Communities, relationships ... these are the themes of form -- of differentiation. Form has come to exist in the human psyche, being the essential pyschological difference between man and other beings. The perception of form is intially difficult because it requires a shift in our thinking about the world by a degree of abstraction.
So its that nationalities, sports, religions, occupations, sexualities, languages, corporate brands come to dominate the landscape of the human psyche ... without these the human experience is without form ... without differentiation
It has been proven by the string of successful cosmopolitan societies making up human history, that a certain doubt of this form -- a progressive tolerance and even acceptance of other forms -- is related to appreciable gains.
There is, of course, reaction to the abuse of form -- something that was previously understood in common. Form is not just a common bond among people -- it is also a wall. That is why it is so difficult when one group of people declare independence from another -- it not only ends their common understanding, but also impedes future understanding. In a phrase: what is important -- important being understood not as 'important' but the essential elements that "cause" importance -- is form. A signficant bundle of forms is embedded in national identity -- thus disposal of this identity happens to be the exact recipricol of another's perception of form -- of their own sense of importance -- on their place in a differentiated world.
Back to the cosmpolitan pardigm, which in its first thrust proliferates differentiation. In this world, both brand and ethnicity are things to be desired. As desire for differentiation increases, the domain of "value added" becomes unending. Thus the cosmopolitan community becomes wealthy.
After a period of time , the cosmopolitan begins to question: what is this form (what is left of it) -- why should we believe in form at all.
Now for the question: what should we do when we've lost our faith in form?
3 comments:
People will only be happy under voluntary segregation.
Creativity will only happen when outsiders pollute a homogeneous group.
Creativity is the reason innovation happens.
Innovation is key to civilization's continued success.
Compromise?
there is some truth to your observation. however, though the assumption that "innovation is key to civilization's continued success" is embedded in the orthodox narrative of a "sucessful civilization" i take issue with that final definition itself. my own view of "successful civilization" is one where our most basic needs are fulfilled, including of course material necessities but also spiritual needs.
as is consistent with that view, i would approve of you putting forth creativity as a civilizational aspiration if you intend for the role of creativity to be in fulfilling a spiritual need rather than a means to driving innovation.
ultimately, my own view of a "sucessful civilizational" outcome is one which not only may be obtained without innovation but which might only be possible without it.
Post a Comment