September 12th, 2008 08:38 EST
Media Is The Masses: Global Village... Idiot!
When we refer to Humanity or society or civilization, there is a near absolute assumption that whatever comments or descriptions are made applies to ALL humans, everywhere and ever-- as if all people were one homogenized collective. The common, automatic implication (or explication) is that "humanity" and "civilization" means the Industrialist, Capitalist and commercialist mainstream majority-- as if humanity and industrial society are synonymous. However, this does not describe Humanity, only a socio-economic construct or colloquialism. It suggests that humanity could not be any other way; that this is the natural or inherent condition for humanity. As if this is how humanity has always been and always will be. Always must be? What is this lie trying to hide? (since all lies hide something)
Actually, this is not humanity, in and of itself ? merely a mode of operation. It is not who or what we are... it is only what we do.
We just have to look at history for alternative examples of humanity, to prove that modern Western culture does not speak for or represent the whole of humanity.
Shall I count the ways? No, you do the research. Better that you see for yourself.
"Primitive" societies or cultures-- by which we tend to mean non-industrialized-- clearly reveal and remind us that there is more than our one way to live. More than one kind of human society. In our ignorance and insecurity, we mock and belittle them as inferior.
And what about humankind evolved without or advanced beyond contemporary Western technological sensibilities? Are they less or more human than us, today? And what of alien societies with technology more "advanced" (magical?) than we have now?
Does that make us inherently inferior? Technologically, maybe; but not necessarily as a society or a species. Achieving warp speed capability may be a fair qualifier of preparedness to encounter alien life, but it says nothing about social status.
We`ve presumed to judge the maturity or sophistication of a society by its technology level, assuming a probable correlation. But considering that much of our own technology is progressing faster than our wisdom to responsibly engage it, how smart or logical is that approach? Why isn`t the level of sociological or psychological development the more relevant signifier? Should the primitiveness of a society be determined by its level or form of technology or economy? Or instead by its sociology?
What we are really dealing with is a matter of sociology, not psychology... but have distorted our sociology into a pseudo-psychology. No, a neurotic psychosis.
Our global mother culture-- the dominant collective mentality-- has contrived and deceived us into adopting and presuming its way is the only way.
Or at least, the "right" way. We are being blinded and smothered by this false blanket statement-- a Black Swan folly. Humanity has done itself a horrible disservice by stereotyping and cookie cuttering itself... betrayed by our own mob insolence and indolence. Because we have limited the potential of what we may be and become.