 |
|
|
|||||
In the early 20th century, sociologist Max Weber noted that sweeping industrialization would transform how societies worked. As small, informal operations gave way to large, complex organizations with clearly defined roles and responsibilities, leaders would need to rely less on tradition and charisma, and more on organization and rationality. He also foresaw that jobs would need to be broken down into specialized tasks and governed by a system of hierarchy, authority, and responsibility. This would require a more formal mode of organizationa bureaucracyin which roles and responsibilities were clearly defined. Power would be entrusted to institutions, not individuals. Yet today, according to Gallup, our faith in institutions has been shattered. From political institutions to schools to big business, support has fallen precipitously, and now only the military and small business enjoy majority support. In essence, the process Weber described has been reversed: weve discarded institutions and embraced individuals. It is not serving us well. How Institutions Shape Societies In 1776, Adam Smith published The Wealth of Nations. Today, regarded as the seminal work of capitalism, it wasnt seen that way at the time (the term did not exist in common usage). Rather, it was a powerful critique of mercantilism, the dominant economic model at the time, which sought to accumulate a countrys resources through promoting exports and minimizing imports. Yet Smith pointed out that the wealth of a nation lies in what it produces, not what it can sock away in vaults. Moreover, he argued that when wealthy merchants have the opportunity, they tend to corrupt political systems in order to extract more wealth for themselves, and that free markets are the most effective way to allocate resources productively. More recently, economists Daron Acemoglu and James Robinson build on Smiths ideas in Why Nations Fail. They explain why the fate of nations rests less on innate factors such as geography, culture, or climate and more on the quality and types of institutions they build: inclusive institutions or extractive institutions. Inclusive institutions protect property rights broadly across society, establish fair competition, and reward innovation. Extractive institutions, on the other hand, concentrate wealth in the hands of a small elite who exploit the broader population. These elites control resources and use state power to enrich themselves at societys expense. In other words, the wealth of nations is linked to the well-being of their people and this is largely a function of institutions. We depend on schools to educate, corporations to produce, governments to serve, and the media to inform. The health of a society is inextricably tied up in the health of its institutions. Institution Building And Institutional Capture Great leaders are remembered for the institutions they create. Napoleon is remembered for his civic code as much as for his military victories. Franklin Roosevelt will always be associated with the New Deal and Lyndon Johnson with the Great Society. We recognize great industrialists like Walt Disney not just for their individual deeds, but for the organizations they left behind. Autocrats understand that their power is directly a function of their ability to control or influence institutions. Many of these, of course, are political institutions, such as ministries, parliaments, and courts. Many others, such as corporations, religious organizations, educational institutions, and the media, are not. Thats why when Vladimir Putin assumed the presidency in Russia, he moved quickly to consolidate private media under Gazprom, install his own oligarchs and cultivate a close partnership with the Orthodox Church. Power is never monolithic, but distributed across institutions. To control a society, you need to control its institutions. Pro-democracy activists often employ a similar strategy. They target institutions that are important to the regime. For example, the Serbian activist group Otpor targeted the police with an elaborate strategy that both hampered their efforts and gradually recruited them to join the cause. When major protests broke out after an attempt to steal an election, the key security forces defected and joined the protestors. As Dostoevsky explained in The Grand Inquisitor, there will always be a conflict between churches and their messiahs. If people truly love the messiah, they wont need priests to provide mystery and authority. They would be free to pursue truth for themselves. The Erosion of Institutional Authority In his first inaugural address, Ronald Reagan declared, Government is not the solution to our problem, government is the problem, and vowed to unleash the private sector. What followed was not a renaissance of institutional strength, but a steady erosion of it. His deregulation led to the Savings and Loan crisis. Then came the dot-com bubble and crash, two long and destructive wars, the Great Financial Crisis, and the Covid pandemic. Each time there was a villain to execrate: Big Business, Wall Street, Neocons, the Military-Industrial Complex, Big Banks, Big Pharma, the media, and of course, nameless government bureaucrats (sometimes also known as public servants). As the Gallup dat clearly shows, we no longer trust our institutions. It is, in a strange sort of way, like The Grand Inquisitor in reverse. With no more churches to worship, weve gone in search of messiahs: demagogues, tech billionaires, podcast hosts, and many others. Were not craving altars. We seek parasocial relationships, hoping that our personal saviors will free us from institutional authority. The difference today is that we are often interacting with institutions without even knowing it. As the Filipino activist Maria Ressa has long documented, nation states are fighting an active information war, seeding our conversations on social media with divisive messaging, then amplifying the response with massive bot farms. Those tech oligarchs and podcast hosts arent just passive observers, but often actively pursuing an agenda for their own benefit. What were left with is the worst of both worlds: less freedom and less prosperity. The End Of History All Over Again In the 1990s, Western-style liberal democracy was triumphant. The Berlin Wall had fallen and the Cold War had been won. Teams of diplomats and consultants rushed to spread the Washington Consensus, an agreed-upon set of reforms that poor countries were pressured to undertake by their richer brethren. Francis Fukuyama noted at the time that we had reached an endpoint in history, when one model had achieved dominance over all others. Yet even as he laid out the rational case, he invoked the ancient Greek concept of thymos, or spiritedness, to warn that even at the end of history, some would insist on going their own way, no matter the consequences. The truth is that every revolution inspires its own counterrevolution and the pendulum will continue to swing until there can be some agreement about shared values and how to move forward. Today, we can see the consequences. Populists arent so much anti-elite as they are anti-institution, and todays media environment rewards those who attack them. The result is a world that feels far more divided and dangerous than it did even during the Cold War. Our mistake was that we were far too triumphant about a unipolar world to recognize that we needed to redesign our institutions to adapt to a new era. We are still largely living in a society governed by postwar institutions designed for how the world was nearly 80 years agono Internet, no cheap air travel, global GDP roughly five percent of what it is today. Today, much like after World War II and in 1989, we are in the midst of a fundamental realignment. To build a different future, we need to rethink our institutionswhat values we want to embed in them and what our relationship to them should be. How should schools educate? Corporations produce? Governments serve? And the media inform? We dont need saviors or messiahs. We need to redesign and rebuild institutions that can serve and sustain us for the 21st century.
Category:
E-Commerce
Over the past two decades, the concept of mindfulness has become hugely popular around the world. An increasingly ubiquitous part of society, its taught everywhere from workplaces and schools to sports programs and the military. On social media, television, and wellness apps, mindfulness is often shown as one simple thingstaying calm and paying attention to the moment. Large companies like Google use mindfulness programs to help employees stay focused and less stressed. Hospitals use it to help people manage pain and improve mental health. Millions of people now use mindfulness apps that promise everything from lowering stress to sleeping better. But as a professor of religious studies who has spent years examining how mindfulness is defined and practiced across different traditions and historical periods, Ive noticed a surprising problem beneath the current surge of enthusiasm: Scientists, clinicians, and educators still dont agree on what mindfulness actually isor how to measure it. Because different researchers measure different things under the label mindfulness, two studies can give very different pictures of what the practice actually does. For someone choosing a meditation app or program based on research findings, this matters. The study youre relying on may be testing a skill like attention, emotional calm, or self-kindness that isnt the one youre hoping to develop. This makes it harder to compare results and can leave people unsure about which approach will genuinely help them in daily life. From ancient traditions to modern science Mindfulness has deep roots in Buddhist, Hindu, Jain, Sikh, and other Asian contemplative lineages. The Buddhist Satipatthana Sutta: The Foundations of Mindfulness emphasizes moment-to-moment observation of body and mind. The Hindu concept of dhyna, or contemplation, cultivates steady focus on the breath or a mantra; Jain samayika, or practice of equanimity, develops calm balance toward all beings; and Sikh simran, or continuous remembrance, dissolves self-centered thought into a deeper awareness of the underlying reality in each moment. In the late 20th century, teachers and clinicians began adapting these techniques for secular settings, most notably through mindfulness-based stress reduction and other therapeutic programs. Since then, mindfulness has migrated into psychology, medicine, education, and even corporate wellness. It has become a widely usedthough often differently definedtool across scientific and professional fields. Why scientists disagree about mindfulness In discussing the modern application of mindfulness in fields like psychology, the definitional challenge is front and center. Indeed, different researchers focus on different things and then design their tests around those ideas. Some scientists see mindfulness mainly in terms of emphasizing attention and paying close attention to whats happening right now. Other researchers define the concept in terms of emotional management and staying calm when things get stressful. Another cohort of mindfulness studies emphasizes self-compassion, meaning being kind to yourself when you make mistakes. And still others focus on moral awareness, the idea that mindfulness should help people make wiser, more ethical choices. These differences become obvious when you look at the tests researchers use to measure mindfulness. The Mindful Attention Awareness Scale, or MAAS, asks about how well someone stays focused on the present moment. The Freiburg Mindfulness InventoryFMIasks whether a person can notice thoughts and feelings as they come and accept them without judgment. The Comprehensive Inventory of Mindfulness ExperiencesCHIMEadds something most other tests leave out: questions about ethical awareness and making wise, moral choices. As a result, comparative research can be tricky, and it can also be confusing for people who want to be more mindful but arent sure which path to take. Different programs may rely on different definitions of mindfulness, so the skills they teach and the benefits they promise can vary a lot. This means that someone choosing a mindfulness course or app might end up learning something very different from what they expected unless they understand how that particular program defines and measures mindfulness. Why different scales measure different things John Dunne, a Buddhist philosophy scholar at the University of WisconsinMadison, offers a helpful explanation if youve ever wondered why everyone seems to talk about mindfulness in a different way. Dunne says mindfulness isnt one single thing, but a family of related practices shaped by different traditions, purposes, and cultural backgrounds. This explains why scientists and people trying to be mindful often end up talking past each other. If one study measures attention and another measures compassion, their results wont line up. And if youre trying to practice mindfulness, it matters whether youre following a path that focuses on calming your mind, being kind to yourself, or making ethically aware choices. Why this matters Because mindfulness isnt just one thing, that affects how its studied, practiced and taught. Thats important both at the institutional and individual level. Whether for places like schools and health care, a mindfulness program designed to reduce stress will look very different from one that teaches compassion or ethical awareness. Without clarity, teachers, doctors, and counselors may not know which approach works best for their goals. The same rough idea applies in business for organizational effectiveness and stress management. Despite the disagreements, research does show that different forms of mindfulness can produce different kinds of benefits. Practices that sharpen attention to the moment are associated with improved focus and workplace performance. Approaches oriented towards acceptance tend to help people better manage stress, anxiety, and chronic pain. A focus on compassion-based methods can support emotional resilience. Programs that emphasize ethical awareness may promote more thoughtful, prosocial behavior. These varied outcomes help explain why researchers continue to debate which definition of mindfulness should guide scientific study. For anyone practicing minfulness as an individual, this is a reminder to choose practices that fit your needs. Ronald S. Green is a professor and chair of the Department of Philosophy and Religious Studies at Coastal Carolina University. This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.
Category:
E-Commerce
The goal is to become disgustingly educated, dozens of videos have proclaimed across social media over the new year. On platforms like TikTok and Instagram, instead of sharing clothing hauls or skincare routines, creators are sharing their book stacks or media diets promising to make their viewers disgustingly educated in a matter of minutes. For further optimization potential, take note of these brain hacks to improve memory (so that your time cracking open Platos Republic wont go to waste). While this trend that champions being erudite is marketed as an antidote to braintrot content, its origins on the internet date back as far back as 2022: I have two aspirations in life: to be beautiful and to be disgustingly overeducated, a viral X post read. Since then, subreddits like r/booksuggestions and r/selfimprovement started to fill with questions and answers on different ways to become disgustingly educatedfrom reading the classics to consuming video summaries of various topics. (Maybe even just consuming video summaries of the classics.) The trend has since found its way to TikTok, where it mirrors other self-improvement trends that crop up on the platform like clockwork every couple months. Last year, it was the curriculum trend, in which creators came up with monthly curricula based on new skills they want to learn, creative projects they want to tackle, and books on subjects they want to focus on for the month. After all, self-development is one of social medias favorite subjects. In an era where many are outsourcing their brains to artificial intelligence, its encouraging, of course, to see people embrace a trend that reclaims curiosity and engages with learning just for fun. Especially since its widely documented that social media does have a real deleterious impact on our memory, focus, and attention spans, which are all key tools in the pursuit of becoming disgustingly educated. Still, scratch beneath the surface, and the pursuit of education for educations sakeand the pursuit of education to appear educated to othersare two very different things. As Substack becomes the new social media platform in vogue, and intellectualism becomes another aesthetic to be sold, any trend that hopes to hook you with promises of lower screen time, while simultaneously keeping you on the algorithmic hamster wheel, should be taken with a pinch of salt. In many ways, the disgustingly educated trend is yet another example of the intelligence Olympics online. But what is the internet, if not a bunch of people on their soap boxes, lecturing others on topics they are underqualified to speak on? And with America sliding towards anti-intellectualism, as the current administration wages war on the arts, science, and the nature of truth, pseudointellectualism is the lesser evil here. If the most insufferable person you know has taken it upon themselves to become disgustingly educated in 2026 . . . honestly, more power to them.
Category:
E-Commerce
All news |
||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||