On memes, language, and the myth of simplicity.

The thing about thinking in systems is that every aspect of...pretty much everything...becomes just a piece of this larger dynamic entity.  Nothing is clean.  Nothing is untouched.  Nothing, unfortunately, is simple. There is no facet of life that cannot be viewed as not only a reinforcement of, but also symptomatic of, a larger system.  This means that even those things we take for granted are constantly being manipulated--and are manipulating--our reality.

An anecdote:  A friend of mine posted something on Ye Olde Facebook about plutocracies.  The general idea was that so many "democratic" societies have become plutocracies--systems of governance wherein the wealthy exert the most power and control.  One person in particular inspired all kinds of responses, but we'll start with the first bit: she questioned the point of the post.

She actually made a good observation: memes, while amusing as all hell, allow us to perpetuate the myth of simplicity. Our growing dependence on memes as a method of creating a sense of solidarity (or exposing those who lie outside of our particular bubble) erases the grey areas, the complexity.  It reduces any problem to a simple line of causation, ignoring the myriad factors that affect--and are affected--by that one problem.  But the nature of a meme is that it is short and sweet.  It packs a visual punch, makes an amusing, possibly ironic observation, and that's it.  While it might inspire further thought, it does not necessitate it, and its brevity doesn't spark much more discussion unless there is disagreement. And then, even the disagreement is often in the form of another meme or smug quip. There really isn't a point.  Any impact they have on reality is completely illusory, marked by "likes" and comments from the ever-agreeable choir.  In some cases...most, really...it just doesn't matter.  But some of these memes are addressing serious issues, and the fact that complex issues are being reduced to a  single phrase to the general public means that we're not thinking about them when it comes to things like voting, either.  How many memes have we seen endorsing the legalization of weed, for example?  How many have we seen seriously considering the vast and broad number of pros and cons that might arise from such a massive cultural shift?  Instead we align with ideas and people based on simple answers to incredibly complex questions.  

But more, what I saw was this:

This same individual also asserted that in order to really, truly change this alleged system of plutocracy, one needed to focus one's energies on creating that world one wants to see.  Essentially, she was talking about, I don't even know...manifesting a true democracy out of sheer thought?  That all people who are not benefited by the current system should somehow have the ability and/or resources to quietly combat it?

In a way, the problem here is really a function of the meme thing.  It's a simple answer: people should simply focus on the changes they wish to manifest, rather than complaining about them or being bogged down by them.  But while that is a lovely sentiment, there is an inherent contradiction in this idea: If you agree with the premise that the power structure in this society has shifted disproportionately to favor and protect the wealthy, and that the wealthy, in turn, have used the system to reinforce their power, how can you possibly believe that the impoverished and disenfranchised should be able to have any effect on that system?  At all?  Ever?  How could they?

See, a system that actively disempowers the poor will, by its very nature, support the basic idea that the poor are poor for their own reasons--either that they don't work hard enough or aren't smart enough or whatever.  There is no room in that thought system for the variety of reasons that contribute to keeping the poor, poor--or for keeping the wealthy, wealthy.  There is no room for the analysis of the real mechanisms at play.  Those beliefs manifest in the language we use when we talk about wealth and poverty in this country, and it happens so frequently that we don't even necessarily recognize what we're really saying.

To wit: this person was not being intentionally hypocritical.  She really believes that the way things are are a problem.  She also believes that people should be able to work through or rise above or fight the powers that be.  This "pull yourself up by your bootstraps" thinking is so very American, and it is so culturally ingrained it is nearly impossible to dismantle it for those who truly believe it.  We are, for better or for worse, a society that treasures individualism above all, and while this is a unique and, in many respects, enviable aspect of American culture, it has its down sides. We just don't talk about them.  It's too complicated.

But we've reached a point where playing ostrich just isn't working.  We have to start having the conversation about what things aren't working anymore.  We need to start asking why.  And more than that, we need to start figuring out some solutions.

The growing popularity of memes as a sort of shorthand for commenting on complex issues is dangerous because it limits the conversation to a simple agreement or disagreement with whatever quip is posted at any given time.  The individual posting the meme merely reacts and passes on another's thought without having to put anything of themselves into the sharing (although, of course, many do--although, it becomes clear from reading the comments that many do not read--or comprehend--the points made in such introductory passages, swept up by the tidy, memetic comment that follows).  Thus, the conversation is merely set by the narrow parameters of the meme, itself.

Instead, if we're going to continue to use social networking (and it does, indeed, seem as though facebook is here to stay), let us use it as a place to truly exchange ideas, to explore beliefs, and to facilitate open, respectful discussion, not just clever, one dimensional commentary.

And, you know.  Cat pictures.