 1. Intro
In the Governance essay, I have identified three basic units of a social structure – Family, Business Organization (BO) and Government. Of these, the last two are closely connected in the two-way processes through lobbying, campaign financing, bailing out and consultation. We will try to examine whether, and to what extent the modern democratic frame of government institutions can function independent of, and without the BO advice and concurrence – but let us do it at some other time. The family, people and small businesses, on the other hand, are virtually isolated from the government starting from the day voting is completed. They become blurry faces with only statistical numbers attached to them. People’s only connection with their government is a one-way impersonal process through media news, and sometimes through government press releases and websites. Media? – Let us talk about it at some other time. For now let us try to examine to what extent people’s choices of political executives can function within the constraints of non-elected bureaucracy that surround and overwhelm them with their inner professional knowledge of state affairs. . . . 2. Bureaucracy and the Metaphor of 'Larry the Cat' I would like to start this piece with a BBC news that appeared on 12 July 2016: Larry the Cat escapes Downing Street Eviction. It says, Larry the civil servant (image credit: anon) - keeps his job to continue controlling the 10 Downing Street mice. The news came when David Cameron, the then chauvinist British prime minister - an advocate of British supremacy - had to vacate his official residence after being defeated in the Brexit vote. David Cameron vacating the residence after the defeat is democracy – and Larry keeping the job no matter what happens is bureaucracy. In fact, Larrys – the civil servants, far from being a docile servant, having its own mind, preferences and choices - always keep their jobs, in one position or another, in one place or another. Because that is how their jobs are defined and contracted. Politicians come and go, but Larrys stay. In a constitutional monarchy such as Britain, Larrys represent the continuity and stability of the monarchy within the roster of the changing Political Guard every few years. The privilege of continuity and job description helps Larrys to become the most powerful elites within the inner governing circle. The elected political leaders mostly play the shows that are managed, sometimes even conceived by bureaucrats. Who are these bureaucrats running the government? Well, we know them as government officers or officials. The terms immediately indicate who is the boss and runs the shows. These officers, especially the top ones and the modus operandi of the system belong to the Shepherds Club. They populate every organization – the larger the organization, the larger is their influence and power – be it in government executive offices, legislature or judiciary, corporations, or world bodies. They are integral part of any governing system – the system has no meaning without them. Government bureaucracy is highly hierarchical and the rules of business pass through several layers before decisions are made. This process makes the government bureaucracy very inefficient, and the term bureaucratic red tape is used to describe it. The Red Tape rules of business can even prevent elected political leaders from meddling in administrative affairs in some sectors and cases – people are told that these are political interferences. One may wonder where democracy begins and where it stops. Similar is the case with the bureaucracies of other organizations. Some say, the bureaucracies of world bodies such as UN, IMF, World Bank, world sport controlling bodies are even worse. These bureaucrat-run organizations - including the EU can easily veer towards the lines of thinking - that are likely to contain dictatorial undertones in their decision making. In for-profit corporations, bureaucratic decisions are made rather quickly and arbitrarily, but often within shaky intricacies of unaccountability. . . . 3. Evolution of Bureaucracy We can go on and on discussing all different bureaucracies. Let us focus, for simplicity and convenience, on civil administration in the rest of this piece. But before doing so it may help spending a little time on the evolution of the bureaucratic system. Traditionally European monarchies used to select members from aristocratic families and nobility to fill in key government positions. Competence and merit were considered irrelevant, afraid that such requirements would encourage commons entering into the ruling circle. The other reason is that some top positions hardly need very high skills – apart from having the attitude and power of a boss in control, and playing the role of a post-box, communicating up and down. Even in modern times, some top key positions are filled with people from aristocratic background. How do the aristocratic bureaucrats supposed to behave? Well, many are set things that one often hears from the leadership gurus – that you let others feel small and unworthy: To talk about work rather than doing the work, to be in control of things, to have assistants following you to take orders, to wear fancy clothes, to talk about fancy food and drink, to sit at the head of the table, and to be the last to arrive and the first to leave in meetings. Surrounded by servants – arrogance and snobbery are supposed to be their mantra to make them feel entitlement to the best of everything. One may wonder how things could get done with such an attitude. Well . . . that is why the system is very wasteful. In modern times, others are smart enough to understand that some are getting credit for doing hardly anything – and the process of contagious behaviors proliferate, spiralling down the real productivity. Let us get back to have some more glimpses of the bureaucratic evolution. It was the Chinese monarchies that saw the value of merits in governing. They developed an elaborate system of public examinations to select civil servants. Thus Chinese rule were based on meritocracy rather than European system of aristocracy. The Chinese system is like opening the door of aristocracy to the subjects selected on the basis of merit and competence, thus inducting them into the shepherds club. . . . 3.1 British Colonial Hegemony and Bureaucracy British monarchy came to learn about the Chinese system in the 18th century and began introducing the system in its colonies. But the British Government was unwilling to apply the same system in its own country. The colonial bureaucrats were trained to behave as Her Majesty’s loyal servant: Think like British, act like British and behave like aliens and superiors to the people of your own country. They were isolated from the general masses with hill slope (hill tops reserved for British) quarters that came with servants, chauffeurs and memberships into the elitist exclusive clubs where strategies were conceived and formulated within closed circles. The colonies saw the rise of arrogant corrupt hypocrites controlling every business of the government. The system still dominates the psyche of civil servants of many former colonies inhibiting social progress and uplift. There had been many efforts in several countries to rein in bureaucratic power, but none of them saw the doors to success – instead bureaucrats started pleading for more power. In a traditional bureaucratic career, it was assumed that the new recruits would learn on the job to become a seasoned professional. But a new thinking started with the first opening of the business school in 1819 in Paris. The purpose was to train people to serve administrative and management needs, not only for the government but also for all businesses. About a century later, the real thrust came in 1908 with the opening of the Harvard School of Business offering Master of Business Administration degree. With this and subsequent developments, administrative and management services took a complete new turn by overtaking all other professions in controlling and managing things. . . . 3.2 Bureaucratic Yes-saying Functions Getting Shifted to NGOs In recent times, the bureaucratic system of managing things – from policy formulation and intellectual backup to chalking out the management directions of implementation checklists – have taken the shape of government and corporate funded strategies – entrusted to the works of so-called private Think-Tank entities. These entities functioning with the blessing of funding agencies – are basically tasked to provide legitimacy to the govt and corporate agenda by giving them a cover of independent-neutrality, and intellectual competence. The advantages for promoting and supporting such an approach is that – their actions can be dictated by the funding agencies – and their products can be easily sold to the members of the public through published reports, and via media outlets as an accomplice. It gives the political parties (whose members by-and-large are not knowledgeable of governing practices - some even lack skills and competency as per the modern democratic system of choosing political candidates) the right tool to spearhead their confidential agenda by avoiding bureaucratic resistance, intransigence and dilly-dallying. Some implementation checklists produced by such entities are often entrusted – to the office of so-called non-governmental NGOs. Here again, the functions of NGOs are controlled by govt and corporate funding – but in the guise of public welfare, environmental protection, Nature conservation, etc. NGOs also ask for, and get public donations – but the donating public cannot and do not have any say in those NGO policies and actual works. . . . 3.3 Bureaucracy in a BBC Satirical Sitcom How does the power play look like between the elected politicians and the seasoned bureaucrats? Let us have a glimpse of it through the eyes of a comedy series. In the British satirical sitcom, Yes Minister (1980 – 1984) and Yes Prime Minister (1986 – 1988) produced by BBC Television, the power play between the political executives and top bureaucrats was portrayed in skillful means. This highly popular sitcom made satirical fun of democratically elected leader’s powers – which in most cases, amounted to nothing more than listening to, and acting according to what the bureaucrats had to say. Bureaucrats even played the role of kingmakers through their skills of manipulating and twisting things in their favor. In fact, political leaders have very little option of handling bureaucrats because they cannot be fired, but can only be transferred to a less import post or position – often known as punishment posting. In the sitcom, the bureaucrat argues very humbly why the key administrative and managerial functions should be left to them . . . the traditional allocation of executive responsibilities has always been so determined as to liberate the ministerial incumbent from the administrative minutiae by devolving the managerial functions to those experience and qualifications have better formed them for the performance of such humble offices, thereby releasing their political overlords for the more onerous duties and profound deliberations which are the inevitable concomitant of their exalted positions . . . What are the onerous duties and profound deliberations? Well, you must have guessed. These are to quarrel and fight with each other, to cut ribbons and take credit, to be in history books, and to keep the journalists busy with rhetoric and insinuations to convince people that democracy really works – and that, it is the people who are in power. . . . 3.4 The Roles of Media and Journalists The media and journalists? Well, they dance up and down, analyze and reanalyze every lies and rhetoric they have heard to increase their rating. . . . most of our journalists are so incompetent that they have the gravest difficulty in finding that today is Wednesday . . . That is how making fun of the journalists goes within the bureaucratic circle. But could they avoid it? Well, they probably cannot. Because they are the ones who know the truth, and they cannot help but enjoy the attempts of journalists to thread the puzzles to derive conclusions which may appear utterly nonsense to them. But don’t think that is where things stop, because if the journalist’s story goes against their interests, they will arrange with the editors that the journalist gets punished in one way or another. In fact, Larrys have the luxury of making fun of everybody – because they are the elites close to money and power at its source, and in dissemination – in both upstream and downstream phases. They can take advantage by using the privilege of having access to people’s personal and private information. The privilege of long tenured services makes them and their families stable and rich to think of themselves as god given blessing of aristocracy. . . . 3.5 Variation of Bureaucratic Structures Across Countries How do the bureaucratic structures differ among the countries? In one-party communist countries, party officials themselves are part of the bureaucracy. Among the democracies, perhaps former British colonies have more doses of bureaucracy than others. In terms of development, developed societies seemed to have more streamlined and efficient bureaucracy than the rest. What I have discussed so far, should not give the impression that Larrys are bad and that the elected people are just pawns. It is nothing like that. Some bureaucrats just play their role in an abusing system while others could abuse the systems no matter how reasonable they are. Elected people, for that matter any member of the public could also play a role in an abusive system, or could be the abuser themselves individually. Elected leaders have the difficult job of keeping their commitment to people, but at the same time deal with bureaucratic and other hurdles. Ultimately it is the individual capacities, commitment and competence that determine who fires the shot in the end. Unlike the past aristocratic system, in the modern world power is shared in many layers. . . . 4. Abuse of the Powers of Democratic and Bureaucratic Authority I am tempted here to explore some relevant materials from Buddhist scriptures that have listed some 20 difficulties (see portion of them in Some Difficult Things) that a person faces in life. In one of them, Gautama Buddha (624 – 544 BCE) - The Tathagata said: It is difficult not to abuse one’s authority. The Buddha did not say it was impossible – but only that it was difficult. Authority accompanies power – and it is easy to get into the temptation of abusing it rather than rising above it. It is difficult also because, as we have tried to see in the Wheel of Life essay, people of authority see the world through the lens of power. Therefore, for them abuse is like entitlement to govern – the suffering of the abused victim hardly cross their mind. The Buddha’s wisdom implies that people entrusted with authority should need to be extra careful not to fall into the temptation of abusing their power. Because of the different colors of lenses, the views of people, bureaucrats, political and industrial leaders are not always likely to converge – interests are different, pursuits are different and choices are different. In the end there must be a convergence however, because it is possible and necessary – but it is possible only when those in authority stand on solid foundations of integrity and commitment to people’s causes. . . . Here is an anecdote to ponder: As the disciple came, the master exploded, “You idiot, why are you here? Go away. Never ever show up here again.” The disciple could not believe what he heard. What did he do to deserve such an angry insult? Had his master gone crazy? He gathered courage, “Sir, are you fine?” The master was trembling with anger, “What are you? You stupid! You have heard me. Don’t show your ugly face again.” The disciple thought for a while and said, “Okay, Sir. I will come back later.” The disciple returned back next day, “Sir?” He waited to see how his master would react. The master smiled, “My dear, I am sorry. I have been deliberately behaving weird to test you. I have wanted to provoke you with violent anger. You have passed with honor. You see, it is only the deaf, dumb and the blind, who would be unable to react to insults and angry outbursts. As I have watched you, on the first insult your face has shown the signs of utter disbelief. On the second insult your face has turned from reactive anger to sadness.” “Oh my gosh! I am so relieved. Thank you Sir.” “It is only human that we act and react with strong emotions like anger, hatred, fear, sadness, joy and love when facing a situation. I am amazed that, like a person of true wisdom, you have reacted but with the ability of controlling yourself. You deserve a reward.” So saying, the master hugged his dear disciple. . . . . . - by Dr. Dilip K. Barua, 25 August 2016
0 Comments
 1. Intro
In the Duality and Multiplicity in Nature piece on the NATURE page, I have tried to indicate how the principle of duality and multiplicity works in Nature – and why the crest and trough of a wave are interlinked in a process to transport energy. We have tried to see it through the duality principle of Nagarjuna (150 – 250 CE). Also we have tried to establish in that piece that multiplicity is the building block of duality – that it is impossible for a Natural phenomenon to remain monochromatic. . . . 2. The Inherent Characteristics of Social Duality and Multiplicity Why understanding the social duality and multiplicity is important? For one, a proper understanding of things enlightens people to minimize uncertainty and risk in the management of social affairs. The Uncertainty and Risk piece in the SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY page discusses how the darkness of ignorance can affect decision making adversely. We will try to see in this piece how the same principle applies to a society – but perhaps in a complex manner. To keep things simple and for convenience, let us try to describe the social duality in the context of two social energy flows in separate ways, but must complement each other for progressive transformation (in absence of an appropriate one, I have selected an image from a web source, credit: anon). The first is the financial standing on which the duality of rich and poor is visible. The second visible duality is good and evil that stands on the ethics or morality ground. Of these two sets of dualities, rich and poor duality is a measurable reality. The measure of good and evil, on the other hand is based on human perception and is relative or subjective. We have discussed this in the Duality and Multiplicity piece on the NATURE page. But while some attributes of the duality of good and evil could be interpreted differently in different societies, some core values and expectations are common to all humanity. We have touched upon that in the Social Order essay on this page. It is also important to realize from the outset that financial standing has the power, and does trump over the ethics ground – for that matter any other ground. It is not difficult to understand why so. Let us try to see it more through three fictitious examples representing some combinations at the extreme end of the spectrum. The first is the case where an individual or an organization stands on the crest of the financial standing, but happens to lie at the bottom on the ethics ground. On the opposite end, the second is the case of an individual or an organization standing on the crest of ethics but lies at the trough on financial standing. The third is the case where an individual or an organization stands on the crests of both financial standing, and ethics ground. This is the most desirable combination but most often the rarest, partly because the power associated with money has the ability to make people arrogant, inhibiting their capacity to see things from the perspectives of other people’s interests, humanity and ethics. We often hear people saying, money and power do not go hand in hand with honesty and ethics. It is neither a theory nor a desirable social behavior, but rather reflects people’s perception and realization. What is the rationale behind such a perception by people? Let us try to see it through the eyes of the power circles – how they would react to the first two cases. If the individual or the organization in the first case does not break any law, the power circle would likely ignore the failure on the ethics ground. In the second case, the power circle would probably empathize or sympathize with the poor individual or organization standing on the high ethics ground – at least they would do so publicly. In private conversations and decision making, it may be a different story however – most likely they would not hesitate to express anger, and dehumanize the participant as a useless nuisance. Well, how about that? In Charles Darwin’s (1809 – 1882) words: If the misery of the poor be caused not by the law of nature, but by our own institutions, great is our sin. . . . 3. Minimizing the Duality Gap The three cases are only simple examples – in reality social interactions are much more complex to have straight answers. We have talked about the positive and negative social energies in the Social Fluidity blog on this page. Negative energies tend to increase the duality gap – often leading a society to the breaking point and instability when the gap is too wide. Positive energy, on the other hand has the power to decrease inequality and the duality gap by minimizing mistrusts and promoting understanding and tolerance among the multiples. What does the minimization of gaps mean? Let us try to clarify this. For the duality on financial standing, it means moving both the crest and trough close together. On the other hand, minimizing the duality gap on the ethics ground means that the evil at the trough needs to move up in an attempt to reach the level of the good at the crest. Should the duality gap vanish eventually? The reality is that the gap has always existed and will continue to exist to the future. This is how the social energy propagates to transmit and dissipate in the transformation process. Only thing to watch is that there are more positive energies to overwhelm the negatives, and that the inequality is minimized to keep the gap within a manageable level. . . . 4. The Concept of a Uniform Social Structure Does this mean that a uniform society – all belonging to the same level of financial standing, like the communist founder (Karl Marx, 1818 – 1883) has envisioned is not naturally possible? Many wise people engaged their hearts and minds delving into it in the past, because they wanted to see a society of equality with all the people having a meaningful happy life. They thought that communism had the answer, in reality however the practicing communist countries ended up being very inefficient and unproductive state controlled enterprises. While the communist ideology was rather sophisticatedly argued, it seemed to be mired with some flaws. We can think at least four of them. The first is the fact that an authoritarian one party rule is in denial of multiplicity. The social multiplicity should be understood not only in terms of color and creed, but also in differences that define people – in their mental and physical capabilities – in their judgments and opinions – in their customs and lifestyles, and so on. Multiplicity represents converging elements required to sustain a society’s energy to a healthy level. The second is the arrogance and corrupt practices that creep in within the party ranks. This deplorable cancer infuses negative energy into a society. The third is the fact that the concept of a homogeneous society standing on an equal financial standing, has the elements of inhibiting social motivation and inspiration by discouraging competitiveness, and putting a cap on people’s aspirations. The last but not the least is that people’s freedom is curtailed greatly by giving the party bureaucrats the responsibility to control and decide on people’s fates. When people lose freedom of thoughts and expressions, and equitable opportunities, a society loses its spirit. Therefore the ideology was doomed to failure. In most cultures elders used to teach their young children that all fingers in a hand are not of the same length. Therefore an expectation of complete uniformity is unreal, and there must be a reason why the fingers are not of equal length. However what is possible and necessary, is to promote a pluralistic society with attempts to minimize inequalities. Because if the gap is too wide, negative social energy creeps in to destabilize a social system. . . . 5. Advantage Takers of a Pluralistic Society This does not mean however that a pluralistic society is faultless. The reason is that in such a social framework, unscrupulous and ruthless elements often take advantage of the freedom to infuse negative energy into, and drag a society to instability. Doesn’t modern education help in this regard? Education does help, but perhaps the problem does not lie with education. It is rather the social framework of aggressiveness that drives some people to the extent of unethical and ruthless behaviors. If immediate gains in whatever means, are considered as the sole criteria or as the overriding one, to promote and upgrade a person’s position in an organization, then it is only natural that the person would tend to behave according to the ways expected. One could blame the person, but it is rather the system as a whole that is responsible, and to blame. Where do all these lead us to? Do they indicate that there is no hope? Hopelessness by itself is negative energy, therefore not desirable. Duality and multiplicity must exist to transport energy – it only requires that a society creates enough positive energy to reduce the duality gap for it to be stable and prosperous on its ways to transformation. Ancient religious leaders and philosophers just did that, and we discussed about some other past leaders in the Social Fluidity blog on this page. . . . Here is an anecdote to ponder: The disciple turned to his master and asked, “Sir, how do the dualities look like in time?” The master replied, “Good point! Nothing escapes the arbitration of time. In time, nothing is constant – the natures of the dualities change hand as the social transformation moves from upstream to downstream – power changes hands, money changes hands, and so on – this is the judgment of Nature.” “But unscrupulous and ruthless people may argue that they would ride the crest on a financial standing all the way in their lifetime, therefore why care.” The master looked at his disciple and smiled, “No wonder! What can you expect?” . . . . . - by Dr. Dilip K. Barua, 18 August 2016  1. Intro
Some materials I have included in The Fluidity of Nature blog in the NATURE page have made writing this piece somewhat easier. In addition, the Transformation of Waves blog in the SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY page, written in the context of planning and design of coastal and port infrastructure provides us some insights on the transformation viewpoint of social fluidity. This piece - commemorating the First Nations Day on August 9th - also depends on our understanding of the Social Order posted in this page earlier. In The Fluidity of Nature essay I have identified five important elements that characterize the fluidity we defined – TIME, CONTINUITY, RESILIENCE, ADAPTATION, and BALANCE and DYNAMIC EQUILIBRIUM. These elements are all the more important in the evolution of a society, perhaps in a more complicated fashion. Social fluidity is all about transformation that results from social actions and reactions in response and adaptation to the imposed forces and circumstances confronting a society. In the process a society attempts to balance itself in time to achieve dynamic equilibrium {I have selected a people image (credit: anon) in a cheerful mood}. The dynamic equilibrium to reach the stability of Unity. In Buddhist thoughts (The Tathagata), the rolling of the Unity have four faces – the Duality of the opposites (1 & 2), the entanglement (3) and the complementarity (4) of the Dualities. . . . 2. Fluidity Defines a Society Why not rigidity instead of fluidity to define a society? What is wrong with rigidity? In an ever changing world on an impermanent paradigm, the notion of social rigidity is unrealistic and unnatural. Some elements of the social framework must evolve to accommodate the advances of time. Failure to appreciate the necessity of accommodating the advances delays or halts social progress – to the extent of causing instability in extreme cases. However, fluidity does not connote indiscriminate accommodations of everything; it rather indicates undertaking effective filtration processes for making smart choices. Transformative processes defining social fluidity are visible the way we appear, the way we behave, and the way we act and react in handling the social issues of common interests. Like a fluid, a society takes the shape of its container – the container in this case is the climate and the existing cultural and economic factors. In some cases of close proximity the societal differences are less, while remoteness makes the differences wider. . . . 2.1 Social Viscosity and Density Before going further, perhaps an attempt to find the parallelism between the fluidities of Nature and society will be helpful. The characteristics of a natural fluid depend on its viscosity and density, which in turn depend on pressure and temperature. A highly viscous fluid is more resistant to flow than a fluid of lower viscosity. On a similar footing, it can be argued that a society of tenacious viscosity is defined by the soundness and firmness of its values, and by its stable social framework of unity and peace. A diluted viscosity makes a society vulnerable to change with rather minor and undesirable stimulus. Perhaps a quote from Persian mystic poet Rumi (1207 – 1373) is appropriate in this context: If you are irritated by every rub, how will your mirror be polished? In a modern interconnected world of information, distraction and misinformation knock the doors of a society every single day. Therefore, it is all the more important why a society needs to stand on a stable framework of unity and peace. As pointed out earlier, the argument should not lead us to believe, however that a society should be impervious to change. Like the fluidity suggests, it is rather important for a society to be receptive to advanced and progressive ideas wherever they come from. It is also important to try to absorb and integrate those advances into the social fabric. . . . 2.2 The Internal and External Stresses that Affect a Society Let us try to analyze more of it. As a society faces external forces or internal stresses, it attempts to transform and evolve in time through resilience and adaptation to find the balance and achieve dynamic equilibrium. Why dynamic equilibrium? It requires being dynamic because when a society becomes static, it virtually heads to deathbed. The dynamic transformation processes become robust and progressive only when a society stands on a solid foundation, but at the same time has the capacity to absorb the advances. What are the characteristics of a solid foundation? These are the social framework and principles on which a society stands. For example, a motivational social discipline to work for common good and unity is a solid foundation. On the other hand, a chaotic system promoting malpractice, corruption and divisiveness makes a society fractured and weak standing on a shaky foundation. As we have identified in the Governance blog in this page, solidity of a social foundation is secured when the three basic units of a social structure – FAMILY, BUSINESS ORGANIZATION and GOVERNMENT – work coherently and collectively to adapt to the positive transformation processes for common good. There are also other dimensions to the characteristics. An important one comprises the national monumental achievements by individuals and organizations that make people proud, and add to the strength of a social foundation. . . . 3. Social Energy From where does a society derive energy to transform? People derive energy from their own motivation, and from families, friends and teachers. These four obvious factors in turn derive energy from the society where they are rooted – even from outside, in this era of the interconnected world. Social energy is derived from the combined motivations and pursuits of individuals, but it is mostly the social framework of values that defines its strength. A social framework evolves through decades and centuries of transformation. The most visible architects of a social framework are the political leaders and rulers. Do all the energies benefit a society? As we all understand, people depend on the positive energy to move forward. Positive energy carries a society toward stability and progress while the negative energy pulls it down toward the breaking point and instability. Instability does not always mean political instability – it is rather the erosion of core values on which a society stands firmly. This erosion occurs silently and incrementally transforming and dragging a society into the wrong direction. There have been many beacons of light in history helping chart the paths to human progress. Examples of some visionary leaders who infused positive social energy in the recent past were: Abraham Lincoln (1809 – 1865), Mahatma Gandhi (1869 – 1948), Martin Luther King Jr. (1929 – 1968) and Nelson Mandela (1918 – 2013). On the other hand, Nazi leader Adolf Hitler (1889 – 1945) was also able to inspire the German society, but with a distorted ideology, dragging the society and the world with it into instability and war. Lack of motivation and inspiration originating from a shaky social foundation infuse negative energy into the minds of people. . . . 3.1 Science and Technology, and Cross-cultural Exchanges Energize a Society How do the cross-cultural exchanges affect the fluidity of a society? Cross-cultural exchanges enriched human societies from time immemorial. At least two revolutionary technological advances that have happened in the 20th century, have been transforming the societies all around the world like no other. With the iron bird started flying in the sky since 1914, the fluidity of nation states received its first jolt of major transformation. While scientists are throwing more light on past human movement and migration through DNA [Deoxyribo Nucleic Acid – genetic code defining individuals] analysis, thousands of years from now the human migration and cohabitation history may indicate a complete different canvas of amalgamation. The second super jolt came in the period between1960s and 1980s with the launching of personal computers and Internet Protocols. This jolt was followed by mobile phones that covered the remotest corners of the world, bringing all walks of people together into the communication network. Within a very short period of time the proliferation and popularity of Internet have revolutionized our lives. Access to resources, instant emailing, texting, audio and video communications have transformed the way we live and do business. Perhaps for the first time in history, its administration and regulation have tested the limits of authority of any particular country. Perhaps with this, the nature of social fluidity has entered into a new phase. These transportation and communication technologies connecting nations together unlike anytime in the past have been shrinking the world at a very fast rate. Proliferation of these technologies is melting distances and cultures. Most of these are good because exchanges help nations to know and understand each other. This in turn is helpful in promoting trade and minimizing mistrust and animosity. The harmful effects are often the cultural shock on traditional values, and the effects can be overwhelming sometime. In addition, Internet has opened the door to malicious activities and cybercrime in unbelievable rapidity adversely impacting all societies around the world, more in the Artificial Intelligence - the Tool of No Limit. But the good news is that a tenacious society always finds the way to adapt and transform through the filtration processes of discarding the harmful elements. . . . Here is an anecdote to ponder: The disciple asked, “Sir, a question has been bothering me for sometime. It is about the difference between an innovator and a scholar.” The master replied, “Um! Let me see. An innovator is someone who creates Pros and Cons. A scholar, on the other hand, is an intellectual who is embroiled with critical reviews of the Pros and Cons, and finding the differences between them.” “Why Pros and Cons, Sir? I am afraid I do not understand it.” “Well, every major new idea, theory, method or product of value causes social stirs to some extent, because they are new to establishments. Some requires scholarly debates to argue both ways.” “But some innovations also happen in our routine activities.” “Smart star performers in every profession are innovative by nature. However, most of their innovations do not reach the level of causing social stirs; they rather cater to improving and refining the undertakings of the pioneers.” “Although social stirs are caused, innovations hold the keys to social progress.” The master looked pleased and smiled, “There you have it!” . . . . . - by Dr. Dilip K. Barua, 11 August 2016 |
AuthorArchives
May 2024
Categories |
RSS Feed
