The Wall

Degenerate Ad Men: The Mythos of the Nuclear Family

May 21st, 2023
The term Nuclear family was coined in an attempt to “reset the norm” and address the societal changes that occurred after World War II, which disrupted traditional family structures. Men in advertising were approached and asked to address the issues facing families. The direct issue was with many men either dying, getting injured, or returning from war and struggling to reintegrate into family life, which coincided with women entering the workforce and experiencing newfound independence during the war effort. Thus, relationships and dynamics within families were significantly altered.

The concept of resetting the norm aimed to establish a new standard or ideal for American families in the post-war era. However, this new standard fell short of the broader American ethos, which valued strong family bonds, communities, stability, traditions and shared values. As anyone in advertising knows you are usually trying to tap into one of the above to separate your ad from the rest by invoking a deeply held emotion.

The experiences of war led to many strained relationships, as couples had to navigate the aftermath of separation, loss, and personal transformation. The changing roles and dynamics within families raised questions about gender roles, marital expectations, and the overall fabric of family life. The tension between the desire to reset and redefine family norms and the expectations rooted in the American ethos created a complex dynamic in the post-war society.

But the “nuclear family” set a low standard for the American myth since new norms or expectations that emerged after the war did not meet the ideal of family structures. Since the nuclear family is a smaller unit then what is optimal. What is optimal is having extended families within a community as the backing for the values that are part of a family’s tradition.

Why was the Nuclear Family an improper answer?

If one were to create an American myth, it should be essential to consider the broader aspirations and values of society rather than focusing solely on the smallest common denominator. Setting low expectations often does not inspire individuals to strive for greatness or surpass their basic potential. Instead, it is crucial to establish standards that are both attainable and meaningful, allowing people to envision and work towards a higher ideal in their life and imbue that vision over the generations.

When crafting a narrative about what people should strive for, it is essential to aim for a vision that encompasses more than the nuclear family unit. While the nuclear family has its place and significance (such as families on the frontier or escaping prosecution), an ideal, can be enriched by embracing the concept of an extended family, where a network of aunts, uncles, cousins, and grandparents form a vibrant community as they are one branch of broader supportive community that shares beliefs’ and values. This broader familial unit not only fosters stronger bonds and intergenerational connections but also provides a sense of belonging and shared responsibility.

However, it is worth noting that consumerism often thrives when individuals are disconnected from their communities. This idea is exemplified in the television series “Mad Men,” where slick, marketing-minded sociopaths manipulate slogans and advertising strategies to drive consumerism and increase profits for their clients. Such narratives underscore the challenges of navigating the balance between genuine human connection and the influence of consumer culture. There has always been an incentive to separate families into bite size units who need to consume more individually than as part of a larger unit. Selling this idea of an independent young adult has its appeals but it is ultimately, a marketing ploy. [1]

In shaping an American myth, it is important to consider the inherent complexities of societal values and the diverse range of values and aspirations that exist. By setting higher standards and promoting interconnectedness within communities, it becomes possible to inspire individuals to strive for meaningful, and purposeful goals while fostering a sense of collective well-being and purpose.

The Marxist critique raises valid concerns about the potential negative impacts of pure capitalism. It highlights how unregulated capitalism can be corrupt. However, one of the several areas where Marxism falls short is in fully understanding and harnessing human nature to inspire and motivate individuals.

While capitalism, in its pursuit of profit and self-interest, can incentivize innovation, productivity, and individual ambition, it also has its limitations. It often prioritizes material wealth and competition, which can neglect other important aspects of human nature, such as community, religion, values, cooperation, and social well-being. While in the perfect world the market corrects for these values. The world is not perfect, and the market has been shaped by carnal desires more than necessities over the past seventy (70) years.

In regards to communities and the extended family the market failed families because single family homes are more profitable then multi-families homes ever will be. Thus, the marketing personalities had a reason (money) to sell to people the dream of owning their own individual home, free of the extended family. This came by way of developing tract housing.

In California for instance, tract housing had an impact on transportation infrastructure. The expansion of suburban neighborhoods necessitated the construction of new roads, highways, and infrastructure to support the increased automobile usage. This led to a reliance on private vehicles and the decline of public transportation systems in suburban areas. Additionally, the social and cultural implications of tract housing were demographic shifts that occurred as families moved from urban centers (often on the north-east coast) to suburban communities, resulting in changing community dynamics and the emergence of new social networks. Tract housing developments often included amenities such as parks, schools, and shopping centers, creating self-contained suburban social communities. Some criticisms and challenges associated with tract housing were concerns about the loss of open space, the impact on natural resources, and the secular homogeneity of suburban neighborhoods.[2]

This marketing ploy was a clever tactic, as it encouraged consumerism by promoting the idea that people needed to buy new things when they didn’t live close to their parents. In a more traditional extended family setup, where relatives live in the same neighborhood or household, borrowing items or using what is available at their house during visits was common.

This way, people don’t need to own everything individually, and resources can be shared within the extended family unit.

The following video is a 1950’s ad for the Suburban life which culminates the point:

glamor to whore

“The ideal home of the 1950s was also decorated to nines, with bold wallpapers, room dividers, and colorful kitchens being just a few of the many defining features of the age.” So the wallpaper decades made some “Mad Men” a pretty penny by throwing out the extended family as old news and boring.

If you have ever had conversations with your great-grandparents or grandparents about their parents’ lives and the conditions they lived in, you would be amazed at how many people at that time could live fulfilling lives with minimal possessions in small living spaces. Despite their limited material wealth, they found meaning, purpose and happiness (contentment) in their close-knit relationships and shared experiences. However, this model of living doesn’t align with the consumerist culture that emphasizes constant product consumption, accumulation and individual pleasure or status chasing above all else.

During the rise of the nuclear family concept, there was also an emphasis on the idea of a modern future. Society was encouraged to embrace progress, secularism, technological advancements, and a more individualistic lifestyle. This vision of the future aligned with the ideals of secular capitalism and consumerism, as it promoted the purchase of new and innovative products to keep up with the (Jones) changing times.

It is important to critically examine the narratives and ideals that are propagated by marketing campaigns and societal norms. While the nuclear family model and the notion of a modern future have their bare minimum of merits, the model does not provide meaning in of themselves, and the way it was amped up was degenerate to society.

What Was Being Sold

In the era of a societal revival, there was a cultural shift in America towards the ideal of the single-family home. This trend was fueled by the allure of customized interiors, with elements like vibrant wallpaper, room dividers, and colorful kitchens becoming readily available for purchase and personalization, all topped off with new consumer items previously unavailable. It was a game carefully orchestrated by marketing experts and advertisers.

This manufactured suburban lifestyle promoted the nuclear family as the epitome of the American dream. Even within my own family history, six of my great-grandparents were drawn to this idea by the marketing and decided to relocate to California. Thereby, leaving family behind, and when they (the extended family) did move to California, they mainly lived in different cities with their own homes. In the case of my great-grandfather, Dan, he suffered from severe arthritis, and his doctors recommended California for its dry climate, which alleviated his symptoms, but he still bought into the single-family home lifestyle.

Even today the suburban life is idealized. However, it is important to recognize that the suburban ideal and the nuclear family model are not without their flaws. The emphasis on materialism and consumerism associated with this lifestyle often overshadowed deeper meanings, connections, and communities. It is interesting to reflect on the stories of our ancestors, and previous generations of family who lived in much smaller spaces, yet found fulfillment and purpose in their lives. The suburban model, driven by the marketing strategies of the time, may have been successful in selling products and shaping societal norms, but it also obscured alternative ways of living and the richness found within extended family structures.

Ultimately, the historical context in which these transformations took place sheds light on the complexities of societal shifts and individual choices. It should remind us to critically examine the narratives presented to us and consider the values, meanings, and purpose we wish to embrace in our own lives, and not just give into the trends because they are catchy and have shallow, yet sexy, immediate rewards.

A Note on Advertising:

The irony of contemporary complaints about personalized ads is worth noting. While some may find the targeted ads on their phones bothersome, they pale in comparison and are the grandchildren of the sophisticated tactics employed in advertising during the 1950’s, and going back to at least the 1930’s. Exploring the works of Edward Bernays and delving into crowd psychology, particularly his book “The Engineering of Consent,” reveals the extent to which people have been influenced by primal motivations over the past several decades.

The intriguing aspect is that many individuals believe they would have opposed the Nazis in Germany, yet fail to recognize that much of modern secular beliefs and feelings are rooted in the themes and techniques propagated by American advertising and psychologists, who drew inspiration from Nazi propaganda via using the same themes and techniques to convince people to buy more products. One such technique involves emotionally hijacking people’s reasoning, leading them to identify with certain emotions and subsequently take any action necessary to maintain that emotional state. For many individuals, emotions hold a higher position in their cognitive hierarchy than logic, making them susceptible to manipulation.

These reflections, and realizations should prompt us to question the extent of personal agency and control over our own thoughts and actions. They underscore the power of persuasive techniques and emphasize the importance of critical thinking in navigating the intricate landscape of information and influence in our modern world.

In the words of a brilliant yet morally corrupt figure, it was stated that there was no point in attempting to persuade intellectuals, as they would remain steadfast but would yield to the stronger force, which is the “the man in the street.” Therefore, arguments needed to be crude, straightforward, powerful, forceful, and appeal to emotions and instincts, rather than appealing to intellect. Since the emotional boorish brutes will force the “thinkers” to step in line. Thus, pursuit of truth was deemed unimportant, taking a backseat to tactics and psychology.

It is rather amusing to observe how a certain political Party excels and has a knack for crafting slogans that captivate the masses such as “planned parenthood,” “reproductive health,” “healthcare for all,” and “workers’ rights.” These slogans possess and carry an inherent appeal, resonating and evoking strong emotions while generating and garnering support. However, when subjected to intellectual scrutiny devoid of emotional bias, it becomes evident or one will discover, that these policies can have detrimental effects on individuals who are competent, and dedicated to the improving themselves.

These observations raise fundamental questions about the interplay between emotions and intellectual analysis in shaping political discourse. It serves as a reminder that catchy slogans and emotional appeals can wield significant influence in mobilizing support, yet they should not overshadow the critical examination of policies and their real-world implications. It highlights the importance of informed, and reasoned deliberation when evaluating political agendas and their potential impact on individuals and society at large. By embracing a balanced approach that respects both emotions but prioritizes logic, we can foster a more nuanced and effective dialogue surrounding important societal issues. But more so by having communities and extended families beyond the nuclear family catastrophe, individuals can have civil discussions that move beyond the emotional triggers, and hopefully to the realization of shared values and commonalities, beyond our small differences.

If you think ads and propaganda are being conflated I implore you to parse the difference without using money as a factor.

[1] Young independent women don’t worry, your not the first ones be duped as a marketing ploy.(This demographic spends the most on consumer goods). https://www.inc.com/amy-nelson/women-drive-majority-of-consumer-purchasing-its-time-to-meet-their-needs.html https://www.cnn.com/2019/08/29/economy/single-women-economy/index.html . There is a huge incentive to market a young and free lifestyle to everyone, especially young women. But by the time one realizes the jig is up, it’s late in the game, and often one is already locked in by bad decisions. Often married women usually control the purse strings in the relationship, though like this piece shows it can be degenerate too if just for the sake of consumerism, not towards a upholding values or community. Millennial women: “96% list ‘being independent’ as their single most important life goal.” @ https://girlpowermarketing.com/statistics-purchasing-power-women/

[2] https://dot.ca.gov/-/media/dot-media/programs/environmental-analysis/documents/ser/tract-housing-in-ca-1945-1973-a11y.pdf (pg 15 amongst others)
Share this:
X
Facebook
More
Print
Email
Tumblr
Telegram
WhatsApp
Mastodon
Like Loading…
Secularism: The Tradition Ender

May 14th, 2023
The following is an exploration of the meaning of the term Secular. As with many conceptual terms in modern vernacular, the term once meant one thing then shifted towards another use, then another use, and then there the modern application appeared. All of these meaning and uses of the term Secular are often blended together and used in a situation by which an explanation of a some other idea can be interpreted situationally but the ambiguity is the danger inherent in its usage. As the term secular is assumed to mean a certain set of confines but their is immediately surrounding verbs, adjectives and the context of conversation that will encroach and approach the nucleus of absurdity. As no reason can be had when a common definition of words is not agreed upon or explicitly evident by parties within the usage of the conceptual terms usage. Thereby, a historical as well as etymological analysis of how the word SECULAR was used and then became administered is necessary prior to explaining how Secularism was able to subvert tradition and become the worlds most dominant religion.

AFTER THIS

… IS THE OLD PIECE WHICH IS STILL UNDER major REVISION AS TO EXPLAIN MORE RECENT INSITES THAT HAVE BEEN THE DECENDANTS OF EXPRESSIONS ARTICULATED, DEBATED AND FAUGHT OVER IN SEVERAL MEDIUMS SINCE BEING ORGINALLY EXPRESSED. IF THERE IS A DESIRE TO SEE THE ORGINAL VERSION CHECK THE INTERNET ARCHIVE or not.

The prefix to to this is that I am not going to cited every influence. If it is true than citation is a mere formality, by which plagiarism is only a true mark when there is no creativity to the end conclusion of the various truths asserted.

We can first look at the etymology and then we can look at several of the ways in which it was used. But then we well review the Secularist Manifesto.

words is used quite often but it is used without explaining its origin.

There appears to be To me, there is a distinction between a completely religion-free civil society (its modern definition) and a civil society that is influenced by religion, without specific reference to religious doctrines (its classical definition).

In the past century and a half, there has been a tendency to conflate these two ideas. Perhaps it was initially an innocent mistake, as people became absorbed in technological advancements and traditional beliefs lost their hold in the face of easily accessible information and an array of other distractions. However, failing to differentiate between these concepts does a disservice to our understanding of where key civil rights get their gravitas from and how moral practices are shaped by our definitions, habits, practices, and religious frameworks.

When I refer to religious frameworks, I simply mean that, at its core, religion provides a means to explain the unexplainable or underexamined and to categorize phenomena in order to demystify that which is perplexing and may take longer than reasonable to understand. Over time, successful religious models have elaborated on these explanations and attributed them to a higher power that sets things in motion, while other models may simply provide emotionally comforting responses and reassurances about one’s powerlessness or ability to exert their agency. The specifics of which religious models fall into which category are not necessary to explore for the purpose of this essay.

The first part of this piece explains the fear that bore the term of secularism. The second part explains the effect of modern secularism

ON SECULARISM

Secularism is a word that has undergone significant changes throughout its history, making it both a brave and subversive concept. The meaning of the word has evolved so much that if one were to have a conversation with someone from before World War I about what secularism means, it would be like speaking in sign language to a person with no hands. To fully understand the breadth of the history of this term, it is necessary to explore the origins of the separation of state and direct religious influence in this country, otherwise known as the church. (further examined in my previous essay in the History-of-Freedom-of-Conscience section).

The First Amendment of the Bill of Rights states, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion.” This simple statement at the time contrasted with the situation in many European countries and other continents where religion served as the direct source of morality, rules and order. In the Colonies, however, this was not to be the case. A certain religion or denomination was not to dictate morality.

James Madison, one of the key figures in garnering support from various provinces and colonies for the ratification of the Constitution and Bill of Rights, is known for his advocacy of civil rights and religious freedom. He famously declared, “The civil rights of none shall be abridged on account of religious belief or worship, nor shall any national religion be established, nor shall the full and equal rights of conscience be in any manner, or on any pretext infringed.” As I discussed in my previous paper, the term “conscience” holds significant meaning in the context of religious freedom, secularism and free will.

To digress into interpreting the intention behind the First Amendment is not my aim. Such an argument would be similar to those as originalism, textualism, and structural interpretation, which are questions of legal philosophy influenced by one’s moral imperative and worldview. This argument can be quite pedantic and focused on the literal meaning of words. Instead, this paper will focus on explaining the historical usage of the term secular(ism) and how its meaning has evolved over time which has affected how value systems are passed down.

Returning to Madison, he asked a crucial question in Article Three of the Memorial, “Who does not see that the same authority which can establish Christianity, in exclusion of all other religions, may establish with the same ease any particular sect of Christians, in exclusion of all other sects?” This quote highlights the fear that many of the founding fathers had. Most of them were from persecuted Christian groups and left Europe to be protected in a place where they could practice their beliefs without the church’s influence affecting their rights. It is important to understand this historical context to appreciate the significance and motivation of the separation of church and state in the US Constitution.

The drafting of the First Amendment was driven by fear, but it resulted in one of the most powerful legal proclamations of a right. However, the founders made the assumption, to a fault, that religion would always be a clear factor in politics, so they intended for religion to be an influencer but not for it to be codified.

James Madison addressed this concern in his writings, specifically referencing the situation in Virginia during 1784 to 1786. During this time, the “general assessment bill” was proposed in Virginia, which would have allowed the state to provide financial support to Christian religious denominations in an impartial manner. However, this bill was ultimately defeated, putting an end to the decade-long battle over the issue. The fear was that providing state support to one denomination it could lead to that denomination gaining too much control, similar to what had happened in several times Europe.

In his response to the “general assessment bill,” James Madison stated, “The sincere friends of liberty…who give themselves up to the extravagancies of this passion are not aware of the injury they do to their own cause.” However, when it came to government support of religion, Madison believed that religion was a unique situation where excessive caution was warranted, as it had the potential to become an overbearing force with harmful consequences.

This fear of religious domination in government drove the founding fathers to believe in a separation of church and state, which was not directly articulated but was conveyed through the First Amendment and many of their writings. Originally, the Constitution had a clause that required a religious test. However, Article VI, Clause 3 explicitly prohibits religious tests as a qualification for holding federal office, stating “but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.” While the founding fathers were driven by a fear of other sects of Christianity taking control over the government, they ultimately enshrined the separation of church and state in the Constitution. The Constitution itself is generally silent on matters of faith, with the First Amendment extending a right to the free exercise of religion, but intentionally not endorsing any particular religion or set of religious beliefs.

The First Amendment is a clear signal that the government should remain neutral on matters of faith and allow individuals to practice their religion freely without interference from the state. However, while early American leaders recognized the positive role that religion could play in society, they were also cautious about the potential for religion to become a tool of political power and control. Despite this neutrality, however, the United States government has historically acknowledged the role of religion in promoting civic virtue and morality, as evidenced by the use of religious texts and references in political speeches, and documents.

In his Detached Memoranda, James Madison expressed his fears about the potential for religion to become intertwined with the government. He acknowledged that the Constitution of the United States strongly guards the separation between religion and government, but he also recognized the danger of encroachment by ecclesiastical bodies. Madison was impressed by the idea of a union of all citizens to form one nation under one government in acts of devotion to the God of all, but he also warned against the dangers of a direct mixture of religion and civil government. He believed that this could lead to a situation where individuals use their religion as a means of abridging the natural and equal rights of all men, in defiance of their own declarations that their kingdom was not of this world. Despite these concerns, some continue to deny the potential dangers of mixing religion and government.

As time went on, in an effort to prevent the government from becoming religiously corrupt, the concept of secularism emerged. Politicians and leaders appealed to the masses using religious beliefs without expressly relating them to scripture, leading to the development of secularism. This is why the religion and denomination of each president is a matter of common knowledge, and why it was a big deal when the first Baptist president, Warren G. Harding, was elected.

            If the concept of secularism meant that religion and state should remain completely separate, then why would the denomination of a president ever matter? In a truly secular society (under the modern definition), it would be reasonable to not care about the president’s faith, and it would be of no consequence. However, in reality, the religion and denomination of each president is a matter of common knowledge, and has always been a big deal. For instance, when JFK became the first Catholic president. In the past, the personal affairs of politicians were seen as inconsequential and not newsworthy to journalists. However, in the tradition of secularism set by the founding fathers, no denomination could be established as supreme in the eyes of the government. Unfortunately, with practices such as Jim Crow and segregation, certain Christian denominations held higher status at the state and local levels, while others, such as Catholics, were considered of lower status.

The irony lies in the fact that in Madison’s Detached Memoranda, he expressed his concern about chaplains being paid by the government and how it could lead to corruption, as he expressed in Latin, “maculis quas aut incuria fudit, aut humana parum cavit natura,” which means faults originating from carelessness, or of which human nature was not sufficiently aware (Horace). Madison’s carelessness in discussing religious ethos, which he assumed would always be separate from the government, which has led to the modern conception of secularism that has assisted in the deviation from this ideal.

The question that crawls out from the page is “WHY IS THIS A PROBLEM?”

Despite the absence of a canonical definition, classical secularism was upheld by communities that had their own religious and faith-based canons that dictated their ethos. However, as these communities began to dissolve, the practices that were specific to secularism deteriorated. The implicit expression and social contract of rights derived from a faith-based ontology weakened as people in the 1960s and 1970s were distracted by new lifestyles, ideas, and material possessions that were no longer solely dependent on the systems in which they were raised.

As society “progressed”, people began to create new lifestyles that were no longer related or tied into the culture they were raised in. While many still held onto the traditions/culture of their parents, they were not as strict about the details of their faith-based practices. Instead, they believed they could incorporate specific elements they liked into a more secular lifestyle. However, by practicing their beliefs in this manner, each generation began to loosen their grip on tradition until the precepts by which they lived became less and less important. Daily acts became weekly, weekly became monthly or bi-annual, until eventually, the descendants of these practices had little to no connection to the original faith or belief system. Additionally, each descending generation had their own unique beliefs and values that differed from their parents, creating a standard deviation, in each generation, that moved further away from the original tradition. Thereby, many traditions and practices have been laid to waste by the neglect of modern secularism.

            As a result, the next generation may either have little knowledge of their familial heritage or marry into contrasting ideologies out of ignorance (or perhaps spite). In contrast, those who did not believe in the secular aspect maintained the faith, tradition, and strict letter of the canons alive. While there may be some leakage, the majority of their offspring have basically the same beliefs over these generations, which was due to the stringency of staying away from secularism. Such as keeping traditional names, wearing specific clothing and following standards that made the individuals within the community stand out as not being purely secular beings.

On the other hand, within the stringency there is the group whose experiences were not pleasant, but unlike previous generations, they were now able to hit the immediate escape button and move to the big city without having to correct or really contend with the beliefs they did not like. As a result, they could easily discard generations worth of tradition. This was facilitated by the fact that big cities were places where secularism had become the norm.

It’s worth noting that many faith/belief-based systems became so entwined with their practices that dissenters were met with individuals (often parents) who did not have proper or rational ways of addressing the dissent. The tyranny of ignorance regarding the knowledge as to why certain practices are integral to a religious framework assert that “because I said so” was a justifiable answer. This made it tough for people who questioned traditions to hold onto religious behaviors. Furthermore, outside sources such as TV and radio painted stories of how things could be, making it easier for these people to run away and move to the big city, where the modern secularism had taken complete hold of everyday life. Thereby, in less than a generation, they could discard several generations’ worth of hard work, heritage and community building.

            In the chaos of declining traditional values, secularism became the new belief system, with the idea that anything not tied to religion should govern one’s life or at least be a significant part of it. Because “why not!!” However, this goes against the principles upon which this country was founded, or more importantly what every civilization that survives can believe in without falling into a state of despair at the perceived meaninglessness of life.

Thus, if you believe that vague notions of liberty and tolerance under the modern concept of secularism are part of the ethos of this country, or are valuable in of themselves, you are either lying to yourself and others or simply ignorant.

Secularism is one of the factors that led to the breakdown of communities. Over the following weeks I will lay out other factors.

Type your email…
Share this:
X
Facebook
More
Print
Email
Tumblr
Telegram
WhatsApp
Mastodon
Like Loading…
The Medium and Our Larger Agency Issue

April 13th, 2023
The concept of privacy has been a critical topic of discussion since before the founding of this country, but the Third, Fourth, and Fifth Amendments of the Bill of Right established and addressed privacy as a protection against government intrusion. At the end of the nineteenth century, the discussion on the “right of privacy” from fellow private citizens began, as the “right to let be”. [1] Now in the current technological age with algorithms being used by Big Tech, there is a new discussion brewing regarding the corporate use of private information. Privacy is considered as a fundamental human right, and its importance is highlighted by the fact that it is included in the Constitution, and various national, international and state laws.

The argument of this essay is that the Right of Privacy is dependent on the Freedom of Conscience and Agency. However, in the current technological landscape, where most people’s Consciousness is “plugged in,” their realities, and consciousness are being shaped and manufactured by algorithms, hindering Freedom of Conscience. People’s inability to unplug is threatening the foundation of privacy. The solution to this problem is self-regulation and personal habits through mindfulness, such as limiting time online, unplugging for one day a week, and enjoying the great outdoors without the distraction of technology.

In this essay, I will explore the origins of the term Freedom of Conscience through its religious and philosophical roots, and how it influenced the
Founding Fathers. I will also examine how the internet, the media and our consumption of information through these mediums have changed the way we process information, diminishing people’s agency and Freedom of Conscience. I will then discuss of some of the consequences of this phenomenon. Finally, I will propose individuals actions that can be taken to reclaim agency, Freedom of Conscience, and perhaps some privacy.

Furthermore, a thread that runs throughout this essay is that privacy as a concept and right depends on the Freedom of Conscience. Freedom of Conscience, in turn, depends on one’s habits, which shape the conscience based on what the subconscious feeds the consciousness through habits. It is Essential that people seek their own method or habits of unplugging instead of relying on the state or government as nannies for Big Tech.

The Limbo of Privacy’s Definition

Privacy is an inherently difficult term to define since people cannot agree on its concrete, and tangible effects. Privacy is an abstract concept that refers to where people believe there should be a protected boundary that shields individuals or groups from physical, emotional, spiritual, religious, intellectual, other concrete and or seemingly immaterial harms or damages caused by private individuals, companies, corporations, state actors, state agencies, national or local governments and or Foreign Governments.

The Subliminal, Agency and Freedom of Conscience Loop (the fabric of the thread weaving this essay)

Freedom of Conscience is dependent on agency, agency is dependent on what one actively does. What one actively does is dependent on what one actively believes, which is dependent on what one observes or listens to actively or passively. Therefore, if one does not control what they see or listen to, then they are not in control of what they believe, what they actively do, their agency, or Freedom of Conscience. All of these are in a loop, and to be in control of oneself all of these features need to be tended to in order to be a free person in control of their conscience that can make relatively unhindered moral decisions for oneself. If individuals do not have agency or control of their conscience the arguments for paternalist, authoritarian, or even fascists policies become very appealing. It may seem necessary for a governing body to make moral decisions for individuals if they are not in control of their actions, agency or Freedom of Conscience. Thereby, Freedom of Conscience is the foundation of individualism, and without it, the moral fabric for individual freedoms and rights begins to unravel for populists to appeal to the marginalized and manipulate those without agency into voting in a fascist dictator.

The History of Freedom of Conscience

            These United States of America were aimed at achieving principles such as liberty, privacy, freedom, Human Rights etc. However, these principles are based on an ontological philosophy that is deeper than any of those particular principles which is the “Freedom of Conscience” in order to serve a higher being. Freedom on Conscience is an inherently religious idea, meant to push man above the lower pleasures and to be more than beings that exist and deduce reality based on their feelings.

The right to privacy has its roots in the ideas of various philosophers and thinkers, such as John Locke and St. Aquinas, who believed that individuals’ have certain inherent rights that are essential to serving God. According to this Philosophy, individuals must have the freedom to act according to their own will including the freedom to abstain from religious practice if they so choose.

Prior to the establishment of the Constitution in 1787, Secular governments were not common. Most leaders were either religious or influenced by them, and religion played a significant role in the spread of belief and practices. For instance, religions such as Christianity, Islam, Hinduism and Buddhism spread rapidly due to the conversion of kings, monarchs, leaders, and councils to the new religion. Some religions encouraged missionary work and evangelism, while others believed in leading by example to persuade others to convert. However, for over a millennium, religions like Christianity and Islam viewed other religions as idolatrous or inferior and often persecuted these religions followers as outsiders, while treating them as second-class citizens subject to extra taxes and segregation.[2][3]

The idea of free will in regard to one’s faith was almost prophetic in the 5th century when Augustine of Hippo (aka St. Augustine) wrote about it in his books On Free Choice of Will[4] and The City of God. In the former, he argued that free will is a gift from God that enables people. To choose between good and evil.[5] In the latter, he describes the need for an earthly city and heavenly city, which was meant as a plea for people to stay in the “City of God”.[6] This “City” later got interpreted by philosophers as the religious foundation for a separation of church and state, since political peace was seen a moral neutral insofar as it is a common goal between Christians and non-Christians. However, Augustine was a fierce critic of the Roman Republic due to its religious polytheism, perceived lack of morality and his belief that justice could not be served through politics alone.[7] This underscores the importance of additional moral, philosophical, and religious writers in the development of the modern sense of free will, which was later enshrined as the Freedom of Conscience depicted by the Founding Fathers.[8]

Over the Millenia following St. Augustine’s’ works, influential thinkers like Martin Luther, Roger William, St. Aquinas and John Locke built upon his ideas, leading to a shift in the tenor of free will that was more palatable to the Founding Fathers.

Martin Luther focused Conscience of Freedom (“the inner being of conscientia in the primeval verbum”[9]), which pertains to the way individuals represent their knowledge of self in regard to their initial thoughts, particularly in acting on good and/or evil. For Luther, the Freedom of Conscience was only meaningful if it prevented a governing body (in his case, the Catholic Church)[10] from compelling individual to take specific actions. [11]

Similarly, Roger Williams, often celebrated as the great hero of liberty of conscience, believed that religion could be defined under his notion of conscience (often used as a synonym for religion), which he described as “a perswasion fixed in the minde and heart of a man, which enforceth him to judge … and to doe so and so, with respect to God, his worship, ác.”[12] Williams argued that the basic principles of morality were the product of natural reason or conscience and were known by all persons which that enabled him to distinguish them from religious beliefs, which are the product of revelation.[13] He also believed that a successful society consists solely of Christians, limiting his authority as a controlling figure.[14] Nevertheless, Williams was a crucial influence on the Founding Fathers, as he founded Rhode Island, became an icon for (Christian) religious freedoms and established the first Baptist church in America.[15]

The Main Constitutional Influence –the Concept of Conscience

John Locke advocated for religious freedoms and outlines three main reasons for religious toleration in his Letters Concerning Toleration (1689-1692).[16] The first reason he listed was that “earthly judges, the state in particular, and human beings generally, cannot dependably evaluate the truth-claims of competing religious standpoints”. This formed the basis of his theory of Freedom of Conscience, which asserts that individuals should not grant the state authority over spiritual matters because objective truth cannot be determined by a governing body.[17]

Locke’s theory of Freedom of Conscience is crucial in preventing the government from policing what truth is. For instance, recent DHS document reveal attempts by the Executive Branch of the United States to decide what constitutes misinformation/disinformation is. This is an example of government over stepping its bounds.[18][19] The government should not be responsible for determining what is Misinformation or Disinformation, because government agencies will conflate the two to achieve their aims.[20] The Disinformation Governance Board faced backlash and was ultimately disbanded because its purpose was misunderstood, and it was ill-equipped to stop alleged disinformation about its mission.[21] The Board’s name suggested the DHS was already doing exactly what it claimed to be preventing name suggested exactly what the DHS was already doing.[22]

By Contrast for St. Aquinas, Conscience was not a capability, power or a physically distinct entity; rather, it was a specific function, namely, the application of knowledge.[23] Aquinas identified three main ways of defining Conscience:

“For conscience, according to the very nature of the word, implies the relation of knowledge to something: for conscience may be resolved into ‘cum alio scientia,’ i.e. knowledge applied to an individual case. But the application of knowledge to something is done by some act. Wherefore from this explanation of the name it is clear that conscience is an act… conscience is said to witness. In another way, so far as through the conscience we judge that something should be done or not done; and in this sense, conscience is said to incite or to bind. In the third way, so far as by conscience we judge that something done is well done or ill done, and in this sense conscience is said to excuse, accuse, or torment.”[24]

However, Aquinas objected to the third definition, arguing that habits play a crucial role in forming conscience and influencing our decision-making. [25] This objection highlights the concept of agency, as habits can limit our Freedom of Conscience in situations where our conscience is already influenced by habits.

The Current Technological Landscape — How the Shallows Immediate Access has Changed Our Brains

Nicholas Carr explains the thought process behind the creation of Google. Carr states “[Larry Page] realized that the links on web pages are analogous to the citation in academic papers”. Both are signifiers of value. In the same way when a person’s web page links to someone else’s page, she is saying that she thinks that other page is more important.[26] This is how most of legacy media works. They cite someone else, who then cites someone, who cited someone else and if you take the time to go through the rabbit hole the source is usually a paraphrase of what someone heard someone else saying. By the time news gets to somewhere like Fox News, CNN, MSNBC, the Washington Post, New York Times or other legacy media organizations. They can usually point to half a dozen subsidiaries, affiliates, or individuals that cited it first.[27] As a result, our brains now use faulty modes of relating to information as having authority[28] since hyperlinking in an article penalizes the reader.[29]

Anthropologists usefully defines a “tool” as an artifact used to make other artifacts. Therefore, objects like cars, houses, or clothing are not usually tools. Modern tools have included things like 3-D printers, garden tools and hammers. When we think of things like computers or smartphones people who use them for artistic expression, building networks or to program machines can call them modern technological tools. The question then posed is if someone just uses their phone for media, entertainment, or a way to kill time. The Algorithm adjusts to you but does the adjustment it causes on one’s brain thereby make the medium the tool and one’s mind an artifact?

This bring us to the issue of the medium of information that is changing the way people think. J.Z. Young discusses that “for the medieval type of brain. . . making true statements depended on fitting sensory experience with the symbols of religion.”[30] The introduction of the letter-press was said to have allowed people to compare their thoughts and experiences beyond religious precepts, whether embedded in symbols or voiced by the clergy, and instead, compare one’s thoughts and experiences with other stories. However, with the advent of the internet, smartphones and streaming services, the medium through which we process information has changed once again. Rather than continuing to evolve human reasoning, these technologies have led to a form of devolution, where people’s experiences and thoughts are shaped by the algorithms of the platforms they use; leading to a lack of critical thinking and dependence on information presented to them. As a result, the medium of information is changing the way people think in ways that were not anticipated by earlier forms of media.

            The Medium

In Understanding Media: The Extensions of Man, Marshall McLuhan proposes that the media, not the content that they carry, should be the focus of study.[31] He suggests that the medium affects the society in which it plays a role mainly by the characteristics of the medium rather than the content. As many great works, it is talked about more than read. He is coined as saying “the Medium is the message”. McLuhan understood that when new mediums come along people naturally get caught up in the information—the “content”—it carries. They care about the news in the newspaper, the music on the radio, the shows on the TV (streaming platforms), the words spoken on the far end of the phone line. Now we have to confront news updates as phone alerts, music individually streamed, TV show options catered to the likings of the viewer, conversations via the monologue of a social media posts, meetings via a Zoom screens, and short abbreviated messages to our loved ones.

When individuals debate the effects of the medium, whether they are enthusiasts or skeptics, they often focus on the content. Tiktok, Instagram, Facebook, Google and other media platforms are just the latest topics in this ongoing context debate. However, McLuhan observed that in the long term, the content of a medium matters less than the medium itself, which can shape how we think and act. As our window into the world (and into ourselves, a popular medium molds what we see and how we perceive it). With enough usage, it can even alter who we are as individuals and as a society. According to McLuhan “[T]he effects of technology do not occur at the level of opinion or concepts,” but by gradually and subconsciously altering our patterned perception without any resistance. The showman embellishes steadily and without any resistance. The showman embellishes to make a point, but the point remains the same. Through the mediums, media works its magic, or mischief, on our nervous system.

            Our fixation on the substance of a medium can obscure the profound impacts it has on us. Rather than recognizing the internal shifts that occur, we become enamored or disturbed by the content, overlooking the underlying effects. Eventually we convince ourselves that the technology itself is inconsequential, and it’s our utilization of it that holds significance. This notion, though misleading, provides comfort by implying that we are in command. The technology is a mere instrument, lifeless until we wield it and lifeless again once we put it away. However, this is no longer true as anxiety and FOMO (fear of missing out) are becoming attached to the states of mind we have when we unplug. Nevertheless, individuals who are cautious of the ever-expanding influence of the internet seldom allow their enjoyment of it to be impeded by their awareness.

            This is why getting angry at Big tech for the information that they are able to gather about us seems rather silly. There’s only a problem with the content they collect. But restricting Big Tech is not likely to change the medium of how we consume information and entertainment, or the fact that the information we do not wanted gathered may be “volunteered” through this medium in some other way.

The Brain Effect

There is an argument that the internet, with its ability to provide various types of sensory and cognitive stimuli, has more than just potential to rapidly and thoroughly restructure our cognitive processes. This is because the internet provides each kind of sensory and cognitive stimuli that produces rapid and potent modification in brain circuitry. [32] The repetitive, intense, interactive, and addictive qualities of these stimuli make them highly effective in modifying brain circuitry. The World Health Organization now has now classified internet-use disorder (IUD) and internet gaming disorder/internet addiction (IGD) in the International Classification of Diseases 11th revision. [33] (ICD-11). Neurologically, addiction is characterized by overall network changes in the frontostriatal[34] and frontocingulate[35] circuits of the brain. [36] Additionally, research has shown that digital media use is associated with significantly lower scores in behavioral measure for executive function.[37]

Research examining the impact of different media on intelligence and learning abilities, has shown that each medium promotes certain cognitive skills while hindering others. With the widespread use of the internet and screen-based technologies, visual- spatial abilities have become more advance, allowing individuals to visualize object with greater precision. However, this strength comes at the expense of reduced abilities in deep processing, which is essential for mindful knowledge acquisition, critical thinking, inductive analysis, imagination, and reflection. [38] This is where Agency and Freedom of Conscience begin to erode.

In his famous 2005 speech, David Foster Wallace emphasized “Learning how to think really means learning how to exercise control over how and what you think”. He believed that conscious awareness allows us to choose what we pay attention to and construct meaning from our experiences. To lose that control is to feel a sense of loss.[39] Unfortunately, Wallace’s words became all the more poignant when he took his own life two and a half years later. It is a powerful reminder that we must not relinquish control over our attention without recognizing the potential consequences.

This is the current state of our society. People often rely on headlines and catchphrases for information on a given topic, overlooking the depth and complexity of the issues that affect their daily lives. With the prevalence of the internet over the past two decades, discussing complex issues has become nearly impossible for many individuals. When people encounter information that challenges their existing beliefs, they must reorganize their thought processes. However, with the ease of accessing counterarguments, it becomes simpler to resort to heuristic ideologues that we see in the mediums we consume the most. This is especially problematic when someone challenges our views on a topic, as we often cling tightly to our beliefs. We then seek out the very medium that causes our problems in order to reinforce our beliefs.



            Plugging in to unplug

            People now use the stressors to destress themselves.

            The Power of the Unconscious

            Based on this, modern technology has actually made western society more primitive than ever. For the average American, prior to 1920, work was either in a factory or in a field as a farmer, or some sort of blue-collar work.[40] This meant that people usually received their news via the spoken word, the radio or newspaper, if you knew how to read. But since there was not instant access to information when people heard news, they had time to process it, think about the source, perhaps think about what information they are missing in order to have a more informed opinion, at the very least most people would discuss it with their family, friends and their community to get a consensus. But because individuals had to deal with other people in their proximity. Political or moral discussions necessitated being more civil and polite. There are counters such as the civil rights movement. But those were movements with clearly articulated goals. (which later got hijacked by extremists).

            However, in the modern age where most people mindlessly scroll through social media, individuals are most likely not actively in control of what they see or listen too. If someone even consciously processes it, it is very brief. If you are not in control of what your brain is processing or how your brain is processing information, then the likelihood that you know what or why you are actively doing something is very low.

The senses can handle about 11 million bits per second, while reading silently they handle 45 bits per second, reading aloud is 30-bit p/s and multiplication of tasks is 12 bit p/s so the processing power of the unconscious mind is 200,000 times that of consciousness.[41] Many people now act instinctually based on an emotion they unconsciously processed that someone else had while they were mindlessly scrolling. Thereby, agency for many people has been lost since one is not truly acting out of one’s own volition but based on an input that is unrecallable.

Yet, when one acts in a certain way that could be made sense of, it is easier to associate that with one’s true nature than to strip down the process by which one learned that behavior. Thus, if what one is viewing affects their actions and then diminishes one’s desire to separate when they are being influenced, from their own agency, then the knowledge(conscience) of self is gone.

Researcher John A Bargh speaks about “behavior-concept priming” people have a working memory with multiple components, summarizing the finding that within working memory, representation of one’s intentions (accessible to conscious awareness) are stored in a different location and structure from the representations used to guide action (not accessible) is of paramount importance to an understanding of the mechanisms underlying priming effects in social psychology. The habits that are forming one’s current being are not with in the freedom of conscience, they are abstracts from the medium and the information being consumed in the short hand form.[42]

Freedom of conscience is dependent on agency, agency is dependent on what you do actively. What you do actively is dependent on what one actively believes. What one actively believes is dependent on what one sees or listens to active/inactively. Do you see where this loop is being disrupted?

If you Don’t Reject it as “False”, it Eventually becomes More “True”

I strongly suggest everyone reads The shallows by Nicholos Carr. I read it [7] years ago and it fundamentally changed how I interact with any medium. There is a part in the book where Carr talks about what it means to continue to consume a piece of information, whether that be a paper, a book, movie, TV show, or news show. In order to actively stay engaged in something that is conveying information, you usually have to think of it as true, false or could be true. Otherwise what you are seeing is utter nonsense because the dots that made it cognizable are not connecting and therefore it is gibberish. Individuals have the ability to watch/consume something that they believe is false. The caveat is that in their head, via a physiological response, or at least verbally they are thinking “that’s wrong”, “that’s false”, “that could never happen” or even laughing at the absurdity. Thereby, most people have trouble watching stuff that their brain categories as false.

But there is a strange phenomenon that is as old as time: telling stories that could be true, even if not in a literal sense, can transcends all imagined barriers. We call them myths, legends, or even biblical stories. What Hollywood, legacy media, the government, and corporations have been attempting to do with the new mediums is streamline what could be considered modern myths. For instance, because of representation in media and commercials Americans think minority groups are larger than they actually are.[43][44]

The argument is that willingness to watch and accept certain films, or media as being a proper representation of an event, zeitgeist, or movement shifts the could be true, to most likely true. Now if other authority figures (such as celebrities, or academics) emulate that same sentiment or if that piece of work is disseminated in the more bite size medium. These repetitions alter the unconscious mind. To me if I hear someone say they have a favorite movie what I hear is that they have been partially programmed by the movie. I cannot watch a movie I have seen in the past three years or I am bored and quoting every other line. There is no movie created by a group of self-aggrandizing writers that is as fundamentally true as biblical stories or other historical myths that have survived genocides, famines, wars and mother nature’s brutality.

Note before the Solutions(worthwhile trade-offs)

With all this said it may seem easier to just be a defeatist or want to ignore what has already been created since these technologies have become such integral parts of our lives. There is this struggle playing out in modern society where people are either willing to admit that many people have lost their agency; or by contrast, only willing to say people should pick themselves up since agency is purely a choice.

The issue with the former group is that if people are capable of losing their agency and if the only manner that these people can get their agency back is through government intervention. Then the issues I see is how can you trust the person who says they are reallocating the agency, if they already believe that certain groups can be forced or convinced to act and live lives that are not in their best interest, what is to stop them (the authority reallocating “agency”) from just enforcing their own agenda on those without agency. Also, if you believe that others have lost their agency how are you so sure that you have agency and are not the foot soldiers for someone’s agenda. Therefore, if the lack of agency for certain people groups can be sourced to certain governmental or societal systems what makes a person belonging to this group believe some new governmental policy would actually make this better and not cause a South African post-Apartheid type of shift in agency.[45]

In regards, to the latter, the issue is that most individuals who say this are either in the minority that is capable of having high agency (nature) or were around people who prioritize high agency (nurture). Furthermore, most of their arguments hinge on agency as a governmental shift in policy as unequal benefits being given to another people group. Meanwhile, when there are government handouts or policies that positively affect or help, the people group they belong too, they will take it, yet they complain about government expansion and welfare programs.

Both sides have been hamstringing themselves and have been baited by the candidates who offer the catchphrase of the proper ideologue that provides an incentive to vote for that party. Meanwhile the individuals are trading away their agency for marginal benefits.

For these reasons I am vehemently against government intervention into the modern space of technology and privacy. With the way politics works in this Democratic Republic any law that is drafted with the alleged intention of giving rights to individuals as to their harvested data by the Big Tech. Is not likely to work out. Big Tech has laid the seed on their soil and opened the gates. We as consumers via the medium have watered and been the sunlight to grow these seeds into fruit. So in a sense these data points are the fruit of our labor but we have been on their property the entire time.

There are arguments that the dirt is government subsidized, but in the current landscape new policies are more likely than not to have loopholes for these corporations and or give these companies a competitive edge; since most of these politicians get campaign money from these companies and regurgitate the catchphrases that bait people into believing one thing while these individuals do otherwise. Most bad laws on the books are a result of government half assing a law that was originally intended to stop a whole practice and ended up giving an advantage to the main villains it was meant to hinder. As a result, the best way to mitigate at least in the short to intermediate term is get more people their agency back by showing them how these mediums are truly pigeon holing their entire mode of thinking and feeling which highjacks their agency and Freedom of Conscience. Thereby, the Privacy issue is a symptom of content in the medium not the disease of the mediums themselves.

Solutions (or prescriptive trading rambles)

            These are exercises which can help people. But these exercises lean more towards anecdotal evidence since there does not seem be a financial profit that can be made from these mental workouts. However, just like most exercises consistency over a long period of time is imperative to growth and is more important than merely going hardcore at it occasionally. I like the SMART way of achieving a Specific, Measurable, Achievable, Relevant and Time-Bound goal. But by no means is this meant to be exhaustive:

(1) Do not use your phone while in a discussion with someone who has opposing views to yourself; (2) go a double-digit amount of hours awake without having internet access; (3) have long form discussions with friends or family, where the rules of engagement are no technology[46][47][48]; (4) set a time in which you will not use your phone; (5) going on a camping trip to somewhere you do not have service for a few days bi-annually;(6) Exercising on a regular basis; (7) Reading paper books; (8) learning about belief systems other than your own from a person who believes it; (9) having mentors, wholistic and or general/specific goal-oriented one; (10) being aware of the anxiety of unplugging. (11) Prayer/ Mediation/ self-brainwashing.
- (1) Using your phone as described above is a safety blanket.[49] This is a blanket for several reasons, (A) if you can just go back to the same short form medium that created your already confirmed frame of mind you have; then no critical thinking has actually occurred. You are just looping back in. (b)clutching or holding your phone will give you a sense of unjustified security. We all have seen those videos of very highly educated people pulling out their phones to be able to record to convince an audience of something. But the Audience consumes the information through the same medium, so the phone makes the person being filmed perceive the holder as one using an immediate get-out-of-jail-free-card. And the conversation seems like the person not holding the phone is holding the phone bearer hostage.
- (2) This can be anything from turning your phone off, putting it on airplane mode (turning off wifi), putting it somewhere you will not be such as in your car while at home, across the house and turned off. The idea of a shabboth or a rest day truly does miracles for people.[50][51][52] People who do not believe in primordial practices are not worthy of reaching antiquity.
- (3) I personally rarely text people. Thus, when I see loved ones I can sit down and catch up with them. I can have twelve to twenty hour discussions with friends and family because I do not get caught up in oversharing of my life via the short mediums of text messages. There is also research on the benefits of Vocal conversations.[53][54][55]
  - It also helps to have people you can play games with, board games and or sports.[56] I know many people like to use online sports but then the medium issue above gets played in as well. You can just set anytime you would like, and you do not have to be social (escape artistry).
- (4)There are methods of not using the internet or its mediums between certain time period. Like not before 10AM and not after 10PM. For some people this unplugging is what is known as deep work.[57]
- (5) Going into the great outdoors where there is nothing but mother nature, your thoughts and physical exertion can be quite a spiritual trip.[58] There are people who go monk, hermit or caveman mode. Some people like to go Glamping. It is all up to the individual and the utility they see in it. Seeing beautiful sights have a magnificent way of humbling the largest of egos, putting things into perspective and assisting the healing process by helping people realize what actually matters.
- (6) Exercising whether its weightlifting, running, calisthenics or playing sports are all great ways of getting in touch with your body, building a mind body connection, and getting rid of Cortisol.[59] Also, it is usually tough to be plugged into a medium when your heart rate is at 85% of capacity. But it can also include activities like scheduled meet ups to play board games, and or socializing.
- (7) There is an overwhelming amount of research on the effects on recall and the memory enhancement of reading a paperback book.[60] Also, even if fiction it will bring you closer to the openminded brains, J.Z. Young claims we had as a result of the reading books. Also, reading books builds empathy.
- (8)This combines (1)-(3) since in order for someone to open up about their deeply held believes they usually want you be present, not on your phone, and expect the conversation to take time. Also, this is a great way to expand your knowledge. Some of the most profound conversations I have had have been with people of different believe systems. Through realizing our similarities and differences, especially through talking through where the similarities diverge into contrasting views and epistemology of those evolutions. These conversations seriously weaken the medium of the internet.
- (9) I have been blessed to have some amazing mentors in my life. I have yet to have found a mentor who I holistically look up to. But I have found academic, professional, spiritual and religious mentors. But these people all suggest alternative ways to grow and achieve certain goals which makes them instrumental to helping me realize that I needed to use different mediums for thinking and conveying myself.
- (10) Part of the issues and the evils that are layered into the algorithms used by media platforms, streaming services and other technologies is that they adjust to us as we use them. Thus, the trap that they set for us are usually built by our own minds, interests, likings and desires. What we are worried about missing when we unplug is based on a dopamine investment we have manufactured on these platforms. But in unplugging on a consistent basis you will realize the world does not end when you stopped paying attention to these medium. Actually, you have more time than ever and the ability to explore new worlds. Another noticeable thing is that these algorithms will attempt to overload individuals with more updates as to make you feel overwhelmed when you plug back in. If this was a boss, a friend or romantic relationship we would see this as abusive. But knowing its tricks is half the battle.
- (11)The power of brainwashing yourself. Meditation is great for slowing down your brain and getting rid of anxiety. Once I started praying Meditation seemed like a waste of time since prayer does the same thing with words of affirmation.
  - When I decided I wanted to go to undergrad, I was already 21. The way I programmed myself to get all the necessary tasks done was every 3 months I would create a flash card, and on the flash card I had my daily goals, weekly goals, and seasonal goals. As soon as I would wake up, I would read it and before I would go to sleep I would do the same. What I found is that by doing this, whenever I was bored my brain would drift to completing a task on the list I brainwashed myself into believing was my top priority.
  - In recent months and since COVID I have noticed two things, people who out of nowhere will repeat phrases they have seen on social media or Tiktok, and the same with people doing bizarre dances. Recently, I started praying twice daily, I pray in my people’s mother tongue and randomly I would hear words in my head that pertain to certain prayers but it would only be snippets and I could not remember where those specific words were from but it was in my mother tongue. Then later on the same day I would be at an event and hear a prayer that is specific to that day of the week or even year, and then I would be like “oh my subconscious was primed for this event based on my long history of subconsciously internalizing these prayers”. Recently, I realized this is a form of brainwashing but I am fine with it since I believe that it helps me. But I noticed that the medium uses the same force of repetitive motions and sounds to indoctrinate adults and children. My faith has over a millennia of watching the effects of these repetitions that change mood and behavior. I doubt these sayings and dances have the same positive effect, but they will indiscriminately target those same mechanisms through their mediums of disseminating bite size pieces of information that eat away at the subconscious. My fear is that if individuals are not careful their agency will be slowly overtaken to a point beyond restoration.
In conclusion, adopting practices such as those mentioned above can help reduce dependence on the mediums that shape our thought processes. It is widely acknowledged that internet use and phone usage can alter the structure of our brains, and consciously taking steps to limit this influence can be beneficial. However, maintaining agency and Freedom of Conscience requires intentional control over the mediums we consume and what we allow into our subconscious. While the issue of privacy on the internet is important, it is more of a content issue than an issue with the mediums themselves. By consistently unplugging and engaging in practices like mediation, self-reflection and intentional goal setting, individuals can strengthen their ability to think critically and independently. These practices have allowed me to form my beliefs based on my personal experiences, introspection, and hours of relentless and unforgiving silence void of a medium to make up my mind for me. I pray for others to make a similar mindful journeys out of their handheld matrix.

[1] Louis D. Brandeis & Samuel D. Warren II, The Right to Privacy (1890).

[2] https://www.pewresearch.org/religion/2021/06/29/religion-in-india-tolerance-and-segregation/

[3] https://www.britannica.com/topic/Hinduism/Hinduism-under-Islam-11th-19th-century

[4] https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/236304146.pdf

[5] https://www.anselm.edu/sites/default/files/Documents/Institute%20of%20SA%20Studies/4.5.3.2h_22Brown.pdf

[6] https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/augustine/ ¶8

[7] Id

[8] https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Jefferson/99-01-02-9714

[9] J. HECKEL, Lex Charitatis, ABHANDLUNGEN DER BAYERISCHEN AKADEMIE DER WISSENSCHAFTEN, PHIL-HIsT. K1. N.F. 1953, H. 3, p. 61 n.416; Luther, De Capt. BabyL EccL WA VI, 537, 15.

[10] https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/303858152.pdf –> Valparaiso University Law Review, Vol. 15, No. 2 [1981], Art. 3 pg 270

[11]https://www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/23559401.pdf?refreqid=excelsior%3A6bacd82773aaa037a34ce46662b6ff79&ab_segments=&origin=&initiator=&acceptTC=1

The Annual of the Society of Christian Ethics , 1988, Vol. 8 (1988), pp. 133-160

Citing . “Letter to Major Endicot, Governour of the Massachusets,” in CW, 4:508 (em phasis added).

[12] 60. “The Bloody Tenent yet more Bloody,” in CW, 4:365; “Letter to John Whipple, Jr.,” in CW, 6:328-29; Morgan, 128-29; William Lee Miller, 183; Little, “Legislating Morality,” 44-45 and “Roger Williams and Separation,” 13-14.

[13] https://www.history.com/topics/religion/roger-williams

[14] https://www.mtsu.edu/first-amendment/article/1231/roger-williams

[15] https://www.loc.gov/item/today-in-history/february-05/

[16] https://academic.oup.com/book/26418/chapter-abstract/194804910?redirectedFrom=fulltext

[17]https://scholarship.law.marquette.edu/mulr/vol101/iss3/4/#:~:text=In%20addition%20to%20defending%20religious,any%20authority%20over%20spiritual%20matters.

[18] https://www.oig.dhs.gov/sites/default/files/assets/2022-08/OIG-22-58-Aug22.pdf

[19] https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/23129270-fb-portal

[20] https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/23131362-june-22-2022-draft-cisa-report

[21] https://www.npr.org/2022/05/21/1100438703/dhs-disinformation-board-nina-jankowicz

[22] The twitter files have more issues regard authenticity and full scope, yet they still do not bode well for governmental influence or policing of Big Tech. Though the meeting of between agencies like the FBI, DHS DOJ and DOD with twitter employees, the medium of dissemination the files (talked about later), and these agencies asking (having influence) versus having backdoor access like they did at Facebook. But all of the twitter files have been compiled at one findable source. https://unga.substack.com/p/twitter-files-1-11-downloads-pdf

[23] Valparaiso University Law Review, Vol. 15, No. 2 [1981], Art. 3 pg 266

[24] ST. THOMAS AQUINAS, SUMMA THEOLOGICA pt. 1, question 79, art. 13

[25] ID.

[26] Pg 152-54 Citing Academy of AChievemnet, “interview: Larry Page.” October 28, 2000, www.achievement.org/autodoc/page/pagoint-1. And John Battele, The Search: How Google and Its Rivals Rewrote the Rules of Business and Transformed Our Culture (New York: Portfolio, 2005), 66-67.The shallows: what the internet is Doing to Our Brains: Chapter on the making of google

[27] https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/17512786.2022.2133780?casa_token=Iw8KZ5-oopkAAAAA%3ASg0ZGnRSVlQDiXO9ILsyR9u16taj-y0MaB0ANuVQVKNOWGpCWS_GfTxwpAnkye-1hBA_AtgN8REj

[28] https://mediaengagement.org/research/hyperlinks/

[29] https://pdos.csail.mit.edu/~neha/hyperlinks/main-no.html

[30] PG 72 Citing J.Z. Young. Doubt and Certainty in science: a biologists Reflections on the Brain (London: Oxford University Press, 1951), 101

[31] Understanding Media: The Extensions of Man is a 1964 book by Marshall McLuhan,

[32] He Q, Turel O, Bechara A. Brain anatomy alterations associated with Social Networking Site (SNS) addiction. Sci Rep. 2017;7:45064.

[33] https://icd.who.int/browse11/l-m/en

[34] The neural pathways that connect frontal lobe regions with the basal ganglia (striatum) that mediate motor, cognitive, and behavioral functions within the brain

[35] representation of frontocingulate and frontolimbic interactions associated with adaptive forms of reflective, self-focused processing, as well as adaptive regulation of cognition and emotions…suggest that frontocingulate dysfunction contributes to key cognitive and affective abnormalities in depression, including maladaptive ruminative tendencies, difficulty in disengaging from and inhibiting negative information, and emotion dysregulation. https://www.nature.com/articles/npp2010166

[36] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7366944/

[37] Hutton JS, Dudley J, Horowitz-Kraus T, DeWitt T, Holland SK. Associations between screen-based media use and brain white matter integrity in preschool-aged children. JAMA Pediatr. 2019:e193869. Grosse Wiesmann C, Schreiber J, Singer T, Steinbeis N, Friederici AD. White matter maturation is associated with the emergence of Theory of Mind in early childhood. Nat Commun. 2017;8:14692.

[38] 141 Patricia M Greenfield, “Technology and Informal Education: What Is Taught, What is Learned,” Science, 323, no. 5910 (Janurary 2, 2009):69-71

[39] David Foster Wallance, This is Water: some Thoughts, Delivered on a Significant Occasion, about Living a Compassionate Life (New York: Little Brown, 2009), 54 and 123.

[40] https://stacker.com/careers/most-common-jobs-america-100-years-ago

[41] Ap Dijksterhuis, Henk Aarts, and Pamela K smith 2005 pg 82 https://books.google.co.il/books?hl=en&lr=&id=HgdAqhh7U3gC&oi=fnd&pg=PA77&dq=Ap+Dijksterhuis,+Henk+Aarts,+and+Pamela+K+smith+2005&ots=1Bi0BcBkgC&sig=u4ae4xbAEA5z0tgPiCeqB4mIQto&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=Ap%20Dijksterhuis%2C%20Henk%20Aarts%2C%20and%20Pamela%20K%20smith%202005&f=false

[42] 47https://books.google.co.il/books?hl=en&lr=&id=HgdAqhh7U3gC&oi=fnd&pg=PA37&dq=John+A+Bargh+%E2%80%9Cbehavior-concept+priming%E2%80%9D+2005&ots=1Bi0BcBfjE&sig=wQdqDUsvgNHNJLPf-GFHdzwAaxw&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q&f=false

[43] https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/people-think-minority-groups-are-bigger-than-they-really-are/

[44] https://today.yougov.com/topics/politics/articles-reports/2022/03/15/americans-misestimate-small-subgroups-population

[45]

[46] https://anitatoi.com/the-benefits-of-long-conversation/#:~:text=A%20long%20conversation%20allows%20for,are%20listened%20to%20and%20validated.

[47] https://awkwardsilence.com.au/blog/20-benefits-of-conversation

[48]

[49] https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/0013916514539755?casa_token=jvAPFxCsOVMAAAAA:TCuSzeJmvu7AeD8thNCsTgsD9NcfN8r-n22KaOKiDK4vDy8Jtlo1jiZDVLxzev2GlBLTlI474dETfW0

[50] https://www.thebanner.org/news/2019/02/the-science-of-sabbath-how-people-are-rediscovering-rest-and-claiming-its-benefits

[51]https://www.researchgate.net/publication/271670349_Sabbath_Keeping_and_Its_Relationships_to_Health_and_Well-Being_A_Mediational_Analysis

[52] https://blogs.hope.edu/belltower/bell-tower-volume-1-issue-1/sabbath-as-a-salubrious-celebration-links-between-sabbath-keeping-and-health/#:~:text=Overall%2C%20Sabbath%2Dkeeping%20was%20beneficially,technology%20addiction%2C%20and%20relationship%20satisfaction.

[53] https://bestlifeonline.com/call-versus-text/

[54] https://urbanwellnesscounseling.com/should-i-text-it-or-say-it-in-person/

[55] https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/for-a-better-connection-talk-instead-of-typing/

[56] https://magnoliafamilycounseling.com/5-benefits-of-a-weekly-game-night-for-your-mental-health/

[57] https://books.google.co.il/books?hl=en&lr=&id=lZpFCgAAQBAJ&oi=fnd&pg=PT4&dq=deep+work&ots=hVsr-2Twii&sig=UNDeso5SfFiTrS3VilsAE_TJ5Q0&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=deep%20work&f=false

[58] https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/01490400.2014.995325?casa_token=ueuvevWDrnEAAAAA%3ArQc-0v1cyN5c9LZSlVYf08rWJN6vBenKJrtW5pnuq-RROEkHXBthXBsJ1Phlz_8bJ7SLvazBc_ac

[59]https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0378512217308563?casa_token=wuwRW0fUei8AAAAA:hUyC3E60t_IHkj8tj58q4ULCI6amXcfwWi2fSY8tJXEVhSfbPFFPXkDzdUma9h0Mz2WuIlZASA

[60] https://www.snexplores.org/article/learn-comprehension-reading-digital-screen-paper#:~:text=Go%20ahead%2C%20read%20a%20story,when%20they%20read%20in%20print.
Share this:
X
Facebook
More
Print
Email
Tumblr
Telegram
WhatsApp
Mastodon
Like Loading…
The Devolution of the Term “racist”

March 9th, 2023
There is a fundamental dispute being played out in the western world daily. This dispute will ultimately lead to senseless violence unless we as “western society” work with patience and understanding to bridge the communication gap. I by no means have the answers, but I have noticed a few salient points through saturnalias with like-minded people and solitary deep reflections.

As a society and a civilization, we have decided that categorizing entire social groups as having certain fixed traits is largely bad, thereby creating an implicit agreement that such labeling is “racist”. Arbitrarily placing every member of a demographic group into a single, non-distinct group by virtue of certain shared characteristics reminds us of the many unmerited and dehumanizing policies previously justified in the name of race. The modern difficulty has sprung from two differing views on what racism consists of, separating proponents into two diametrically opposed factions. Moreover, the term “racist” is now often used to shut down conversations rather than leading to meaningful dialogue.

The factions arose as a result of competing interpersonal societal dynamics designated as ‘truths’ by each faction. The First Group’s truth: is the idea that each individual should be treated as an individual no matter the group to which they belong. The Second Group’s truth: is that the first truth can be absurd at a practical level, especially when an individual person displays several stereotypical characteristics or behaviors that are typically reflective of the larger social group to which the observed individual belongs. The latter part of this second truth became problematic since by indicating or referring to the second truth in the ‘incorrect’ manner, a member of the second group could be labeled a racist by the First Group for daring to notice that individuals in social groups tend to have certain shared behaviors or characteristics.

The conflict then arises when individuals in First Group categorically refuse to acknowledge that social groups tend to follow certain trends or have predominant characteristics. However, the First Group contradicts itself with the view that accepting certain behaviors and general characteristics can or should be expressed, via “most [insert noun] are [Insert adjective]” with respect to certain (majority) groups (of power). Thus, making a blanket statement about one social group may raise no reaction, while making the same statement about a different social group makes the statement racist.

For example, in both news, media and in the academic world if someone says “most White people are bad,” very few people will make an issue out of it. However, if one inserts a minority group’s race instead of the term White, then the speaker is declared a bigot or racist if he does not couch the statement within approved, yet undefined parameters.

The justifications are arbitrary by logical standards. According to the new age (modern) definition of racism, only white people can be racist because of historical injustices and power dynamics perpetrated by whites against other races. So, “most white people are bad” is considered a mere historical fact, with evidence required to substantiate the Ad Hominem asserted. The justification rests solely on the elementary proposition that “power” is the source of one’s ability to be harmfully discriminatory, but this proposition is a based Appeal to Motions and is based on a feeling, not based on the rationality of fairness between two individuals(or groups).

The position that harmful discrimination should be condemned is not a position that is solely dependent on the race of the utterer/committer, or the race of the object of said discrimination. Otherwise discrimination is riding a seesaw of power dynamics in a racial struggle dependent on the group one belongs to, which then taken to its logical conclusion turns into an eye for an eye: we discriminate against you because you (usually the subjects perception of the objects ancestral lineage) discriminated against me and my ancestry. Which means in the future, the group who is being currently “properly discriminated against” will have grounds for redefining what constitutes “improper discrimination” when the social dynamics favor their version of logical fallacies.

As an example of the most immediate resulting flipping of improper to proper discrimination, South Africa, provides the extreme case with its Post Apartheid policies. When looking at South African racial politics post-Apartheid and the state of the country today. It is easy to admit that Apartheid used an anachronistic system of governance that treated all native black South Africans as second class citizens merely based on their skin color and heritage. However, the current treatment of the white South Africans does not look much different than how the native South Africans were treated. While understandable, as the injustice of Apartheid is still fresh in the country’s eyes. It is a perfect example of how power based on the personal position [one’s race] corrupts more than any other characteristic that is given power.

Is this ideology any better than the racial discrimination the term “racist”, or the ending of Apartheid was originally seeking to address? No, it is using the opposite end of the same extreme, and not realizing that they are all part of the same horseshoe.

Now let’s compare the modern view of a racist to the classical view. The Classical view asserts that no matter which noun is inserted in the statement, if it is “racist” against one social group then it is racist against any social group. This has been the predominant definition of racism since the beginning of its coining. Furthermore, the term “racist” has been weaponized against individuals and groups to advance certain political or ideological agendas. It has been used to silence dissenting opinions, discredit opponents, and stifle free speech without logical justification.

For better or worse, everyone is placed as a member of one of these factions, First Group, or Second Group, when the term racist is used. If it ended there, things might be easier to parse, even though most of the time neither side can articulate their position to the satisfaction of the other. However, the divide between these groups is exacerbated by their inability to explain in concrete terms when grouping people together constitutes racism and when it does not.

This further breakdown in the conversation is caused by the inability to explain the reason First Group finds a particular statement racist. Implicit in the term “racist” is the idea that what is being stated is false, bad, missing information, and/or uncomfortable. However, without further explanation as to why one interprets the particular statement as racist, it is unclear why the particular statement or action is being condemned. By using such a strong word without clearly explaining why a particular behavior or statement is harmful, the arbiter treats the person’s statements or behaviors as purely imaginary (as in a manner of coping that is not based in reality). Telling someone, “oh, that is racist” or “you are racist” signals to the speaker that they need to stop what they are saying because they are out of touch with a moral and just reality. Furthermore, the epithet “racist” signals that the conversation is corrupt, immoral, and the “racist” needs to change their behavior and their belief or be cast out from this particular social environment. Alternatively, the person labeled “racist” must remove themselves from this environment if they do not quickly correct what they are communicating. Yet, what truly divides people is when the conversation devolves into a fight over whether a statement is racist or not and the fundamental definition of racism (Modern vs Classical) instead of trying to understand each person’s underlying worldview and value system and accepting those differences.

Thus, society is asking busy people with diverse and complex lives to navigate these attacks and conflicting approaches instantaneously while fitting into modern society, social circles, and global life as many social interactions are being replaced by artificial social media exchanges. To add to the difficulty, most people are used to using heuristics—mental short-cuts–in their social interactions. Navigating the “racist” debate requires careful planning to say the proper thing in the clearest way possible given the particular situation; however, most of these conversations are generally unplanned. It is delusional to believe that this is practical since it takes way too long to think outside of one’s beliefs; especially when one is in a battle for one’s near and dear beliefs. Managing the conversation requires a decision tree, which is only helpful when one has time to analyze probabilities and various outcomes that lead to other probabilities, etc. But for everyday interactions, having an overly complex mental schema like the above is reserved for those with highly powered brain function and people with severe anxiety disorders, a very small percentage of the population. Therefore, most people are forced to choose sides in this convoluted space.

When the world we live in makes people choose a side, and then makes people feel evil for the side that they choose, everyone loses. I have been in conversations where I break all of this down, just for someone to start screaming at me that I am justifying violence or using a complicated way of justifying racism. This reaction is the crux of what I hope people realize: that we have corrupted the very building blocks of conversing about race to the point that when people disagree on this topic, they do not articulate themselves in a constructive manner. Rather, they get angry and talk past each other. Navigating the complex ways people view racism should lead to a form of ego death and a realization of “fuck, this shit is complicated.” The conversation should entail trying to understand someone’s personal motivations, not boxing them in with a label that only one’s own “group” understands. Still, it’s a lot easier to fall back on one’s beliefs and treat the other side as a threat, which is a primal reaction – especially if what one believes (one’s identity) is being attacked constantly and one is being called evil or being accused of bad intentions. At a certain point, people on both sides will realize (at least at a subconscious level) that conversations are not going to change and violence is the purest form of communication when words no longer lead to effective dialogue.

I pray to be wrong, and I chose the challenge of writing this in the hope of making a difference. So, all I ask is that the next time you use the word “Racist” or a similar term, please realize that most of what you are achieving is counterproductive and that its utterance only signals which side of the debate you are on. You are tricking yourself into believing that you are articulating something of substance to the other side. Instead, you are contributing to the violence that is an inevitable result of the modern decay of venting that we like to call communication. But ultimately, I might be the one tricking myself into thinking I have articulated something of substance.

I also pray for understanding. However, I do not pray for peace, since peace without understanding is just the illusion of a ceasefire when a shortage of ammunition is really the cause of the calm.

Please subscribe if you liked this

Type your email…

One-Time
Monthly
Yearly

Make a one-time donation https://buy.stripe.com/14k4hledff901Rm9AA
Make a monthly donation
Make a yearly donation

Choose an amount

$5.00
$15.00
$100.00
$5.00
$15.00
$100.00
$5.00
$15.00
$100.00

Or enter a custom amount
$

Your contribution is appreciated.
Your contribution is appreciated.
Your contribution is appreciated.
Donate Donate monthly Donate yearly
Share this:
X
Facebook
More
Print
Email
Tumblr
Telegram
WhatsApp
Mastodon
Like Loading…

Degenerate Ad Men: The Mythos of the Nuclear Family

Share this:

Secularism: The Tradition Ender

Share this:

The Medium and Our Larger Agency Issue

Share this:

The Devolution of the Term “racist”

Make a one-time donation https://buy.stripe.com/14k4hledff901Rm9AA

Make a monthly donation

Make a yearly donation

Share this: