The future isn’t what it used to be
I’m writing this post instead of studying for my exam tomorrow. Which is as good an excuse as any.
Today in Advanced Social Psychology, we had a guest lecturer; Sociologist Mr. Ahmed Chijazi from Neve Shalom who gave a talk about Interaction of Identity in the Jewish-Arab Conflict. Mr. Chijazi runs group dynamics sessions between Jews and Arabs to promote understanding, hopefully eventually leading to a more humane and just society.
It was interesting to hear about the different approaches to group sessions – Basically a Mediatory/Compromising approach and a Conflictual/Confrontational approach.
He spoke of how identity evolves within such groups, based a lot on the works of Dr. Janet E. Helms (a black woman, whose work has been a major contribution to the understanding of minority/majority dynamics).
What I took of the lecture was something a little different, and has to do with these thoughts of the future I’ve been constantly regurgitating lately. The lecturer mentioned that back around the times of the Oslo agreements (we’re talking early-mid nineties), group discussions tended to drift towards the future. People would imagine how things might look in the not-so-far future, when the conflict is finally put to rest. They’d gleefully imagine taking a train from Tel-Aviv to Damascus, or a nightboat to Cairo. And with all the money of the Arab world, along with the brain-resources in Israel, as well as the strategic location and the Marshal-esque plan Clinton promised, this area of the world would have been ushered into a new era. “A New Middle East” they used to call it. At one point we even had a minister devoted to promoting that idea.
Today groups hardly ever reach the future at all. Now it’s more ‘blood’ talk. Who killed more, who doesn’t live to their end of the agreements, etc.
Most groups begin and end with a loud mutual exchange of accusations.
Those who do touch upon the future, more often than not it’s what the intarwub meme (cheers Josh) has been calling The Grim Meathook Future. Even the most optimistic speak of some form of damage control future, rather than anything remotely bright.
He then mentioned that anyone listening in on the groups could have predicted the events of October 2000. Just as anyone listening hard enough could have predicted some of the more depressing outcomes of the 2006 elections (namely, the slow erosion and fast decline of the old conservative right, and rise of the radical right in it’s place). Makes me think horribly Machiavellian thoughts about the state of mankind. Perhaps war is the natural state of affairs between nations? From a cognitive psychology point of view, people think in categories. Stereotypes are never dismissed, only replaced, it’s part of how we think. We label other people, and label ourselves, and then kill and die over these self-inflicted labels.
If Oct 00′ was just blowing off built-up tectonic pressure, I don’t want to know what a real conflict would look like.
[EDIT] Addendum in the comments field. Cheers.
Tagged as conflict resolution, Futurism, grim meathook future, Israeli-Arab Conflict, middle east, War + Categorized as Current Events, Futurism, Psychology, Social Politics
8 Comments
Trackbacks & Pingbacks
-
Zenarchery.com
05/01/2006Total Eclipse » The future isn’t what it used to be on “Full text of the Grim Meathook Future thing”
Aha!!! U Ucouldn’r agree more, expecially abotu the whole Wwe label people and then kill fo rthat shit… it is so so true… you are very smart, you should go to finishing school.
Thanks.
Israel is the frontier between the gradual haute couture technological future and the unreal deathmatch grim meathook future.
Living on the edge of chaos means living in the extreme spearhead of culture and creativity, but it also means you’re the first to tumble over, with no solid ground to support you.
It is my prediction that these are going to be turbulant years. What I was hinting at is that homoestasis is unnatural. The only time a living organism is in a relatively peacful uneventful state is when it’s dead. And even then, that’s not complete stasis. This is a fact about dynamic systems which cannot be ignored, and has hard implications for society.
So if lasting peace is death, where does that leave us..? On the edge. Hoping not to tumble over.
Hmmm… it is funny… i was just saying that myself… no, but really, it is interesting how when you start thinking out sode of the box, things that seem initialy contrdictory start making sense together…
hmm…first of all, i think these encounters are not very representative of anything. i was watching crash yesterday, and thinking how essencially, we have levels of intimacy which impact our reliance on stereotypes: so, if i see someone who steteotypically fits a threatning type walking down the street towards me (two black homeboys, two red-bearded arabs, two whate guys with tatoos and shaved heads…etc.), I would be inclined to think of them as very threatening, simply by their appearance. I’d be politiacally incorrect in even comparing the three examples, but there you go. Then, if I got to know them in a ‘seminar’, I might discover that beneath the bling, or the beards or the tatoos, they are sons, and husbands and fathers, people with hobbies and a sense of humor. And if I got to know one of them really well, I might eventually forget about the stereotype, and see the human being. Its about filling in the information necessary. The more personal info I have, the less I need to rely on stereotypes – public info. The less I know, the more useful these are in navigating through lifes jungle. So, in these meetings, there is a kind of stereotypical assumption, that if I meet with 5-6 palestinians, I will gain an intimate perspective on all or most palestinians. Once I get to know Ahmed, I will not fear the arab-looking man wearing a big jacket and sweating as he gets on the same bus as me. But it doesnt work, because it only works for the people I know. If Ahmed got on the bus, I’ll save him a seat next to me and chat. I can rely on the personal information I have. But, ironically, I will not make assumptions about the rest of the palestinian people on the basis of one really nice guy. The thing is, stereotypes like a bimbo or nerd arent threatening whearas for the stereotype of a Palestinian is threatening to Israelis today. So, are these workshops about changing a negative steroetype to a positive one? revenge of the nerds? Surely there is enough knowledge in the marketing-sphere about the investment necessary to change attitudes. It will demand something far more substancial than sporadic little weekends of group therapy.
now, about the future being grimmer: the pendulum tends to swing that way quite consistantly, plus, there are also cultures which place great value on the future and others which place great vlaue on the past. I suppose Israel finds its justification in the past and in the future. In that way it is an interesting culture. But I don’t think that the future was always so positive or that it is that bad now. Israel has withdrawn from more territories and more israelis are now sure this is the right thing to do than ever before. lets not forget that with all of the euphoria of Oslo, Rabin got murdered and about half the population were various-degrees-of-releived. I’m not sure that would happen today. The recent elections may have left everyone with a sense of ‘who are we voting for anyway’, but that can also be seen as the sign of a more mature democratic culture – we arent looking for messiahs or kings…politics doesnt have to work like loyaltees to your fottball club. there is a process which must take place, and different managers can lead this more or less efficiently. this is a more realistic view in my mind. less euphoric perhaps, but more realistic. ‘New Middle East’ was this catch-phrase benefit idea, kind of like increasing the PH level to protect your teeth and gums by chewing orbit gum after meals. it made sense, and what began as a bnefit turned in the mind of some into a goal. but this was never the real point, and when worked out on paper, never really made much sense. the future was bright like the blingy sparkle they add post-production after you swipe a sponge of cif over your hob/tiles/counter.
and lastly, last time i was in tlv, all i saw was people sucking the marrow out of life in the best possible way. wednsday noon Manta Ray was jam packed with people eating and enjoying the sea and the sun and each others company. the present seems good enough. which is what counts.
I agree that these encounters are practically meaningless. They don’t happen on a large enough scale, and even if they did, you got to remember that these are people willing to meet. Unlike in some other cases, I’d argue that here that definately means something about the sample which is possibly quite different from the general population.
I had an Arab in my class, who was friends with all the football hooligans. That never stopped them from hating Arabs, it’s just that Mustafa was ‘different’.
And finally, I think stereotypes can’t be changed at all, we can only work to try and make people ashamed to admit to themselves that they effect their judgment. I’m not really 100% sure what’s the point of that (as sterotypes still effect judgment). Possibly try and educate to strengthen rationality as the best framework for decision-making, making people aware of the stereotypes, and aware that they should withhold judgment based solely upon sterotypes.
Educating people to think critically should be the goal of every western nation. Schoolkids should learn logic from a young age, not just in preparation for their psychometric exam, when they’re already too old to rid themselves of base bad thinking habbits.
It’s interesting what you say about the value a culture places on the future or past… If I had to choose, I’d say Israeli culture puts the most value on the present.
I have to think about it a bit more though.
The ‘New Middle East’ model is precisely our version of The Airstream Futuropolis, with flying cars and jetpacks and colonies on the moon.
You know what the difference is..?
We almost had it.
we never almost had the ‘new middle east’ because israel is by far the strongest economy in the region.
I’m referring to the Marshal Plan Clinton promised the region.