(Updated below)
Plus ça change, plus c'est pareil. The more things change, the more they stay the same.
We all know this old (french) saying. But what does it really mean?
Surely this axiom does not fit with reality, considering all the changes that have occurred throughout Humanity's history - whether political, economic, democratic, societal, scientific and technological. Indeed, many are the examples of progress achieved in a sustainable fashion.
Yet, there has been as well examples of reversal of progress - but such have been proven to be transient in nature, Humanity invariably striving to restore progress previously achieved (and for a time relegated on a back-burner) and thereafter continue forth in its biological drive to improve its condition of life.
But what happens when a "need" becomes not only counter-productive to progress, but furthermore becomes an agent for stagnation and, inevitably, deterioration?
One of the most basic needs of most living mammals is satisfaction - namely, the state of well-being which stems from being fed, quenched, warm, comfortable, well rested, accepted/supported by peers and, of course, safe. Such a need is by itself immensely gratifying, thus encouraging further search of the means and ends required to remain, or become again, satisfied.
It goes without saying that in beings capable of reasoning such as ourselves, the search for satisfaction not only includes such basic requirements as being fed, quenched, warm, comfortable, well rested, accepted/supported by peers and safe, but furthermore goes beyond said basic means and ends to likewise include "abstract" ones such as conversation, reading, listening to music, seeking to understand/explain the unknown, caring/tending animals and/or plants, achieving accomplishments (in hobbies, in farming, in construction, in arts, at work, etc.), ranting/self-expression, vacations from work, and other similar types of "big brain-driven" activities.
Entertainment is also a means to reach satisfaction. Big time.
I have harped often enough about intellectual sloth, the serious problems that it causes in our societies (especially by driving incompetence) and what should be done to eradicate this scourge. Interestingly, and as I am fond of repeating, intellectual sloth transforms any adult person who is afflicted by it into an irresponsible, selfish, self-centered and reactionary child or adolescent, who lives only in the “now” while remaining blind to “yesterday” and “tomorrow" - being in continuous search of the quick-and-easy, of instant gratification.
And it goes again without saying that instant gratification is tremendously satisfying.
Why is this so dangerous to us? The answer is simple: what allowed Humanity to escape extinction and thereafter strive, multiply, colonize the world, and thereafter become the dominant species of our planet, has always been our "big brain-driven" knack for thinking about - and preparing for - tomorrow. That is why we followed animal migrations. That is why we began farming and domesticating animals. That is why we had the idea of making reserves of food and water. That is why we have always kept on striving for our children and their children. That is why we work for our paychecks. That is also why we pay insurance (for whatever).
All because of tomorrow and what it may, or may not, bring.
Now here's why we have such a potentially catastrophic problem: the intellectual sloth-driven search of instant-gratification subverts our "big brain-driven" tool of being able to always think about tomorrow in such a way, as to either numb it down - thus trapping us in the "now" like non-reasoning animals - or actually embezzle it so that it serves predominantly in the further search of instant gratification. Or both.
And thus here we are today - stuck with tabloid journalism and tabloid politics, fear and ignorance ruling the day, with too many among us expecting to be serviced opinions, or contenting ourselves at decrying/ranting about the sad state of things, or at playing "gotcha!", all the while seeking entertainment in the process - whether in news (papers, TV, online) or in the blogosphere.
Yesterday, Jane Hamsher wrote this on the 10th anniversary of the blogosphere:
"During the ’90s, railing at the TV set was the isometric sport of the silent majority. Progressive political junkies watched in isolation as the Washington Post prominently printed one Whitewater story after another as if they originated on tablets of stone rather than the fax machines of Arkansas political operatives. Many people felt like they were the only ones who scratched their heads in wonder that it all made no sense, recoiling in horror as a slick PR operation rapidly escalated from the realm of lazy, spoon-fed journalism to the constitutional mockery of the Clinton impeachment.
That isolation ended with the advent of the progressive blogosphere, which acts as a virtual water cooler for those who not only want to rail at the TV set, they want the TV set to listen. Probably nothing better contrasts the pre- and postblogospheric worlds than the Whitewater and CIA leak stories (...)"
I actually disagree to some extent with Jane (whom I respect very much) on this one. Yes, there are a few out there, like her (and we all know the others), who are not only blogging, dissecting and doing the "gotcha!" thing, but at the same time are actively involving themselves directly to enact change in the sad state of affairs that we are currently finding ourselves in. Unfortunately, achieving sustainable change and progress in politics, democracy, media and society at large constitutes a long, patient and determined endeavor. To this effect, my impression from reading regularly the "Big Blogs" (such as Jane's, or DKos, or those others we all know too well) is that the overwhelming majority of bloggers and blog readers of the progressive blogosphere content themselves at dissecting, ranting and/or reading/commenting - especially where blogs which are either "entertaining", or those which deal with the outrage du jour, are concerned.
This is indeed all about the self-centered search for instant gratification.
In the meantime, each day brings its new outrage - while the song remains the same.
In short: the blogosphere is predominantly the online transposition of the water cooler conversations. Nothing more, nothing less - at least for the time being.
Or, as I wrote before: the blogosphere not only enables but also (knowingly or not) encourages instant gratification.
Case in point: this diary at DKos who directly confronts this state of affairs in the progressive blogosphere and which apparently garnered little or no recommends (more or less the same fate as two previous diaries of mine in a similar vein, here and here), when in fact more such diaries should be put up front and highlighted, in order to force progressive blog readers to think seriously about what they are not doing and what they actually need to do: look hard in the mirror.
Unfortunately, too many do not want to read such things - because they confront their behavior which, deep down, they know is wrong-headed and leads to stagnation.
First and foremost, to paraphrase what I have written previously, all of us must accept the reality that achieving change and progress requires patience, determination and perseverance. That is the competent way.
The incompetent way is impatience or, as I like to call this, expediency.
Or, if you prefer, the want for instant gratification.
Glenn Greenwald wrote it best:
"Defeatism can lead one to believe that there is no progress at all and that progress is impossible. Impatience can lead one to conclude that the progress is too slow and incremental to matter. But slow and incremental progress of this sort is the only kind that is viable, and ultimately, the only kind that really matters."
My humble wish is that those of us who write or read blogs will strive to fight off our want for instant gratification and, instead, involve ourselves directly (as I do in my own neck of the woods) into making change - as opposed to only demanding it, then ranting because it does not appear to be, or is actually not, forthcoming.
In closing, I would like to leave you good folks with this parting thought: only once we commit ourselves into being participating agents of change and progress will the shape of things to come be better and brighter.
For ourselves, for our children, for their children ... and for tomorrow.
Only then will our revolutionary participatory democracy cease to be just about ranting and railing, living up instead fully to its potential and promise.
That is, unless everything remains the same ...
Addendum: The original title of the DKos version of this article was the same as here at Diatribune. However, some 2 hours after posting it there, I still had not one single comment, tip or recommend. In order to prove the point of this article, I amended its DKos version title thus: "The Shape Of Things To Come? Not At DKos, Apparently". Some ten minutes after, the diary got its first tip. Interesting, no?
Update: 07/17/07 - Punditman reminded me of his own piece that he wrote back in June of this year, when Cindy Sheehan resigned from the anti-war movement. It goes in the same vein as this current article of mine. I enjoin you to read this post as well, since the more such posts/articles are out there and read, the greater the chances of being successful at awakening progressives into realizing the current problems and limitations of the progressive blogosphere - i.e. lack of real, direct and active parcticipation as agents of change and progress. As Punditman so aptly said in his June 2007 post: "*They* have got us right where they want us: seized up in cyberspace, gazing at our navels". To this I add: only raging against the dying of the light will not prevent the light from dying - and then, what? Yes, there have been some encouraging initiatives and developments, like the recent Make the Republicans stand and fillibuster campaign, but such blogosphere-initiated direct agencies of change remain too few and far between. Acknowledging the problem is but the first step, as the saying goes ...
Have you the democratic courage to do so?
(Cross-posted from APOV)
__________________________
