Editorial

The best thing to come out of Brexit and the Trump victory [and some music]

untitled-1

Stupid, stupid, people. A denial of democracy isn’t authoritarianism. It’s complacency. The democratic slogan for every election should be “if you don’t use it, you lose it.”

I posted the above on social media the day after the outcome of the American election was publicized, and since then I feel increasingly like I need to clarify this post. The conversations that post sparked made it seem as if people think that I was arguing that low voter turnout was the only issue that decided the outcome of the Trump/Clinton race.

Fact is, many people reacted this way tells us something about how people are thinking. It seems like everyone wants this whole election outcome to be pinned down by one explanation. It was the media; it was Russian intervention; it was middle class discontentment; lies; corruption; a grand conspiracy.

cg5459a2b718634

Voter participation is an issue, and it was certainly a factor. But it is far from the only factor. Democratic engagement with politics and vote value have been a hobby horse of mine for years since being exposed to the alternative first hand. But, it is not the only reason Trump won. Just to make my position clear, like with everything else, this outcome was the result of a combination of factors. Media landscape and engagement, social media, political marketing, charisma, the left-right divide, the economic and geo-political circumstances, reactionary populism (from both sides), the rise of individualist identity politics, culture, class, authoritarian militarism (both sides of politics), neoliberalism and many other real and complicated elements converged to deliver this result.

All of these factors have to be considered in thinking about the outcome. I get bummed out when people chose not to vote, but voting doesn’t solve any problems alone – it’s just a useful mechanic for societal transformation. Also, to me, the most valuable function of voting participation is that it gauges the level of interaction between the public and the political sphere. And it always makes me sad to see when that gap when it grows wider.

Aside from all the endemic issues Trump and Brexit illuminated, the big thing these phenomenal events proved was the power of the vote. That, despite any efforts from the establishment and regardless of how entrenched the people in power may appear, at least in England and America (I think in Australia and many other democratic nations as well) people’s participation in voting, or lack there of, has a massive impact on the political process.

For everyone who might despair at the results of these processes, this is an important silver lining. My annoyance at abstention is based on my deep commitment to the democratic process. Imperfect as it might be, it’s much better than dictatorship. This may be cliché: but I love the freedom that it offers. The important thing to remember is that democracy requires work and participation.

And that is the bitter pill. Keeping politicians honest is actually the job of the public in the democratic system. Again, we return to the notion of political participation. In the wake of this election, allegations came out about mass corruption within the American political system. The involvement of big money and corporate influence were pointed to as massive rots in the system – the reason to shake things up and bring around change. People were keen to be involved in this process of exposure and a million sources suddenly came to light.

Though a great deal of the information that was published was either blatantly false or politically framed in bias, much of it was true. Trump was seen to be delivering the public ‘The Truth’ about the system. Except, NONE of this is new. Hillary is following a trajectory of American politics that has been ‘exposed’ many times in the past. People have been campaigning about corporate involvement, the unfair projection of military power and the delivery of promises the 60s and before. These people have even pushed into the mainstream. Michael Moore, Noam Chomsky, Joel Bakan, Naomi Klein, Adam Curtis, John Pilger and others made public appeals in the media and in press in open and accessible ways. The press ran endless stories and exposed corruption and corporate influence regularly. Academics in the field published books and articles and campaigned to draw public attention. In the 90s, top charted bands spoke about issues that resonate with contemporary realities – geo-politics, corruption, racism, sexism, freedom and democracy. And they did it with emotion and directness that makes the ‘edgy’ /pol kids of today seem tame in comparison.

While the music got play, when it came to the message, very few people listened. Perhaps what’s different in this election is that people have been pointed to it for the first time by dire economic circumstances – now that life is hard the folks are looking for someone to blame.

As a long time liberal humanist and democrat the current circumstances call for mixed feelings. To be honest, under ordinary circumstances, I’d be overjoyed at [anti establishment, Hillary] allegations gaining traction in the public realm. Right now, I’m more than a bit worried. This information is being offered for a reason. Those mentioned above worked to expose these issues because they held aspirations of fixing the system. They were speaking to the public with faith in the idea that political power could be taken back by the public. When this information is broadcast now, by the Trump campaign there is a different purpose – the attainment of political power. The aim was to shift the blame. The story is that politicians are bad. It resonates and appeals to previously held popular ideas. But this corrupt and ‘broken’ system has been widely supported by a previously disinterested public. When the public was given news about all of this before Trump, nobody listened. When 9/11 happened that same people calling foul about the war now were first to condemn investigations of this type as unpatriotic. When the global financial system collapsed in 2008, public pressure for prosecution quickly evaporated.

Most people wanted news that was either fluffy or talked about their immediate fears. There are hundreds of books and articles by academics and news reporters on all of these issues, articles that only 1% of the population has ever picked up. This complacency is in large part to blame. The process that lead the US political system to this state took many steps, and the public never held the establishment to account long enough to change the trajectories of power.

We do need change – but we also need to be careful about our information and act with public good and democracy in mind. I just hope people remember this and work for greater transparency and democratic accountability after this farcical election. Now, that the power of the vote and its capacity to bring about revolutions are clearly demonstrated, and the ills of the old system are still in the public mind, is a big chance for us to get involved. To imagine how we want to make things better and engage. To remember what we learned and not to turn away in disappointment or satisfaction, or worse yet, turn on each other.

The work of democracy is never done. People really do have the power, we just need to have the will. The best thing about the surprise election results of this year is that we KNOW it can be done.

How about some music?

Here’s a niche artist, MACKLEMORE. You might not have heard this song, cos it’s a little political. But then, have you actually looked into the politics of his music?

Classic folk lyrists, Ani DeFranco, delivers a poem that ranges from political to immediate.

Let’s take a trip back in time. You’ve heard this song a million times as a movies soundtrack… but have you actually paused to listen to the lyrics?

A little bit of soul from Middle America. Country is all about breakups, pickups and whiskey, right?

2Pac is famous…

What was 2Pac talking about? Everyone gets the same service… No, they don’t. Sometimes 911 is a joke.  Sad thing is, not much has changed since the 90s.

I’d love to hear your picks. I need me a good political playlist.

Parkour and the link Between Competition and Depression

Dear parkour friends,

I tend to favor novelty, so I’m not a huge fan of turning everything into sport. And my concerns and findings were often expressed in my comics. But as I dig deeper, I am finding some disturbing links between competition and depression that parkour practitioners might be interested in.

parkourpanels78

But first, let me introduce myself. I’m doing some research on the book that is to come out of my PhD. I’ve recently completed a study about parkour and the people who practice it with samples from Australia, America, Canada, England, France, Denmark, Russia and Ukraine (with some brief visits and glimpses into other places). One of the things I wrote and drew about – I’m the guy who is behind the Parkour Panels – is how parkour can be practiced by those who are strictly against competition, as well as those who think that competition is good and, even, inevitable. Many of you will have met me. For those who haven’t: Hi!

bonuspanels1
Panel from all the way back 2011….

Now that my PhD is in the bag I’m looking to expand on some of those ideas. While reading has been great, I’m currently going through a book which is central to this topic. It’s called The Happiness Industry, and written by Dr. William Davies, an American sociologist. This book summarizes much of the more academic research I found on the topic of adding competition to all kinds of activities: from parkour to running entire nations. As I took notes I realized that the content is really important for those in parkour communities – particular in America, Canada, Australia and the UK where the sportification of parkour is well under way. I thought I’d share some of my notes with you…

Having done a great deal of research on the subject, here is what Dr. Davies has to say.

” … It transpires that competition and competitive culture, including that of sport, is ultimately related to a disorder that was scantly discussed in 1977 but which has become a major policy concern by the end of the century. As the 1970s drew to a close, Western capitalist countries stood on the cusp of a whole new era of psychological management. The disorder at the heart was depression. ”

Davies points out that the competitive societies inherently rate greater levels of social inequality. Where competition is limited in the social sphere (like Scandinavia) rates of depression are much lower. In America and the UK, where competition is promoted as a social virtue, rates of depression are epidemic.

“Yet there is more to this than just a statistical correlation. Behind the numbers, there is troubling evidence that depression can be triggered by the competitive ethos itself, afflicting not only the ‘losers’ but also the ‘winners’… That competition makes many people ‘seem inferior’, has been proved far more valid than even left-wing 1970s school teachers could have imagined; it also tells them that they are inferior.”

What follows are a number of case studies that have surfaced over the last few years that show that elite athletes are highly prone to mental illness, particularly depression. I won’t type out this long section, instead I’ll just give you these links – directly related to his examples.

“A study conducted by Georgetown University found that college footballers are twice as likely to experience depression as non-footballers. Another study discovered that professional female athletes display similar personality traits as those with eating disorders, both linked to obsessive perfectionism. And a series of experiments and surveys conducted by the American psychologist Tim Kasser has revealed that ‘aspirational’ values, oriented around money, status and power, are linked to higher risk of depression and lower sense of ‘self-actualization’. Whenever we measure our self-worth relative to others, as all competitions force us to, we risk losing our sense of self-worth all together. One of the sad ironies here is that the effect of this dissuade people, including schoolchildren, from engaging in physical exercise all together” (studies cited).

parkourpanels99

“Perhaps it is no surprise, then, that society such as America’s, which privileges a competitive individual mindset at every moment in life, has been thoroughly permeated by depressive disorders and demand for anti-depressives. Today, a third of adults in the United States and close to half in the UK believe that they occasionally suffer from depression…”

In the process of working on my PhD I found many people who unquestioningly pushed towards competition in practice. I’ve also heard a lot of slander for those who chose to practice on their own terms – that they weren’t serious or that their scene was not as evolved.

I hope that this can broach the divide a little. Give us all cause to pause and consider: If parkour is practiced for self-improvement, what role do competitions play in this process. And, if competitions are about business, how far are we willing to go in marketing our practice… particularly if it hurts the students we are trying to inspire and makes it inaccessible to others.

For more about the connection between depression and competition, click on the links in this sentence.

love!

– Pava

A Reply to Lauren Southern’s “Why I’m Not a Feminist”

If you have an opinion on feminism, you need to know this.

Wonderful and rare space where an academic meets popular misconception.

Everyday Geopolitics Houston

Dear Lauren,

In the last couple days, I have seen your video “Why I’m Not a Feminist” pop up a few times. In the video, you describe why you are not a feminist. At the heart of your message is the assertion, “I am not a feminist because I believe both genders should be treated equally.” Setting aside for a moment the problems with your assumption that gender can be reduced to a binary of male/female (here’s a decent introduction to that if you want), I want to talk about the misinformation you offer in your video: misinformation about feminist activism and scholarship, and misinformation about domestic violence and rape. I don’t often find engaging in these types debates online to be the most fruitful use of my energies, since people that produce anti-feminist content generally are not very open to meaningful engagement with feminist thought, however I’ve been stewing over your…

View original post 4,409 more words

Hybridity, Anthropology, Comics and Pop-Culture

I’m presenting a lecture for students of anthropology of popular culture. These are the lecture ‘slides’. This one is a bit of a comics lecture – you need both audio and video to understand what’s going on.

Maybe I’ll make a video once the audio is recorded.

🙂

001.jpg

 

002.jpg003.jpg

 

Arguing online and cognative closure

Why do you waste your time and energy arguing with people on social media? You’re not learning anything from that echo chamber!

Internet_argument.jpg

If you’ve been subjected this argument/accusation because of your tendency to engage online here is some good news. A quantitative study published in the Journal of Social Media Studies suggests that the opposite is true. Those who engage in discussion are exposed to a broader spectrum of views than those who simply read a preferred source of traditional media. Those who engage in two sided conversation are also more likely to change their minds on an existing issue.

The key is engagement. If the social media user is broadcasting opinion or ideas from a news source (like many organized trolls – I’m looking at you, 4chan) with no interest in deeper understanding, or simply insulting or deflecting opposition, they’re not really learning much.

Internet+arguments+this+is+pretty+much+how+it+happens+also_43504c_4412698.jpg

But if you question, listen and argue (even with somebody who doesn’t change their mind) YOU are likely to be looking to broaden your horizons. While those who think it’s a waste of time might just not be keen to challenge their own worldview.
Notably, information-seeking motivations was a positive predictor of cross-cutting discussion, but a negative predictor of cross-cutting exposure. This finding indicates that those who utilize SNS for political information are actually less exposed to diverse views. The most plausible psychological mechanism to explain this counter-intuitive finding may be selective exposure; it might be that those who closely follow political news via SNS tend to seek consonant information by friending or following like- minded people or news sources they prefer. This suggests the possibility of SNS functions as homogeneous “echo chambers” where diverse views are hard to find as a result of political fragmentation. However, even for these consonant information-seekers, engaging in cross-cutting political discussion has a strong deliberation effect such that they are significantly more likely to change their original views and get more involved in the issue of discussion than those who are not engaged in cross-cutting discussion.

Cause and effect would be difficult to establish. Does arguing on the internet make you more inquisitive? Or are the arguments symptom of your inquisitive tendencies? Don’t know. The the answer is likely to be, as always, a little bit of both.

tumblr_mme54mwfdq1r8rauqo1_500

Why we all lost and Julien Blanc Won…

Blogillust1

Recently, a pickup artist visited Australia. He wanted to run a workshop on ‘the art of seduction’ and he promoted his techniques among those who wanted to learn them. Somebody looked into the ideas he was promoting and was appalled. They wrote an article and told their friends and social media went into frenzy. The reaction was justified. His ideas were appalling. He had figured out that women in certain societies were uncomfortable saying ‘no’ to a man. His method was to treat the absence of a ‘no’ as a ‘yes’. He would push, pressure and convince vulnerable women into compliance. His outraged critics pointed out that this amounted to a form of coercion, something akin to rape. He was enforcing rape culture. People organized. His name was pasted all over social media and the news. A protest was called for and venues were pressured and, eventually, buckled. He came, but had no-where to speak. There was a social media cheer. He was a vile human being who spouted terrible ideas. We won! As a feminist there was a part of me that was satisfied with this outcome. But it troubled me. The more I thought about it, the more troubled I became. I think in the long run, this wasn’t a win. We all lost.

This event got me thinking about the way we deal with censorship. Once upon a time, not so long ago, we used to have a powerful sense of morality. We told people what to do and how to be. We ‘knew’ what made a good society, a good woman, a good man or a good child: the moral things. We censored things that challenged those ideas: the immoral things. Certain behaviours and materials that encouraged those behaviours were deemed dangerous – as if by challenging our existing moral ideals, society would fall apart.

How silly we were. Looking back, all of that seems quaint. The popularization of psychology and the dismantling of the traditional colonial structure showed us that what we thought of as essentially moral was only a construction. One of many, and not any more right than any other. So, we don’t do that (as much) any more. But that doesn’t mean that we’ve stopped censoring. Now, we have a different approach.

Today we live in a world of competing ideas. We are more networked and connected than ever before. Go online and you’ll find a million ideas, a million identities and a million ways that you can behave. The logic goes: as long as we don’t hurt people, it’s all fair go. But some ideas aren’t as good as others. And some of those ideas scare us with their utter badness; racist rants, vilifying stereotypes, misguided, ignorant or malicious calls to violence towards people, property and the state. That is the target of our new censorship. Having learned that telling people what to do is not effective, we are increasingly afraid that people will be exposed to the wrong idea and it will stick. This brings us back to that pickup artist.

The pickup artist found a glitch in the system. There’s a series of expectations about men, about women and they way the two interact. It is based on a history and it is based on culture and it is based on ideas we see in film, music and other media. The man is meant to be ‘hard’ and assertive. The woman is mean to be ‘soft’ and submissive. Historically, the man is also meant to be respectful and protective and the woman is meant to be… aside from pretty, not very much at all. These are Victorian society ideas. They’re out-dated, sexist and generally wrong, but they still operate today. The pickup artist figured out that if you drop the protective and respectful bit and enact the ‘hard’ and assertive bit, women would not speak up. Women send hints, and they will resist but only within the out-dated framework. Women are often still uncomfortable saying “no”. Women are enacting the old ideal and they expect the man to do the same. Press them enough and, eventually, they will comply. That is the logic of his ‘game’.

He has pointed out a serious social issue. But instead of focusing on that, we focused on him. He is exploitative, opportunistic, misogynistic and generally repugnant – it is easy to hate him. But he isn’t the problem. Our attitudes and ideals of men and women are. As social media posts and the calls to ban him mounted, I realized that hardly anyone was looking at the issue he had pointed out. We saw him as a glitch and an opportunist, someone taking advantage of women and the rules of society. But is he the only one to figure out these rules? Does kicking him out or shutting him up deal with the problem?

By focusing on him we have done two things. 1. We glossed over the obvious social problem behind it all, allowing maladaptive norms to roll on unscathed, as he took the brunt of our outrage. 2. We have given credibility to his outrageous ideas by not engaging with their underlying principles. We chose to talk about him, not his ideas, in the process we learned nothing. We got together as a community and we censored him and his ideas. We could have taken them apart. A public discussion could have served as a lesson, to be aware of this kind of exploitation of societal loopholes. In becoming aware of his trick, we would have ruined his ‘game’ and his business. In the process, we all would have learned something about ourselves and about the societal rules that we follow. He would have lost and we would have won.

He had to cancel his workshop and he lost money. But the amount of publicity that he received is worth millions. The men who worshipped him have not been exposed to a counter-argument. By censoring him we have added to his ‘mystique’: “look at the outrage he caused, there must be a secret he knows that society doesn’t want us to know!” I’m sure that his career is far from over. His method works because we never took the time to address all that it implies. In censoring him, we failed to engage his ideas. We empowered them and we missed a chance to empower ourselves. In the end, we all lost. In the future, I hope we do better.