RCAH 292 - Idealism, Intimacy, and Depth

Continuing to outline the values he feels are undervalued by society, Peter Block identifies three important qualities and their antitheses in The Answer to How is Yes: Idealism, Intimacy, and Depth. What exactly those words mean to Block requires some interpretive work on the part of the reader, as the text continues to set an exemplary standard for speaking ambiguity to power. That's not to say it has no meaning, however.

Initially promoting idealism, Block explains it as the opposite of cynicism*, continuing to argue that we've lost track of what we really value. In prioritizing power (to use my own words), we set everyone up to not only do what is strictly "practical," but to expect the same from others, and this creates a system in which all of our desires are commercialized (not just material desires, but desires for our lives) and our institutions fail due to the presumption of self-interest.

"Practical" can be interpreted a number of ways and, in this context, needs explication. As Block uses the word, "practical" means "what is most effective for increasing my power" (i.e. that which is expedient, has a good payoff, increases my status, is more convenient, etc.). He thereby appears to argue that applying reason is equivalent to being pessimistic, even identifying himself as "unrealistic," as if to say that realism is actually bad.

It seems wiser to me, however, to not throw out practicality or reason off the bat, nor mistake them for pessimism. If we have lost track of our real values in the way Block says (something that I think is true for many people, if not necessarily the majority), then we should reclaim those real values - our idealism; our desire for things as the way they should be - and then set goals based on them, which would be pursued using reason and practicality. What's practical for achieving a goal based on personal values may not be practical in the sense that it increases an individual's power. In other words, we can remain practical while still adhering to the core of Block's quality of idealism.

One sentence in the text struck me as essential to the entire concept: "We are acting on our deficiencies rather than on capacities." This reveals an underlying current of negativity vs. positivity in Block's writing - not in their vernacular sense of "good" and "bad," but more in the sense of affirmation and refutation, with positive referring to what is and negative referring to what is not.

I can't seem to determine whether Block is suggesting that we should abandon negative thought, or merely that we favor it too heavily. Either way, it's uncontroversially true when he says (in not so few words) that our society prioritizes negative thought.

This heavily invokes Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs, a triangular representation of human needs, with the highest priorities being on the bottom. Indeed, nearly all of the physiological needs in Maslow's Hierarchy are negative: breathing, eating, drinking, sleeping, excreting, and maintaining internal stability are all for the sake of not dying. The only positive physiological need hierarchy is the need for sex.

Block's idealism argument could either reject or agree with Maslow's Hierarchy. In rejecting it, Block would simply argue that some or all of the other need categories (self-actualization, esteem, love/belonging, and safety) are as important as physiological needs, and that we've misguidedly suppressed them. In agreeing with the hierarchy, Block's argument could remain potent considering that we expect modern civilization to provide for all our needs, and that at least in the industrialized world, we may be able to give everyone the ability to satisfy the entire hierarchy.

Concerning intimacy, Block's writing becomes the most specific and coherent. Accordingly, I find myself reacting strongly, whether I agree or disagree, to his intimacy-related arguments, and have enjoyed this chapter the most of those I've read so far.

He begins the discussion of intimacy by explaining that he means something specific by it: reclaiming the value of empirical senses, for their own sake. A return to intimacy means a return to aesthetic values and taste - a consideration for and sensitivity to the nuances of sounds, sights, smells, and textures around us. It also means an emphasis on human contact.

It's here that I find the argument problematic. While I agree that human contact is more valuable than society as a whole gives it credit, I don't believe it's entirely appropriate to blame technology for the lack of it, as Block does. Because technology allows us to communicate more expediently, the argument is that it replaces communication that required human contact previously, and this removes too much human contact from our lives.

In "Language Death," David Crystal argues in favor of the preservation of the world's languages. In response to the argument that we could communicate more expediently by sticking to a single lingua franca, he states: "...if one language does, through some process of linguistic evolution, become the world's lingua franca - a status which most people feel is likely to be held by English - it does not follow that this must be at the expense of other languages." Similarly, the use of new technology to facilitate communication merely allows us to spend less time on the communicative logistics of life. I would argue that technology must be used responsibly, and it's our responsibility to ensure that we spend time in physically proximate social settings. If we were to replace these with technological social settings (as Block feels we are doing), it wouldn't be the "fault" of our technology.

Continuing with David Crystal's "Language Death" to counter Block's anti-technological argument: "A world in which everyone speaks at least two languages - their own ethnic language and an international lingua franca - is perfectly possible, and...highly desirable. Because the two languages have different purposes - one for identity, the other for intelligibility - they do not have to be in conflict." It is indeed evident among the generation most comfortable with new communications technology that real social interaction is alive and well. In the dormitories, people regularly visit each other or go out together. Pick-up sports aren't uncommon, and there is definitely plenty of physical contact of all varieties. These are the people who are the most exposed to the communications technology that is supposed to turn us into zombies, and yet it's this exposure that has desensitized them to the novelty of it. Once it's no longer anything out of the ordinary, it's not abused (this becomes something similar to the proverbial argument for removing a taboo, e.g. "familiarity with alcohol will reduce alcohol abuse").

With that said, Block offers compelling examples of technology being abused. The anecdote of the Las Vegas restaurant with what was essentially a bio-dome does strike me as obscene, and the terminator gene is likewise horrible and terrifying (in addition to having the stink of economic injustice, if the likes of Monsanto and Archer Daniels Midland are in control of all new harvests). Relationship-building websites sound very unethical as well, but the nuance with all of these anecdotes is that they're just that, anecdotes. The fact that he uses these to support his argument are proof that his feelings on each anecdote are in the majority (they appeal to common ground), and people who still use technology quite often would agree that these instances constitute abuse.

Block continues to be atypically concise in his criticism of intimacy being used as a marketing strategy. The dangers of reducing such a major element of the human existence to a marketing strategy are obvious, as he points out, even without the immorality of such a deceitful perversion. I would add to his concerns that the reduction of our intimacy to demographics and measurable categories can be seen in mainstream news-media that try to cover a broad amount of material (Time, Newsweek, CNN, Fox, etc.), where it sometimes seems like the entire world is defined within the rules set by media gatekeepers. They practice the oversimplification of news and avoidance of anything that won't be understood or valued by the lowest common denominator of viewers, and I believe this contributes to Block's problem of fading intimacy.

One final interesting note about intimacy is that in talking about it, Block sees the problem as one that did not previously exist. With his other criticisms of the status quo, he seems to be advocating a shift to something never-before-seen; this chapter stands out so far as uniquely advocating the old ways.

Regarding depth, Block argues both that we undervalue introspection and philosophizing, and that we "need to take time to relax." I find the first argument agreeable, with some nuances; the other is a tired cliche that overestimates the problem.

I certainly agree that our culture doesn't place enough value on introspection, amateur philosophy, or intellectualism. I find it absurd that policy advice from Universities, for example, is considered "ivory tower" or "unlrealistic;" this policy advice is coming from the people who have the most knowledge about the topic! We could return to Maslow's Hierarchy and identify these as the least-prioritized human needs that are under "self-actualization," but I would here have to disagree with both Block and the hierarchy: intense introspection and consideration of philosophy isn't something that everyone can benefit from or is inclined to.

I don't merely believe that we've been socialized out of intellectualism (it's considered unattractive for women of all colors to be intellectual, uncool or unachievable for black men, etc.), but also that some people are not intellectual by nature, and philosophy or introspection are not part of their human experience. We should not judge them less-than-human, consider them to be "missing out," or find it problematic that they're not heavy thinkers. With that said, the socialization that discourages intellectualism must certainly stop as Block argues.

The other element of depth discussed in the chapter was that people have come to worship speed, and apply it even in situations when they don't need to. It seems to me that this amounts to a tired argument (no pun intended), that Americans don't relax enough. Where Block is coming from - the white-collar business world - this might certainly be true, but as with some of his other criticisms, he paints with too broad a brush.

There are many parts of America where people are able to lead productive lives while still taking time to slow down and relax, and plenty of people who might relax even a little too much. Just because there are a number of people who take their laptops and cellphones on vacation with them, it doesn't mean everyone or even the majority do. If there were some sort of comprehensive data provided - something that showed we have an extraordinary count of heart attacks or strokes, combined with a high proportion of people with depression, a high average laborer output, etc. - then this would be something to actually address as a problem with society; otherwise, "people need to take time to relax" is really just good advice.

*"optimism" and "cynicism" seem to be words with a wide variety of meanings. In the case of cynycism, the word comes from the name of a movement in Greek philosophy whose proponents tried to "live like dogs," which had little to do with expecting undesirable outcomes or viewing the world as an unpleasant place. (They advocated rejecting the material world and living shamelessly; legend has it Alexander the Great offered their founder Diogenes anything he wanted, and the latter replied "Stop blocking my sunlight, I'm trying to read.") In this text "cynicism" seems to be the belief that everyone will act in their own self-interest, and that there's no other way to live.