Tag: sociology

Expose Yourself

Posted on by Marko

When we feel shame, we conform. And when we conform, we betray ourselves, our authentic nature, by acting the way others expect us to act. The feeling of shame is a keystone to so many of our insecurities. It holds us back through the fear of being judged by someone else’s standards. Ironically, we think when we submit to conformation, we’ll be liked more, but such appeal is very superficial, lacking substance to create real social bonds.

Feeling ashamed on any level weakens us, suppresses us. It can be the way we look, dress, think, talk, philosophize, laugh, feel, – any authentic expression or idiosyncrasy that represents our essential identity.

Shame is a powerful, primal emotion that separates. By feeling shame, we create distance between us and the people in our lives. Shame makes us less authentic, at best, right down to inauthentic, at worst. When we’re ashamed, we’re more likely to be covert and cautious with our genuine feelings and thoughts about something. We communicate partial truths or override them altogether. The result of all this self-censoring is our inability to form and maintain meaningful and authentic social bonds. If there is no genuine attraction between people, which comes about through freespiritedness of expression, there is also no way to form genuine relationships.

So I say, expose yourself. Be naked and generous in your expression: your opinions, views, creativity, feelings, compassion, giving, and especially loving. It may feel painful at first (for it is practiced by few), but it is also empowering, both to self, and to your relationships.

Don’t follow others, inspire them by being unapologetically you.

Our Wallets Carry Our Values

Posted on by Marko

Our values, those things that define us, materialize and extend through our acts. But that is not always the case when we engage in commerce. When we buy something, we create demand for that thing. Instead of making it ourselves, we pay someone else (usually someones) to make it for us. The problem is not in the exchange (for example, dollars for a shirt), it is in the psychology of a transaction. Transactions, at face value, don’t carry value beyond material – it is the exchange of one commodity for another. Our values are not carried along the line of exchange. And it shows en masse. Many of us feel that when we buy something, the burden of moral responsibility suddenly falls on the seller to do what we deem “right”. And if they don’t, if their manner of sourcing our shirt involves employing teenage girls forced to do manual labour at 25 cents an hour, well then it’s on them, not us. By transacting with someone, we outsource our moral obligations. We separate ourselves from social responsibility, and rarely accept it if things go awry.

We are all aware that slavery is still a thing, that suffering and exploitation are the essential processes in sourcing and making cheap products. Cheap for us, expensive for many other parties. Intuitively, we know that a shirt cannot cost $10 if it’s made of cotton, shipped from half a world away, and makes profit for multiple suppliers along its chain of production. And yet, the price tag says $10. So what’s the trade-off? When we think about what something is worth in dollar terms, we often subconsciously price in our personal values. Profit-first companies, on the other hand, don’t think or have the same values as us. Their guiding principle is the profit margin. By shedding other perceived costs, which include many of what we would call moral considerations, they stamp an MSRP of $10. The product may look and work like something we wanted, but it’s devoid of our values. Its utility is there, but our connection to the product is lost. The mounting number of products in the disposable or “fast x” category is a testament to that.

The cheapness of these anonymously sourced or morally washed products hides a personal cost too high to bury. When we talk out in public, or think to ourselves, we all balk at the idea or proposition of human exploitation, animal torture, and environmental destruction. And yet, we almost assuredly support – worse, fund – these same practices through our acts of commerce. Buying without thinking (beyond our personal needs) is the ignorance that breeds inequality in our current, profit-first flavour of capitalism.

Ultimately, voting (or protesting) with our wallet on which corporate practices and which companies deserve our capital (economic power), is an actionable form of expressing our values, and of social justice – especially when we do it collectively. Whom or what do we want to empower? Capital accumulation shapes our capitalist world, and the form our society takes. It defines what is normal.

Yes, the corporate world and its supply chains are a labyrinth, and many companies resort to green and social washing in their marketing practices. It’s a manifestation of greed. But commerce, like everything else, is not binary, and a cleaner choice is better than making no choice at all. You wouldn’t want a stranger representing you, a manufacturer is no different. Look them up on the Internet – there are many websites that publish social responsibility reports on most larger companies. Or talk directly to the manufacturer and intuit their responses to your questions. Do their values align with yours? If so, the product will be an embodiment and extension of your beliefs.

Also, think about why and what you are buying. Is it something you truly need, or could it be a craving born out of insecurity or a mere distraction for a dull or unhappy life? Can you get a previously used version of the product? Yes, doing all this takes effort, but it is energy purposefully spent, for it actionably communicates your values (who you are) to the world. It is a form of self-respect, and a rejection of commercial herding that greed often precipitates on us. Choose what makes you, not what tempts you.

Democracy: Promise & Practice

Posted on by Marko

The concept of democracy is a noble one, but I don’t think we’ve evolved or matured enough to implement it within our society. Greed and self-interest still rule nations, from political parties to influential individuals alike. These privileged groups put their needs ahead of the people, try hard to coerce us to see their selfish plight, with the real objective of getting our votes. Oftentimes, they rely on the tried and tested methods of fear-mongering, which produces the desired effect of dependence. From religions to governments, they want us to see them as our salvation, and all they ask for is our voice. So choosing governance in many so-called democratic nations is less about what people want and more about what interest groups want, with the help of an indoctrinated population. This swings left and right depending on how successful indoctrination campaigns are. There have been monarchs who held a closer ear to people’s needs than many political parties nowadays, in part because they could not lose their power. The envisioned concept of democracy does not revolve around gaining and accumulating power, but sharing it. We’ve made strides towards that promise since the Age of Enlightenment, but perhaps we can accelerate it by removing ideological and purely intellectual labels that ultimately divide us. We are not just liberals, conservatives, libertarians – we are a bit of everything in different proportions. We are unique but complete individuals with innate common values. Values like independence, compassion, empathy, collaboration, and insatiable desire for strong, symbiotic social bonds. Values that seek to connect people, and not condition them into political fodder for the privileged few.