The Restoration of Action

During some of the more labored exchanges I have on Facebook, there are times when it would be legitimate for any rational person to wonder: "Why bother? You think your way. Others think their way. So why argue?" This is where knowing a little something about Hannah Arendt (1906-1975) is useful. Arendt divided the human experience into three categories: Labor, Work and Action. Labor includes what we do every day to maintain our biological existence (drinking, eating, sleeping). Work includes what we do to build the world we live in (carpenter, bus driver, doctor or, the ultimate profession, programmer - wink). Action is the interaction between people as equals in a public forum to debate and determine the meaning things in the world they share. In short, it is the realm of the political, but not the post-Enlightenment version as a means to an end for economic systems and legal rights. Arendt is referring to the pre-Enlightenment version, where people engaged with one another to establish their identities, their cultures and a sense of meaning and belonging that does not come from Labor, Work or economic and legal systems that are based on the notion of rational self interest. In today's modern society, we cycle between Labor and Work, and we relegate Action to the margins. It is no wonder that we suffer from a collective identity crisis. Our point of confusion around WHO we are versus WHAT we do is what Arendt dubbed 'Economic Man'. The ancient Greeks had a very different notion of life. For them, Labor and Work were a means to an end for Action as the most important aspect of life, where engaging with their fellow man (woman) to discuss, debate and arrive at the meaning of things, including the meaning of life and their position in it, took precedence. Today's version of this engagement is rooted in polarized media outlets, hash-tag campaigns, political memes and echo chambers, which do not foster real discourse and do not create real meaning. We have ceded our role as political actors responsible for shaping the world around us, to a role of political casualties, just trying to survive through Labor and Work, and arranging ourselves along black and white political lines that serve interests that are not our own. It is little wonder that one of Arendt's most famous books is The Origins of Totalitarianism. Whatever your opinion about the evils of Social Media, up to and including the amplification of all of the evils I just mentioned, one undeniable fact about it is that it has restored a public realm for people to engage in, which has liberated us from the isolated cycle of Labor and Work. There are certain exchanges that I have had with certain people that I would have never had outside of a heated Facebook thread. This form of engagement has re-established vital lines of communication. This is why I bother engaging in those belabored exchanges. I am not trying to achieve some kind of end, I am engaging in the restoration of action to find meaning.

The Brave New World

We will need to begin a phased reopening of the country prior to a coronavirus vaccine being available, if there ever is one, and no matter what phasing and coordination, there will be an uptick in COVID-19 cases. This so-called 'M curve' can only be minimized, not avoided, because we have to live our lives, and there is no such thing as a risk-free life or, in some cases, a risk-free livelihood. This will probably create an awareness in us that we should already have, i.e. clean hands, clean phone, sensitivity to symptoms, self-isolation, proactive medical care, etc. It will also create a minimalist mindset with benefits to society, e.g. minimizing activities that contribute to global warming, and detriments, e.g. minimizing activities that contribute to heart warming :-) I believe that one of the most valuable upsides will be the fact that when someone shakes your hand or gives you a hug or attends your party or eats at your restaurant, they will be conveying to you that you are worth the risk. That is a good thing.

The Choice

In The Republic (380 BC), Plato wonders if the average citizen of a society is the right person to be making the decisions about who should be making the decisions for a society. And this has been a question we (at the very least, Western Civilizations) have grappled with since then. In Walter Lippmann's 1922 book Public Opinion, he states that, in the face the ever-increasing complexity of the world, especially relative to the democracy that our Founding Fathers created, average citizens navigate the world through stereotypes (about everything, including the government, environment, medicine, etc), which are fed, in large part, by the media. (This is back in 1922!). If you look at the ever increasing polarization of stereotypes fed by the ever-widening gap between media outlets, you can see how perfectly rational people can be led to vastly different conclusions about the world. I think that "our" job is to close that gap. That means that I actually read posts (and shared articles) of people that I do not agree with, and I actually expect them to consider my counterpoints. I am not sure if this expectation is realistic, but what choice do I have?