Now in the darkness
a movement shows
a tiny bloom grows
almost unseen
like inevitable green
pushing through cracks
in the paving stones.
Ruth Appleby 2013
This evening I got off the bus in the depths of despair about the state of the world. Over the last three hours I'd had a three prong attack from three different media sources, all of which suggested that justice is getting more and more distorted and that a lynch-mob attitude to crime is becoming rife. One source was a cynical satirical action film; one, a picture on a social media site (of someone who had been killed for something he'd done - a very gruesome picture which was liked by tens of thousands of people); and one, a few articles in a newspaper (a tabloid (fun fun) with letters and articles calling for more life-sentences and tougher responses to crime). Three sources in the space of a few hours was too much for my fragile structure of positivity and I wallowed in the realisation that we are all doomed to live in a chaotic, hope-starved world where depraved people take justice into their own hands and dance around the corpses of the lynched.... etc etc etc.
Lovely stuff eh?
Well there is a lot of crap in the world, and our media seeks it out. Social media sites make it even easier for a lynch-style-reaction to spark off and spread like wildfire: no one is watching us and we are safe at home - free to sit from our computer-chair thrones and lord it over those who offend us. If we were to judge the state of the world based on what we read in tabloids, see in action films and read on Twitter we could very quickly decide that there is very little reason for joy and hope about the future of our world.
So I'm glad that I caught myself going down that road. I'm very relieved that I remembered that those sources of information are biased and only contain a small amount of the truth which I actually hold to.
That truth that I choose to believe and which I continually experience in my own life is that hope, joy, life, goodness, love and light are all stronger than despair, sadness, death, evil, hate and darkness. The latter six are all real things but they are not more powerful than the first set of things, and should not be allowed to be. If we allow them to be stronger then they will be for a while, but my observation and belief is that the good things in life will almost always find a way to creep back into our hearts and minds. I have time and time again decided that my life is a disaster, that I have messed up too much this time, that I can't imagine feeling happy ever again, that this winter will last forever, that that friendship is ruined, that concrete is taking over our world, that we are all being controlled in ways we can never understand, and so forth. Perhaps I am just a drama-queen (well, I am just a teensy bit), but those thoughts do come to me, even if only for a few seconds, and I imagine I am not alone in that.
It occasionally takes a week, sometimes takes a day or two, more often a few hours, but usually just a matter of minutes, and I find myself coming back to a position of hope, of positivity, of joy of life, of desire for good, and of humour before very long. You might just say that I am an optimist, but I would say that I am actually fairly pessimistic in my outlook on life - sometimes I actually try to stay down in order to prove to others just how rubbish things are, when I've actually already forgotten quite why I felt so terrible. What is good and what is hopeful always seems to win, and that is what I believe for our world too. I believe that good will always, in the end, come through, even if we can't see it yet and even if it takes years or hundreds of years.
Please don't think that I am underestimating how bad situations can really get - how bleak the world can be and just how unfair a series of events can end up. I am also more than aware of the realities of depression and the months or years of darkness that can be brought to a person's life. I know that things are sometimes not how I describe, but I still maintain that the overall picture is one of hope and one of goodness. I want to remember this, believe in it and work for it in order to help propagate it. I am ready to name wrong when I see it and to recognise the frustrations and disappointments of life; but even more I want to see the good and hope that is everywhere and to celebrate it and help it grow.
So that is the frame of mind in which I choose to finish my day. Care to join me?
Yours a-little-more-hopefully,
Blanched Almonds
Thursday, 27 February 2014
Tuesday, 18 February 2014
Hypnosis is the opium of the people
I know I'm late to the game, but was it just me that sat and looked on in unfolding horror at the Truman-Show-meets-Hunger-Games that is Derren Brown's "Apocalypse"?
Fascinating? Yes.
Impressive? By all means.
Ethical? Not so sure.
For those of you who missed the joy of it all have yourself a read of the wiki article:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Derren_Brown:_Apocalypse
Before I get started I want to mention that I, like many, was not too convinced that Steven Brosnan was actually for real and not an actor. His actions all felt a bit too good to be true, etc etc etc; but Derren Brown insists that he never misleads the audience using actors calling it "artistically repugnant and simply unnecessary", so I shall choose to believe him on that.
I haven't seen many of Derren Brown's shows (three in total now I think), but I hear he's become something of a legend/hero/superstar amongst the people. In fact, it feels a bit like he's being taken on as a kind of modern-day-Jesus - someone who can perform awe-inspiring tricks and spoon-feed morality but without challenging the safety of our sceptical and agnostic viewpoints. He is impressive, extremely skilled, a great showman and very good at reading people. Ten years or so into his career he is top of his game with millions of pounds of budget at his disposal; plus, it seems, half the minds of Britain at his disposal too. In response to his cleverness, smoothness and moral high-ground, thousands of people are willing to sign away their lives to him in exchange for a bit of excitement. I hear, from someone who has filled in the form, that you sign to allow Derren Brown and his team to do pretty much anything to you (I looked for a copy of the form to link to, but can't find one).
The question I have for you is this: does this level of consent automatically legitimise taking over someone else's life and mind to the level that Brown did in "Apocalypse" - i.e. does anybody have the right to that much power over another human being?
Well my overwhelming reaction to this is no - no amount of signing forms and ticking boxes to theoretical scenarios should give someone else the power to manipulate, trick and frighten someone else over a period of MONTHS in order to prove a point. Even if, even if, Steven had known that he might be selected (he was specifically told he wasn't selected in order to ensure the success of the illusion - which, in my opinion, doubles the wrongness of the whole thing), I believe that this is candid camera gone far too far. The first issue here is scale - the vastness and length of the project. Where, folks, do we draw the line? At what point will someone turn around and say, "hey dude, you can't just take over someone else's life like that just for TV!" When it's six months? A year? A lifetime? Hey, we're back to the Truman Show already! I don't want to sound sensationalist, but it really isn't that far off things which we would say would never happen in our society. I think I would have said, a few years ago (or even 24 hours ago), that it would never be allowed in our country for someone to manipulate someone else's world-view and life for more than half a day or so.
But it's ok, because it's Derren Brown and he has some big moral point to prove. Right?
Which brings me to my second point: What right does Derren Brown have (or even Steven's mother, for that) to decide what is wrong with a young person's life and then to manipulate and frighten them into becoming what Brown deems as "better" or even, "the best you can be"? Brown actually agrees with me that one shouldn't decide what another should be or believe, stating: "I am an entertainer first and foremost, and I am careful not to cross any moral line that would take me into manipulating people's real-life decisions or belief systems." This has, I believe, been utterly undermined by the very concept of "Apocalypse" and I would suggest that fame and power have somewhat gone to his head. The whole concept is a bit right-wing really isn't it? Here's a young layabout - he ought to get his life sorted out and we should assist him in doing so. Maybe David Cameron is the true illusionist and has hypnotised Brown and is using him for the betterment of society?! Oooh has anyone else noticed that Brown sounds rather like Cameron? Maybe Brown IS Cameron!! There's a theory for you.
Anyway, back to reality. Yes, Steven himself admitted, his life was a bit of a mess and he could use his time so much better; but does it really need a zombie apocalypse to help somebody to change and realise how lucky they are? In fact, is that even really the best way to go about it? (I can't believe I'm even asking that question!) It almost feels like an insult to those people who have no choice but to appreciate what they have because they live in a world where everything is unsafe and you could lose your family at any time. Surely Steven's life is Steven's journey to travel in his time and as things come - isn't that the best way of learning anyway? I'm talking about a bigger moral issue here - does one human being get to decide how another should live their life? And if they have the power to change them, should they? (If you answer yes, then you are, I'm afraid, advocating mindsets that support/ed slavery, domestic abuse and fascist regimes).
My third point is about the issue of consent itself. Consent should only let us go so far without it becoming abuse of trust. People can be vulnerable or just not nearly imaginative enough to think through the kinds of scenarios that they could encounter. Not only this, but within consent is an implied get-out-clause - "yes I consent, but at any point in the process I should be able to say no and stop." Consenting to begin something is different to consenting to remain within that situation. Steven didn't have this choice because he didn't know there was something to get out of. This is the same issue with sex/rape - a person should be able to say no, no matter how far they have got. I imagine some of you are thinking that Steven had no issue with the way he was treated, to which I reply that Derren Brown selects his volunteers/victims specifically because they are "suggestible" or malleable and so less likely to question what is going on around them, and therefore the judgement of others. It might also have been a very different story with another person, but Brown is convinced he understands people well enough and has a good enough team of psychiatrists on set to guard against that. I, myself, am sceptical as to the extent to which Brown actually cares about the people he uses for his shows. He comes across as quite a nice person and is certainly intelligent, but we cannot give one person that much power to decide for another, not even with consent.
So, to my final point: if (it's a big "if") Derren Brown does indeed have the right or even duty to "help" Steven to improve his life and family relationships, what right do we have to watch that process? What good does it actually do us? I say the same of the Jeremy Kyle show and similar programmes. This, my friends, is entertainment very thinly veiled under the cloak of moral guidance. If Derren Brown really wanted to use his power to change Steven's life he'd go and knock on his door, take him out for regular coffees (which he can definitely afford) and chat to him, as someone Steven admires, about his life and where he'd like it to go. That would probably change Steven in a much deeper way than a zombie apocalypse which is, quite frankly, one huge (granted, fun) publicity stunt. Steven would see that someone he admires is interested in him, cares about him, wants to give him encouragement and advice and all that can be done without the ABSOLUTE TERROR that was inflicted on him by Derren Brown's preferred methods. If I'm wrong, then what are we advocating? Hypnosis as the way to improve society? Woah there....
And, if Brown really feels that terror is the best way to do things, why didn't he just walk into Steven's house with a gun and hold it to his mother's head and achieve the whole damn thing in five minutes rather than five weeks?
Yours pretty grumpily,
Blanched Almonds
Fascinating? Yes.
Impressive? By all means.
Ethical? Not so sure.
For those of you who missed the joy of it all have yourself a read of the wiki article:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Derren_Brown:_Apocalypse
Before I get started I want to mention that I, like many, was not too convinced that Steven Brosnan was actually for real and not an actor. His actions all felt a bit too good to be true, etc etc etc; but Derren Brown insists that he never misleads the audience using actors calling it "artistically repugnant and simply unnecessary", so I shall choose to believe him on that.
I haven't seen many of Derren Brown's shows (three in total now I think), but I hear he's become something of a legend/hero/superstar amongst the people. In fact, it feels a bit like he's being taken on as a kind of modern-day-Jesus - someone who can perform awe-inspiring tricks and spoon-feed morality but without challenging the safety of our sceptical and agnostic viewpoints. He is impressive, extremely skilled, a great showman and very good at reading people. Ten years or so into his career he is top of his game with millions of pounds of budget at his disposal; plus, it seems, half the minds of Britain at his disposal too. In response to his cleverness, smoothness and moral high-ground, thousands of people are willing to sign away their lives to him in exchange for a bit of excitement. I hear, from someone who has filled in the form, that you sign to allow Derren Brown and his team to do pretty much anything to you (I looked for a copy of the form to link to, but can't find one).
The question I have for you is this: does this level of consent automatically legitimise taking over someone else's life and mind to the level that Brown did in "Apocalypse" - i.e. does anybody have the right to that much power over another human being?
Well my overwhelming reaction to this is no - no amount of signing forms and ticking boxes to theoretical scenarios should give someone else the power to manipulate, trick and frighten someone else over a period of MONTHS in order to prove a point. Even if, even if, Steven had known that he might be selected (he was specifically told he wasn't selected in order to ensure the success of the illusion - which, in my opinion, doubles the wrongness of the whole thing), I believe that this is candid camera gone far too far. The first issue here is scale - the vastness and length of the project. Where, folks, do we draw the line? At what point will someone turn around and say, "hey dude, you can't just take over someone else's life like that just for TV!" When it's six months? A year? A lifetime? Hey, we're back to the Truman Show already! I don't want to sound sensationalist, but it really isn't that far off things which we would say would never happen in our society. I think I would have said, a few years ago (or even 24 hours ago), that it would never be allowed in our country for someone to manipulate someone else's world-view and life for more than half a day or so.
But it's ok, because it's Derren Brown and he has some big moral point to prove. Right?
Which brings me to my second point: What right does Derren Brown have (or even Steven's mother, for that) to decide what is wrong with a young person's life and then to manipulate and frighten them into becoming what Brown deems as "better" or even, "the best you can be"? Brown actually agrees with me that one shouldn't decide what another should be or believe, stating: "I am an entertainer first and foremost, and I am careful not to cross any moral line that would take me into manipulating people's real-life decisions or belief systems." This has, I believe, been utterly undermined by the very concept of "Apocalypse" and I would suggest that fame and power have somewhat gone to his head. The whole concept is a bit right-wing really isn't it? Here's a young layabout - he ought to get his life sorted out and we should assist him in doing so. Maybe David Cameron is the true illusionist and has hypnotised Brown and is using him for the betterment of society?! Oooh has anyone else noticed that Brown sounds rather like Cameron? Maybe Brown IS Cameron!! There's a theory for you.
Anyway, back to reality. Yes, Steven himself admitted, his life was a bit of a mess and he could use his time so much better; but does it really need a zombie apocalypse to help somebody to change and realise how lucky they are? In fact, is that even really the best way to go about it? (I can't believe I'm even asking that question!) It almost feels like an insult to those people who have no choice but to appreciate what they have because they live in a world where everything is unsafe and you could lose your family at any time. Surely Steven's life is Steven's journey to travel in his time and as things come - isn't that the best way of learning anyway? I'm talking about a bigger moral issue here - does one human being get to decide how another should live their life? And if they have the power to change them, should they? (If you answer yes, then you are, I'm afraid, advocating mindsets that support/ed slavery, domestic abuse and fascist regimes).
My third point is about the issue of consent itself. Consent should only let us go so far without it becoming abuse of trust. People can be vulnerable or just not nearly imaginative enough to think through the kinds of scenarios that they could encounter. Not only this, but within consent is an implied get-out-clause - "yes I consent, but at any point in the process I should be able to say no and stop." Consenting to begin something is different to consenting to remain within that situation. Steven didn't have this choice because he didn't know there was something to get out of. This is the same issue with sex/rape - a person should be able to say no, no matter how far they have got. I imagine some of you are thinking that Steven had no issue with the way he was treated, to which I reply that Derren Brown selects his volunteers/victims specifically because they are "suggestible" or malleable and so less likely to question what is going on around them, and therefore the judgement of others. It might also have been a very different story with another person, but Brown is convinced he understands people well enough and has a good enough team of psychiatrists on set to guard against that. I, myself, am sceptical as to the extent to which Brown actually cares about the people he uses for his shows. He comes across as quite a nice person and is certainly intelligent, but we cannot give one person that much power to decide for another, not even with consent.
So, to my final point: if (it's a big "if") Derren Brown does indeed have the right or even duty to "help" Steven to improve his life and family relationships, what right do we have to watch that process? What good does it actually do us? I say the same of the Jeremy Kyle show and similar programmes. This, my friends, is entertainment very thinly veiled under the cloak of moral guidance. If Derren Brown really wanted to use his power to change Steven's life he'd go and knock on his door, take him out for regular coffees (which he can definitely afford) and chat to him, as someone Steven admires, about his life and where he'd like it to go. That would probably change Steven in a much deeper way than a zombie apocalypse which is, quite frankly, one huge (granted, fun) publicity stunt. Steven would see that someone he admires is interested in him, cares about him, wants to give him encouragement and advice and all that can be done without the ABSOLUTE TERROR that was inflicted on him by Derren Brown's preferred methods. If I'm wrong, then what are we advocating? Hypnosis as the way to improve society? Woah there....
And, if Brown really feels that terror is the best way to do things, why didn't he just walk into Steven's house with a gun and hold it to his mother's head and achieve the whole damn thing in five minutes rather than five weeks?
Yours pretty grumpily,
Blanched Almonds
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)