The Best of Relativity Watch
September 21st 2009 12:28
:
In with the Old
Category: No Category
Time for a trip down memory lane as I transplant my favourite parts of Relativitywatch.com here.
Welcome to Relativity Watch
May 7th 2008 15:51
This site is a response to the increasing rapidity with which people in the popular media embrace the idea that everything is relative... I hope to analyse discourses which emphasise the fluidity of knowledge, that change is the only constant, and make new and complicated connections between aspects of the (post)modern world. I will be focusing on gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgender, intersex and 'queer' (GLBTIQ) issues in particular, examining the way these contribute to my notion of relativity as refreshed by my consumption of mass media texts.
The way we use language is very important, and should be paid a great deal of attention. More so than is being done now. I often find it rewarding to consider the multiple contexts that are available to me at any one time conerning any particular topic, and find that "it's all relative" - there's no certainty in the world, and the desire to search for some is a fearful practice passed on from one generation to another.
I hope to deconstruct a fixity of gaze, apprehension or manner, exposing this as a pose which doesn't make full use of human creativity. But more importantly, I hope to celebrate the people who are already embracing the notion of relativity in their lives.
I hope you enjoy the ride,
Epiphanie Bloom a.k.a. postmoderncritic
P.S. I got the idea for the name 'Relativity Watch' from this very postmodern product (a wristwatch which pursues the idea of time as elusive). Full credit goes to the Unemplyed Philosopher's Guild for putting the two words together. I'm always monitoring changes and movements in popular discourse, so this blog is a natural extension of my interest in the discourses of the world.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
No Two Defintions Of 'Relativity' Alike...
May 8th 2008 00:15
If you were to look up the word 'relativity' (or perhaps its root, 'relative') in five dictionaries you would get five different definitions... my own perceptions of 'realitivity' are undeniably unique to me, and I have never thought about it the same way twice as my mind is forever changing. Such is the beauty of perception and language... who do you want to be today? Perhaps you speak another language, in which case your understanding of 'relativity' is informed by a culturo-lingual conditions which are necessarily only accessible to you.
Isn't it wonderful that the use of the word 'relative' is always relative?
Is 'fixity' a less interesting word than 'relativity'? It's usage is just as affected by context and there are similarly as many meanings of it as there are individuals, but instead of aiding the process of appreciation of this phenomenon it emphasises traditional notions of the unchanging, non-fluid and inflexible. I personally prefer to use words which help me articulate my attraction to the wonders of constantly re-evaluating my perception. This is my 'power vocabulary', the lingual tools I use to enhance my self-empowerment.
I am more likely to use 'positive' than 'negative'. I prefer to draw attention to the presence of optimism, no matter how frail, than paint something 'pessimistic' because once I do that I am giving that thing less positive connotations, and I want to emphasise the positive wherever possible. This is not always seen as admirable behaviour... some people get a rush from being scathing, some even thrive on insults. But at the end of the day, I tend to think of their input less than those that give constructive criticism.
I hadn't thought of 'relativity' as a power word much prior to conceptualising of this blog... in the past I have used other words to undermine Lyotardian metanarratives and preach postmodern theory to anyone who will listen. One of the reasons I followed through on the concept of the blog was to re-inscribe the word as my own, meditate upon it and see what I can do with it.
What are some of the concepts, images or relationships that come to your mind when you read the word 'relativity'? Does my rainbow background affect how you see it? How about the artwork on the previous post (which you have to click 'next' to access, not 'previous' - see, Orble has its own unique language)?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
How long will California's Defense of Marriage Act (Proposition 22) endure? Time is on the side of its eventual relegation to the scrap heap of history, but change cannot come soon enough. The longer we wait the more embraced this change will be by the community, but when will the tolerant masses be enough to push through the tide of prejudice?
And if it's taking so long to establish same-sex marriage as the norm in places like America, Britain, France and Sweden, how long is it going to take for it to happen in Cote d'Ivorie, Bolivia, Sri Lanka and Fiji?
We need to spread the message that same-sex marriage should have been approved yesterday across all continents, no matter how strong the opposition we face. Do it for the peaceful Gay Pride demonstrators in Latvia who had manure thrown at them, all the men and women who are beaten, tortured and sometimes murdered because they are somehow 'different', and all the people who don't quite see same-sex coules as valid as heterosexual ones.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Is Calling A Stranger By An Endearment Offensive? Obama Apologises Just In Case
May 15th 2008 07:22
Endearments are used in a wide variety of contexts: in intimate relationships, workplace rituals, even to put someone down. Reporter Peggy Agar complained when Senator Barack Obama deferred his reply to one of her questions by saying "Hold on, sweetie," but it is not known why she found the phrase offensive. Did she think that he was being sexist, or acting overly acquanited with her? Was he being inappropriately sexually suggestive?
Barack apologised for referring to Agar as 'sweetie' some time after the interview, stating that it was a bad habit of his to call people endearments in many different situations. He offered her the opportunity to interview him again when he was next in the area.
This story was reported on CNN, and the overwhelming response was that it was not newsworthy... very few people considered the endearment offensive in the light of the way the story was reported (no claims of sexism or inappropriate advances were made from Agar). People who also called people that weren't necessarily near and dear to them endearments stood up for the senator, with one respondent claiming that Obama could call her 'sweetie' any day. I was surprised to see this billed as one of the top international stories of the day, the No. 2 headline on the right hand column. You can read the story here.
What do you think? Is it risky to call someone not close to you by an endearment, not knowing how they might react? Or does it promote goodwill and bring people together?
I think that it's best to avoid endearments until you can find out how a person is likely to react to them. A simple question like 'Do you mind if I call you dearie/honey/love?' may avoid any misunderstandings or resentment. Of course, motives are different for each individual, and some people may indeed be sexist or sexually inappropriate in their delivery, in which case the endearment needs to be taken up with them, or by the law. Discrimination against women in particular is never justified and should be done something about immediately.
Do you have a story about using endearments that you'd like to share?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
There Is No Longer A Ban On Same-Sex Marriage in California! (2 Down, 48 To Go...)
May 16th 2008 03:36
In a decision which has surprised many, the California Supreme Court, consisting of seven judges, six of which are Republicans, has given the green light to gay marriage across the state! Cali joins Massachussetts in being two of the fifty states to allow same-sex couples to legally wed.
According to the Supreme Court, sexual orientation joins race and gender as not constituting "a legitimate basis upon which to deny or withhold legal rights."
The Justices got out the word that "responsibly to care for and raise children does not depend upon the individual's sexual orientation."
"We therefore conclude that in view of the substance and significance of the fundamental constitutional right to form a family relationship, the California Constitution properly must be interpreted to guarantee this basic civil right to all Californians, whether gay or heterosexual, and to same-sex couples as well as to opposite-sex couples."
According to CNN's Ted Rowlands, "huge cheers" could be heard in San Francisco upon the relaying of this historic legal reform. The new law will be effective in 30 days.
According to Shannon Minter, the attourney of one of the couples that brought their lawsuits to the Supreme Court, "California sets the tone, and this will have a huge effect across the nation to bringing wider acceptance for gay and lesbian couples."
My source is CNN, and I have to question their inclusion of anti-gay, pro-Objectivity rhetoric in this article. Do they not claim to be a progressive news source? Of course there are going to be conservatives who protest this awe-inspiring change, but the best way to deal with them is by not paying them lip service - writing them off as irrelevant and hateful. Are they really newsworthy? Leave the coverage of the right-wing to Fox News and the corresponding section of the blogosphere. I strongly believe that if people don't have positive things to say, they shouldn't be part of public discourse. We need all the positivity we can get to counter the huge tides of negativity we are forced to encounter in out day-to-day lives. If CNN focused on the healing of the world from destruction, instead of the destruction of itself, news wouldn't be so depressing and people like me wouldn't be so put off by it.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Is Homoeroticism The New Black In Music Video Clips?
May 25th 2008 10:49
So I was watching MTV yesterday, looking out for brand new clips, and I came across two. Dannii Minogue and The Presets might not have a lot in common, apart from a strong affinity for beats and the pop genre, but they both seemed to have homoerotic themes.
I noticed Dannii Minogue's very colourful 'Touch Me Like That' as the title came on, and decided to have a look. It's pretty much your typical pop video from a female artist, with the female constantly sexualised, assuming all sorts of poses in various costumes, with heavy make-up and featuring back-up dancers with whom she sometimes interacts. However, the back-up dancers were all bikini-clad females who were moving their hands all over each other's bodies! At one point Dannii stands with them and they place their hands on her torso or breasts, thereby becoming part of the lesbian extravaganza.
It appears it's getting less unusual for a mainstream pop act to incorporate non-heterosexual antics into their video clips, and Dannii and her Public Relations team clearly expect big returns from this video.
Next up I saw the gay group The Presets attached to a new title, 'This Boy's In Love'. Here two very toned and good-looking men are shown attacking each other in slow motion in milk, or some milky substance. The lead singer's high tones ring out over the spectacle, announcing "this boy's in lo-o-o-o-ove." A possible interpretation is that the two men are fighting over the same person, but the slow motion and drops of milk clinging to their backs seems to emphasise the sexuality of their interaction. It reminded me a bit of the fight scenes in Brokeback Mountain (a movie I try not to remember).
The Presets had very dark themes and design in their previous single, 'My People' too, with the light in these being so weak as to just illuminate the musicians and other subject matter. I guess this shows that you don't have to be wrapped in neon and embracing of the electronic light to endorse gay themes...
It's all relatively homoerotic... So which artist will be next to perpetuate this theme, and to what extent do these clips represent homoeroticism in a positive light?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Neurotic Bisexuality For The Masses[...}
We have an interesting cocktail here - a spontaneous, alcohol-aided lesbian encounter featuring a girl who has a boyfriend, hopes he has no issues with her kissing someone else and seems to have no issues with how this might affect him. Katy's lyrics defend an unexpected but potent attraction to women, and allude to a wakening of sexual desire for the same sex. They represent a conflict - 'It felt so wrong / It felt so right' and 'It's not what good girls do / Not how they should behave / My head gets so confused' - between social expectations and her intuition ('Just human nature').
While this song is promoting the idea of lesbian attraction as something to embrace and take pleasure in, a message we don't get enough in the mainstream media, it also endorses a kind of paranoia that is all too common in people who aren't used to thinking outside the heterosexual box. It's probably popular BECAUSE of this accommodation towards people's fears over homosexuality (I think it's currently #1 in both America and Australia).
I found the video clip on YouTube, and I was surprised to see that lots of girls (and two boy) had posted up videos of themselves singing the song. A superficial browse revealed two Asian girls, five white ones and one black 'trying it on', so it appears this song has struck a chord with many a young, English-speaking Western audience... there's even a parody of the video here. You know you've made it when people go to the trouble of sending you up.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Thinking about the world one Monday morning
August 24th 2008 15:59
Lesbian marriage may be newly legal in global trend-setting US state California, but old-fashioned discourses permeated Ellen DeGeneres' attitudes to her now wife Portia de Rossi. Says the comedian and talk show hostess: "What can I say? I'm the luckiest girl in the world. She's officially off the market. No one else gets her. And now she'll cook and clean for me."
Ellen's 'luckiest girl' comment makes her post-nuptial gushing indistinguishable from that of any past Californian newlywed. It's a cliche that irks me - she's taking part in a practice which provides the perfect backdrop for innovative sentiment, original declarations of jubilation and unconventional explorations of the beauty of language, yet instead of being motivated to find new ways of expressing herself, she's resorting to an expression that will make a lot of people groan.
As for the latter half of the comment, it sounds as if Portia is being relegated to the traditional devalued female role of 'trophy wife', who assumes all the domestic chores without complaint. Ellen's possessiveness carries traces of machismo which is sad to see, not because she's a woman but because machismo is a product of patriarchal culture which erodes the liberties of both men and women where it is practiced.
So, girls who like girls, choose your role models carefully. Don't let celebrity couples set the standard - invent your own, and only pay attention to what others are doing when it inspires you.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~
I just saw the Beijing 2008 Closing Ceremony, and I was quite impressed with the elaborate, modern collectivist displays that China orchestrated. I was even more impressed by the performance from London, which gave me one postmodern sight to revel in after another. Even the logo, which reminds me of a crinkled up Union Jack, is postmodern. The slogan is reminiscent of letters, but does it spell out anything except perhaps the initials of a phrase of your imagination?
The uniformity of Chinese costumes and synchronicity of movements made the London contingent stand out all the more, with everybody wearing a unique outfit, assuming a unique position, and some even managing to sparkle in dark grey suits. I didn't realise how much I was missing a multi-cultural model of a group until the dancers showed up wearing all sorts of colours in their skin pigment! It felt vibrant, spontaneous and very mighty. A humourous touch was added with the introduction of umbrellas, which somehow transformed from the same dark grey to glowing spirals of blue, pink and yellow by the end of the performance. Then there was the red double decker bus, the top floor of which opened up like a flower to reveal a stage/podium, upon which the classical soul and RnB-inspired Leona Lewis would sing, accompanied by rocking guitar riffs from some no doubt famous gentleman whose name eluded me. Even David Beckham, famously metrosexual and famously a champion of football, was a silent presence (as was Jackie Chan during the Beijingers' performance) standing around lending his celebrity to the cause.
Between the excellent video campaign London provided for 2012, the logo and this teaser of things to come at Beijing, I am excited about the Olympics in England in a way I couldn't be about China. Don't get me wrong, I love China! It's people warm my heart a majority of the time... but the atmosphere about London is crackling in a distinctly postmodern way. It's nice to know that I'll have something to look forward to, four years from now!
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Are you ready to lead the next cultural revolution?
September 26th 2008 02:50
We need nothing short of multiple revolutions of thinking to replace the slow sort of change that comes with generations of old-fashioned thought, wherein absolutism and phobias such as racial prejudices, homophobia, xenophobia and many others are made much more obsolete than they happen to be right at this moment in my world.
In the 1960s people decided to radically re-evaluate their worlds and make a dramatic break with the past - why can't we do that now? This is the kind of revolutionary thinking that should always be in practice, not something that comes around every half-millenium or something.
I have no need, no time, no tolerance for empiricism. It is, it must be, it is increasingly, on its way out - can you help expedite this process? Can you partake in The Postmodern Revolutions?
Some important first steps to establish a firm commitment to perpetual reinvention of thought: Vote for, and elect, Barack Obama over John McCain. Legalise same-sex marriage everywhere. Make the world one huge borderless society (no visas, no length of stay restrictions, the ability to be hired anywhere and everywhere as long as you are suitable for the job). Create a series of innovative, revolutionary disciplines (a few examples might be Innovation Studies, Postmodern Studies or Change Studies) in universities, and then change the high school educational system too. Make creativity and analysis a central component of your personal life.
What do you think - how would you navigate the next cultural revolution?
I beg you to spread the word, so that the idea of a cultural revolution is floating around in other people's minds. If enough of us unlock our own commitment to revolutionary activity, a force significant enough to be dubbed 'the cultural revolution' will be unleashed... so start doing what you love with revolution in mind, and revolutionise with love in mind.
"Be the change you want to see in the world." - Anonymous
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
On Overturning Prop 8: Legalising same-sex marriage in California for good
November 8th 2008 01:19
As California goes, so goes the nation... and as America goes, so goes the world - even if they were not the first country to introduce civil unions (Denmark) or gay marriage (Netherlands). So what does the passing of Proposition 8 mean?
It means that the taste of equality that was felt for several months had time to register in the minds of many, and will be sorely missed. It is clear that with such a small margin of defeat, proactive non-homophobes will not lament their losses for much longer. Once a precedent like this has been set, it's only a matter of time before it is reintroduced as a permanent fixture. The unkind gestures brought to my attention by Prop 8 is soon to be a thing of the past, and it's important to realise that, if we keep positive and open-minded, there is no change we cannot introduce within our lifetime. Nobody wants to live in fear - whether it is of homosexuals or dying tomorrow. You can help erode the level of fear present in the people you know you affect (and the people you don't know you affect, too) by:
Being confident that same-sex marriage would be extravagantly rewarding for everybody, no matter their sexual orientation.
Alerting others to your confidence levels as often as possible - make it your business to promote love/equality, something that will make you feel better. This is so much more preferable to bitterness and ranting. Use an inviting tone of voice, a convivial manner, all of your inner charm - you want to attract people to your way of thinking, not drive them away from something. According to Dale Carnegie, you win over more bees with honey than anything else. While some people may respond to negative campaigning on your behalf, much, much more will respond, in a much more positive way to the positivity you can muster.
Verbal communication is one of the most effective ways of reaching people, but it is best combined with other texts, such as posters, flyers, Facebook messages and statuses, e-campaigning by writing a heartfelt message to everyone you have the email of, and others. After some brainstorming, I plan to put up A4 posters promoting the wonders of gender-neutral marriage rights all over my neighbourhood.
Don't let anyone convince you that you cannot change the world. The world is primed for change, and you have the leadership skills to steer it into new territory. Don't hesitate to step into all the positions of power available to you - the ones that you create.
South Africa's legalisation of SSM is a great start - let's not forget that we need to fight for this right everywhere else in the continent of Africa, and in every other developing country. Mobilise the people around you, as I am in Sydney - you know people from various continents, who know people everywhere that humans inhabit - and that is where we want love and equality to reach, so that when the penguins of Antarctica make contact with random humans, they will be of the diversity-loving variety, and better able to appreciate their shades of black and white (a phenomenon of coating, and no longer conceptually warmed to, as in 'black and white' thinking)
Some things to remember when promoting same-sex marriage:
Heterosexual marriage gains from homosexual marriage, too: Who would want to be part of a system that privileges some and excludes others on something as irrelevant as the gender of their beloved?
Marriage itself is made stronger as a result: Many young people do not take marriage very seriously, and while this is as valid a reading as any other, the idea of going through an official procedure to attain certain status for your association with another being is made much stronger to progressives if it is available to all people, no matter their gender or sexual orientation.
Opponents to same-sex marriage are on the losing side of history: Encourage your passive friends to think about 100 years from now, when SSM will be taken for granted by a lot of people. Evoke a world where every relationship is celebrated because of its unique stylings, and heteronormativity becomes a thing for the history books. Mobilise people into accepting progressive tendencies within themselves they had previously ignored, been blind to.
I believe that people are good, and that those that struggle are overwhelmed by negative voices in their heads, and just need more positivity and encouragement to counter the turbulence they foster within.
I know that if you and I work together, we can overturn Proposition 8 sooner than any of us dares to imagine possible - are you with me?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
We all want Obama to embody a different kind of change - so how do you want it?
February 18th 2009 14:04
The blogosphere, the web, newspapers and magazines, TV-casting and film-making - heck, all the arts, sciences and every other discipline - have been exploding with tributes to impassioned dreams, hopes and idealisms. These texts are circulating all around the globe, and it seems everyone has something to say on the matter of Obama riding high on his historic election to the White House - whether you are an indie singer-songwriter like Ani DiFranco (who wrote the following:
DEAR PRESIDENT OBAMA:
I have received so many breathless letters myself and now itÂs role reversal time. You have reawakened a disillusioned and passive electorate and begun healing racial wounds that have crippled us for centuries. I believe, like you do, that America today is not as intolerant and bitterly divided as we are encouraged to be by the mainstream media and the military industrial complex that dictates its messaging. It is my sincere hope that our national discourse will rise to your example and employ more humility and maturity in the political arena. I look forward to working with you. ¡Viva democracia!)
or a professor like bell hooks (who proffered the below musings on the role of education:
REMEMBER THE THREE RÂS.
Feminists understand that equality for women and girls will be sustained when government makes progressive education a national agenda. As we study and learn together we create community. Making literacy and democratic education available to everyone is the necessary foundation for responsible citizenship. Without education, diverse populations cannot communicate across boundaries.)
your imagination has been inspired...
Create enough changes and you might just be stepping into the territory of 'revolution'. Could we be happy with anything else?
Take a read of this text which I find much to scoff over - as a lover of postmodern discourse I am saddened that someone would attempt to leave it behind in favour of a new kind of totalising paradigm - and think about what kind of changes Obama symbolises for you...
By Rob Starr, the original text of whose can be found here(. The text was published on the 20th of January):
On behalf of the entire Integral community, IÂd like to extend sincere congratulations to President Obama on his historic election. Today we witness not only millennia of human progress symbolized in another peaceful transfer of political power
Epiphanie: I'm sorry, but are you forgetting the violent transitions (including Communist revolutions and Latin American coups) that have needed to happen to ensure democracy emerges triumphant?
but also the first black American to accept service in United States highest office. I believe it possible that today may be remembered throughout history as a turning point for the human race. Today may mark the birth of the Integral Age.
A leader today - whether in business, religion, politics or otherwise - has to lead at a time not only when the span in age of those she leads is the greatest itÂs ever been (due to longer life spans), but so too is the span in developmental stages the widest itÂs ever been (due to the ever-expanding edge of human evolution). At no time in history has the diversity of perspectives been greater,
I believe human life has been very diverse in every epoch, it's just that we have a growing awareness of difference with the presence of mass media in our lives, to tell us about what people are doing and thinking thousands of miles away.
or the need more urgent for leaders who can reach across all perspectives and unite us in a common vision of responsibility and service.
Unity is a flawed ideal, created by people who are afraid of difference.
The leading paradigm for handling this diversity, multiculturalism (and its insistence that all views are equal), has failed under the weight of its own absurdity. After all, if all views are equal than we cannot even accept our own views with any real seriousness,
The 'all views are equal' cliche of postmodernism is recreated so as to explore themes of friendship, love, and even respect for casual acquaintances, perfect strangers and sworn enemies. I take my view seriously and playfully enough to appreciate it in context with all my non-related sisters and brothers on the planet. I don't understand this statement.
and weÂre left to cope with our very own lives with either narcissism (ÂI am everythingÂ) or nihilism (ÂI am nothingÂ).
I think that to intermingle aspects of both ideologies would be a worthwhile endeavour, and create something completely new out of those binaries. Though I do like the quote Deleuze and Guattari provide us here...)
(TodayÂs teenagers are the canaries in this coal mine, essentially screaming for a way out of the existential crisis theyÂve been taught to espouse.) That 2008 provided such frequent and horrific examples of what goes wrong with both ends of this spectrum
Examples would be very handy here...
only underscores its symbolism as the year the Information Age ended (sort of loud and painfully, as these things often do...).
President Obama recognizes this unique moment in history and will call on all of us to join together in a unity that can be formed only in a cauldron of deep crisis and grand vision. Out of the ashes of a demoralized information age,
I am quite happy with my Information Age, actually - it brings me to such thought-provoking texts as this one, and even though I disagree, my passions are aroused and so am thankful for the opportunity to write in response.
broken as it has been by the limitations of a system too complex to bring to heel, arises the Integral Age, marked by a reconstructive paradigm that can integrate truth, values and action at all levels of diversity. A reconstructive paradigm can honor what has come before - tradition, responsibility, values, and long-cultivated social norms - while also manifesting a future vision not yet realized - progressive, compassionate, liberating and boundary-expanding.
I question that tradition, responsibility, "values" and "social norms" (what on earth is he referring to?) are helpful things, the way this guy is rendering them. This entire text is littered with generalisations which are infuriating for someone with academic training to respond to. At any rate, he seems to favour a fusing of 'old-world' values with 'new-world' spirit, and I cannot approve because the word 'liberating' is seen as the pinnacle of achievement in this narrative. You only need to read other texts to realise that liberation is something which is, by this stage, taken for granted in the light of Obama's agenda.
It is with great shock - and awe! - that the pundits in Washington are meeting the first Integral President. In President Obama they find a deep pragmatist who is concerned with the science of what works, the empiricism of results. They do not have a name for what heÂs doing other than to say he is Âpost-cultural, Âpost-racial, and Âpost-partisan. They donÂt know that the word they seek is ÂIntegral, that in the embodied integral human the rigid walls of singular dogma are transcended such that all ideologies can be embraced when appropriate. (After all, all ideologies are real, having something important to contribute to our understanding of reality.)
This ability to fluently operate among and within all ideological positions creates a trans-ideological leader, one who can handle immense diversity through neither imposition of a single ideology as we find in traditional modes of human action, nor a deconstructive act of making all ideologies equally meaningful (and thereby meaningless) (bold mine) as we find in postmodern modes of action,
Is it so bad to long for the day when no one worldview is championed as the most relevant, resonant, revolutionary of all? For that is what we are promoting - mundane revolutions, everytime we attribute great wisdom to what a mainstream celebrity has said. Anyway: My love is the most important modus opernadi in my world, but I will not try to discourage you from attempting to make yours more relevant than mine. I will simply argue as fairly as I know how that your values appear to be in a drastic need of overhaul. I recommend you tune in to the frenzied hopes of postmodernists around the world as they welcome the opportunity to celebrate the mutlitude of perspectives they find not just in the outside world, but in themselves. To give each one the right to shine, to be loved, to be critiqued and to be celebrated. For this is what it's about - celebration.
but rather a reconstructive act of calling on the entire range of ideological positions if, as and when appropriate to address the task at hand. That Obama is doing this is suspicious to the traditional conservatives, scary to the liberals, and just confusing to the intelligentsia. And that he can do so while also appealing directly to our loftier visions of ourselves, compelling us to hope, is just inspiring.
How can the same leader ask Reverend Warren to provide an inaugural invocation; seek an unprecedented Keynesian stimulus package; seek to further socialize health care; have a private dinner with leading conservative intellectuals; and consider how to rein in devastating and unrealistic long-term social security and Medicare liabilities? How, indeed.
I guess we've come to harbour pretty low expectations of our leaders. That Obama seems to be so high above the average standard is worth talking about.
Embodying an integral view of the world, by definition, means seeking to integrate, to fully include everyone under the umbrella while also transcending the narrowness and partiality of each.
We are all perfectly partial, beautifully biased, sublimely subjective... there is no one-size-fits-all dream rhetoric, my perception of the sky above will inevitably be different to that of anything else - it's time to celebrate how powerful our radical individuality is!
(This, incidentally, is why every group that looks at Obama claims him as Âone of them. This is the ultimate litmus test of an integral leader.)
I think that Obama's appeal lies in his very understanding of the kind of ideology that thrives in postmodernity - a firm, familiar verbal and physical tread into previously unchartered waters. I am still struck by how he is able to appeal to both myself (a hardcore postmodernist) and modernists who adore their universalising metanarratives. Whatever I may say about him, Obama is really incredibly smart! His is a classic-meets-postmodern fragmented-yet-coherent kind of savvy which is as porous as it is slick and smooth. It's a machine which is oiled well enough to generate consistent results throughout a long time period. I'm sure that his Presidency will work out very well for him.
A great leader is one whose sense of self is not threatened by a vigorous war of ideas, and an integral leader is one who wages the war from a worldview of love and abundance.
While there is a minefield of massive structural problems that we collectively face, this is also ObamaÂs real opportunity: great trauma yields great open-mindedness to meaningful change. I believe that since the election Obama has been an Integral leader, and if he can continue to navigate the landscape of open-mindedness that exists while integrating all the perspectives that are already there waiting for him, than he can lead us through the birth of the Integral Age and may significantly evolve the dominant mode of political discourse and action.
Obama's gracefulness, confidence and verbal agenda will hopefully appeal to those that succeed him, and here's hoping that he is just the start of a very impressive line-up!
Through events such as Integral Spiritual Experience, State of the World Forum, Catalyzing Conscious Capitalism, and many others, I know that all of us in the Integral Life community will be doing our part to help him and his administration more deeply embody an integral path forward.
What kind of changes would I like to see Obama make? First of all, introducing same-sex marriage in all 50 states, and pressuring foreign governments to also legalise it as well. Margaret Cho is with me on this one. Second of all, pouring more money into education, with a particular emphasis on the arts. I would like to see Obama live up to his claim that he is a feminist by pro-actively advancing womens' rights, affirm the positivity that already exists in America regarding mutually beneficial interaction between different racial groups by advancing coloured people's rights (he will also be advancing the rights of whites, although I know it doesn't seem as important at this stage), and further advancing the rights of the gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgender and 'queer' community. After that, we can focus on disabled rights and the rights of many other minorities.
I am also hoping for a lot more pressure on non-Democratic countries. I would like to see the entire West wage war on any country which is not 'truly' democratic (especially those who use the name Democracy despite being totalitarian to the core).
China's brand of totalitarianism is a real threat to democracies everywhere and the peaceful dominance that America enjoys over the world, so I suggest Obama thinks very carefully about how to deal with them. For some reason, I think a war might actually be a good idea here. (I know this will be very unpopular )
Finally, I'd like to see the President promote self-help as something that should be part of everyday life. Self-empowerment is so important to being a well-rounded individual, and it is often neglected, even by people in positions of great power.
I'd like to see personalities like Simon Cowell who are voted into a spot on national television because they have the ability to make witty insults off the top of their heads be put in their place - have it be promoted the idea that they are degrading themselves and others by being exhibitionistic about their abominably low self-esteem.
It's your turn now - what kind of changes would you like to see in the States (and hence the world)? Or do you fancy yourself a revolution?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
'Atheists' vs. 'Non-Believers'
March 16th 2009 15:48
When President Obama paid tribute to "non-believers" in the context of religion in his Inaugural speech, he made me cringe and hope that this condescending word would not catch on, let alone replace the much more palatable 'atheist'. Most vulnerable to reproducing this article are people of faith who look up to Obama, as the term appeals to their disillusionment with the non-religious. Their adamant investment 'Belief' leads them to look upon those who reject it altogether in disfavour and some misgiving. In the US world where the religious majority won't hear of an atheist president, such verbal maneuvering is bound to pick up some stature, what with Obama's slightly pompous delivery. He 'sells it,' as they say - but don't be buying, folks.
Atheist is a much more neutral and dignified term for those who don't believe in religion, being that it makes reference to an opposition, or turning away from theology, as opposed to privileging some pre-conceived, stultified notion of Belief (that is nefariously shared by every religion out there, no less).
Here is what Douglas Todd had to say when faced with the semantic value of 'non-believer':
Even though I like what Obama did in his speech, I must say I don't really like the term, "non-believer."
The term suggests there is just one thing to believe in -- and someone has chosen not to.
"Non-believer" is supposed to mean the person doesn't believe in God. But the term assumes only one understanding of God. Someone could argue it even assumes the existence of a God, which the "non-believer" is falsely denying. But I don't think that's what Obama was doing.
I find it unhelpful to act as if "belief" and "non-belief" is a choice between just two options. The definitions of the word, "God" -- as well as "spirit," the "divine," "the sacred" and similar terms -- are vast and diverse. There are dozens of options when it comes to "belief" and "non-belief."
What's a better alternative to the term, "non-believer?" I'm not sure. But "atheist" isn't too bad. And that's how most atheists (which I'm not, although I reject certain definitions of God) tend to describe themselves.
"Secular humanist" also has its place. But I don't think the word, "humanist" should be reserved for atheists. Christians like Vancouver's John Stackhouse, and other religious people, also like to also think they're "humanists," as in "humanitarian."
Further, Knute Bergen described the term as 'clunky and negative,' echoing many a contemporary who offered terms such as 'patronising,' 'biased towards religion' and 'a backwards step'.
So please, if you hear or read of the word being used in the media, make sure you raise your voice in gentle but film protest (a letter to the editor, a comment left on an online article, you name it - there's always a way to present your feedback to the audience of the particular text)!
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Well, that's it for now, thanks for reading!
Welcome to Relativity Watch
May 7th 2008 15:51
This site is a response to the increasing rapidity with which people in the popular media embrace the idea that everything is relative... I hope to analyse discourses which emphasise the fluidity of knowledge, that change is the only constant, and make new and complicated connections between aspects of the (post)modern world. I will be focusing on gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgender, intersex and 'queer' (GLBTIQ) issues in particular, examining the way these contribute to my notion of relativity as refreshed by my consumption of mass media texts.
The way we use language is very important, and should be paid a great deal of attention. More so than is being done now. I often find it rewarding to consider the multiple contexts that are available to me at any one time conerning any particular topic, and find that "it's all relative" - there's no certainty in the world, and the desire to search for some is a fearful practice passed on from one generation to another.
I hope to deconstruct a fixity of gaze, apprehension or manner, exposing this as a pose which doesn't make full use of human creativity. But more importantly, I hope to celebrate the people who are already embracing the notion of relativity in their lives.
I hope you enjoy the ride,
Epiphanie Bloom a.k.a. postmoderncritic
P.S. I got the idea for the name 'Relativity Watch' from this very postmodern product (a wristwatch which pursues the idea of time as elusive). Full credit goes to the Unemplyed Philosopher's Guild for putting the two words together. I'm always monitoring changes and movements in popular discourse, so this blog is a natural extension of my interest in the discourses of the world.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
No Two Defintions Of 'Relativity' Alike...
May 8th 2008 00:15
If you were to look up the word 'relativity' (or perhaps its root, 'relative') in five dictionaries you would get five different definitions... my own perceptions of 'realitivity' are undeniably unique to me, and I have never thought about it the same way twice as my mind is forever changing. Such is the beauty of perception and language... who do you want to be today? Perhaps you speak another language, in which case your understanding of 'relativity' is informed by a culturo-lingual conditions which are necessarily only accessible to you.
Isn't it wonderful that the use of the word 'relative' is always relative?
Is 'fixity' a less interesting word than 'relativity'? It's usage is just as affected by context and there are similarly as many meanings of it as there are individuals, but instead of aiding the process of appreciation of this phenomenon it emphasises traditional notions of the unchanging, non-fluid and inflexible. I personally prefer to use words which help me articulate my attraction to the wonders of constantly re-evaluating my perception. This is my 'power vocabulary', the lingual tools I use to enhance my self-empowerment.
I am more likely to use 'positive' than 'negative'. I prefer to draw attention to the presence of optimism, no matter how frail, than paint something 'pessimistic' because once I do that I am giving that thing less positive connotations, and I want to emphasise the positive wherever possible. This is not always seen as admirable behaviour... some people get a rush from being scathing, some even thrive on insults. But at the end of the day, I tend to think of their input less than those that give constructive criticism.
I hadn't thought of 'relativity' as a power word much prior to conceptualising of this blog... in the past I have used other words to undermine Lyotardian metanarratives and preach postmodern theory to anyone who will listen. One of the reasons I followed through on the concept of the blog was to re-inscribe the word as my own, meditate upon it and see what I can do with it.
What are some of the concepts, images or relationships that come to your mind when you read the word 'relativity'? Does my rainbow background affect how you see it? How about the artwork on the previous post (which you have to click 'next' to access, not 'previous' - see, Orble has its own unique language)?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
How long will California's Defense of Marriage Act (Proposition 22) endure? Time is on the side of its eventual relegation to the scrap heap of history, but change cannot come soon enough. The longer we wait the more embraced this change will be by the community, but when will the tolerant masses be enough to push through the tide of prejudice?
And if it's taking so long to establish same-sex marriage as the norm in places like America, Britain, France and Sweden, how long is it going to take for it to happen in Cote d'Ivorie, Bolivia, Sri Lanka and Fiji?
We need to spread the message that same-sex marriage should have been approved yesterday across all continents, no matter how strong the opposition we face. Do it for the peaceful Gay Pride demonstrators in Latvia who had manure thrown at them, all the men and women who are beaten, tortured and sometimes murdered because they are somehow 'different', and all the people who don't quite see same-sex coules as valid as heterosexual ones.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Is Calling A Stranger By An Endearment Offensive? Obama Apologises Just In Case
May 15th 2008 07:22
Endearments are used in a wide variety of contexts: in intimate relationships, workplace rituals, even to put someone down. Reporter Peggy Agar complained when Senator Barack Obama deferred his reply to one of her questions by saying "Hold on, sweetie," but it is not known why she found the phrase offensive. Did she think that he was being sexist, or acting overly acquanited with her? Was he being inappropriately sexually suggestive?
Barack apologised for referring to Agar as 'sweetie' some time after the interview, stating that it was a bad habit of his to call people endearments in many different situations. He offered her the opportunity to interview him again when he was next in the area.
This story was reported on CNN, and the overwhelming response was that it was not newsworthy... very few people considered the endearment offensive in the light of the way the story was reported (no claims of sexism or inappropriate advances were made from Agar). People who also called people that weren't necessarily near and dear to them endearments stood up for the senator, with one respondent claiming that Obama could call her 'sweetie' any day. I was surprised to see this billed as one of the top international stories of the day, the No. 2 headline on the right hand column. You can read the story here.
What do you think? Is it risky to call someone not close to you by an endearment, not knowing how they might react? Or does it promote goodwill and bring people together?
I think that it's best to avoid endearments until you can find out how a person is likely to react to them. A simple question like 'Do you mind if I call you dearie/honey/love?' may avoid any misunderstandings or resentment. Of course, motives are different for each individual, and some people may indeed be sexist or sexually inappropriate in their delivery, in which case the endearment needs to be taken up with them, or by the law. Discrimination against women in particular is never justified and should be done something about immediately.
Do you have a story about using endearments that you'd like to share?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
There Is No Longer A Ban On Same-Sex Marriage in California! (2 Down, 48 To Go...)
May 16th 2008 03:36
In a decision which has surprised many, the California Supreme Court, consisting of seven judges, six of which are Republicans, has given the green light to gay marriage across the state! Cali joins Massachussetts in being two of the fifty states to allow same-sex couples to legally wed.
According to the Supreme Court, sexual orientation joins race and gender as not constituting "a legitimate basis upon which to deny or withhold legal rights."
The Justices got out the word that "responsibly to care for and raise children does not depend upon the individual's sexual orientation."
"We therefore conclude that in view of the substance and significance of the fundamental constitutional right to form a family relationship, the California Constitution properly must be interpreted to guarantee this basic civil right to all Californians, whether gay or heterosexual, and to same-sex couples as well as to opposite-sex couples."
According to CNN's Ted Rowlands, "huge cheers" could be heard in San Francisco upon the relaying of this historic legal reform. The new law will be effective in 30 days.
According to Shannon Minter, the attourney of one of the couples that brought their lawsuits to the Supreme Court, "California sets the tone, and this will have a huge effect across the nation to bringing wider acceptance for gay and lesbian couples."
My source is CNN, and I have to question their inclusion of anti-gay, pro-Objectivity rhetoric in this article. Do they not claim to be a progressive news source? Of course there are going to be conservatives who protest this awe-inspiring change, but the best way to deal with them is by not paying them lip service - writing them off as irrelevant and hateful. Are they really newsworthy? Leave the coverage of the right-wing to Fox News and the corresponding section of the blogosphere. I strongly believe that if people don't have positive things to say, they shouldn't be part of public discourse. We need all the positivity we can get to counter the huge tides of negativity we are forced to encounter in out day-to-day lives. If CNN focused on the healing of the world from destruction, instead of the destruction of itself, news wouldn't be so depressing and people like me wouldn't be so put off by it.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Is Homoeroticism The New Black In Music Video Clips?
May 25th 2008 10:49
So I was watching MTV yesterday, looking out for brand new clips, and I came across two. Dannii Minogue and The Presets might not have a lot in common, apart from a strong affinity for beats and the pop genre, but they both seemed to have homoerotic themes.
I noticed Dannii Minogue's very colourful 'Touch Me Like That' as the title came on, and decided to have a look. It's pretty much your typical pop video from a female artist, with the female constantly sexualised, assuming all sorts of poses in various costumes, with heavy make-up and featuring back-up dancers with whom she sometimes interacts. However, the back-up dancers were all bikini-clad females who were moving their hands all over each other's bodies! At one point Dannii stands with them and they place their hands on her torso or breasts, thereby becoming part of the lesbian extravaganza.
It appears it's getting less unusual for a mainstream pop act to incorporate non-heterosexual antics into their video clips, and Dannii and her Public Relations team clearly expect big returns from this video.
Next up I saw the gay group The Presets attached to a new title, 'This Boy's In Love'. Here two very toned and good-looking men are shown attacking each other in slow motion in milk, or some milky substance. The lead singer's high tones ring out over the spectacle, announcing "this boy's in lo-o-o-o-ove." A possible interpretation is that the two men are fighting over the same person, but the slow motion and drops of milk clinging to their backs seems to emphasise the sexuality of their interaction. It reminded me a bit of the fight scenes in Brokeback Mountain (a movie I try not to remember).
The Presets had very dark themes and design in their previous single, 'My People' too, with the light in these being so weak as to just illuminate the musicians and other subject matter. I guess this shows that you don't have to be wrapped in neon and embracing of the electronic light to endorse gay themes...
It's all relatively homoerotic... So which artist will be next to perpetuate this theme, and to what extent do these clips represent homoeroticism in a positive light?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Neurotic Bisexuality For The Masses[...}
We have an interesting cocktail here - a spontaneous, alcohol-aided lesbian encounter featuring a girl who has a boyfriend, hopes he has no issues with her kissing someone else and seems to have no issues with how this might affect him. Katy's lyrics defend an unexpected but potent attraction to women, and allude to a wakening of sexual desire for the same sex. They represent a conflict - 'It felt so wrong / It felt so right' and 'It's not what good girls do / Not how they should behave / My head gets so confused' - between social expectations and her intuition ('Just human nature').
While this song is promoting the idea of lesbian attraction as something to embrace and take pleasure in, a message we don't get enough in the mainstream media, it also endorses a kind of paranoia that is all too common in people who aren't used to thinking outside the heterosexual box. It's probably popular BECAUSE of this accommodation towards people's fears over homosexuality (I think it's currently #1 in both America and Australia).
I found the video clip on YouTube, and I was surprised to see that lots of girls (and two boy) had posted up videos of themselves singing the song. A superficial browse revealed two Asian girls, five white ones and one black 'trying it on', so it appears this song has struck a chord with many a young, English-speaking Western audience... there's even a parody of the video here. You know you've made it when people go to the trouble of sending you up.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Thinking about the world one Monday morning
August 24th 2008 15:59
Lesbian marriage may be newly legal in global trend-setting US state California, but old-fashioned discourses permeated Ellen DeGeneres' attitudes to her now wife Portia de Rossi. Says the comedian and talk show hostess: "What can I say? I'm the luckiest girl in the world. She's officially off the market. No one else gets her. And now she'll cook and clean for me."
Ellen's 'luckiest girl' comment makes her post-nuptial gushing indistinguishable from that of any past Californian newlywed. It's a cliche that irks me - she's taking part in a practice which provides the perfect backdrop for innovative sentiment, original declarations of jubilation and unconventional explorations of the beauty of language, yet instead of being motivated to find new ways of expressing herself, she's resorting to an expression that will make a lot of people groan.
As for the latter half of the comment, it sounds as if Portia is being relegated to the traditional devalued female role of 'trophy wife', who assumes all the domestic chores without complaint. Ellen's possessiveness carries traces of machismo which is sad to see, not because she's a woman but because machismo is a product of patriarchal culture which erodes the liberties of both men and women where it is practiced.
So, girls who like girls, choose your role models carefully. Don't let celebrity couples set the standard - invent your own, and only pay attention to what others are doing when it inspires you.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~
I just saw the Beijing 2008 Closing Ceremony, and I was quite impressed with the elaborate, modern collectivist displays that China orchestrated. I was even more impressed by the performance from London, which gave me one postmodern sight to revel in after another. Even the logo, which reminds me of a crinkled up Union Jack, is postmodern. The slogan is reminiscent of letters, but does it spell out anything except perhaps the initials of a phrase of your imagination?
The uniformity of Chinese costumes and synchronicity of movements made the London contingent stand out all the more, with everybody wearing a unique outfit, assuming a unique position, and some even managing to sparkle in dark grey suits. I didn't realise how much I was missing a multi-cultural model of a group until the dancers showed up wearing all sorts of colours in their skin pigment! It felt vibrant, spontaneous and very mighty. A humourous touch was added with the introduction of umbrellas, which somehow transformed from the same dark grey to glowing spirals of blue, pink and yellow by the end of the performance. Then there was the red double decker bus, the top floor of which opened up like a flower to reveal a stage/podium, upon which the classical soul and RnB-inspired Leona Lewis would sing, accompanied by rocking guitar riffs from some no doubt famous gentleman whose name eluded me. Even David Beckham, famously metrosexual and famously a champion of football, was a silent presence (as was Jackie Chan during the Beijingers' performance) standing around lending his celebrity to the cause.
Between the excellent video campaign London provided for 2012, the logo and this teaser of things to come at Beijing, I am excited about the Olympics in England in a way I couldn't be about China. Don't get me wrong, I love China! It's people warm my heart a majority of the time... but the atmosphere about London is crackling in a distinctly postmodern way. It's nice to know that I'll have something to look forward to, four years from now!
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Are you ready to lead the next cultural revolution?
September 26th 2008 02:50
We need nothing short of multiple revolutions of thinking to replace the slow sort of change that comes with generations of old-fashioned thought, wherein absolutism and phobias such as racial prejudices, homophobia, xenophobia and many others are made much more obsolete than they happen to be right at this moment in my world.
In the 1960s people decided to radically re-evaluate their worlds and make a dramatic break with the past - why can't we do that now? This is the kind of revolutionary thinking that should always be in practice, not something that comes around every half-millenium or something.
I have no need, no time, no tolerance for empiricism. It is, it must be, it is increasingly, on its way out - can you help expedite this process? Can you partake in The Postmodern Revolutions?
Some important first steps to establish a firm commitment to perpetual reinvention of thought: Vote for, and elect, Barack Obama over John McCain. Legalise same-sex marriage everywhere. Make the world one huge borderless society (no visas, no length of stay restrictions, the ability to be hired anywhere and everywhere as long as you are suitable for the job). Create a series of innovative, revolutionary disciplines (a few examples might be Innovation Studies, Postmodern Studies or Change Studies) in universities, and then change the high school educational system too. Make creativity and analysis a central component of your personal life.
What do you think - how would you navigate the next cultural revolution?
I beg you to spread the word, so that the idea of a cultural revolution is floating around in other people's minds. If enough of us unlock our own commitment to revolutionary activity, a force significant enough to be dubbed 'the cultural revolution' will be unleashed... so start doing what you love with revolution in mind, and revolutionise with love in mind.
"Be the change you want to see in the world." - Anonymous
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
On Overturning Prop 8: Legalising same-sex marriage in California for good
November 8th 2008 01:19
As California goes, so goes the nation... and as America goes, so goes the world - even if they were not the first country to introduce civil unions (Denmark) or gay marriage (Netherlands). So what does the passing of Proposition 8 mean?
It means that the taste of equality that was felt for several months had time to register in the minds of many, and will be sorely missed. It is clear that with such a small margin of defeat, proactive non-homophobes will not lament their losses for much longer. Once a precedent like this has been set, it's only a matter of time before it is reintroduced as a permanent fixture. The unkind gestures brought to my attention by Prop 8 is soon to be a thing of the past, and it's important to realise that, if we keep positive and open-minded, there is no change we cannot introduce within our lifetime. Nobody wants to live in fear - whether it is of homosexuals or dying tomorrow. You can help erode the level of fear present in the people you know you affect (and the people you don't know you affect, too) by:
Being confident that same-sex marriage would be extravagantly rewarding for everybody, no matter their sexual orientation.
Alerting others to your confidence levels as often as possible - make it your business to promote love/equality, something that will make you feel better. This is so much more preferable to bitterness and ranting. Use an inviting tone of voice, a convivial manner, all of your inner charm - you want to attract people to your way of thinking, not drive them away from something. According to Dale Carnegie, you win over more bees with honey than anything else. While some people may respond to negative campaigning on your behalf, much, much more will respond, in a much more positive way to the positivity you can muster.
Verbal communication is one of the most effective ways of reaching people, but it is best combined with other texts, such as posters, flyers, Facebook messages and statuses, e-campaigning by writing a heartfelt message to everyone you have the email of, and others. After some brainstorming, I plan to put up A4 posters promoting the wonders of gender-neutral marriage rights all over my neighbourhood.
Don't let anyone convince you that you cannot change the world. The world is primed for change, and you have the leadership skills to steer it into new territory. Don't hesitate to step into all the positions of power available to you - the ones that you create.
South Africa's legalisation of SSM is a great start - let's not forget that we need to fight for this right everywhere else in the continent of Africa, and in every other developing country. Mobilise the people around you, as I am in Sydney - you know people from various continents, who know people everywhere that humans inhabit - and that is where we want love and equality to reach, so that when the penguins of Antarctica make contact with random humans, they will be of the diversity-loving variety, and better able to appreciate their shades of black and white (a phenomenon of coating, and no longer conceptually warmed to, as in 'black and white' thinking)
Some things to remember when promoting same-sex marriage:
Heterosexual marriage gains from homosexual marriage, too: Who would want to be part of a system that privileges some and excludes others on something as irrelevant as the gender of their beloved?
Marriage itself is made stronger as a result: Many young people do not take marriage very seriously, and while this is as valid a reading as any other, the idea of going through an official procedure to attain certain status for your association with another being is made much stronger to progressives if it is available to all people, no matter their gender or sexual orientation.
Opponents to same-sex marriage are on the losing side of history: Encourage your passive friends to think about 100 years from now, when SSM will be taken for granted by a lot of people. Evoke a world where every relationship is celebrated because of its unique stylings, and heteronormativity becomes a thing for the history books. Mobilise people into accepting progressive tendencies within themselves they had previously ignored, been blind to.
I believe that people are good, and that those that struggle are overwhelmed by negative voices in their heads, and just need more positivity and encouragement to counter the turbulence they foster within.
I know that if you and I work together, we can overturn Proposition 8 sooner than any of us dares to imagine possible - are you with me?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
We all want Obama to embody a different kind of change - so how do you want it?
February 18th 2009 14:04
The blogosphere, the web, newspapers and magazines, TV-casting and film-making - heck, all the arts, sciences and every other discipline - have been exploding with tributes to impassioned dreams, hopes and idealisms. These texts are circulating all around the globe, and it seems everyone has something to say on the matter of Obama riding high on his historic election to the White House - whether you are an indie singer-songwriter like Ani DiFranco (who wrote the following:
DEAR PRESIDENT OBAMA:
I have received so many breathless letters myself and now itÂs role reversal time. You have reawakened a disillusioned and passive electorate and begun healing racial wounds that have crippled us for centuries. I believe, like you do, that America today is not as intolerant and bitterly divided as we are encouraged to be by the mainstream media and the military industrial complex that dictates its messaging. It is my sincere hope that our national discourse will rise to your example and employ more humility and maturity in the political arena. I look forward to working with you. ¡Viva democracia!)
or a professor like bell hooks (who proffered the below musings on the role of education:
REMEMBER THE THREE RÂS.
Feminists understand that equality for women and girls will be sustained when government makes progressive education a national agenda. As we study and learn together we create community. Making literacy and democratic education available to everyone is the necessary foundation for responsible citizenship. Without education, diverse populations cannot communicate across boundaries.)
your imagination has been inspired...
Create enough changes and you might just be stepping into the territory of 'revolution'. Could we be happy with anything else?
Take a read of this text which I find much to scoff over - as a lover of postmodern discourse I am saddened that someone would attempt to leave it behind in favour of a new kind of totalising paradigm - and think about what kind of changes Obama symbolises for you...
By Rob Starr, the original text of whose can be found here(. The text was published on the 20th of January):
On behalf of the entire Integral community, IÂd like to extend sincere congratulations to President Obama on his historic election. Today we witness not only millennia of human progress symbolized in another peaceful transfer of political power
Epiphanie: I'm sorry, but are you forgetting the violent transitions (including Communist revolutions and Latin American coups) that have needed to happen to ensure democracy emerges triumphant?
but also the first black American to accept service in United States highest office. I believe it possible that today may be remembered throughout history as a turning point for the human race. Today may mark the birth of the Integral Age.
A leader today - whether in business, religion, politics or otherwise - has to lead at a time not only when the span in age of those she leads is the greatest itÂs ever been (due to longer life spans), but so too is the span in developmental stages the widest itÂs ever been (due to the ever-expanding edge of human evolution). At no time in history has the diversity of perspectives been greater,
I believe human life has been very diverse in every epoch, it's just that we have a growing awareness of difference with the presence of mass media in our lives, to tell us about what people are doing and thinking thousands of miles away.
or the need more urgent for leaders who can reach across all perspectives and unite us in a common vision of responsibility and service.
Unity is a flawed ideal, created by people who are afraid of difference.
The leading paradigm for handling this diversity, multiculturalism (and its insistence that all views are equal), has failed under the weight of its own absurdity. After all, if all views are equal than we cannot even accept our own views with any real seriousness,
The 'all views are equal' cliche of postmodernism is recreated so as to explore themes of friendship, love, and even respect for casual acquaintances, perfect strangers and sworn enemies. I take my view seriously and playfully enough to appreciate it in context with all my non-related sisters and brothers on the planet. I don't understand this statement.
and weÂre left to cope with our very own lives with either narcissism (ÂI am everythingÂ) or nihilism (ÂI am nothingÂ).
I think that to intermingle aspects of both ideologies would be a worthwhile endeavour, and create something completely new out of those binaries. Though I do like the quote Deleuze and Guattari provide us here...)
(TodayÂs teenagers are the canaries in this coal mine, essentially screaming for a way out of the existential crisis theyÂve been taught to espouse.) That 2008 provided such frequent and horrific examples of what goes wrong with both ends of this spectrum
Examples would be very handy here...
only underscores its symbolism as the year the Information Age ended (sort of loud and painfully, as these things often do...).
President Obama recognizes this unique moment in history and will call on all of us to join together in a unity that can be formed only in a cauldron of deep crisis and grand vision. Out of the ashes of a demoralized information age,
I am quite happy with my Information Age, actually - it brings me to such thought-provoking texts as this one, and even though I disagree, my passions are aroused and so am thankful for the opportunity to write in response.
broken as it has been by the limitations of a system too complex to bring to heel, arises the Integral Age, marked by a reconstructive paradigm that can integrate truth, values and action at all levels of diversity. A reconstructive paradigm can honor what has come before - tradition, responsibility, values, and long-cultivated social norms - while also manifesting a future vision not yet realized - progressive, compassionate, liberating and boundary-expanding.
I question that tradition, responsibility, "values" and "social norms" (what on earth is he referring to?) are helpful things, the way this guy is rendering them. This entire text is littered with generalisations which are infuriating for someone with academic training to respond to. At any rate, he seems to favour a fusing of 'old-world' values with 'new-world' spirit, and I cannot approve because the word 'liberating' is seen as the pinnacle of achievement in this narrative. You only need to read other texts to realise that liberation is something which is, by this stage, taken for granted in the light of Obama's agenda.
It is with great shock - and awe! - that the pundits in Washington are meeting the first Integral President. In President Obama they find a deep pragmatist who is concerned with the science of what works, the empiricism of results. They do not have a name for what heÂs doing other than to say he is Âpost-cultural, Âpost-racial, and Âpost-partisan. They donÂt know that the word they seek is ÂIntegral, that in the embodied integral human the rigid walls of singular dogma are transcended such that all ideologies can be embraced when appropriate. (After all, all ideologies are real, having something important to contribute to our understanding of reality.)
This ability to fluently operate among and within all ideological positions creates a trans-ideological leader, one who can handle immense diversity through neither imposition of a single ideology as we find in traditional modes of human action, nor a deconstructive act of making all ideologies equally meaningful (and thereby meaningless) (bold mine) as we find in postmodern modes of action,
Is it so bad to long for the day when no one worldview is championed as the most relevant, resonant, revolutionary of all? For that is what we are promoting - mundane revolutions, everytime we attribute great wisdom to what a mainstream celebrity has said. Anyway: My love is the most important modus opernadi in my world, but I will not try to discourage you from attempting to make yours more relevant than mine. I will simply argue as fairly as I know how that your values appear to be in a drastic need of overhaul. I recommend you tune in to the frenzied hopes of postmodernists around the world as they welcome the opportunity to celebrate the mutlitude of perspectives they find not just in the outside world, but in themselves. To give each one the right to shine, to be loved, to be critiqued and to be celebrated. For this is what it's about - celebration.
but rather a reconstructive act of calling on the entire range of ideological positions if, as and when appropriate to address the task at hand. That Obama is doing this is suspicious to the traditional conservatives, scary to the liberals, and just confusing to the intelligentsia. And that he can do so while also appealing directly to our loftier visions of ourselves, compelling us to hope, is just inspiring.
How can the same leader ask Reverend Warren to provide an inaugural invocation; seek an unprecedented Keynesian stimulus package; seek to further socialize health care; have a private dinner with leading conservative intellectuals; and consider how to rein in devastating and unrealistic long-term social security and Medicare liabilities? How, indeed.
I guess we've come to harbour pretty low expectations of our leaders. That Obama seems to be so high above the average standard is worth talking about.
Embodying an integral view of the world, by definition, means seeking to integrate, to fully include everyone under the umbrella while also transcending the narrowness and partiality of each.
We are all perfectly partial, beautifully biased, sublimely subjective... there is no one-size-fits-all dream rhetoric, my perception of the sky above will inevitably be different to that of anything else - it's time to celebrate how powerful our radical individuality is!
(This, incidentally, is why every group that looks at Obama claims him as Âone of them. This is the ultimate litmus test of an integral leader.)
I think that Obama's appeal lies in his very understanding of the kind of ideology that thrives in postmodernity - a firm, familiar verbal and physical tread into previously unchartered waters. I am still struck by how he is able to appeal to both myself (a hardcore postmodernist) and modernists who adore their universalising metanarratives. Whatever I may say about him, Obama is really incredibly smart! His is a classic-meets-postmodern fragmented-yet-coherent kind of savvy which is as porous as it is slick and smooth. It's a machine which is oiled well enough to generate consistent results throughout a long time period. I'm sure that his Presidency will work out very well for him.
A great leader is one whose sense of self is not threatened by a vigorous war of ideas, and an integral leader is one who wages the war from a worldview of love and abundance.
While there is a minefield of massive structural problems that we collectively face, this is also ObamaÂs real opportunity: great trauma yields great open-mindedness to meaningful change. I believe that since the election Obama has been an Integral leader, and if he can continue to navigate the landscape of open-mindedness that exists while integrating all the perspectives that are already there waiting for him, than he can lead us through the birth of the Integral Age and may significantly evolve the dominant mode of political discourse and action.
Obama's gracefulness, confidence and verbal agenda will hopefully appeal to those that succeed him, and here's hoping that he is just the start of a very impressive line-up!
Through events such as Integral Spiritual Experience, State of the World Forum, Catalyzing Conscious Capitalism, and many others, I know that all of us in the Integral Life community will be doing our part to help him and his administration more deeply embody an integral path forward.
What kind of changes would I like to see Obama make? First of all, introducing same-sex marriage in all 50 states, and pressuring foreign governments to also legalise it as well. Margaret Cho is with me on this one. Second of all, pouring more money into education, with a particular emphasis on the arts. I would like to see Obama live up to his claim that he is a feminist by pro-actively advancing womens' rights, affirm the positivity that already exists in America regarding mutually beneficial interaction between different racial groups by advancing coloured people's rights (he will also be advancing the rights of whites, although I know it doesn't seem as important at this stage), and further advancing the rights of the gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgender and 'queer' community. After that, we can focus on disabled rights and the rights of many other minorities.
I am also hoping for a lot more pressure on non-Democratic countries. I would like to see the entire West wage war on any country which is not 'truly' democratic (especially those who use the name Democracy despite being totalitarian to the core).
China's brand of totalitarianism is a real threat to democracies everywhere and the peaceful dominance that America enjoys over the world, so I suggest Obama thinks very carefully about how to deal with them. For some reason, I think a war might actually be a good idea here. (I know this will be very unpopular )
Finally, I'd like to see the President promote self-help as something that should be part of everyday life. Self-empowerment is so important to being a well-rounded individual, and it is often neglected, even by people in positions of great power.
I'd like to see personalities like Simon Cowell who are voted into a spot on national television because they have the ability to make witty insults off the top of their heads be put in their place - have it be promoted the idea that they are degrading themselves and others by being exhibitionistic about their abominably low self-esteem.
It's your turn now - what kind of changes would you like to see in the States (and hence the world)? Or do you fancy yourself a revolution?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
'Atheists' vs. 'Non-Believers'
March 16th 2009 15:48
When President Obama paid tribute to "non-believers" in the context of religion in his Inaugural speech, he made me cringe and hope that this condescending word would not catch on, let alone replace the much more palatable 'atheist'. Most vulnerable to reproducing this article are people of faith who look up to Obama, as the term appeals to their disillusionment with the non-religious. Their adamant investment 'Belief' leads them to look upon those who reject it altogether in disfavour and some misgiving. In the US world where the religious majority won't hear of an atheist president, such verbal maneuvering is bound to pick up some stature, what with Obama's slightly pompous delivery. He 'sells it,' as they say - but don't be buying, folks.
Atheist is a much more neutral and dignified term for those who don't believe in religion, being that it makes reference to an opposition, or turning away from theology, as opposed to privileging some pre-conceived, stultified notion of Belief (that is nefariously shared by every religion out there, no less).
Here is what Douglas Todd had to say when faced with the semantic value of 'non-believer':
Even though I like what Obama did in his speech, I must say I don't really like the term, "non-believer."
The term suggests there is just one thing to believe in -- and someone has chosen not to.
"Non-believer" is supposed to mean the person doesn't believe in God. But the term assumes only one understanding of God. Someone could argue it even assumes the existence of a God, which the "non-believer" is falsely denying. But I don't think that's what Obama was doing.
I find it unhelpful to act as if "belief" and "non-belief" is a choice between just two options. The definitions of the word, "God" -- as well as "spirit," the "divine," "the sacred" and similar terms -- are vast and diverse. There are dozens of options when it comes to "belief" and "non-belief."
What's a better alternative to the term, "non-believer?" I'm not sure. But "atheist" isn't too bad. And that's how most atheists (which I'm not, although I reject certain definitions of God) tend to describe themselves.
"Secular humanist" also has its place. But I don't think the word, "humanist" should be reserved for atheists. Christians like Vancouver's John Stackhouse, and other religious people, also like to also think they're "humanists," as in "humanitarian."
Further, Knute Bergen described the term as 'clunky and negative,' echoing many a contemporary who offered terms such as 'patronising,' 'biased towards religion' and 'a backwards step'.
So please, if you hear or read of the word being used in the media, make sure you raise your voice in gentle but film protest (a letter to the editor, a comment left on an online article, you name it - there's always a way to present your feedback to the audience of the particular text)!
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Well, that's it for now, thanks for reading!
| 30 |
| Vote |
subscribe to this blog