TIME FOR A NEW ‘68

COMMENTARY ARCHIVES, 2 Jun 2009

Nikolaus Wiesner

With, say, the world on the edge of a nervous breakdown we are currently witnessing one of the most profound social, political, ecological, and economical changes of the last centuries. With the financial crisis, the meaning of “globalization“ reaches out towards a new dimension, towards a world that can no longer be maintained, let alone be developed, by what might be called the political and economical power structures of the past.

With psychology, physics and neurology delving ever further into the depths of who and what we are our views of ourselves undergo changes as profound as those announcing themselves in the outside world. At the same time, many of us are afraid of these changes, and many of those in power try to desperately hang on not only to their power but to their views of „reality“ as well.

Speaking of power, we might also want to take a look at the media, one of the biggest sources of power – the power to influence or generate opinions, needs, desires, an entire view of the world. Of course we all know that there is no such thing as “objective“ jour-nalism. At best, a journalist can try and get as many points of view on an issue and then present them accordingly and as far as possible impartially, but still masses are mostly being set in motion by so-called „objectivity“ and rarely by reflection. All around, there is proof enough that media are being used to simply manipulate and propagate, but also to keep those using them from any taking to action.

Aldous Huxley‘s “Brave New World“ springs to mind as talk shows are subtly used to make audiences believe they have some political say, and a critique of the show itself is meant to be political, to give but one example. With time and money pressure, often enough the media do not allow for or disencourage journalists from thorough and critical enquiry – lobbyists take control, some overtly in favour of some political or economical interest. At the core of all this, of course, there are audience numbers – the number, al-mighty economical and political God. Just to think that the media – together with jurisdiction and legislation – were once considered the “Third Power“ of a democratical state, an essential part of the system of political checks and balances, does at times seem a bit ironic these days.

"We live with the numbers / Mining our dreams for the same old song“ – quite a brilliant observation by Noel Gallagher of Oasis. One of the most powerful instruments of our globalized world is, repeat, the number. Economics have, in many respects, become a game of numbers, and numbers have risen to such heights of importance that it sometimes might seem as if they were the new root of good and evil.

The totalitarian approach of uncontrolled economics is of course way more subtle than any kind of fascism, communism or other kind of political dictatorship, but its effects are the same – usually generating a servile class to benefit the “needs“ of those seemingly in control, again no matter if on the surface they‘re communists (China), more or less de-mocratically elected presidents, chancellors or whatever.

These days, numbers rule while our “mining our dreams“ resembles ever more the work of a mole in coal while the “same old song“ of what we‘re looking for is still the same indeed – a bit of ease, love and fun in an unfortunately more or less strenous life.

Not entirely unfortunately, we are not all the same, already our ideas of ease, love and fun differ. Fortunately nature has seen fit to provide itself with difference and some laws – see unpredictability, fractals, and quite a few others – that are contrary to any searching for safety, let alone human power over them. That‘s not to say that order or ordered sys-tems cannot be regularly found or are no integral part of nature, but the only thing that doesn‘t change is constant change itself. Thus, nature teaches us that the only way to cope with life is adapting to or even creating changes if a certain situation demands us to do so. Not a new discovery, this one. Considering all this, the fact that some econometri-cians tried to find a formula to eliminate potential losses from banks dealing with loans and credits does seem quite pretentious.  

Maths and physics have not only proven that there‘s nothing absolute, they‘ve also gone to prove that any world of any individual is subjective: Already since the 1930s we know that even rationality and science have their limits – and thanks to Austrian math genius Kurt Goedel we even know that truth itself does exist but cannot be proven: „this declaration cannot be proven“ – if this phrase were false, it would be proveable, but then it would contradict itself.

Therefore it must be true but cannot be proven. Consequently, we might say, anyone demanding possession of an ultimate objective truth must necessarily be a liar. Consequently, we might also say, truth does exist, but everybody must find it on their own. Ironically, most of those in power still claim to possess one or more ultimate truths. All this, to use Al Gore‘s words, is a rather inconvenient truth.

And, as far as power is concerned, we must face another inconvenient truth – that the vast majority of those in power, be it politically or economically, are not very likely to give up their power as it is their most important raison d‘ être. The numerous stories and reports we have from all periods of history show what we have recently witnessed in many news and articles: the questionable states of mind of those desperately holding on to power.

In case someone wants to communicate with them, he or she must come up with all psy-chological and sensitive abilities he or she can draw on in order to take away their fear from falling into an abyss should they renounce on their power: those wanting to com-municate with them must have a thorough knowledge of their language and their use of words as they are very likely to react only to this.

Unfortunately arguments, however well prepared, right and potentially truthful they may be, are not going to have any effect with a lot of those on top of the world‘s power structures if not verbalized in a way under-standable to them.

This again, of course, is by no means a new discovery. Everyone of us has gone through a thousand situations where we had to try hard to get through to even a beloved one – parents, lovers, children. Or they had to try hard to get through to us. This is particularly true if essential emotions are involved, and we have to keep in mind that often enough the reasons for these emotions are hidden, unwanted or not easily addressed.

More often than not these emotions are the reason behind people‘s quest for power, and if we were to give a handful of biographies of some of the most powerful people in history to psychologists, psychanalysts and neurologists, they will most likely come back to us with some rather sad stories of socially and emotionally crippled personalities.

Yet belief in power as a means to reach safety or even some kind of happiness has only slightly weakened, even though history is full of examples of those who wouldn‘t listen and then were swept away by whatever force was around, time, protest, or – worst of all – death and revolution. It is a very human thing to keep on going and believing until there‘s no more way out or everything‘s in ruins.

Considering the state of many democracies in the world we might say that democracy won‘t have an easy stance unless it is able to renew itself from within. Take a look at an-cient Greece. By what arrogance can we presume we‘ll of course do better? Any concept of democracy was and is built on the idea of the educated citizen and a system of checks and balances. I remember that in our German high schools we were brought up in the be-lief that after Nazi Germany we now lived in the best of all possible political systems, based on – apart from the educated citizen and a system of checks and balances – free speech, equality of chances and an achievement-oriented society. Some 30 years later that often appears to be a joke, albeit a good one.

If democracy is to work for at least a while, it cannot be left in the hands of power sys-tems and power structures wanting to lock out anyone who‘s not willing to play accord-ing to their hope of self-perpetuation. It requires a bit of engagement from everyone – a friend of mine, medical doctor, came up with the idea that any citizen of a democratic state should be legally bound to work for that state for four or five years, no matter whether on a communal, regional, national or international level. A work well paid, with no re-election possibilities, and a return to their former jobs at minimum the same or an even higher economical level guaranteed. I leave it to the reader to think this through.

So after all, it might be time for a new and different ’68, and we might even have better chances to pull through with it than some forty years ago. Good use of all we have learned from both the successes and failures of ’68 generation as well as good use of what science and further understanding of the condition humaine have brought about should provide us with the necessary tools to achieve a thorough change in the decades to come.

A change that aims at bringing back the sovereign individual and more consciousness of our huge potentials and of who and what we are. And talking about change – for a change, we might forget about changing the world in the rather unsuccessful ways it was tried so far and instead change ourselves, as worlds derive from thought. That, of course, will require a bit of engagement and will – in change for some more ease, love and fun as the world will always have enough to satifsfy everyone‘s needs, but not for everyone‘s greed. Hats off to Gandhi. Cheers.

___________________________

Nikolaus Wiesner is a long-time freelance cultural journalist, director, and producer for various European TV stations (among others, German public TV ARD, German-Swiss-Austrian cultural chan-nel 3Sat, and ARTE). His filmography includes services, short films and documentaries on literatu-re, travelling, science, music, opera, and ballet as well as PR films and cinema spots. Among many others, he has reported on or worked with the likes of David Gilmour, Nadine Gordimer, Stephen Hawking, Lenny Kravitz, Hans van Manen, Michelangelo, François Morellet, John Neumeier, Simple Minds, Wil-liam Shakespeare, Tears For Fears, and Robert Wilson. His works have been presented, nominated or awarded at various international festivals (among others, Literavisi-on/Munich, Filmondo – Festival Internazionale del Film Turistico/Milan, and American Dance Fes-tival/New York-Durham). 

 

This article originally appeared on Transcend Media Service (TMS) on 2 Jun 2009.

Anticopyright: Editorials and articles originated on TMS may be freely reprinted, disseminated, translated and used as background material, provided an acknowledgement and link to the source, TMS: TIME FOR A NEW ‘68, is included. Thank you.

If you enjoyed this article, please donate to TMS to join the growing list of TMS Supporters.

Share this article:

Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a CC BY-NC 4.0 License.


Comments are closed.