Hi,
Today’s post is one of those described perfectly by the title – ideas I considered for the first time when I read Maggie Nelson’s Argonauts.
Tim
How many ‘same-sex’ couples see themselves as ‘same-sex’?
Well, reader, though I don’t have an exact percentage answer for the question, I’m sure the answer isn’t ‘every couple’, and that seems important.
The question highlights the problem brought on by definitions. Those who take the time to strictly define marriage might feel they understand marriage very well. But is it marriage or merely its definition that is understood?
I suppose the distinction will become obvious when someone is challenged to incorporate a new angle into his or her understanding. Those who merely understand the definition will struggle to incorporate a new idea into a fixed concept while those who are less concerned with the definition will it easier to add a new dimension into their understanding.
A spokesperson is always fighting against the reality that people are different from each other.
A spokesperson has a much tougher job than I’d ever given it credit for. Most people have many interests and therefore most groups will have far too many interests among their members for a single person to fully represent. So, how does a spokesperson actually do the job?
One approach is to focus on a single interest that most in the larger group share. This approach will strengthen the group so long as its membership remains committed to the singular interest ahead of other concerns. This is probably the best path for a small group. However, if the group ever wishes to pursue another goal, the spokesperson might struggle to retain support (especially if the group wishes to distance itself from the group’s original aim that the spokesperson publicly represented).
Another approach is for the spokesperson to simplify a complex issue into positions and demand the neutral or the undecided within the group take up a side. This group will boast significant outward leverage due to the stated unity among its members. A large group will most likely prefer this method. However, the group will be weak at its core because maintaining the semblance of group unity will always become the primary concern ahead of achieving any of the group’s stated interests.
Thinking about groups in this way makes it evident to me why larger organizations struggle to fight off existential threats from smaller competitors. Like an aggregated statistic, the viewpoints of large organizations tend to represent everyone's feelings yet describe no one member's exact point of view. Those who accept the burden of uniqueness will find their natural energy is better harnessed among a smaller group brought together by their shared commitment to initiative, creativity, and change.
The man who thinks he is a king is mad; does this also include the king?
I once read about the prevalence of personality disorders found in top-level leaders of various organizations. According to this piece, the rate is similar to what is observed in criminal populations. Unlike some other examples of sensational research claiming to diagnose a previously undetected condition a specific subset of the population, this one rung true to me. I’m sure those who have ever held a paid position can think of their own experience with such a person in charge (1).
Does this dynamic apply to royalty? I think it must (but acknowledge how there is probably no other way for it to be). If a society requires a monarch for its own effective function, a king who thought himself undeserving of his privilege would throw the kingdom under his charge into turmoil.
Of course, this might just as well apply to our elected leaders. Just as a king cannot promise bread and water to all if he is self-conscious about his gold-stained lips, an elected official cannot demand progress on environmental issues if he is embarrassed about flying to a global warming conference in a private jet.
I suppose cognitive dissonance is a ‘disease’ prevalent at all tiers of society. It probably has no value as a predictor. If those running the study I mentioned above looked at other levels of society, I’m sure they would continue to see the same rates they observed in their selected samples.
Aging is the ongoing transformation of the body.
I have no working definition for ‘aging’. To me, my only thought about aging is that it has been the most bizarre experience of my life. Perhaps I’m too focused on trying to understand the experience first before worrying about describing to anyone else exactly what I think aging is.
I did like this thought, though... aging is the ongoing transformation of the body. Whenever I have a clear thought about my mortality, it is always grounded in some observation about a body transformation (for example, just recently I realized - wow, my teeth are going to erode away eventually). These thoughts never linger long and I almost always return to my baseline condition of assumed immortality. But I find they do help me understand the aging process a little better.
It also helps me understand what it means to age gracefully – simply put, it means accepting the body’s inclination to transformation. Society’s insistence on particular body ideals challenges this acceptance on a daily basis. Every new anti-aging promise that rolls off the production line makes me think again about what parts of my changing body I should allow and what parts require my immediate intervention.
So although I consider myself open-minded about the decisions others make about their bodies, I can’t help but worry that if every decision I make for my body stems from my initial non-acceptance or intolerance for myself, I’ll eventually apply the same logic outward to how I perceive the decisions others make for themselves. I personally don’t think I’ll ever reach a point where I become bigoted or prejudiced (or even misidentified as such by another) but I do worry about isolated instances where my own inability to accept my transformations influences a thought I might have about someone else’s body.
Footnotes / a better way to spend five hours might be to just watch the show, but hey…
1. Warning – this recommendation is a seriously long read…
For those who’ve had the great fortune of never stepping into such a situation, perhaps a television program like The Office is the best example of the concept...
This series of essays from Ribbon Farm is a delight for anyone familiar with the show. In summary, Venkatesh Rao analyzes the show’s various examples of sociopath behavior among a handful of selected characters and scenes from the series.
