There is a call for 'freedom' in the Middle East, both from citizens within its troubled borders, and from our own Western supporters of democracy overseas. This is, of course, with good intention. However, the call seems remarkably simplistic. There is a formulaic image being created of Arab heroes rushing to the streets only to be suppressed, injured, or killed by stubborn, iron-fisted regimes that wish to thwart political freedom. We in the West show our support for our fellow brothers and sisters in humanity under these dictatorships, arguing too that they deserve the right to democratic elections and to other civil liberties that we enjoy here in the West. And so the alleged struggle of freedom vs. oppression / "good vs. evil" continues.
This constructed picture of the situation is troubling. Particularly concerning is the idea that we in the West enjoy some kind of freedom that the Middle East should be aspiring towards. There is no doubt that political freedom in the Middle East is miserably limited. But are we really so much better off? In what follows, I will examine the notion of 'freedom' assumed in the West, and consider whether we are in any position to be calling for the freedom of others.
The Philosophy of Freedom
Freedom is not an unconditional virtue in itself. If it wasn't the case that this seems to be forgotten in modern political discourse, I wouldn't mention it, but quite often it seems that it is. There are obvious harms that come from certain freedoms. For example, we do not value the freedom to discriminate, or to abuse, or to pollute. Thus we can firmly acknowledge that the prohibition of certain freedoms can actually be a virtue insofar as it prevents harm. Indeed, freedom, like all other social virtues, requires a balance with certain limitations.
In terms of definition, human freedom is generally understood and defined as being able to choose according to our own free will without coercion. The modern emphasis of freedom is almost always on 'choice'. In the West, this is typically celebrated in our freedom to say, do, elect, and pursue what we want in our lives. The surface appeal of this type of liberalism is strong, especially to the citizens of dictatorships in the Middle East. But there are a couple of essential factors that are almost entirely neglected in such a sense of freedom. First, freedom is not only about choice, it's also about the options that are given to us. Who decides and gives us these options? There doesn't seem to be anything especially democratic, for example, about being given two options to choose from, when you had little to no say in what those two options were in the first place. Second, to what extent do the values of our society - which we are constantly and necessarily subjected to -influence the extent to which we desire such choices? We might find that these often ignored factors of available 'options' and external 'influence' are far more fundamental to the notion of freedom than the rather static aspect of 'choice' on its own.
There are a number of spheres within our socio-economic and cultural system that manifest this essentially philosophical problem of Western freedom. Of course, each of the following sections deserves a thesis of its own regarding the issue, but I will try to outline some basic realities that are immediately relevant to us as individuals, specifically on a day-to-day basis.
Read the rest here: http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/ziad-elhady/what-freedom-are-we-calli_b_...
(Part 2)
How Social Fear Inhibits Our Freedom in the West
In part 1, I discussed the concept of freedom with regards to the banking system and argued that its principles of lending lead to an unjust dynamic between citizens and banks, mirroring a master-slave relationship. Here, I intend to show how crime and the national conditioning of fear are also largely inhibiting our sense of freedom.
National Crime and Security
The lack of freedom that citizens feel due to the highly anticipated threat of crime is often neglected when discussing the Western concept of freedom. Take the UK for example. The Home Office's British Crime Survey estimated 745,000 domestic burglaries and 1,189,000 incidents of vehicle-related theft in England and Wales in 2010/11. That amounts to about 2000 homes and 3000 cars being broken into every single day. In response, citizens are spending more and more on security. Mintel, a leading market research company, has estimated that the current burglary prevention market is peaking at around £100 million in the UK as we increasingly fortify ourselves within our homes.
But what is most alarming is not only the sheer statistical magnitude of property crime in the UK; it's the psychological states and attitudes that this creates within us. The Office of National Statistics has claimed that 2.5million British citizens pretend to own a dog to guard their homes from burglars, many of whom place misleading dog-bowls at their front doors. In addition, half the population leave their lights on to trick potential intruders, and 1 in 10 Brits ask a neighbour or friend to move their car around when they are away. The list of deception tactics researched by one insurance company is actually quite exhaustive.
Even on the most basic level of human experience, a stranger knocking on your front door in the evening, or approaching you in the street is often met with threat or caution. We instinctively assume that you cannot leave a bicycle unchained in public for the briefest amount of time; and drivers had better hope that no passer-by saw them slip their Satnav into the glove box of the car, lest someone breaks in for it thereafter. You almost have to assume that everyone is a crook just to function in society. Such a lack of feeling safe and constant precaution does not represent the type of 'free' society that we would collectively favour. The correct balance between the right kinds of freedom is far from being achieved. Too often it seems that our justice system unwillingly grants the freedom to commit crimes and to re-offend with little consequence, while the freedom to feel safe is largely denied as a result.
World crime statistics typically show crime to be predominately a Western problem, with the US, UK, Germany, France and Russia occupying the top 5 places. But even if we cannot take these statistics entirely at face value due to international criminal recording differences, it's hard to deny the national construction of criminal fear - particularly through the media - that is especially common in Western societies. Professor of Criminal Justice, Geoffrey R. Skoll, argues that there is a prevalent 'discourse of crime', which is said to have been emphasised by governments and the media in the last 30 years. These discourses, which "trickle down from the top levels of ivory towers to popular culture outlets" play on our deepest fears "wherein women are victims of stalking, children are sexually exploited, serial killers lurk in shadows everywhere, and so on". Our trust in other people, especially strangers, seems to have been shattered by this caution towards criminal activity, which has settled in our public atmosphere.
The Fear of Terror
... http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/ziad-elhady/how-social-fear-inhibits-_b_...
"How many people find fault in what they're reading and the fault is in their own understanding" Al Mutanabbi
(Part 3)
The Media's Limitations and Manipulations
All social, political and economic policies and debates are communicated through our media. Therefore, the breadth of our democratic experience is largely defined by the structure of the media and its content. This may not be an immediate cause for panic in itself, but consider this alongside thecentralisation of corporate media ownership and the picture becomes a lot more worrying. If a handful of companies control the vast majority of what we constantly see, hear, and read about 24hrs a day, then the breadth of our information and democratic experience becomes considerably concentrated and narrowed.
News does not come down to us raw and unadulterated. Rather, it is 'processed' and structured in terms of what topics are selected; how information is filtered; what is emphasised and what is ignored; how an issue is framed; and how a debate is bounded. Such tailoring gives Western news a specific 'character' to which we have all become innately accustomed.
As author of The Press and Foreign Policy (1993) Bernard Cohen points out, it's not so much that the media tells you what to think, it's that they tell you what to think about. Rupert Murdoch'sNews Corporation, for example, holds in excess of 130 newspapers worldwide, including the most widely circulated English newspaper in the world, The Sun. Now seeing as companies such as News Corporation are in competition with the likes of AOL , Murdoch's company will decide to turn many of these newspapers into profitable sensationalist journalism, focusing on the three themes of sex, crime, and sport (Herman and McChesney 1997).
Criteria for much news in general is about what can shock and rouse our emotions as opposed to what is actually informative and useful to society. Crime, sex/money scandals, bizarre/extremist opinions or behaviour, and anything to do with celebrities, occupies a large space within our mass media. Such attention-grabbing topics are also framed in ways that restrict our thinking even further. Violent crime reports, for example, take the form of concise horror stories, creating endless villains and victims out of our citizens rather than discussing the social problems that lead to such incidents. It's as if unemployment, inequality, poor education, and lack of moral sensitivity in society has nothing to do with such crimes. Our universities are, of course, filled with experts in such social sciences, but media professionals are largely uninterested in using their knowledge to create an intellectual platform to suggest ways in which we can minimise such offences in the future. Instead, politicians give simple solutions to appease the masses, while disregarding the opinions of experts. Moreover, there have been many studies which show that certain social problems, such as terror, violent and sexual crimes, have been exaggerated way out of proportion, while other studies show that more serious issues - many to do with the environment - are not emphasized enough or are completely ignored. Unsurprisingly, research shows that people who engage most with the mass media are more frightened of the outside world and have less trust for other people.
...
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/ziad-elhady/the-medias-limitations-an_b_15...
"How many people find fault in what they're reading and the fault is in their own understanding" Al Mutanabbi
The Dogma of Advertising & Consumerism: What freedom are we calling for? P.4/5
January 29, 2013
by Ziad El Hady
As the call for freedom in the Middle-East cements itself into Western culture, some of us continue to question the extent to which a culture so consumed in consumerism is able to make such a call. This is considered in light of major and more nuanced social and psychological problems that arise from such ‘freedoms.’ In what follows I wish to highlight a few of these disturbances, which are often overlooked.
It’s not clear how many advertisements we are exposed to every day. Taking into account the average hours of TV viewing, radio listening, newspapers/magazine reading, internet surfing, public street and transport use; common estimates range from around 250 per day on the conservative side, to 3000 and above. Regardless of which is more accurate, there’s no doubt that being exposed to adverts is an extremely significantly common and almost necessary part of human experience in the modern world.
As well as showing us products, adverts also present us with values, ideals and social standards. They draw upon major personal themes such as beauty, happiness, love, companionship, sex, and self-image, in a positive but unrealistic light to promote their product. As a consequence, these adverts are potentially shaping us towards mental states, which are in fact, quite inhibiting, insecure, and unhealthy.
A common psychological principle used by advertisers is that repetition constitutes mental conditioning.Studies show that the more something is repeated to you, the more you will believe it. So whether it’s “I’m lovin’ it”, “Have a break, have a `Kit-Kat”, or “Washing machines live longer with Calgon”, the mere repetition of these messages is able to motivate potential buyers and construct certain ideas in their minds with added cognitive and emotional associations.
There’s nothing inherently wrong with such methods. Psychotherapy typically uses the brain’s ability to re-condition its associations to heal people and make their lives more fulfilling. This, however, is done with both consent and good clinical intention. Advertising is a different story altogether. A company’s main purpose is to sell a product and make money, even if that means falsely creating insecurities in people and offering their product as a solution.
The link between psychology and consumerism was expanded on in the early 20th century, when Sigmund Freud’s nephew, Edward Bernays, used Freud’s ideas regarding primitive hidden sexual and aggressive forces to show corporations how to link purchasable products to unconscious desires. As a result, the insatiable fantasy and anticipation of buying a product became more pleasurable than actually possessing it. This would ensure that people would keep buying irrationally, giving rise to a consumer culture.
Bernays, who worked closely with numerous US presidents and large corporations, was one of the first to use psychological methods such as celebrity association, product marketing in films, and to link products to male or female power. In his book Propaganda (later Public Relations) he causally explains how, in many instances throughout our daily lives, “we imagine ourselves free agents”, but are “ruled by dictators exercising great power”. “A man buying a suit of clothes” he explains, “imagines that he is choosing, according to his taste and his personality, the kind of garment which he prefers. In reality, he may be obeying the orders of an anonymous gentleman tailor in London.” Bernays then explains how the gentleman tailor in London is part of a wider network utilising the psychological methods listed above. Thus, even our consumer choices are largely an illusion of freedom, as clarified by the official “Father of Public Relations” himself.
The values being presented to a nation through major advertising come in all shapes and sizes. Constant images of happy, smiling, healthy people with buyable products both insists on a materialistic existence, and promotes the idea that if you want fulfilment, you need to buy things. As a result, our worth is valued more and more by what we own as opposed to what we do, or who we are. Self-gratification is also excessively promoted by the advertising culture, encouraging a focus on our own immediate desires as opposed to our relations with others. Whenever displayed, family and friendship ties are seen as outlets for gift giving, while intimate and traditional ‘special occasions’ have been mutilated into wholesale consumer events. Not much is offered for the integrity of the self. Morally reflective messages are usually only found in charity ads, which, although might be sincere, share the principal goal of encouraging some partition with your finances. Thus, your worth still depends on what you can spend.
Read the rest here http://philohuman.wordpress.com/2013/01/29/243/
"How many people find fault in what they're reading and the fault is in their own understanding" Al Mutanabbi
RE part 1.
amazing to learn about the western banking system. would be interesting to have a political party ready to abolish interest based banking. what would happen to society if that was decided? everybody would leave within their mean? the planet wont suffer? we wont have to worry all teh stuff that we have? we'd have more time for each other? less people on depression meds? more trust? but to get there...i cn imagine dark times, we're literally going to have to collapse on ourselves before being able to emerge free-er. oh...freedom, i didnt use that word on purpose! interesting, reading part 2 now.
Is it true? Is it kind? Is it necessary?
RE part 2.
whats the discourse of crime?
-
nice.
and wouaw, its so true, but having it pointed out in words makes ideas clearer and makes you realise whats going around you, its so mmuch in your face you dont realise. I wont let myself be taken into this fear of terror and being a victim. whats the point of living in fear? and being muslim really helps you know, coz u just keep on living and you know that whatever happens to you, Allah has willed it and you'll be just fine at the end of the day' whether its being broken into or being mugged in the street. dont let this stuff get to you and make you lose your innocence and trust in people. otherwise life just wont be worth living.
One way of breaking out of this "do not trust anyone, suspect everyone" way of thinking that ive started doing is smiling at people in the street and salaam-ing muslimahs. but i'd smile at anyone female.
i have to admit, i have been taken into the whole "dont trust strangers" but i thought abt it hard (on the spot lol) and decided that if the worst was to happen, i really didnt want to end my life like this. let me tell you the story so you know whats going on. theres this 10/15 mins walk inside the smaller streets to get to the main road. theres nothing but houses, so here i am walking, just under halway through and this car pulls up and this old lady starts talking to me in Urdu i think it was (or maybe bengali) but im like "me no understand" so she reverts to english and she asks me where im going and if i need a ride and im like no im fine, so she goes you dont have to be suspicious im like your mother and my daughter is also like you, ive been living around here for many years etc.. ok, im making her sound super suspicious listing the stuff like that, she didnt say it like that, she spoke the stuff, im just summarizing. so while she's telling me all this stuff im fighting the urge to get into her car. the only reason being my mum would kill me if she found out/if something happened to me (to think ive nearly lived for 2 decades lol). i have to actually switch on my "dont trust people" coz my dominant thought was "get in the car" but i didnt in the end, i thought, if she IS bad and she is going to kidnap me or sell me or whatever, this is NOT the end I want, i want to go liberate Palestine, i cannot go down like this.
"exerpt from the mind of a Lilly in london."
Is it true? Is it kind? Is it necessary?
RE part 3.
interesting link abt the centralization of media ownership: http://www.freepress.net/ownership/chart
cnt sign the petition though coz it asks for a zip code, so i guess its USA based.
in part three it mentions " Unsurprisingly, researchshows that people who engage most with the mass media are morefrightened of the outside world and have less trust for other people."
thats quite amazing, so we shld really get rid of our tv and go the extra mile to find out abt whatever it is you want to find out.
--
oh wouaw, this is exactly what happened, let me quote then tell you the story:
so, we're at my uncle's house (who has a tv) and he switches it on and puts the new on and on this HUGE SCREEN theres Egyptians running about and tear gas flowing and rocks flying about - it was the protests after the football hooligans stuff (im surprised there wasnt anything on revvy abt this, or did i miss it?) so anyway, im watching, carefully and trying to understand and my heart is going out to those people and im thinking abt the Egyptian people i know and wondernig if they are ok, but then theres my cousin (late 30's) and he goes "oh, its all the same everywhere anyway, all the same thing, you get bored of it after a while" and im just like "O.O !!!!! O.O WHHAAAAAT?" i didnt say anything, sadly. mainly coz my french is rusty and i wouldnt have been able to explain my point clearly and exactly the way i wanted. but here is it in my above quoted bit. not mentionning the cause, the reasons, the possible solutions, just showing the "interesting" bits leads to that. people getting bored of the "same thing". likes its some tv series, like its not happening at 3/4 hours flight away.
--
so, from reading part 3 one things jumps out at me, something that ive heard and read abt before. we, here in the west, want entertainment, we have the easy life and we want it to the end, we dont want to see whats going on outside our easy life, "no problem" western world. and to kid ourselves to believe that we DO want to know and we do care, we have international news. but guess what? it seems that this is ALSO for entertainment, and people are "getting bored" of "the same thing over and over". EARTH TO THE WESTERN WORLD, WHAT YOU ARE WATCHING IS NOT A TV SERIES, ITS REAL LIFE, REAAAAAL LIFE. REMEMBER WHAT THAT IS? we even want to be entertained when it comes to news. thats why we dont hear abt the reasons or the underlying causes for whats happening around, the majority of us dont want thought provoking news. so the news gives us superficial and flashy. there, now sit in your leather sofa that you havent finished paying off, record your series thats playing on the other channel while you kid yourself into watching news thats making you dumber and less questionning on your larger than life plasma screen (that you also havent finished paying for). THEE life aint it?
Is it true? Is it kind? Is it necessary?
where's part 5
Is it true? Is it kind? Is it necessary?
Hasn't been written yet
"How many people find fault in what they're reading and the fault is in their own understanding" Al Mutanabbi
ok, jazakAllahkhair, what did you think of it all TPOS? share your views!
Is it true? Is it kind? Is it necessary?
I'd need to re-read them all to comment on specific bits but I have obviously taken the main messages from them, so I'll share my thoughts on that.
The series of articles are eye openers I think. I mean I knew some of the stuff before but it does get you thinking about things that you just don't pay attention to and really questions whether we have any freedom at all.
We're sold stuff all the time - whether it be a product or an actual message which in turn shapes our way of thinking. The repetition eventually makes a person think something is fact and in this way our morals and beliefs are changed.
HP have released a tablet called "Envy", and when I came across the tv advert to that, I just thought I wouldn't buy that even if I wanted such a tablet. It may seem extreme, but I just thought why are these companies selling us products with such names? They're trying to send out the message that buying this product will make others envious of you. But we shouldn't want people to be envious of us!
Similarly the other day I saw a bilboard ad of a food product, I think, and it said "cheat" on [normal product - I can't remember what it was!]. By selling a product using a word like cheat, it is giving a positive connotation to the act of cheating - like because it's fun and "dangerous" or whatever.
I mean these are little things that people won't really give a second thought about, but when you think about it, everything these advertisers do is for a specific reason and their aim is to sell. However as we buy these products, we're also buying into the morals and messages behind these things, no wonder things like cheating are common, no? The repetition of the message being thrown in our faces just makes us desentised to the issues and changes our perception of it; it makes it at least "normal", even if not right.
It's quite scary because these are just adverts, but what about all the tv, film, music we as a society listen to, it all has the same impact. Talking about tv, it's not surprising that people who watch tv are more likely to be depressed!
I think I was kinda shocked, (I am pretty naive) about how the news influences us. I mean I knew they all have their biases but the way even the respected outlets exaggerate their reports - and the effects this can have on the whole society - I just didn't think of that at all. I learnt about that in sociology last year though. The recent riots are a great example of the influence of news in this way, as well as other things such as hatred of immigrants, obviously Islamophobia and so on. Ok, wait, I wasn't completely unaware of it, how could I be with the Islamophobia example - but I didn't think how that applied to other things like the riots. My teacher showed us an old story too to illustrate this, it was a story of group of people fighting, like two gangs or something. On the first day there were hardly any people there, and if I can remember correctly it wasn't that big of a fight either. But then then the media reported it like it was a really big deal and it led to more people being scared of the event and the second time round (I think the second time was pre-planned) there were also way more people than expected.
"How many people find fault in what they're reading and the fault is in their own understanding" Al Mutanabbi
the riots? what did they do abt the riots?
and is it cheat on butter? some new butter alt. margarine! thats what its called. is that what u were talking abt?
Is it true? Is it kind? Is it necessary?
yep! Thought it was that but wasn't entirely sure
The riots were also exaggerated from the start, certain people made to look bad, certain words used to instill fear and to lead more people to get involved.
"How many people find fault in what they're reading and the fault is in their own understanding" Al Mutanabbi
The banks. Well we all know they're bad. It really is depressing how most of society is a slave to them though :/
there, now sit in your leather sofa that you havent finished paying off, record your series thats playing on the other channel while you kid yourself into watching news thats making you dumber and less questionning on your larger than life plasma screen (that you also havent finished paying for). THEE life aint it?
dunno whether to laugh or cry at this and the people in this condition!
On a related note, I was listening to the seerah (Qalam Institute, recommended!) and there was a way of doing business in Arabia at that time - a way the Prophet
later recommended. Whereby people wouldn't just make money from others by lending it and let the poor get poorer and rich get richer, as it is now, but it was encouraged for two people to get into business - one who would have the time and skill to work and the other who would provide the money to start off etc, so if they do well, they do well together, and if they fail, they fail together.
Lol at the excerpt from the mind of Lilly
That's a good way
I should salaam strangers more, after all that's what the salaam is for - to increase love, respect, peace amongst us.
"How many people find fault in what they're reading and the fault is in their own understanding" Al Mutanabbi
is part 5 out yet?
Is it true? Is it kind? Is it necessary?