Carl Jung, a psychiatrist of the early twentieth century, proposed the idea of a "collective unconscious" that is commonly shared by all humans. This idea has moderate and radical implications, ranging from the development of morals on a seemingly "instinctual" basis to large numbers of people subconsciously predicting a disaster. The conflict here is over accepting Jung's hypothesis of the collective unconscious.
As a student who particularly likes science class, I am quick to dismiss "supernatural" phenomena such as premonition. However, there is a possibility that people could unconsciously share a thought process and a set of morals, and evidence exists suggesting humans might have some ability to predict disaster. This article from the International Association for Analytical Psychology argues an excellent point that I strongly agree with: Jung's broader idea of archetypes was correct, but his mechanism was probably wrong. Instead of some form of collective unconscious force uniting people to pursue moral causes, it has been determined that human genetics are very similar in expression of morality and intellectual potential. Natural selection is not the supernatural force that Jung's work sometimes suggests, but it does connect humans on a basic level. Now you may not have believed me when I said there is evidence for human premonition, but random number generators have been reported to follow certain trends just before major disasters, such as September 11. A physics forum discussion analyzes the reliability and significance of this data. Paging through the many comments and suggested readings from this forum, I've decided to agree with the writers of this article, who feel that the trends in the random number generator are little more than coincidence. As Jung's suggestion of collective unconscious is unnecessary to describe the trends discussed in this paragraph, I find myself unable to subscribe to his theory.
I don't believe that a collective unconscious is shared between all people. One of the primary reasons for this is that establishing human connection is difficult. Even when it is facilitated by the internet, meaningful interaction that spans cultures, races, economic class, and national backgrounds is extraordinarily challenging to maintain. Basic ideals may be similar, but specific grievances are so individualistic and varied that they can be challenging to classify in a system of collective unconscious. I feel that accepting a list of archetypes as the foundation for human thought and morality severely restricts individualism and originality.
Friday, December 14, 2012
Wednesday, December 5, 2012
South African struggle
Many nations find themselves in conflict with a variety of dangerous processes that have the potential of "trapping" the nation in poverty, should they take hold. Maintaining an effective government, internal peace, sovereignty, and a path to the world market are not always simple tasks for a country to carry out, even though our nation often takes such things for granted.
Focusing specifically on the nation I was assigned, South Africa, we see that this nation defies the trend of most Africans and mostly avoids the four "traps" laid out by Paul Collier in his book, The Bottom Billion. These traps are: 1. Conflict (mostly internal) 2. Natural Resources (especially "Dutch Disease") 3. Landlocked with bad neighbors and 4. Bad governance. In the eighteen years since Apartheid was lifted, South Africa has luckily avoided falling into any of these traps, but has flirted with all of them
I'll get the least threatening trap out of the way first: landlocked with bad neighbors. The majority of South Africa's border is coastline, so the landlocked part is far from true. However, bad neighbors, especially Zimbabwe, put pressure on the South African government by forcing refugees into the country. However, it is a bit of a stretch to imagine that an influx of refugees could severely damage and "trap" South Africa, so I'll go ahead and label this a nonexistent/very low risk. This trap is effectively driven off by a strong economy and any kind of attention to the situation on the part of the South African government.
The bad governance trap is a significantly more legitimate threat, but still is not an immediate concern. The African National Congress (ANC) has been reelected into power every election since the new government was created in 1994. While the political situation is significantly better than it was under the system of Apartheid, South Africa is slowly falling into the problems created by a complacent government. No political party has been able to genuinely challenge the vast support commanded by the ANC, which lifts some responsibility off of the current government's shoulders. Left unchecked, the government may slide further into a state of inefficiency and allow the deterioration South Africa's infrastructure. If this were to occur, South Africa would be at risk of being trapped by an infrastructure that does not allow for a sufficient number of people to contribute to the economy in a meaningful way, dragging the nation into poverty. However, this trap is easily combated with an effective opposition party, which is beginning to form around Helen Zille's Democratic Alliance (DA). As the DA garners more and more popularity, the ANC will be forced to improve or will be voted out of power, and either of these possibilities sidesteps the tiny pitfall that is the bad governance trap.
South Africa was fortunate to avoid the conflict trap in 1994, but is now at slight risk. While internal conflict became prevalent in South Africa surrounding the end of the white regime, it was not sustained or repeated. However, as made apparent by this 2010 BBC News report, racial tensions never completely dissolved in South Africa. Especially noteworthy in the article linked above is the statistic, "South Africa is also among the most violent societies outside warzones with 18,000 murders a year". If this violence became organized around a radical group, the South African government would have a legitimate problem. As Collier effectively argued, internal conflict is devastating to economies. Prolonged civil wars in African nations have often been driven by racial or tribal differences, and if South Africa were to join the ranks of these countries, it could easily become ensnared and quickly see the degradation of its economy and infrastructure.
Perhaps posing an equal risk as the conflict trap, the natural resource trap is threatening South Africa in a way slightly skewed from how Collier defined it. South Africa boasts a powerful and influential mining industry that many European countries are heavily invested in. While South Africa is not being clearly exploited by these foreign companies, the violent miner strike in mid-2012 shows that the South African workers may have been abused by the economic structure. On a similar note, many South Africans do not see the profits raked in by the massive levels of foreign investment, and much of the nation still lives in poverty. This reality is made clearer by South Africa's low average life expectancy (about 60 years).
While the risk of falling into either of the conflict or natural resource trap is somewhat low, it is a possibility that must be addressed by the South African government. By improving infrastructure and education, the racial violence and economic inequality can be stemmed before the traps are sprung.
Focusing specifically on the nation I was assigned, South Africa, we see that this nation defies the trend of most Africans and mostly avoids the four "traps" laid out by Paul Collier in his book, The Bottom Billion. These traps are: 1. Conflict (mostly internal) 2. Natural Resources (especially "Dutch Disease") 3. Landlocked with bad neighbors and 4. Bad governance. In the eighteen years since Apartheid was lifted, South Africa has luckily avoided falling into any of these traps, but has flirted with all of them
I'll get the least threatening trap out of the way first: landlocked with bad neighbors. The majority of South Africa's border is coastline, so the landlocked part is far from true. However, bad neighbors, especially Zimbabwe, put pressure on the South African government by forcing refugees into the country. However, it is a bit of a stretch to imagine that an influx of refugees could severely damage and "trap" South Africa, so I'll go ahead and label this a nonexistent/very low risk. This trap is effectively driven off by a strong economy and any kind of attention to the situation on the part of the South African government.
The bad governance trap is a significantly more legitimate threat, but still is not an immediate concern. The African National Congress (ANC) has been reelected into power every election since the new government was created in 1994. While the political situation is significantly better than it was under the system of Apartheid, South Africa is slowly falling into the problems created by a complacent government. No political party has been able to genuinely challenge the vast support commanded by the ANC, which lifts some responsibility off of the current government's shoulders. Left unchecked, the government may slide further into a state of inefficiency and allow the deterioration South Africa's infrastructure. If this were to occur, South Africa would be at risk of being trapped by an infrastructure that does not allow for a sufficient number of people to contribute to the economy in a meaningful way, dragging the nation into poverty. However, this trap is easily combated with an effective opposition party, which is beginning to form around Helen Zille's Democratic Alliance (DA). As the DA garners more and more popularity, the ANC will be forced to improve or will be voted out of power, and either of these possibilities sidesteps the tiny pitfall that is the bad governance trap.
South Africa was fortunate to avoid the conflict trap in 1994, but is now at slight risk. While internal conflict became prevalent in South Africa surrounding the end of the white regime, it was not sustained or repeated. However, as made apparent by this 2010 BBC News report, racial tensions never completely dissolved in South Africa. Especially noteworthy in the article linked above is the statistic, "South Africa is also among the most violent societies outside warzones with 18,000 murders a year". If this violence became organized around a radical group, the South African government would have a legitimate problem. As Collier effectively argued, internal conflict is devastating to economies. Prolonged civil wars in African nations have often been driven by racial or tribal differences, and if South Africa were to join the ranks of these countries, it could easily become ensnared and quickly see the degradation of its economy and infrastructure.
Perhaps posing an equal risk as the conflict trap, the natural resource trap is threatening South Africa in a way slightly skewed from how Collier defined it. South Africa boasts a powerful and influential mining industry that many European countries are heavily invested in. While South Africa is not being clearly exploited by these foreign companies, the violent miner strike in mid-2012 shows that the South African workers may have been abused by the economic structure. On a similar note, many South Africans do not see the profits raked in by the massive levels of foreign investment, and much of the nation still lives in poverty. This reality is made clearer by South Africa's low average life expectancy (about 60 years).
While the risk of falling into either of the conflict or natural resource trap is somewhat low, it is a possibility that must be addressed by the South African government. By improving infrastructure and education, the racial violence and economic inequality can be stemmed before the traps are sprung.
Thursday, November 15, 2012
The Israeli-Palestinian Conflict
Israel has been at the center of American media the last few days, as it has been retaliating to attacks from Hamas in the Gaza Strip. Earlier this week, Hamas fired a barrage of about 200 rockets into Israel, prompting the Israel Defense Force (IDF) to launch air strikes into the Gaza Strip. A top-ranking Palestinian military leader was killed in one attack, pushing the Egyptian government to withdraw its ambassador from Israel. The rising tensions surrounding this conflict beg the question, "who's the aggressor?" Is it right for Israel to respond to the rocket strikes with air power, even if civilians are killed in the attacks? Although this may be the influence of the Western, generally pro-Israeli media, it seems to me that the Israeli counter attack is justified. The Palestinians launched a large number of missiles into their nation- if any country attacked the United States in this manner, war would be declared immediately. While the collateral damage is regrettable, Hamas intentionally places its rocket launchers nearby residencies, hospitals, and schools, which takes some of the blame off of the Israelis. The blood of the Palestinian civilians is on the hands of Hamas, not the IDF.
Fears of a full scale ground war have begun stirring, and the last hopes for the "two state solution" (creating a sovereign Palestinian state) to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict are fading. This conflict, which has been raging since the creation of Israel, is ideological in nature. Therefore, diplomatic solutions are unlikely to begin with. Add the recent exchange of rockets and bombs, and war seems inevitable. But what would be the consequences of such a conflict? The world has seen the efficiency and power of the IDF before, and given the continued support of the United States, it will be as strong as ever. However, an invasion of the Gaza Strip would ignite tensions in the Middle East, isolating Israel and, by association, the United States. This would be a disaster for the future of American foreign policy. Now is the time to be building alliances with post-revolutionary governments, but instead the United States is at odds with new governments like that of Egypt because of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. If war breaks out, those relationships will sour entirely. War benefits no nation in this scenario: Israel would easily win but would face fresh hostility from an enraged and already unstable Middle East (with a possibly soon-to-be nuclear Iran), Hamas would be seriously weakened if not destroyed by the conflict, and the United States would suffer massive diplomatic losses. This is an example of a conflict without a possibility for a positive outcome, and thus it must be avoided at all costs. This will likely require serious effort and cooperation by Israel and Hamas, with the United States, Egypt, and the United Nations working between the two governments to try and achieve a ceasefire.
Fears of a full scale ground war have begun stirring, and the last hopes for the "two state solution" (creating a sovereign Palestinian state) to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict are fading. This conflict, which has been raging since the creation of Israel, is ideological in nature. Therefore, diplomatic solutions are unlikely to begin with. Add the recent exchange of rockets and bombs, and war seems inevitable. But what would be the consequences of such a conflict? The world has seen the efficiency and power of the IDF before, and given the continued support of the United States, it will be as strong as ever. However, an invasion of the Gaza Strip would ignite tensions in the Middle East, isolating Israel and, by association, the United States. This would be a disaster for the future of American foreign policy. Now is the time to be building alliances with post-revolutionary governments, but instead the United States is at odds with new governments like that of Egypt because of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. If war breaks out, those relationships will sour entirely. War benefits no nation in this scenario: Israel would easily win but would face fresh hostility from an enraged and already unstable Middle East (with a possibly soon-to-be nuclear Iran), Hamas would be seriously weakened if not destroyed by the conflict, and the United States would suffer massive diplomatic losses. This is an example of a conflict without a possibility for a positive outcome, and thus it must be avoided at all costs. This will likely require serious effort and cooperation by Israel and Hamas, with the United States, Egypt, and the United Nations working between the two governments to try and achieve a ceasefire.
Sunday, October 28, 2012
Looking in or out
Watching what was supposed to be the foreign policy debate on Friday, I was struck by how quickly the candidates flipped to speaking on economic or domestic issues. Foreign and domestic issues are competing for center stage in this election, and it is fairly clear that the economic side is winning out. What does the conflict between foreign and domestic issues in the public eye say about the state of the nation? About the candidates' views and strategies? How is the focus of the debate telling of the decisions to be made by the next president in the four years to come?
The simplest conclusion from the trumping of economic issues over foreign policy is that in times of economic hardship, domestic matters become more significant. Fewer people are concerned about what is happening in Syria when they are living from paycheck to paycheck. It is also simple to paint failures in foreign policy as reflective of a weak economic base at home, which Romney did multiple times throughout the night.
Obama has been hailed as a successful foreign policy president, despite his perceived ineffectiveness at managing the economy. This gave him an inherent advantage entering the debate, and allowed Romney very little ground to fight him on. Thus, when asked directly about foreign policy plans and actions, former Governor Romney often found himself agreeing with the President. Instead of disagreeing with Obama on foreign policy issues, the core of Romney's arguments rested on economic points and the idea that America needs to be strong at home in order to lead abroad. Skewing the debate to this focus was a smart move by Romney, as it brought the battle from Obama's home field to a place where Romney had more control.
The conflict in framing of this debate clearly reflects where we can expect each candidate to be most effective in the next four years, if he is elected president. Obama believes that working with the international community is crucial to America's growth, stating that we must continue to engage our allies to "start rebuilding America". However, while Obama may improve America's standing in the world of international relations, he may continue to be less effective at reviving the economy. Romney, on the other hand, seems more likely to focus on the economy, at the risk of putting foreign policy on the back burner. "For [America to lead]," he stated, "we have to strengthen our economy here at home". It will be up to America to decide the winner of this conflict for media attention.
http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-pn-2012-presidential-debate-20121022,0,7479154.story
Obama has been hailed as a successful foreign policy president, despite his perceived ineffectiveness at managing the economy. This gave him an inherent advantage entering the debate, and allowed Romney very little ground to fight him on. Thus, when asked directly about foreign policy plans and actions, former Governor Romney often found himself agreeing with the President. Instead of disagreeing with Obama on foreign policy issues, the core of Romney's arguments rested on economic points and the idea that America needs to be strong at home in order to lead abroad. Skewing the debate to this focus was a smart move by Romney, as it brought the battle from Obama's home field to a place where Romney had more control.
The conflict in framing of this debate clearly reflects where we can expect each candidate to be most effective in the next four years, if he is elected president. Obama believes that working with the international community is crucial to America's growth, stating that we must continue to engage our allies to "start rebuilding America". However, while Obama may improve America's standing in the world of international relations, he may continue to be less effective at reviving the economy. Romney, on the other hand, seems more likely to focus on the economy, at the risk of putting foreign policy on the back burner. "For [America to lead]," he stated, "we have to strengthen our economy here at home". It will be up to America to decide the winner of this conflict for media attention.
http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-pn-2012-presidential-debate-20121022,0,7479154.story
Tuesday, October 16, 2012
The Reality of Dreams
Most heroes die around the age of 14. It is exceptionally rare for a hero to live past 25. But in those glorious early years of life, most children envision their future selves making major differences in the world by curing disease or rallying a broken nation. What is killing these heroes? They are casualties of the war between dreams and realism. The strategies and tactics of the belligerents can be complex and subtle, but the forces of reality are usually victorious.
In American culture, children are applauded for displays of imagination. When asked, "what do you want to be when you grow up?", children find that "doctor" or "president" are better received by adults than "accountant" or "mechanic". Their idea of success is created through the careers they see in the media, which naturally consist of only the careers that generate fame.
As toddlers grow into kids and kids grow into preteens, the importance of "success" is hammered into their minds by parents, schools, books, movies, and a multitude of other mediums. A preteen's definition of success, however, is often still confined to "fame". My time as a preteen was when I developed the desire to make a difference that would be "worthy of the history books", to quote my thoughts at the time. And just like that, I had formed a logical conclusion: fame = success, and success = important, therefore fame = important. A hero is born.
It is not until a few years later that children learn just how competitive the real world is. Just work hard, get good grades, get into a good college, and get a fame-generating career, right? Wrong. If you receive perfect grades, you have a chance to get into the best schools, but their 7% admittance rate means that a lot of people with perfect scores won't make the cut. After training to become an actor, you are likely to spend more time waiting tables than in front of the camera. A hero dies.
The conflict facing individuals in American society often lies between pursuing your dreams or making money. Dreaming big or living big. Albert Einstein claims, "Logic will get you from A to B. Imagination will take you everywhere." A strict course from A to B can be dull and boring, but the benefits of being "everywhere" are exaggerated. My high school Sophomore English teacher presented an analogy that argues for restricted imagination. The analogy was created for writing papers, but I try to apply to my life: creative writing [living] is like playing a football game. It's fun and exciting and there are all kinds of possibilities, but there are rules. There must be rules, because without them progress in the game is undefined.
The preferable outcome of the war is not easy to see. If realism wins, a shadow world of accountants and mechanics is created. If dreaming wins, everyone can be special, thereby making no one special. Fighting for your dreams while playing by the rules of the real world is the desired equilibrium. The best solution is accepting the conflict between the two.
The conflict facing individuals in American society often lies between pursuing your dreams or making money. Dreaming big or living big. Albert Einstein claims, "Logic will get you from A to B. Imagination will take you everywhere." A strict course from A to B can be dull and boring, but the benefits of being "everywhere" are exaggerated. My high school Sophomore English teacher presented an analogy that argues for restricted imagination. The analogy was created for writing papers, but I try to apply to my life: creative writing [living] is like playing a football game. It's fun and exciting and there are all kinds of possibilities, but there are rules. There must be rules, because without them progress in the game is undefined.
The preferable outcome of the war is not easy to see. If realism wins, a shadow world of accountants and mechanics is created. If dreaming wins, everyone can be special, thereby making no one special. Fighting for your dreams while playing by the rules of the real world is the desired equilibrium. The best solution is accepting the conflict between the two.
Thursday, October 4, 2012
The Nature of Conflict
Positive change arises from competing destructive forces. This phenomenon is what I think about late at night on the pillow and early in the morning under the shower-head. Does it apply to biology? Natural selection: those strong enough to survive challenges reproduce and ultimately "improve" the species in a given environment. Check. International relations? Nations and cultures that are influential enough to survive conflict will grow and flourish. Those that do not improve are lost to oblivion. Check.
These subject areas may seem at odds, but in my mind they are very similar. In the world, governments exist as individuals, and an infinite number of variables determines whether those institutions live to pass influence or die out. Biological systems are reliant on cooperation and organization, but are imperfect and are subject to failure. The common theme? Conflict breeds competition, and competition allows for improvement. In writing this blog, I intend to explore the paradox of improvement via conflict by examining the macro and micro ends of the spectrum: conflicts between great nations and cultures, and conflicts confined to an individual's mind.
So.... what is conflict?
History is riddled with great wars, from the legendary Battle of Troy to the present fighting in the Middle East and southwest Asia. We call this, "conflict".
Across the world, cultures impose ideas and traditions upon one another, challenging the others around them. We call this, "conflict".
At a party, a high school student faces the choice of abandoning his principles or his friends. We call this, "conflict".
Conflict is embedded in all life, human and otherwise. As lifeforms increase in complexity, so too do the battles they fight. Plants fight for nutrients; animals fight for nutrients and mates; humans fight for life, liberty, and the rest. The natural world evolved off of a foundation of competition, making conflict present at every level of organization.
The conclusion, "conflict is inevitable," may sound gloomy, but it really is anything but. While wars are tragic, conflict between individuals is the driving force behind science, technology, and the entire Capitalist system. Understanding the conflicts that plague people and our organizations will further our understanding of human behavior, and hopefully will help us answer some of the deeper questions we hold about our lives.
"I exhort you also to take part in the great combat, which is the combat of life, and greater than every other earthly conflict" - Plato
So.... what is conflict?
History is riddled with great wars, from the legendary Battle of Troy to the present fighting in the Middle East and southwest Asia. We call this, "conflict".
Across the world, cultures impose ideas and traditions upon one another, challenging the others around them. We call this, "conflict".
At a party, a high school student faces the choice of abandoning his principles or his friends. We call this, "conflict".
Conflict is embedded in all life, human and otherwise. As lifeforms increase in complexity, so too do the battles they fight. Plants fight for nutrients; animals fight for nutrients and mates; humans fight for life, liberty, and the rest. The natural world evolved off of a foundation of competition, making conflict present at every level of organization.
The conclusion, "conflict is inevitable," may sound gloomy, but it really is anything but. While wars are tragic, conflict between individuals is the driving force behind science, technology, and the entire Capitalist system. Understanding the conflicts that plague people and our organizations will further our understanding of human behavior, and hopefully will help us answer some of the deeper questions we hold about our lives.
"I exhort you also to take part in the great combat, which is the combat of life, and greater than every other earthly conflict" - Plato
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)