Languagism

We have racism, sexism, authoritarianism, and a lot of other dehumanizing "'ISM". I became aware of a new one, albeit it might already have been discovered, but I never heard about it which means it is not part of global awareness yet, the so-called mainstream. This "'ISM" is languagism. It describes the behaviour of someone who is condescending/aggressive/unfair/violent/etc., of someone who discriminate, this time not based on race, gender, knowledge, or culture but on the mastery of a language: that is, its grammar and vocabulary, its rhetorical use. I acknowledge that at the rise/beginning of a language and certainly during the middle age, the mastery of a language, which included shaping and developing the language itself, language was both vehicule and content.

Today, all major languages adapt to the times but they have achieved a level of maturity where they are mostly a vehicule of information. This is important because as globalization is reaching an exponential growth, we need a common language. Like always in the history of mankind, the choice has been based on usefulness and simplicity, and the choice has been English. Already for more than 40 years, English does not belong to England like French does not belong to France and "so weiter". English has become the world language and as such belongs to all countries of the world.

I would argue that discussion, exchange, communication is at the very base of our survival as a species as we continue our globalization. This "eye-to-eye" communication depends on the content (information, values, passion, interest, etc.) of what we communicate, not on the container (language).
Unfortunately, some countries value more the container than its content and I argue that this belief jeopardizes a sustainable future for mankind.

To demonstrate this issue, I take the example of an average North American or Australian citizen. My experience is that there is a tendency to not put a value on a person based on its mastery of the English grammar and its rhetorical use. They are by far more interested in the content. Europeans including Germans, will automatically put a lower value on a speaker who do not master the German language if (s)he speaks German. This automatism is also reciprocal, that is, they can not envision/comprehend/believe that people speaking English do not do the same. This leads Germans to be more hesitant to engage in a conversation in English when compared to non-English natives from say, North America. As a consequence, one will observe German speaking people organize "international" events  in which German is the main language, even if the majority of the International participants do not speak German. Although it is possible to understand that if you host a conference, you might feel justify in wanting to come out "good", the backlash for the International participants is significant and will impact negatively the expected trust-building effect of the conference, and will probably block partly the information exchange and most certainly freeze the development of collaboration, and trust. Indeed, if one believes that the container  (language mastery) is as important as the content, it is possible to understand the urge to organize an "international" conference where the language is German.

We ought to work on the awareness, that in our globalizing context, a beautiful text may be a piece of art indeed but when it comes to communication between people, what counts is the content, not the container. In other words, we ought to dissociate rhetoric from content if we truly desire to engage in a sustainable global world. For most countries, English is a second or third language and the actual need to work together, build trust, work on creative paths forward requires that we separate rhetoric from content. We should have learned long ago from politicians that rhetoric is an art, nothing more. It says nothing about trust, truth, nor ethics.

That concept says nothing about the value of regional languages. Local languages have their valued necessities and importance. We need them as well, including the dialects because they allow locally a better expression of our inner self. They also allow artistic expressions not possible in a second of third language. Each language also possess characteristics which themselves support different human traits which are in sync with the regional culture. All this diversity is the ground for shaping a better human future.

And yet, we need to communicate eye-to-eye with each other, and English is the language we have chosen. It is highly time that we practice this eye-to-eye thing and separate rhetoric from content.

And no, nothing in these concepts is abstract and out of reach. It is all very near if we simply open up to it and are willing to experiment with it. Hey, it is even fun!

Marmelade

Marmelade, marmelade.

That's what they think,

That's what they trump.

But the future 

of the young generation

is made up of a mosaic 

of cultures and religions.

This is the life canvas

that will decide 

if we make it as a species 

or if we won't

So, go on working 

on those global citizens abilities

and decide if you will succeed

or if we won't.

The Gaussian Animal/ Das Gaussisches Tier

The Gaussian Animal/ Das Gaussisches Tier

I feel I have to bring back the concept of the Gaussian animal as it was not taken up when I first brought it up in 2008 during an OECD compliance meeting of regulators. Admittedly, regulators might not be true “motivationally engaged”. So here it is again.

The concept assumes that one considers that one is not perfect and that our meta-structures (countries, culture, governments, societies, etc.) are not either. If you do not think so, then reading this will give you thoughts to bring back meaning to your life. If you do think along those lines, it will give you elements to live with a purpose.

If we are not perfect nor are our cultures, institutions, families, etc., consequently striving to improve the self, and our society comes up as a worthy endeavor, in fact as one of life’s purpose. I addressed the development of the self in an earlier blog on swarmship, this time let’s address society. The Gaussian animal has of course analogies with St-Exupery’s little Prince and his hat, which was in fact an animal, not a static object. The Gaußian animal is alive and describes our society has it moves from where it is to what it becomes. 

Within our society, we have those who initiate change and those who fear it, and therefore fight it and, of course everything in between. So on the left of the curve we have the reactionary, then the authoritarian, and the by-stander. On the right of the curve, moving on toward the will to change, we have the contemplatively engaged, then the motivationally engaged, then the activist, and finally the visionary. Violence/extremism/fundamentalism can, but not necessarily, come from both end of this curve.

Now to focus on what we can do, also on our life’s purpose, I would argue that once the visionary in each of us came up with something, the ones that will bring in the butterfly effect we might hope for, are from the motivationally engaged. Also, those are the ones to talk to. If you look more to the right, both activists and visionaries have their plate full and are focused on what they do. The ones on the left, namely the contemplatively engaged, the by-standers, the authoritarians, and most to the left, the reactionaries are either not motivated to do something or are willing to fight for the Status Quo. With these groups, especially the ones at the left of the center of the Gaußian animal, each gram of energy invested by you creates a counter-reaction with the same negative energy. Also all loss energy at best, or at worst counter-productive.

Once the ideas is shared with the motivationally engaged, it starts to take shape, modifies itself and improves itself and in the process gets adopted by that community. This moves a part of the curve toward the right, also toward what we perceive at the time as an improvement. The beauty of that process is that it responds to a wonderful biological paradigm, namely that if there is a space that becomes empty in spite of the fact that it has resources, it will fill up again. Also, as the motivationally engaged move toward the right of the curve, it leaves a space on the left, which naturally will be filled in by the contemplatively engaged. And this process is so intrinsically strong that the by-standers will follow, and yes the authoritarians, and finally the reactionaries will move to the right. And in this way the Gaußian animal is moving to the right, in an attempt to achieve a better society and in the process allowing people to have a more fulfilled life. And as an example, the fact is that contrary to 400 years ago, nobody is willing to kill for ensuring that the notion that the earth is flat will not be challenged. Time is relative, and evolution is better than revolution, the latter always serving the few as oppose to “the people”.

3.Culture as a response to the rise of authoritarianism

-->

3.Culture as a response to the rise of authoritarianism

The world is now split in two: those who have a third culture and those who don't, at about a 40:60 ratio.

"Third culture" describes those individuals who have a personal culture made up of the positive aspects of several cultures.

This happens when you have or gave yourself the chance to live in more than one culture and were able to extract the new positive aspects of each culture and create your own stained-glass cultural masterpiece.

It has been demonstrated that the social and creative abilities exhibited by 3.culture individuals are manifold... More recently, it has been argued that they

- determine if you are an authoritarianism addict or not (the trait that determines the rise of Trump, Pegida, etc etc etc)¹,

- determine if you welcome diversity (e.g. in the arts², in education, at work, at home, between generations, gender, sexe, etc etc etc) or if you existentially cling  to what you know, and

- prevent several reactionary attitudes of recent times, including neo-facism!¹

The need for these third culture abilities is becoming more important because globalization (diversity) has entered its asymptotic growth phase thanks to the access to internet and wide spread use of social media.

This new awareness does not bring only "new" information, but information which was not available in the past (e.g. demonstrated abuse by the police, environmental disaster, social movements, corruption) as well as increased transparency about the "how are things done", as oppose to "what is being done".  Additionally, the flow of people moving or fleeing from one country to another has increased significantly. Consequently, change has become prevalent and universal making globalization a simple fact of life.

Unfortunately, half of the world is not prepared for this challenge and fails to see it as an opportunity. As a consequence the world is confronted with a rise in the number of authoritarianism addicts for whom the situation feels as if their world is threatened, and the only solution they see is despotism, which they interpret as the need for a strong hand. Unfortunately, historically this path which is perceived as "value preservation", if you lack a third culture, is a justification for violence and coercion, and leads to the worst self-made sufferings mankind has experienced.

Therefore, we propose that we ought to our species, to give the "mono-culture" individuals the right to access those 3.culture abilities without which their existential fears/violence can only grow, leading us to more Pegidatrumpfaniasism (and its consequences), but with which "mono-culture individuals" could free themselves from the non-thinking moratorium of their existential fear of change and diversity. (Legacy Earth)

_____________________________________

-->

References:

¹ Analysis of 2012-2016 research on authoritariamism. Matthew MacWilliams, 2016. Diss. U.M. & Hetherington and Weiler, 2016 Authoritarianism and Polarization in American Politics.

² Demonstrated need for violence to maintain one own environment stable: the classic concert example published by Rainer Balcerowiak, 3. März 2016

Deutsche Grammophon/Bernhard Musil.

 

The four Quadrants of Acculturation

THE FOUR QUADRANTS OF ACCULTURATION
(a concept to move from Human 1.0 to 2.0)

(inspired by Gina Barker's work (IJIR 45:56-69, 2015)

                                                                     

* where individuation, socialization, tolerance, and oppression are in reference with the societal trends of a particular culture (in all its politico-, socio-, religious-, family, educational, and working context)    

** where integration I & II refers to (I) the integration of cultures into an individual, and (II) the integration of an individual into a culture.

Examples:

Marginalization: First Nations in North America 1800-ongoing

Assimilation: Friesen into the German nation (this always leave long term negative sentiments)

Integration I: Swiss Cantons population in the Switzerland national and most Europeans immigrants in North America (this form seems to allow for positive growth)

Integration II: East Germans in West Germany after fleeing the Russians at the end of the second world war. (this form seems to leave negative sentiments even after decades)

Separation: Chinese immigrants in Downtown Vancouver 1990-2020 (Rarely a long term sustainable solution)

The arrow helps visualize what "Third Culture" training does. And I would argue that our survival as a species depends on it, as globalization is entering its logarithmic phase.

The Power of the Butterfly Flutter

Life is but an opportunity and the meaning of life is what we make out of it. Yet when it comes to address global issues we often feel powerless.

The flutter of a butterfly is a way we all have to make a difference and leave a legacy.

The more flutters, the more effect we have.

Let's demonstrate this, by choosing a subject where most people agree on two things: (i) that there is a major problem, and (ii) despite the existence of solutions, the issue continues not to be addressed globally.

I would like to propose two such issues:

(i) that the disturbing gap between rich and poor is not acceptable, and

(ii) that women discrimination at home and at work is not acceptable.

All one needs to do to test the butterfly effect is to talk with anyone and state that (i) you stand against the disturbing gap between rich and poor (good person to talk to would be your boss, but any person will do), and (ii)  you stand against women discrimination at home and at work.

That is it.

Then, all you have to do is watch and enjoy the world transformation.