Among the results are oft-repeated quotes from eminent changemakers, notably Mahatma Gandhi's 'Be the change you wish to see in the world', a quote I am sure all of us have heard of countless times. It is no secret that we live in a more individualistic world compared to fifty years ago - most of us have been taught since young to have our own dreams, opinions, and to live for ourselves rather than live the kind of life others want us to. Hence, it is hardly a surprise that the belief that anyone can change the world is so widespread, especially with the advent of the Internet and social media that grants us access to a hitherto global audience.
However, is this belief truism or is it just unfounded optimism? Due to my teenage idealism, I used to side strongly with the former, but lately, my once seemingly endless optimism has dwindled. Before I explicate my reasons for this shift in mindset, let me first introduce a concept - inter-subjective reality - I learnt from the book 'Homo Deus' by Israeli author Yuval Noah Harari.
It is the third layer of reality, as posited by Harari, that only humans can truly utilise and is one of the fundamental reasons for human success among all animals. Unlike subjective reality (which is purely based on an individual's perception) and objective reality (something that remains true regardless whether an individual believes in it or not, e.g. gravity), inter-subjective reality is based on a self-reinforcing cycle of stories created by people. When one person believes in an idea, entity or notion, and propagates that belief to others who believe in it, a snowball effect is created; this is the foundation of human society in which stories form all the different elements of modern human civilisation. If this is confusing, consider the entity of the United Nations: it was created because sufficient people believed that it had a crucial role to play in monitoring and regulating how countries behaved. If and when the majority of countries lose faith in the United Nations, and believed that it should cease to exist, countries would withdraw funding till it eventually collapses. The underlying principle of inter-subjective reality appears to be the following: the greater the number of people who believe in the entity, the more valuable it becomes.
Now, what does this concept have to with our belief of whether we can change the world? It boils down to two reasons - first, we live in a society so heavily structured on capitalistic notions, especially the endless pursuit of economic growth and wealth; second, the institutions created by capitalism are the source of our sustenance, beyond just physical needs but also psychological needs.
Most of the social issues we face today are by-products of capitalism and if we hope to resolve these issues, we need a paradigm shift away from the profit-driven mindset that has caused the exploitation of hundreds of thousands of humans over millenia. Yet, how can we possibly expect to revamp capitalism when we are so dependent on the very institutions created by the system? During our teenage years, we seldom worry about financial issues, because we do not have to work to earn money, therefore, we would possess more idealistic dreams such as restructing capitalism to resolve societal challenges. Everything changes when individuals start working, get married and have to plan for the family's future. Money for a house, car, childcare needs, all these constitute a significant financial burden; no matter how anti-capitalist an individual is, when they settle down they have no choice but to rely on the key element of capitalism - money. Such a dichotomy usually results in adults giving up their teenage idealism for a more pragmatic mindset, whereby they feel that it is implausible to drive institutional change to rework capitalism; instead, most are satisfied when their work comprises some meaningful action to allievate societal issues. One can see this as adults being content with merely treating the symptoms, rather than tackling the problem at its root.
A case in point would be the prevalence of ad-hoc (usually one-off) volunteering activities organised by multi-national corporations and local companies alike. It is no surprise that companies are insisting on these once-a-few-months volunteering activities, given the abundance of research showing increased productivity of employees after volunteering. But I suspect most adults know that such one-off volunteering activities (e.g. tutoring underprivileged children, cooking meals for the destitute, talking to elderly at care centres) have little to no impact on the beneficiaries in the long run. Yet, they are still likely to feel pleased with themselves for doing a good deed, because it is after all, part of the human psyche to help one another based on the principle of reciprocity. Of course, I am not trying to say that it is wrong to feel pleased with themselves for assisting those in need; rather, I am suggesting that they probably would not feel as content if they were in their teenage years, when they had more idealistic dreams of a better world and strived to eradicate - or at least reduce on a larger scale - inequality. Somehow, it appears that having to work for financial independence lowers one's expectations of what it means to do something 'meaningful'. Perhaps, this is just part of maturing into an adult. Or perhaps, they just want to live an ordinary life without caring about societal problems.
Wouldn't it be nice to live in such a house? Credits: HuffPost
I slowly see myself turning into such an individual, where I can detach myself from current affairs. Hopefully it is just a temporary burnout, but only time will tell if the fuel inside me has ran out. I have always possessed a vehement hate of how unequal the world is, and I still do, except that I do not see any possibility in wholly and utterly dismantling capitalism for a novel system that can create a fairer world where the environment is not exploited. For any chance to resolve the climate crisis and inequality, we have to work within the confines of capitalism such as increasing the tax of the richest 10% - but even the best case scenario might not be enough to save humanity. The rich enjoy their wealth to the fullest, living hedonistic and unbridled lifestyles of excess; the middle class are able to live comfortably with occasional luxuries - they entertain the possibility of their children reaching the upper echelons of society through climbing the corporate ladder; the poor pin their hopes on striking it rich, just like the occasional 'success story' of a friend's friend, because that wishful thinking is the last flicker of hope they can hold on to in a world so staunchly biased against them. Under totally different reasons, the upper class, middle class, and lower class are all in conjunction to support capitalism, placing this 'human-created story' on a pedastal that can never be toppled.
Sure, we can ameliorate the situation by devoting our lives to help others or advocate for the switch to green energy, and we would certainly derive lots of pleasure from it, but we can never solve the root of the problem. Gandhi was not exactly wrong: we can indeed be the change that we wish to see in the world if the change does not require demolishing capitalism. But if it does, it is pretty hard to see how we can be the change. Maybe, when one day enough individuals actually manage to convince most governments to reinvent capitalism, we could then, just maybe, finally solve the longstanding societal challenges from their roots.
I will await that day.
Comments
Post a Comment