the american dream
government is a mirror of society.
it’s easy to be angry at a mirror. or, perhaps, to be angry at what it represents. at the reflection itself. but it is, after all, only that. and by breaking the mirror, by erasing the reflection, we only enable ourselves to exist in a state of ignorance as to the realities of what and where we are.
so it’s easy to say that a misguided, angry or ignorant group of people are responsible for the circumstances we find ourselves in (should you be of the opinion that those circumstances are bad.) or that somehow it’s the fault of an elite group of self-serving persons who are manipulating public opinion through countless nefarious ways.
and perhaps some of that is true. but it belies a deeper truth. one that’s harder to swallow as a “great democratic experiment”. which is that in many ways, this is exactly the america we’ve been building for decades. it protects and serves exactly what we have designed it, collectively, to protect and serve. we have designed it as such not only through action, but equally and perhaps even more so through inaction. through complacency. complacency supplemented by the promise of the ‘american dream’ which, at this point, is as vague a piece of marketing as the idea that purchasing a mazda will somehow trigger your existential freedom in some way.
so what is the american dream? what was it? we were brought up in the 80s being told that the american dream was freedom, above all… freedom of speech, of religion… the freedom to be who you wanted and do what you wanted because in america, all things are possible!
life! liberty! the pursuit of happiness!
first one is great. really useful.
second one is cool too - though sometimes liberties can overlap in a way that leads to conflict.
the third one might have lost meaning though. the third one might be where we went wrong.
that’s not to say that happiness isn’t a valuable goal. that it’s not something meaningful and absolutely worth pursuing. it is very much that.
how we got to where we are now, however, might have something to do with how we have defined that concept. “happiness.”
different cultures seemingly have different perspectives on the definition of happiness. it could be argued that each individual has their own idea of what defines happiness. and this is probably true to some extent. each individual has unique, specific things that bring them joy on a personal level. in american society on the whole, however, the measure of happiness (and its more status-orientated twin, success) seems to take on a more easily-quantified form, that of material gain. it’s not sufficient to simply blame this on “money” as a form of resource liquidity. nor is it accurate to blame capitalism, which is no more than a system of rules designed to create a viable and flourishing economy and facilitate the efficient flow of that resource liquidity.
the issue, it seems, is more insidious and deep-rooted than that. at some point along the line, the focus of industry and society itself appears to have shifted away from the idea that efforts and energies expended should benefit all involved on a more profound and progressive level than pure liquid resource reward. one could consider the analogy of the human body being a capitalist society. in order for that society to function, the body needs blood. blood transfers nutrients, removes waste, and essentially provides the liquid resource (in a more literal sense) that the body needs to be functional.
but if the body focused purely on the maintenance and production of blood (indeed at the cost of any attention to the other functions required for life,) that would likely be considered a pathology. the body would break down, become susceptible to other attack vectors for disease, and potentially ignore other important sources of sustenance such as air and water, all in the name of producing and circulating as much blood as possible.
and in that analogy, nobody would argue that BLOOD IS THE PROBLEM, or that the human body is hopelessly inefficient and cannot possibly function the way it is designed. but rather that a more balanced, big-picture approach to health is, in all likelihood, preferable.
similarly; finance, economics, business… these are all essential components of a healthy, sustainable national entity. and likewise they should serve the whole, working in harmony and balance with other equally-important aspects of an evolved, civilised society.
but for decades, we seem to have neglected that balance, giving a higher priority to that resource liquidity (and the representative lifestyle aesthetics it affords) than other, potentially more meaningful forms of “happiness.”
indeed, there is a refrain parroted in every corner of the internet, in every discussion forum where this conversation is had. that refrain is simple, but nefarious:
“the purpose of a business is to make money!”
it is often said with such conviction and resolve that it seems almost a sacred incantation rather than the suggestion of a perspective. and it is often defended just as vehemently. to the point where offering an alternative idea is met with a curious protective aggression. it has been suggested that we fight perhaps not for what we believe in, but rather to maintain the match between what we perceive and what we believe in. and in that light, it seems that we have been fed that idea for so long that it frightens us to consider alternatives.
but could it be that, in fact, the purpose of a business is something else? could it be that “making money” is the side-effect? the by-product of a business?
when i stop to think about it objectively, it seems far more enticing to live in a world where the persons and organisations offering goods and services are motivated first and foremost to create the best goods and services possible rather than to absolutely maximise the amount of profit they can extract from their enterprise. and in this context it seems that the money will inevitably follow.
but with the ethos of “the purpose of a business is to make money” as our guiding principle, the critical decisions involved in business orient themselves against that idea. indeed rather than allocate resources to improve a product or innovate in a significant way, resources are allocated to cut the costs involved in producing that product. this method also inevitably results in a general fear of automation and progress in the fields of AI and machine learning. and why is this? perhaps it is because we know, deep down, that while the benefits of automation and technological progress have the potential to benefit everyone, we have developed a system which will seemingly ensure that the practical liquid resources freed up by those advancements will, in fact, likely be absorbed as profit for the shareholders rather than put back into those less tangible concepts of improving or innovating.
well, it’s easier. cost-cutting is a guaranteed method to improve profits. innovation is not. innovation, creativity and ‘disruptive’ thinking (even that term sheds some light on the status quo) involve risk, and risk is generally antithetical to profit. even if the profits to be gained by taking those risks have the potential to far exceed those to be gained by downsizing, slimming down and cutting back.
to be fair, this is not a hard-and-fast rule. there are those who choose to innovate. there are those who are motivated by a desire to create something that makes the world better. whether that’s a tasty micro-brewed IPA or the world’s most technologically advanced electric cars.
but even here we can begin to see further evidence that a single-minded focus on “financial growth” may not be beneficial as larger, entrenched entities use their mass and clout to protect themselves from the dangers of an upstart doing it faster, better or cheaper. for decades, telecommunications companies have expended massive resources protecting monopolies and markets, engaging with lawmakers to ensure strangleholds on regulations allowing them to avoid competition or accountability. we regularly hear about lobbyists, special interests, corporate political sponsorship. none of this serves the customer. it has served quite literally to degrade service, anger consumers and create literal hatred and disdain for some of these companies. and yet they remain the only choice for many.
it seems difficult to rationalise this. and it also starts becoming clearer how responsible we are for setting the stage for our current national and global crises. it’s all too easy to say that the damage currently being done to the world is the fault of a few outliers who have somehow managed to manipulate their way into power and are exerting their will.
but in a way, this is the exact world we’ve been relentlessly creating out in the open. are we pursuing happiness?
and then there are the pressures of social media.
left to their own devices, it’s difficult to imagine individual people putting pressure on themselves to APPEAR happy, and yet this is precisely what social media seems to compel people to do. in the age of the instagram influencer, we celebrate individuals for being carefully manufactured and curated products. portraying themselves as successful, important, and, above all, content and happy with their lives on the very same networks and in the very same milleus that millions endlessly turn to as an escape from their own realities.
it wouldn’t be fair to paint social media as detrimental or dishonest on the whole - people find endless support, love, and community through those same channels. but it has seemingly served to also engender self-doubt, jealousy and even hatred to a surprising degree. people who follow, and perhaps even compare themselves to these representations of ideal beauty or lifestyle don’t seem to be following a recipe for contentment and happiness. indeed behavioural experts would be quick to point out that comparing oneself with others is counter to contentment and happiness (for the most part.) but the allure of an affluent life packed to the seams with endorsements, accolades, and material things seems to transcend the pursuit of what might truly bring us happiness. even the idea of ‘haters’ is one we’ve come to culturally embrace: the idea that you’re successful enough to inspire the very jealousy and resentment that leads people to feel they are not enough in the first place.
and all of this has unceremoniously dumped us in the lap of the future, saddled with a representative government that does its best to uphold these values we’ve chosen to embrace. is it any surprise we are surrounded by greed and fear? are we truly shocked that truth has taken a backseat to posturing and pontification?
and, so, are the actions of those in power that surprising? even in light of what some might consider an utter collapse of the ethical standards of western civilisation, we in the united states of america are currently lauding a low unemployment rate, and a ‘bustling economy’. while at the same time we are forced to acknowledge that these economic benefits are being purchased on credit, with a national deficit that grew 77% in the first four months of 2019.
growth indeed.
so we have turned our attention as a society to the resultant inequalities of a system predicated upon growth and the extraction of raw resources at all costs. we are outraged and incensed that some among us are treated poorly. whether that be on the basis of race, gender, social status, immigration status or otherwise. we seem keen to jump to blame others in all cases. it’s the fault of republicans. it’s the fault of liberals. it’s the fault of racists. it’s the fault of bigots. it’s the fault of the greedy. it’s the fault of the entitled. it’s the fault of the ignorant. it’s the fault of the complacent.
and yet who is it that comprises each of these groups? just humans. in every example.
well i’m one of those. i am a constituent component of the problem as much as anyone.
which leads us to accountability. and i can turn the lens toward myself here as an example. for too long i have rested upon the comfortable belief that my station in life is, to some degree, a result of this overall blindness to all but profit, a result of the injustices and uneven playing fields. i have lamented working in corporate environments, answering to visionless middle-managers in the pursuit of equally visionless corporate growth. i have expressed my frustration toward a world that refuses to make it easy for me to be my best. i have listed endless excuses as to why i’m unable to achieve in the way i want - to attain success on my own terms.
but the truth is that if i believe that the way i’m being told to live my life isn’t right, if it doesn’t jive with my personal vision of the world and how it should be, then it’s my personal responsibility to make changes to my approach. to manifest the world i want to live in, no matter how small the scale. to create the opportunities and indeed even outcomes that i can in spite of a world of inertia.
and somewhere in that idea, perhaps, is happiness. on a personal level to be sure, but maybe even on a larger scale. if we can condition ourselves to resist lamenting the unchangeable, to avoid underscoring our perceived ineffectualness, then maybe we can start to make the deeper, fundamental changes that underpin all of the resultant societal consequences. maybe we can reorient ourselves toward actual joy and actual fulfillment. by redefining those terms and how they apply to (and fit within the framework of) modern civilised society, maybe we can create a “trickle up” effect. infusing those ideals and concepts into those we choose to represent us.
as it stands now, we have enough democratic candidates to field both sides of a regulation football match. each of them seems to have their own ideas of what is wrong, what is right, and (in some cases) their own ideas of how to fix what isn’t working. and i believe many of them have their hearts in the right place. they seem to be championing a return to a level playing field. a country (or even a world) where everyone has a fair shake, and maybe we focus on the things that matter a little more.
but perhaps it won’t be until we have a larger conversation about our priorities as a planet - until we can shift the focus and redefine what we’re collectively searching for - that we can check the sickness and reconfigure the framework that holds up the ideals that we’ve decided matter most to us.