What's in a name?

I see Fred Nile wants to change the name of the NSW Upper House. This would mean that members of the legislative council would go from being known as MLCs to newly minted Senators. Apparently it's sexier this way and besides there's been a spate of mistaken identity cases where insurance salesmen have been mistaken for legislators.

Supporters of the name change maintain that it will reduce public confusion over the role of MLCs. Opponents maintain that with all the navel gazing it's probably better if people don't know what they do.

Meanwhile Green's MP Adam Bandt has been labelled a 'self-proclaimed homosexual' by Australia's newest political wannabes 'Rise Up Australia'. Rise Up's outing of Minister Bandt's presumed sexuality seems to ignore the understanding of gay people, Adam Bandt, oh just so many people that being out and proud is nothing to be ashamed of.

But while we're name calling, am I the only person to note the similarity between the name 'Rise Up' and the popular, independent advocacy group GetUp! A cynical person would think that the right wing crazies were trying to ride the coattails of an established identity by mumming their name.

Names are kind of important it would seem. We know this and that's why you can be 'Smithy' to your mates but Mr Smith to your colleagues (sorry to all the Smiddies out there but it's too easy). Names carry weight; in them we find title, prestige, respect or sometimes shame.

Shakespeare postulated that names are little more than words, what matters is who we are inside. But then again 'Romeo and Juliet' were just trying to get laid, so they would say that. Being a Montague screamed enemy to Juliet's family before anyone took a moment to meet the guy.

So we throw around labels and pretend they tell us all we need to know about a person. It's a survival instinct and frees up a lot of time for movies, books, online gaming (euphemisms are another type of label). No more taking up precious time getting to know the person, we have 'assumptions'; but the label is never the thing itself.

Think about that next time a party like 'Rise Up' use the term homosexual to denote someone not worthy of respect. Now maybe Adam Bandt doesn't deserve your respect. Perhaps you disagree with his political views, or maybe you just barrack for a different AFL team. Respect the man and not the label though. Homosexuality is not a political football to be tossed around by every right-wing bigot trying to make a name.

And while we're talking respect, it's worth questioning political name calling. Maybe MLC is more obscure than Senator but perhaps that reflects on the performance of the members. I'm suspicious of anyone who believes they might change opinions in name only.

...

This was a political article (just in case I was being too subtle before). I believe there are certain presumptions that pervade Australian (if not global) politics, and we are most definitely going to confront them throughout the coming election campaign.

It's not for me to say who's right or wrong, left or right, left or wrong. I just want to ask questions about our assumptions. I intend to do this throughout the campaign and to maintain pressure where I see politicians attempting obfuscation over truth. Stay tuned...

Who's really to blame?

It's never nice to feel guilt, or have to take responsibility. Instinct tells us this, so from childhood it's always the cat or the wind that broke the vase. We shift the blame but avoidance only anesthetizes us to the pain of guilt it doesn't solve anything.

Heaven help you then if you're a celebrity these days; 'a', 'b', 'c' even the 'd' grade celebs have more cameras pointed at them than a British high-street. So when Chrissie Swan snuck a cigarette the other day she was happy snapped by an obliging paparazzo. The really story wasn't Swan or the cigarette, it was her pregnant body that apparently belongs to the world at large to probe, prod and criticise.

Smoking while pregnant is bad (just in case you weren't aware). A quick Google search or even a vox pop of those around you reveals shocked indignation and horror scenarios. Swan wasn't ignorant of this, and we learned as much when she was all but forced to make a public mea culpa on her battle to bag the fag.

What did the public hope to gain by taking to Twitter to shame Chrissie Swan? If helping her was the aim, then the vitriol seems counter productive. Perhaps this was a public awareness campaign against smoking; but then why did it had to wait for a celebrity to get caught in the act? I think Chrissie Swan has been made into the cat that broke the vase, taking the hit for all our little health indiscretions. We need these celebrity mistakes, they're the 'bad influence' that we blame when our own willpower gets weak.

It's not just weak willed people that need to shift the blame though. Three weeks ago I wrote about Jonathan Moylan, the stock crashing, hoaxer living in the bush. Moylan's protest against the proliferation of new mines in Australia exposed (yet again) vulnerabilities in the Australian Stock Exchange. Basically a bunch of people reacted to an unverified news report and sold their shares at a loss. Now instead of blaming the media insiders that allowed the report without verifying it, or even the individuals that panic traded their shares, Moylan is being held solely culpable.

When we shift responsibility we create the illusion that the world's problems might never exist but for the 'bogeyman' being blamed. Private, public and political we have 'bogeymen' surrounding us; disempowering us as we become increasing reliant on a saviour to purge our demons.

We have developed a culture of scapegoating to avoid taking personal responsibility for our actions, as if blame somehow mitigates the damage. This is disturbing at the level of the individual because it perpetuates the cycle; blame fast food and you don't have to look at your personal habits or diet, blame the addictive nature of the pokies and you don't have to consider what drove you to them in the first place. Blame and scapegoating passes responsibility, but there is no one waiting to pick it up.

At the institutional level this culture of 'blame and run' hurts more than just individuals as the moral torpor marginalizes those who stand outside the majority. This is never worse than in the area of political compromise. The most common scenario seems to be a distorted Catch-22, as the humanitarian treatment of asylum seekers becomes equated with soft border protection, and refugees become the scapegoats. Or the question of equal marriage rights for gay people is made synonymous with a disintegration of values and gay men and women are the scapegoats.

The woes of the world have successfully been transferred. There's no need confess or face the truth and this is really bad for us, because the focus is on the problem not on the solution. As we move toward an election this year will we also be interested in blame?

Listen to your local candidates as they campaign for your vote; are they telling you what the other guy is doing wrong, or what they plan to do right? When they tell you someone is to blame they are playing a negative political game and want you to believe that eliminating the problem is the same as a solution. But locking up asylum seekers does not stop more arriving because it does address why they seek refuge in the first place. Preventing gay people from marrying does not strengthen family ties it just prevents good people from making them. Demonizing a tax does not mean there are no meaningful ways for the polis to address climate change.

We must therefore move to address change with a view to judging our flaws meaningfully, not shifting them onto somebody else...

Chomsky vs. Twitter

Last time I wrote I threw in a quote by Noam Chomsky regarding the de-facto mental slavery we are subject to when powerful interests are allowed to dictate the narratives, the advertising, the media we consume. If you haven't come across Chomsky before I'm going to let you Google him, but suffice to say that I've heard him described as the most influential intellectual of the last fifty years (more than once). Chomsky writes passionately about the individual in the face of larger corporate, political and media influences. He is an advocate of individual action and thought free from coercion. 

I'm a fan of Noam, but in my reading for the last post I also came across some comments he made about social media and Twitter. It seemed he was not a fan of the brevity or relative flippancy of tweets and their limited character. He has also described in interviews a view that communication via devices tends towards the "superficial, shallow, evanescent" while Twitter perhaps "draw(s) people away from real serious communication". 

Let's face it, he has a point and in Noam's defense these comments were made around the same time Charlie Sheen was lighting up Twitter with a very dim bulb. At it's worst social media is people you've never met telling you they're hungry and then posting a picture of what they're eating (before anyone says anything I do realise that the worst is more like racism, sexism, trolls and attitudes best left in the middle ages). Beyond the shallow though Twitter et al. is also a democratizing force as it allows the audience to decide which voices are heard through comments, critiques and simply by ignoring the undesirable.

If we accept the premise that Twitter is often heavy with trivia and ephemera, this does not exclude the possibility for meaning within 140 characters. Brevity seems to be a particular bugbear for Chomsky as he feels it negates or sidelines controversial, non-mainstream discussion. But 140 characters is merely a window to another world that people may choose to explore at the cost of a mere click. Personally I am drawn back to tweeters who lead to me to more interesting information through links.

As a gateway social media has as many doors to Narnia as it does to last seasons Kardashian closet. The mere presence of crap does not negate it's power to distribute voices however. Just as the printing press gave us newspapers it also helped fill them with comics and personals. We have the opportunity to control the content as it evolves and part of that evolution is engaging, discussing and aggregating voices towards social causes. Daily people create their own content and distribute it via the interweb and social media is a resource they utilise to get word out.

Is there anything to say though?

Embedded in the technology is the mechanism that (hopefully) will see us guide this evolution towards a positive channeling of public voices; Twitter and other microblogging sites are equipped with functions to retweet, comment or simply stop following. While publishing may be free and easy, editing happens at the hands of the public at large. This means that the network of users vote with their 140 characters on whether an opinion expressed is viable. I wrote recently of my first experience with a truly abhorrent Twitter post and how at the hands of the 'Twitterverse' the poster was duly chastened. 

In one of the interviews mentioned above Chomsky describes a 'good public citizen' as one "who participates in the management of public affairs". Amongst the idle thoughts and tummy rumblings social media offers a platform for participation that is open and uncensored as yet. Entry criteria for participation is the possession of an online device, and this can be a steep price in some markets, as I've discussed in a previous post. This is changing though and with access comes a proliferation of new voices. For those that can afford it, this is cheap compared to running for office in a developed western democracy.

These technologies offer both shallow, narcissistic interactions and the potential to engage in the public sphere like never before. It requires a little creativity to straddle the line and becomes a daily commitment if you really intend to engage, but I've found it worth the effort. In a future where this technology will become second nature I wonder if our questioning it's validity at length (longer than the aforementioned 140) will seem quaint. Till then I choose to embrace the voice it affords me.