Can we begin to create a different reality by understanding the limitations of the present moment? Can we begin to reinvent the modern world? Are we victims of our own thinking? Yes.
We are living in the future. We have new information before us. We've suddenly got these wacky movies like "The Secret" showing on Oprah. Movies that question our accepted ways of seeing, movies like "What the Bleep Do We Know," are available at the nearest video store. What happens if we start to fill our minds with the best information out there? I think it can make us feel happier and healthier.
I like the fact that quantum physics tells us we are all connected. It breaks us down even deeper than the truth that we are one human race, existing on a tiny planet in one universe in a whole lot of space. This is the apex of human intelligence. We have the information, but at least speaking for myself, it is difficult to conceptualize it and make it mean anything concrete. Our culture is still pretty stuck in old modes of thinking which don't necessarily fit with the new information available to us. As a society we often unconsciously restrict our potential by acting and responding to life with habituated ways of thinking that are not in our best interest.
One form of new psychology out there sheds some light on why it seems so difficult for us to see and understand our shortcomings. System Justification Theory first emerged in 1994, and was developed by John Jost and Mahzarin Banaji. Jost is a professor of psychology at NYU, Banaji is a professor of psychology at Harvard. System Justification Theory explains why we are psychologically programmed to protect and defend the modern reality even though it is damaging, to us as human beings, to our planet, and to our emotional, physical, spiritual, and actual resources. I think it is possible that if we become conscious of our programming then we can begin to reprogram our minds. The following is an excerpt from John Jost's NYU faculty website at www.psych.nyu.edu/jost/:
There are two major goals of system justification theory, and much of my experimental and survey research has addressed one or both of these goals. The first goal is to understand how and why people provide cognitive and ideological support for the status quo, even when their support appears to conflict with personal and group interests. The second is to analyze the social and psychological consequences of supporting the status quo, especially for members of disadvantaged groups.
System justification theory addresses the holding of attitudes that are often contrary to one's own self-interest and therefore contrary to what one would expect on the basis of theories of self-enhancement or rational self-interest. Thus, our research focuses on counter-intuitive outcomes, such as the internalization of unfavorable stereotypes about one's own group, nonconscious biases that perpetuate inequality, attitudinal ambivalence directed at fellow ingroup members who challenge the system, opposition to equality among members of disadvantaged groups, rationalization of anticipated social and political outcomes, and tendencies among members of powerless groups to subjectively enhance the legitimacy of their powerlessness and, in some cases, to show greater support for the system than do members of powerful groups.
Current research interests include the study of complementary stereotypes in which members of high and low status groups are seen as possessing distinct sets of advantages and disadvantages. Gender stereotypes, which stress that women are communal but not agentic, whereas men are agentic but not communal, represent one important example of complementary stereotypes that may serve to preserve support for the status quo. Other examples that we have explored include "poor but happy," "rich but miserable," "poor but honest," and "rich but dishonest" stereotypes.
Finally, I am interested in the underlying cognitive and motivational differences between liberals and conservatives. In other words, my collaborators and I are exploring the psychological basis of political ideology. In particular, we are carrying out studies to determine whether certain epistemic and existential variables (such as uncertainty avoidance, need for cognitive closure, and death anxiety) are associated more with conservative or right-wing political orientations than with other political orientations. One focus is on whether certain situational factors (such as those pertaining to stability and threat) are capable of bringing about change in the endorsement of political attitudes.I think understanding where we are now can help us imagine our way out of it.
If we can start identifying primarily as a human race, which could really do a better job functioning as a species, dependent on each other for health, happiness, and survival, we might be able to start materializing these possibilities.
Either way, check out "What the Bleep Do We Know," if you haven't already seen it.
No comments:
Post a Comment