8. IS THIS ABOUT ME AND WE?

in another sense, however, the key to more life necessarily involves all of life -- you, me, and the global gamut. flow is both a personal and transpersonal practice; it starts from, yet reaches beyond, the individual.

currently, we tend to stay within ourselves. exclusively. and elusively. ironically, we can't fully understand ourselves unless we get outside ourselves. young americans, however, especially struggle with this notion. around 1980, society began a pervasive effort to increase children’s self-esteem (twenge 53). schools, for example, started to teach that students should feel good about themselves simply because they are themselves -- not because of what they do or who they will to become. today's generation, in turn, is the first to maintain the unshakeable belief that individuals are most important; as psychologist jean twenge explains, "we simply take it for granted that we should all feel good about ourselves, we are all special, and we all deserve to follow our dreams" (49).

this self-importance is not necessarily a problem. it becomes a problem, however, when it entails an extreme sense of entitlement. according to twenge, "many young people display entitlement, a facet of narcissism that involves believing that you deserve and are entitled to more than others... we fixate on self-esteem, and unthinkingly build narcissism, because we believe that the needs of the individual are paramount" (70-1). one of the individual's greatest needs, however, is transcending individuality. such transcendence, as already mentioned, often occurs during flow experiences. csikszentmihalyi and colleagues, for example, have interviewed numerous people who describe joyful moments of losing themselves in an activity. a rock-climber claimed he becomes "so involved he might lose consciousness of his own identity and melt into the rock" (kasser 99). a basketball player stated, "you can think about a problem all day long but as soon as you get in the game, the hell with it!... when you are playing basketball that’s all there is on your mind" (kasser 99). furthermore, "the most widely reported flow activity the world over is reading a good book, when one gets immersed in the characters and the vicissitudes of their fictional lives to the point of forgetting oneself" (kasser 100).

flow also commonly occurs when people immerse themselves in non-fiction characters -- in other real, live people. such experiences are that of community. community service of all kinds, according to csikszentmihalyi, generates “high levels of joy, exceeded only by dancing." why? common answers included "it gets me out of myself," "i meet people and make friends through it," and "it broadens my experience of life" (mckibben 111). in this sense, getting outside oneself equates to expanding oneself. as paul ray and sherry anderson remark, "giving and receiving is not simply about individuals. it is about community: in latin, cum and munis, 'giving together.' in a real community, people share their personal life experiences" (306).

to share one must relinquish some self-focus. when we temporarily let go of the ego, we become more able to let in the "eco," meaning "house" or "dwelling place." as writer and advocate zaid hassan explains, "being in nature facilitates letting go and letting come, it helps us free ourselves and stand outside so that we can think and see in a new way. there are many complex explanations of why being in nature facilitates this happening. for me the simplest and clearest explanation is that when we're in nature we ... begin to get a sense of what it would all be like if we weren't the center of it all. in other words, we're able to take clear steps away from purely ego-centric perspectives. we step outside of ourselves. somewhat paradoxically, we do this in order to listen to our innermost voices" ("the u").

our innermost voices are always talking. they're just hard to hear amid what author fredrick buechner calls the “great blaring, boring, banal voice of mass culture." this voice can severely disconnect us from our authentic selves and life at large. pancho mcfarland, a sociology professor who teaches the biocentric, "life-centered worldview that sees all life as valuable and does not subordinate any one life form to another," struggles to reach his students (mcfarland). in his words, "in the dominant u.s. worldview and value system biocentrism is counter-intuitive. the middle-class and striving to be middle-class college students i teach just don't get it. it goes against all that they are living for and studying about. they want a degree that will put them into a position to get good, professional, white-collar jobs. they want high wages and purchasing power. they believe that if they work hard enough, then they should be rewarded with material wealth. " still, however, mcfarland precedes to pose a vaster, interconnecting concept of wealth; "what if," he asks, "we define 'quality of life' in terms very different from the way we now measure it? what if instead of gauging our quality of life by the quantity and quality of our relationships to things, we measure it by examining the quality of our relationships to, as many native americans say, all our relations; the two-legged, the four-legged, the winged, the fish, the flora, the spirits, the meadows, the mountains?"

this idea isn't too radical -- but the language is. today's generation goes online, not outdoors. we're not that interested in the web of life. still, we do well understand the immense power of "the web" -- of interconnection. we grew up on the internet. we live in the information age, one of computer-based systems used to share all sorts of data -- e.g. email, wikipedia, and wireless and digital devices galore. information exchange, it seems, is the most distinctive quality of our time. we are networked. the question, then, becomes: can we work the net?

we must, and we've already started. writer alex steffen recently coined the the term "bright green thinking," which asserts that while society needs radical economic and political changes, better designs, new technologies and more widely distributed social innovations are the means to make those changes ("don't"). likewise, writer and editor ross robertson explains that bright green thinking "is less about the problems and limitations we need to overcome than the 'tools, models, and ideas' that already exist for overcoming them" (robertson). one readily available tool is language. in order for it to be effective, however, we must improve it.

according to steffen, we need "language that evokes different feelings and places environmental issues within new conceptual frameworks; language that makes people feel and think about 'the environment' in a new and more effective way... we must convince the american people that we have a better answer, a brighter future to offer. we need to present a vision of the future which is deeply compelling to the majority of americans while making clear that our current situation is unacceptable. we need... to reclaim the cultural initiative" ("reclaiming"). we need, in short, a language that catalyzes culture change -- a way of communicating that doesn't just share information, but also wisdom.

we all have wisdom, and we all have words. for either really to mean anything, however, they must flow -- flow between me and we and beyond. this is conversation, good conversation. csikszentmihalyi, in fact, calls it "social flow." as he explains, "a successful interaction involves finding some compatibility between our goals and those of the other person or persons, and becoming willing to invest attention... when these conditions are met, it is possible to experience the flow that comes from optimal interaction... a good conversation is like a jam session in jazz, where one starts with conventional elements and then introduces spontaneous variations that create an exciting new composition" ("finding").

contemporary americans don't jam much -- don't share many words of wisdom. in fact, we don't share much of anything. as sociologist ray oldenburg notes, "the judgment regarding conversation in our society is usually twofold: we don't value it and we're not good at it" (27). because we don't value talking, we don't invest the necessary attention. as economist tibor scitovsky obeserves, "our gambit for a chat is halfhearted and... we have failed to develop the locale and the facilities for idle talk. we lack the stuff of which conversations are made. in our low estimation of idle talk, we americans have correctly assessed the worth of much of what we hear. it is witless, trite, self-centered, and unreflective (oldenburg 27). this lack of good conversation is only part of a larger void: community. because of our culture's glorified individualism, we like to think we don't need anyone. "we" becomes a burden to "me" -- an unjust imposition upon my desires and my future. this separation of individual and communal interests, however, is incredibly counterproductive. as economost richard layard points out, “the current pursuit of self-realization will not work. if your sole duty is to achieve the best for yourself, life becomes just too stressful, too lonely – you are set up to fail” (mckibben 112). self-interest, thus, necessarily includes others.

yet we continue to fail -- continue to embrace the idea that the good life is an individual accomplishment. all we need are things; all our goals are material. material goals, however, entail mere preservation -- rather than advancement -- of life in the present state. they satisfy only the most basic needs of survival and safety -- "lower order" needs according to psychologist abraham maslow. to progress at all, maslow maintains, one needs a sense of belonging. this belonging entails transcendental goals, which encourage people "to reach outside their own needs and goals and invent in another system, thus becoming a stake-holder in an entity larger than their previous selves" (kasser 93). so yes, this is about me and we. as oldenburg commonsensically yet not-so-commonly points out, "many good and necessary things can only result from collective effort" (292). such things satisfy higher needs, including the need for a better, livelier future. isolated individuals and idle chatter simply aren't enough -- aren't even "american" in the true, progressive sense of the word. we -- you and i -- need an innovative flow of wisdom. as csikzentmihalyi states, "the evolution of consciousness requires that we... create ideas, feelings, relationships, and objects that did not exist before" (kasser 94). we need, then, communities of creative conversation -- cafes of culture change.