a new model of the iPhone every year contributes to the consumerist trend of capitalistic societies. On the other end of the production chain, receivers are also impacted by certain choices that the producers make; to the extent that it can sometimes limit their degree of freedom. For example, through iTunes (the music platform of the iPhone), a receiver will only be able to purchase certain music versus others. Another example of this restriction is found in Google Maps (a by-default feature of the iPhone) where only a narrow number of businesses will appear after a search for their service. These two examples illustrate how the methods and decisions of the produces limit the possibilities of the receivers and their understanding of the full picture.

However, receivers are not passive consumers of the iPhone; they also participate in the creation of the iPhone as a cultural object by discussing among them, advertising the product to their friend, etc. A more obvious way in which receivers can contribute to the creation of the iPhone as a cultural object is by creating apps for the device (“The App Builder”). This bottom-up influence also ensures that the iPhone responds to all their needs and interests. Furthermore, by depending on the iPhone for many daily tasks (e.g. taking the bus, cooking, etc.), the users of the iPhone are, inadvertently, generating a shift toward a point of non-return for society. Indeed, after experiencing such ease and usefulness, the chances of going back to a place where smartphones are not needed is very unlikely. This trend will be even more certain as receivers give their children access to their own iPhone or purchase iPhones for their children (Koningsberg). Furthermore, receivers’ automatism of using the iPhone for daily tasks generates rituals in people’s lives that will eventually be transmitted to the next generation.

As seen above, the iPhone reflects the social world: its values, such individual achievement as oppose to a collaborative work; its forces, such as globalization; and its processes, such as capitalism. However, other than being a mere representation of the social world, the iPhone is also playing and important role in shaping it. Indeed, by being a precursor in providing such an easy internet access on a large scale, the iPhone lead society toward an increasing dependency on technological devices despite its negative consequences for its users and other international players. If the full understanding of the impact of this dependency is so far hard to grasp, it seems to indicate a profound disruption of former ways and means.  For this reason, the iPhone is much more than a product of our society. It is a religious-like phenomenon – with Steve Jobs as a messiah, the apple as a representative symbol, and users as followers performing rituals – signaling a new era in which our human needs are answered by technological comfort.

Marxism isn't an ideology, it's a prediction.

Let the economy collapse as it is based on an obsolete system that is insanely running humans and their planet to peril. Let people become jobless as they are insanely spending their lives running this system. Let them have the option to think about this and the time to do something about it. The system. One where psychopaths are the kings as having no empathy. One where violence, crime, pollution, diseases are good as profitable. One that does not consider humanity but merely uses it, brainwash it - turning people into obedient machines. Let it burn. Burn.

The Rationalization of Modern Life

For Max Weber, bureaucracy is the ultimate instrument to the rationalization of the modern world. It is a formal structure which uses the most efficient means to attaining set ends (Ritzer, 2004, 25). Nowadays, many analogies can be traced between the functionality of bureaucracy and society. For example, in bureaucracy, as much as in society, people have certain responsibilities and must act in accordance with rules. Indeed, in both settings, everyone performs their task, following pre-set rules and regulations and often in a predetermined arrangement (Ritzer, 2004, 24-25). Despite the benefits of rationalization and its necessity for a modern society, Weber also highlighted its damaging tendency to bringing irrational outcomes. George Ritzer, in his book “The McDonaldization of Society“, defines Weber’s rationalization as the increasing domination of efficiency, predictability, calculability, and control in the modern world. Ritzer used this definition of rationalization to explain the McDonaldization phenomenon. In the following essay, I intend to use Ritzer's definition to formulate a more intimate analytic approach of rationalization, that is, not on a macro level of society nor in its different structures, but on a more individualistic level; in human behavior and in the decisions they make about their lives. Indeed, because of the conveniences and the efficiency of rationalization, most people unconsciously agree to work through a rational approach to life. This agreement has led to the internalization of the mechanism of rationalization in individuals. People are now using bureaucratic principles to guide their lives and this application is reflected in their behavior, their choices, and their life style. As a consequence, people eventually suffer from the paradoxical ‘irrationality of rationality’. Following Weber’s methodology and because the full complexity of our modern lives is too intricate, ideal-types will be used to explain the social phenomenon of ‘rational lives’.

For Weber, the rationalization of society came with the adaptation of a capitalist economy. Before the capitalist era, society was organized through the respect of values and traditions. For example, “officials were subject to tasks because of a personal loyalty to their leader rather than impersonal rules” (Ritzer, 2004, p. 25). Indeed, as people were following the principles of loyalty, pride, and honor, there was little need for written rules. In our modern secular society, we have lost these values and traditions; consequently, we need rational reasons for our actions. For example, as many religious values have been replaced by rational beliefs, instead of helping the poor by Christian obligation (Bolt, 2004, p. 2), people perform ecological actions to protect the environment. This second accomplishment is linked to knowledge about environmental issues, which is supported by scientific research. Rationalization then results in a less magical, increasingly disenchanted world, where science becomes dominant, and as tradition and religion lose power (Tucker, 2002, p. 163).

In a world which seems constantly increasing in pace, efficiency has become a priority. As a result, we are trying to do things as quickly as possible by using the most efficient means. For example, as driving is often the quickest way to get somewhere, we choose to drive a car instead of taking public transport. However, in choosing the most efficient means, we dismiss the broader perspective and the consequences of our actions (Jensen & Draffan, 2004, p. 91). Indeed, driving a car is more damaging to the environment. In addition to doing things as fast as possible, people also try to accumulate tasks, sometimes by doing many things at the same time. Consequently, only little attention is drawn into the tasks performed and it deteriorates its quality. Besides, as people increasingly understand and evaluate the world in terms of strategies for the best means to reach a given end, they become alienated from the enjoyment of their actions (Tucker, 2002, p. 164).

For an evaluative purpose, society has been increasingly focusing on quantitative results. Indeed, everything is nowadays assessed and measured in numbers (e.g. school results, career success, etc.). However, the quantitative approach offers little or no concern for the quality of in these things (Ritzer, 2004, p. 26). In our society, some parents, for example, are more concerned with the money they need to earn, to support their children, rather than with the quality of the upbringing they can offer (in terms of affection, patience, etc.). Numbers also play a crucial role in determining someone’s life as opposed to what is best for someone or what is wanted. For example, a woman will make sure that she is married before a certain age, to have a certain amount of children before a certain age, and will make a certain amount of money performing a job that took her a certain number of years of education, etc. She will calculate these goals and live her life accordingly, instead of being aware of her feelings and the moment when her needs naturally present themselves. Furthermore, wanting to accomplish many things during a short amount of time, leads to granting poor attention to their execution. Our daily tasks become obstacles as oppose to being appreciated for their actual value (e.g. eating). Our materialistic society also encourages the accumulation of calculable objects to promote our well-being. Their acquirement of quantified objects is given a great importance as oppose to their intangible values. Moreover, calculability is used to set objectives and, therefore, enforces the achievement of these objectives. People also use numbers to compare themselves to others which consequently classifies them in a hierarchical manner.

By respecting rules and socially accepted norms, people lead their life in a predicable manner. Weber held that formal rationality is translated to people using optimum means that are formed by rules, regulations, and larger social structures (Ritzer, 2004, 26). Indeed, in the past, people had been left to discover the optimum means for a given end on their own or with vague and general guidance from larger value system (e.g. religion). Now, they use institutionalised rules that help them decide or dictate them what to do (Ritzer, 2004, 26). Therefore almost everyone does the same things, acts the same way, and makes similar choices. Predictability promotes uniformity and, consequently, destroys originality. Also, because we are looking for security in our life, we also look for predictability. For example, people always like to know how much they are going to earn at the end of the month, etc. We are also often trying to predict how our life is going to unfold. As a result, all these expectations sometimes lead to disappointment. Another negative consequence of looking for predictable events is that it allows unpredictable events to be catastrophic. Indeed, if the predicable is often reassuring, on the other hand the unknown can bring confusion or panic in people's lives.

Humans seek the control over their lives by setting different goals and planning accordingly. In a competitive world where no room is granted for failure, control is important. However, by doing so, people do not realize that the source of these goals and the planning of their life comes from a rational system. People need to feel like they have control over their lives, however, in reality, this feeling can only be an illusion of power. Indeed, people’s lives are indirectly conducted by social structures. Their behavior and choices are only by-products of this mechanism. Bureaucracies emphasize control over people, through the replacement of human judgment with the dictatorship of rules, regulations, and structures (Ritzer, 2004, 27). To control the course of our day, for example, we divide it into well-defined tasks: getting ready in the morning, working, lunch break, watching TV, etc. At work, our tasks are even more defined. This process comes directly from a bureaucratic scheme. People are seeking so much control that they start to resemble to human-robots. In a similar way, they are often requested to work like machines (whether their job is highly classified in the social hierarchy or not).

By being rationalized, people’s lives suffer from the irrationality of rationality. Some of these irrational consequences have been mentioned above when describing the opposite effects from the original intentions (efficiency, calculability, predictability and control). Weber saw how modern society emphasizes the rational, the instrumental, and the means to achieve certain goals, at the expense of everything else, including life itself (Jensen & Draffan, 2004, p. 96). We are constantly setting ourselves objectives to achieve and planning for the most efficient means to reach these goals. To assess our achievement, social institutions have different types of evaluative tools: the articulation of the first word, the evaluative marks during our education, the achievement of a certain professional career, the promotions in our work, etc. Our performance in these evaluations will not only impact how others evaluate us, it also impacts how we view ourselves and, consequently, how we behave in society. Therefore, it seems like this personal assessment is primordial in determining how people live their lives. Their life path is determined by organizational structures in which people try to achieve certain goals, and, at the same time, their life style is determined by their success in achieving these set goals.

People have lost the control of their lives. The choice of how they live their life does not depend on them anymore. It is directly determined by the rational system of modern society. As a consequence, people can only have the life style that is determined by how well they perform within the system. Such restrictions prevent people from doing what they really want with their life. To fit within the system, they are forced to give up their personal desire and replace them with goals that are socially acceptable. Consequently, a rational way of life forces certain options and removes the possibility of a genuinely free choice. If someone does not follow the rules or work within the system, this person will have to suffer the consequences. For example, one can choose to paint and sing because these are the things this person enjoys doing the most. However, within our modern society, these two things are not considered typical successful achievements as they do not contribute to a rational economy. Therefore, this person will have to live in poverty unless he or she is able to work within the system by selling his or her talent to the commercial industry (but at this point, this person will lose freedom of creativity).

Because people are deprived from creative freedom and from the life they wish to live, we can say that we live in an era where individuals are alienated from their human potential – they are dehumanized and are not able to express their true selves. This characteristic, which is defined by Weber as the ‘Iron Cage’, can also be illustrated in the personality of individuals. Indeed, for Weber, bureaucracy also promotes “the personality type of [a] profession expert” (Weber, Gerth and Mills, 1946, p. 240). In a modern society, personalities are conditioned to suit the rational system. Indeed, people are expected and socialized to act and think a certain way. If they fail, society will label them as ‘eccentric’ or ‘crazy’. The Western culture coerces people into a rational way of thinking from which they cannot escape (Enns, 2004, p. 45). Furthermore, when losing their independence, as the rational society dictates people’s behavior and way of thinking, people ultimately also lose their autonomy. It becomes harder for them to think ‘out of the box’ and to truly act freely.

The irrational consequences of rationality can very well be illustrated by the event of a midlife crisis. Indeed, after spending half of one’s life planning to achieve certain ends set by society, one suddenly feels a discontentment with life. A midlife crisis is characterized by the questioning of the meaning of life, our true identity, and the ultimate goal that our life is aiming for (Mid-Life, 2010). These questionings can easily be explained by the tendencies (developed above) to aim for set objectives and act in a rational manner – in accordance with the expectations from society. The midlife crisis is synonym of disenchantment from life. It is a realization of one’s helplessness when facing the immense mechanism of rationalization of life which has developed from the demand of an increasingly rational society, using social structures to formulate and accomplish this demand. The consequence of this realization/disenchantment is ultimately the opposite type of behavior from the initial one, that is, rational behaviour. Typically, a person facing a midlife crisis will change their career to something that he or she actually enjoys doing (as opposed to something that is safe) or will start to behave in a unreasonable manner and make unreasonable choices, like purchasing a sports car that he or she cannot really afford.

By being surrounded by rationality, people are forced into disenchantment which generated many irrational consequences in people’s behavior. For example, an over consumption of goods can be seen as a means to make up for the beliefs that originally reassured humans (e.g. heaven). Instead of believing in something comforting for the mind (or soul), people are looking for a solution to re-enchantment in the profane realm (Jenkins, 2000, p. 13). They have lost their purpose in life and they are trying to fill its role with something of this world. However, looking for a sense of satisfaction with life in the wrong place leads to the incapability to grasp life. For example, trying to understand the essence of life forms through science will lead to a disillusioned life and a misunderstanding of its beauty (Foster, 2007, p. 10). Indeed, the beauty of life cannot be analysed in any rational way.

For Weber, bureaucracy naturally promotes a ‘rationalist way of life’ (Weber, Gerth and Mills, 1946, p. 240); from the moment we are born, we are enrolled in a mechanism in which we have no control over. Rationalization has created this mechanism and it is now defining human behavior in addition to all societal structures. In the past, people were living according to values and principles promoted by religion and tradition. Nowadays, capitalism has replaced irrational beliefs with rational thinking and is encouraging a methodical approach to life. We need rational motives to guide us as we are trying to control and make sense of our lives in a rational way. But life is not rational and humans are not naturally rational beings. Therefore, they are dehumanized by this process and experience its consequences through the ‘irrationality of rationality’, the ‘Iron Cage’, and disenchantment. These products of rationality can have extremely damaging consequences on the lives of human beings by removing their freedom, their autonomy, and alienating them from their human potential. Weber anticipated that society would eventually lock people into a series of rational structures and he only held little hope that we would be able to oppose to the “supreme mastery of the bureaucratic way of life” (Jensen & Draffan, 2004, p. 103). However, once rationalization and its process are understood, we could hope for the possibility of conscious effort to making a genuinely free choice on our life’s objective. Indeed, the only goal, for everyone, should be happiness. However discourses have poisoned the notion of happiness, by rationalize it, as happiness is to be found in the simple things of life and this idea has no place in the complexity of our modern world.

 

References

Bolt, J. (2004). Christian Obligations: The Poor You Will Always Have with You. Journal of Markets & Morality, 7(2), 467-493. Retrieved on June 17, 2012, from http://www.acton.org/sites/v4.acton.org/files/pdf/7.2.467-493.ARTICLE.Bolt,%20John--Christian%20Obligations.pdf

Jenkins, R. (2000). Disenchantment, Enchantment and Re-Enchantment: Max Weber at the Millennium. MWS, 1, 13.

Jensen, D., & Draffan, G. (2004). Rationalization. Welcome to the Machine (pp. 88-111). White Tiver Junction, VT: Chelsea Green Publishing Company.

Enns, S. (2012). Max Weber - Part 1. Concepts & Theories of Society. Lecture conducted from Capilano University, North Vancouver.

Foster, R. (2007). The Consequences of Disenchantment. Adorno: The Recovery Experience (p. 10). Albany: State University of New York Press.

Mid-Life. (2010, January 15). Psychology Today. Retrieved on June 16, 2012, from http://www.psychologytoday.com/conditions/mid-life

Ritzer, G. (2004). McDonaldization and its Precursors. The McDonaldization of society (Rev. new century ed., pp. 24-26). Thousand Oaks, Calif.: Pine Forge Press.

Tucker, Jr., K. H. (2002). Weber: Modernity and Rationalization. Classical Social Theory (pp. 154-190). Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing.

Weber, M., Gerth, H. H., & Mills, C. W. (1946). The 'Rationalization' of Education and Training. From Max Weber: Essays in sociology (p. 240). New York: Oxford University Press.