...THINKING...THROUGH...CULTURE...CHANGE...

1. WHAT IS THIS BLOG?

2008-04-05T20:26:00.000-07:00

this blog is my attempt to think through culture change. i am a grateful yet greedy american, and i want more life -- more life for me, you, and the world at large. one can't buy this. one can't create this. more life is immaterial, multifarious, and -- by its very nature -- a mass movement. the movement already has begun, but it needs momentum.

young people especially can provide momentum -- yet many don't know how. i didn't so i started thinking, started asking questions. such questions begot questions, which raised issues that raised issues, which -- via much research -- eventually manifested an utter un-answer: an infinite proliferation of possibility. i don't have the key to more life, yet i've walked through its door -- i've entered the space where i can continually, freely, rejoicingly move about. my mind is in motion, but it wants and needs your company. only our collaborative mental motion can provide the momentum that pushes the movement, changes the culture.

culture change begins with consciousness change. more life begins with more thought. so please, let's share. here i offer my somewhat successive process of question and answer and comment. still, nothing is final. everything is open. indeed, this blog most basically is an openness -- an openness to consideration, discussion, and change. first, a consideration (and reconsideration) of american life...

2. WHAT IS CONTEMPORARY AMERICAN LIFE?

2008-04-05T20:25:00.016-07:00

work a lot. play a little. shop a lot. enjoy a little. in short, contemporary american life is little life. instead it's a whole lot of excess.

for better and worse, many young americans already know this. for worse, they're too insulated, isolated, and inspired by "things"; as they pursue cultural ideals of consumerism rather than citizenship they feel lonely, anxious, and perpetually unsatisfied. for better, however, they can sense that something is wrong -- and that something else, some other way of life, may be favorable. compared to baby boomers in 1973, those born in the 1970s, 1980s, and 1990s are twice as likely to agree with the statement "there is no single right way to live" (twenge 19). likewise, today's teens to thirty-somethings, dubbed as "generation me," apparently believe that the most important quality a child can learn is "to think for himself or herself" (twenge 19).

but do we do this? not really. while we greatly value individuality, much research suggests that our particular idea of individuality is more akin to cultural conformity. to be oneself, according to contemporary ethos, is a matter of self-entitlement rather than self-creation; we take it for granted that our lives are special and therefore we hardly, if at all, think about what exactly makes them special (twenge 4). instead we go shopping, which is now considered a primary means of self-exploration and self-expression (brooks 182). ironically enough, we are what we buy. we are not ourselves at all.

in 1967, 86% of incoming college students said that "developing a meaningful philosophy of life" was an essential life goal; only 42% of freshmen in 2004 agreed (twenge 48). relatedly, 45% of college freshmen in 1967 said it was important to be well-off financially; in 2004, 74% embraced this life goal (twenge 99). the shift from meaning to money is obvious. materials are today's measure of success. when materialistic values become relatively central to a person’s system of values, however, personal well-being actually declines. this decline results from a decreased likelihood of having experiences that satisfy important psychological needs such as intimacy with others and achievement that is an end in itself (kasser 13). materialism in college students is positively associated with narcissism, physical symptoms, and drug use; also, it is negatively associated with self-esteem and quality of relationships (kasser 19).

sadly, we want so much that we don't get what we need -- and, even sadder, we're working harder than ever. right now work dominates most americans' lives, thus leaving little time for play (wann 137). in fact, it appears we largely have forgotten how to play. leisure is no longer a way to spend quality time with people, places and activities we love; instead, it's a way to spend more money. according to author david wann, "we've become world champion consumers partly because our culture doesn't know how to enjoy leisure; instead, we try to buy it" (137). wann explains:

we're socially conditioned to believe that passive relaxation yields the greatest happiness, and that consumption and possessions help us relax. by using various machines, media, and consumer products, we believe we can remove "distractions" like cooking, walking, and even thinking, so we can fully relax... but when we are simply under the spell of commercial stimuli on the tube or at the mall, we aren't creating ourselves but rather allowing ourselves to be created. we aren't aligning our actions with our values, but aligning our inactions with someone else's values. (126)

if we don't critically think and act against mainstream culture, we're likely to be swept away with its stream -- and we may not even notice it. this stream, however, is really more of a whirlpool -- a circular current of excessive desire, acquisition, and resource use. we desire too much partially because we think we need too much (wann 164). we must have the latest gadgets, the biggest houses, the trendiest wardrobes, the best of everything. these things, however, are hardly worth desiring because they provide minimal, if any, genuine happiness. thus while americans have become richer, we have by no means become happier. ever since world war II, the national opinion research council has once a year polled americans with the fundamental question: “taken all together, how would you say things are these days – would you say that you are very happy, pretty happy, or not too happy?... the proportion of respondents saying they were very happy peaked sometime in the 1950s and has slid slowly but steadily in the years since" (mckibben 35). this phenomenon, commonly called the progress paradox,
seems to especially affect young people. our generation is wealthier, has more modern conveniences, and is better educated than those of the past but we lack basic human requirements: stable close relationships, a sense of community, a feeling of safety, a simple path to adulthood and the workplace (twenge 136).

as mentioned earlier our path is detrimentally circular: we want more, so we work more, so that we can buy more, which isn't satisfying us, so we want more... as one regular citizen states, "people aren’t satisfied, only they don’t seem to know why they’re not. the only chance of satisfaction we can imagine is getting more of what we’ve got now. but it’s what we’ve got now that makes everybody dissatisfied. so what will more of it do – make us more satisfied, or more dissatisfied?" (roszak 71). psychologists allen kanner and mary gomes suggest the latter: "consumer practices serve to temporary alleviate the anguish of an empty life. the purchase of a new product... produces an immediate surge of pleasure and achievement, and often confers status and recognition upon the owner. yet as the novelty wears off, the emptiness threatens to return. the standard consumer solution is to focus on the next promising purchase. perhaps the satisfaction will be more lasting and meaningful the next time" (roszak 79).

this futile behavior, according to kanner and gomes, is socially conditioned by american media and society at large. from youth, people "learn to substitute what they are told to want -- mounds of material possessions -- for what they truly want. by the time they reach adulthood, their authentic feelings are so well buried that they only have the vaguest sense that “something” is missing. having ignored their genuine needs for so long, they feel empty. but the emptiness is constantly denied. it is far easier, in the short run, to listen to the commercials, which are always beckoning, always promising, always assuring that this time, with this product, it will be possible to fulfill the heart's desire" (roszak 84).

thus while it may be easier to go with culture's stream, this stream remains incredibly hard on us and our world. basically we're wasting our time, energy, and money to buy lots of unnecessary things that require ghastly amounts of natural materials and fuels to produce. it's an all around waste of resources! to the market, unfortunately, this is actually the point; after world war II retailing analyst victor lebow declared, "our enormously productive economy… demands that we make consumption our way of life, that we convert the buying and use of goods into rituals, that we seek spiritual satisfaction, our ego satisfaction, in consumption… we need things consumed, burned up, worn out, replaced and discarded at an ever increasing rate” (roszak 69)

though this "need" is inarguably false, it has come to feel very real for many people. indeed, materialism is now a widespread and incredibly harmful american addiction. when an addiction is the cultural norm, however, it is hard to realize that what we really need is detachment -- detachment from the contemporary american life of excess. only by letting go of the bad things -- too much desire, acquisition, and resource use -- can we begin to let in the good things. as a swedish proverb advises, "fear less, hope more, eat less, chew more, whine less, breathe more, talk less, say more, hate less, love more, and good things will be yours" (wann 41); in other words, if americans want less they're bound to get more -- more life.

3. WHAT IS CONTEMPORARY AMERICAN LIFE? RECONSIDERED.

2008-04-05T20:25:00.015-07:00

though many americans could use more life, we're nowhere near death. in fact, a significant portion of us are now more vital than ever! this portion, however, has entered a subculture in which individuals continually change and create themselves. where'd these people come from? from here, from the american land of circular dissatisfaction. how'd they get there, to that inner realm of greater vitality? oh, they got rid of what they didn't need.

they. got. rid. of. excess. in many ways, culture change for americans is this basic. we already have what we need: freedom, opportunity, support. because we have too much of what we don't need, however, we often forget these fundamental resources. we become more focused on purchases than progress; more attached to possessions than people; more intent on the returns of routine than the idea of innovation. ironically enough, however, our nation was founded as an innovation, a new world that offered an escape from the past and a better beginning for all. recently, this beginning has become more of an ending; as don anderson points out, "in the growth and prosperity that followed the founding of our country many of us have allowed ourselves to become complacent, taking our privileges and responsibilities for granted" (anderson). we have stopped seeing the original american vision -- a vision of a continually changing, bettering way of life.

this vision, however, is still there -- it's just well-hidden. sociologist paul ray and psychologist sherry anderson thus advise us to:

"imagine a country the size of france suddenly sprouting in the middle of the united states. it is immensely rich in culture... it has its own heroes and its own vision for the future... now imagine something different. there is a new country, just as big and just as rich in culture, but no one sees it. it takes shape silently and almost invisibly, as if flown in under radar in the dark of the night. but it's not from somewhere else. this new country is decidedly american" (3).

indeed, this new country is the subculture ray and anderson have recognized as "cultural creatives." since the 1960s, 26 percent of the american adults – 50 million people – have made a comprehensive shift in their worldview, values, and way of life (4). now such millions are quietly yet assuredly leading several kinds of cultural change, thus improving both their own lives and larger society. they're creating such change by, quite basically, leading ordinary lives in extraordinary ways. because they care about life they pay attention to it; and because they pay attention to it they question it over and over. ray and anderson call this "reframing," meaning "you start to question the unspoken assumptions of the social codes all around you. it's not okay to let big business destroy the environment. it's not okay to have nuclear power. it's not okay to let the foreign policy elite send our young people off to wars without involving the citizens. it's not okay to put down, or harm, people who are different than you are. and so on." while this reframing begins as an individual matter, cultural creatives have unknowingly united in driving larger demands for ecological sustainability, interpersonal authenticity, social equality, accurate media, and holistic well-being (5).

though cultural creatives share certain cares, it's important to note that this group is much more heterogeneous than homogeneous. they do not belong to a uniform generation, class, political party, or demographic of any sort. instead, they are as mixed as all america -- and, at least in one sense, just as mundane. they do the everyday work of modern culture; they are accountants and social workers, waitresses and computer programmers, etc. still, this subculture can be characterized by a profound, proactive openness to change -- a commitment to thinking outside the box. such thinking, according to ray and anderson, drives a synthesis of a new, better way of life; "as cultural creatives step away from the mainstream assumptions and values of modern culture, they are piecing together a life they passionately care about... in the midst of a society with compartmentalized values, they are doing what they can do to weave a coherent and integrated life. they don’t have all the answers. picking and choosing what matters most to them, each one is trying to create a new synthesis of value and meaning" (20).

this synthesis, quite fortunately, is something most young americans have yet to complete. according to ray and anderson, "there are slightly fewer cultural creatives age 18 to 24 simply because young adults still seem to be summing up what their values are" (22). one already apparent value of today's generation, however, is indeed openness. compared to baby boomers in 1973, we are twice as likely to agree with the statement, “there is no single right way to live” (twenge 19). such a view, according to journalist david brooks, is catalyzing much experimentation; in his words, "the students in america's colleges are bright, lively, funny and generous. their behavior is in many ways exemplary, especially compared to past generations... they are remarkably eager to try new things, to thrust themselves into unlikely situations, to travel the world in search of new activities" (173). young americans are already, in fact, searching for a new way of life -- our own way of life -- and we're confident that we'll find it. in a recent survey, a stunning 98% of college freshmen agreed with the statement, “i am sure that one day i will get to where i want to be in life” (twenge 78). still, however, brooks cautiously points out that knowing where one wants to be and how to get there are two different issues. continuing his description of today's generation, he skeptically notes,

"they have a passion for personal growth that is amazing... if only they had some clear idea of how that is achieved" (174). thus while young people surely seem to enjoy the ideas of innovation, it remains less certain whether they will be able to actualize such ideas. we're looking for change but will we be able to fully find it -- to fully live it? we, like the cultural creatives, must discover the gateway from mainstream culture to subculture; from consumption to creation; from life to more life. the good news is it's around here somewhere.

4. THEN WHAT'S THE PROBLEM?

2008-04-05T20:25:00.013-07:00

the bad news is we're looking for it pretty blindly. we need help -- from each other and from ourselves.

though most americans want change, scarcely anyone dares to publicly say so. in a 1999 survey for the environmental protection agency, american l.i.v.e.s. found that 79 percent of americans agree with the strongest possible position favoring changing our way of life to aid ecological sustainability (ray 140). likewise, a 1995 study consisting of a national survey and a series of focus group discussions found that a large majority of our country believes “materialism, greed and selfishness increasingly dominate american life, crowding out a more meaningful set of values centered on family, responsibility, and community” (the harwood group). still, we don't talk about this; as one everyday american notes, "we’re allowed to talk about the wrong things in our culture. we’re silent about the things that matter the deepest to us. we’re public about our hairdos, clothing, cars, and that stuff. i think it ought to be reversed” (ray 56). i agree, and so do others. according to futurist robert nelson, "we have no theory to guide us. whether it’s in economics or health care or education, confusion is growing. it's not yet visible enough in most places to be a clear signal, but one of the ways i read it is in the general cynicism of society. i think most of us know about this turmoil, and we’re afraid to talk about it. in a sense, we’ve got a funny kind of open secret, where we all know that we’ve got some very hard moral, intellectual, spiritual homework to do together, but nobody wants to say so” (ray 56).

only by saying so, however, can culture really change. the one problem with cultural creatives, for example, is that they are not public about their particular lifestyles and values. as ray and anderson explain, "cultural creatives are a coherent subculture – except for one essential thing: they are missing self-awareness as a whole people; most of them think that their worldview, values, lifestyle, and goals for the future are shared by one or a few of their friends. they have not yet formed a sense of 'us' as a collective identity" (39). amid mainstream society, cultural creatives often feel very alone -- very alienated. as one explains, “from where I sit now, i see that it’s the culture itself that wraps us in so tight. it’s the culture that keeps our eyes screwed shut. not just in terms of what we should and shouldn’t do – the things we learn as we grow up. it’s more than that. it’s what we should and shouldn’t question, should and shouldn’t long for, should and shouldn’t imagine" (ray 93). because of the blinding mainstream culture, those who still succeed in envisioning and actualizing a better american lifestyle often must do so on their own.

this is an ongoing issue, especially for young people. many authors point out that high school and college students lack role models, guidance, and encouragement of any valuable sort. instead, according to david brooks, they are left to fend against consumerist culture's "achievement machine," which tells them to work a lot and to think little. while students often impress brooks with their diligence, he laments their severe lack of creativity -- even in regards to their own lives! in his words,

what would be wrong with imagining something truly big? "i have a mission to help create a world in which all nations are democratic; or "i have a mission to help create a world in which there is no cancer"; or "I have a mission to help create a world in which there is no starvation"... each is an incorruptible dream that would redeem the normal material efforts that inevitably occupy many of our everyday hours. none can be achieved within a single lifetime so each connects its bearer with the flow of history and the lives of those yet to be born... yet envisioning such a mission -- thinking creatively about what you should devote your life to, exploring the range of missions that are out there, measuring which mission is highest, and which is best suited to your talents -- is an ambitious and unrealistic activity virtually ignored by the vast achievement machine. they are too grand and pretentious and unprofessional. the paradox of modern american life, especially in regard to the young, is that while it seems driven by ambition, its citizens are not ambitious enough. (185)

we're timid about considering and pursuing what we really want -- in fact, we hardly know what that is. while we value the individual, we ironically neglect to give it real, critical attention. instead, we allow contemporary culture to convince us that as long as we follow its rules, we're great and life is grand. this works well enough until post-graduation, a time now commonly called "the quarter-life crisis." abby wilner, who coined the phrase, describes it as a period of anxiety, uncertainty and inner turmoil that often accompanies the transition to adulthood (robbins 3). as wilner and her co-author alexandra robbins explain, "in the academic environment, goals were clear-cut and the ways to achieve them were mapped out distinctly... but after graduation, the pathways blur... in that crazy, wild nexus that people like to call the 'real world,' there is no definitive way to get from point A to point B, regardless of whether the points are related to a career, financial situation, home, or social life" (3). only now, after decades of supposed learning, do people seriously begin to engage existential questions: who am i? what am i doing? is it meaningful? such questions often cause confusion. because no one talks about having doubts at this age, however, many quarter-lifers think something is wrong with them for continually questioning themselves (10). thus, they stay silent, static, and dissatisfied.

this tolerance for dissatisfaction, however, is equally confusing. why, as david brooks points out, are people afraid to pursue -- let alone contemplate -- what they really want? why they're really alive? apparently, twenty-somethings -- and presumingly adults as well -- seriously struggle to get past the immediate, fear-inducing question: what if i fail? (68). for many, it's safest to subscribe to society's idea of material success. arguably, however, this is running the real risk -- the risk of dehumanizing our very selves to a point of thingness.

humans are not inanimate objects designed for a menial and mindless existence. we do have discontents, and we do have desires -- but few of us are willing to talk and act from them. still, david wann claims,

"if i were to ask you what you want out of life, i can guess what you'd say. you want less stress than you have now, and more laughter. you want a greater sense of control over how you spend your time, including fewer everyday details like security codes, telephone calls to be made, and endless consumer choices (which health insurance? which sunscreen? which mutual fund?). you want more energy and vitality, and fewer 'worn out' days. you want the people in your life to really understand and care about you -- people who you love and respect. you want activities and passions that foster creativity and self-expression; a sense that your life has meaning and purpose." (27)

wann's answer is fair enough, but it's utterly unfair that this question rarely, if ever, gets asked. "what do you really want out of life? let's think and talk about it. let's figure this out together. i'll help you to help yourself -- to see that positive change is always possible." i've never heard such words; that's the problem. part of the solution, however, is that i just said them myself.

5. WHAT'S THE SOLUTION?

2008-04-05T20:25:00.011-07:00

individuals cause culture change. they do so on their own, together. it's as easy, yet difficult, as that.

put simply, america needs a collective shift in consciousness. put otherwise, however, it needs you, me, and everyone we know to change our minds -- to really change our minds. this is hard but so worth it.

we like worth. we're even open to defining our own in different ways (the hardwood group). americans now, in fact, are more open-minded than ever before (twenge). considering our minds control our behavior, however, openness ought to be more than a state of being; it should be a state of doing. as writer and activist zaid hassan asserts, "being open means much more than being open-minded, it also means having an open heart and an open will." ("the u" 2)

an open will is a paradox; it entails acting out of the knowledge that one does not know. you know? i'm not omniscient but i can confidently assume that neither are you. i also can assume, however, that usually we act like we are, like we do indeed know everything. doing so gives us a sense of security, albeit a false sense of security. of course we know who we are! of course we know what we're doing! of course we know the meaning of life! we deny confusion because we don't know how to act out of it. fixed answers enable us to function, to walk as if we lived on stable ground. fixed answers feel safe. still, we know we don't know. our recurring doubts tell us so, suggesting that perhaps a false sense of security isn't secure at all. yet we remain silent and continue to force the same of the same. our minds become confined. our lives stay very small, very closed.

sure enough, it's better to not be so sure... about anything... except this: change happens. it happens all the time; it's happening right now. we can't control it, yet we can help create it. to do so we must effectively enter the realm of uncertainty. we're already there, though not consciously. as we focus our attention on fixing answers -- on feigning stability -- we fail to realize that we live in motion, especially mental motion.

we once felt, for instance, that the brain was like an ordered, structured file cabinet (samples). thus thinking the brain worked best with order and structure, we embraced rules and endorsed conformity. that was the 1950s. now we know that the brain is an open-system powered by possibility. it wants and needs to be continually opened and re-opened. it thrives best when free to move fully, flowingly about. "what, then, is our choice? ," asks scholar bob samples. he suggests "it is as simple as honoring the reality of experience in our world. it requires that we accede to what is known about the design of the brain-mind system, that we embrace the fullness of our consciousness. this may involve possibly painful re-examinations of our own attitudes and beliefs about learning, decision-making, living. our egos may suffer as we falter and stumble through this deliberate renaissance. but the rewards are worth the effort, for we will acquire for our children and ourselves the skills of survival. all the tomorrows are tentative. we need courage to greet the tentative" (samples).

we need, even more basically, to remember where we're at. according to many authors across numerous fields, we are in a period of especially great uncertainty, change, and transition. as futurist john naisbitt states, "we are living in the time of the parenthesis, the time between eras... a great and yeasty time, filled with opportunity.” but it is so, he adds, only on two critical conditions: if “we can make uncertainty our friend” and “if we can only get a clear sense, a clear conception, a clear vision of the road ahead" (ray 235). at first this claim seems a contradiction. ray and anderson, however, clarify that "when the road before you leads through a dark wood, the entry point for the future is uncertainty itself. the sign on the threshold reads 'this way is unknown'" (236).

we are on that threshold, the brink of a vast beginning. yet we are also in our brains. as the saying and science goes, we live in our heads. the goal, thus, is alignment. we must align our inner and outer experiences. in other words, we must pay more attention to reality. getting real, in this sense, is really changing our minds -- really opening ourselves up to the uncertainty within, around, and beyond us. once this process is underway, according to ray and anderson,

openness and not-knowing become your constant companions. at times the journey feels awkward or perilous; you’re asking questions that everyone wishes would go away; you don’t know how to put into words what you’re searching for; you’re wondering just how big an idiot you really are for leaving what felt sure and safe and comfortable. and at times, the freshness and exhilaration of setting out for new territory are pure pleasure. but whether it’s a joy or a trial, the departure from the old world-view and values is fundamentally an inner departure. you do not necessarily leave your home or your work or your family physically. the change is above all a change in consciousness: who do you leave behind and who do you become as you make your way toward a new kind of life? (44)

here, ray and anderson make clear that openness entails willed action. this action does not fit the conventional sense of simply doing something. it's more a state of doing -- a sustained engagement in life that effectively cultivates more life. america's solution, which i'll expand upon, thus involves a quest of questions -- a deliberation of individuals' day-to-day intentions. we can no longer just go with the flow of mainstream culture. as writer sarah van gelder aptly advises, "don't just do something, change your mind" (ray 93)

changing your mind also changes others. today, however, there is a lag between individual and collective change. as economist and futurist robert theobald notes, "in recent years it has become increasingly clear to me (and many others) that most people are aware of major change moving through the society, have been making many changes in their personal lives and beliefs... yet are holding back from carrying these changes into their communities, workplaces, churches, etc. because they still feel alone in their personal changes and have few models for positive and effective institutional change" (theobald). this movement, however, could quickly become massive and momentous. according to theobald, "if people could find the right forum and format for doing so, they could rapidly bring their new personal values into their social and institutional lives. such a rapid cultural shift is not only possible, gregory bateson's work showed that rapid change in systems was quite common. s-shaped curves are basic in statistics: they show that once a certain percentage in a group or society shares a dynamic viewpoint others tend to adopt the change with surprising speed."

ultimately, we must find this right forum and format. more immediately, however, we must find ourselves by losing ourselves; we must let go of our false sense of omniscience. certainty is, in many senses, a bad habit. it prevents us from questioning, and it causes us to forfeit rather than forge the future. as scientist ilya prigogine states, "the future is uncertain. . . but such uncertainty lies at the very heart of human creativity." likewise, author margaret wheatley affirms, "it is uncertainty that creates the space for invention. we must let go, clear the space, leap into the void of not-knowing, if we want to discover anything new."

we do want to discover something new. we want to discover a new way of life. first, however, we must discover life itself -- life as it is here and now. this discovery starts with consciousness, proceeds to collaboration, and entails change all along the way. to be effective it must be collective. but to be at all, it must include individuals who do -- who do not know, who do open, who do change their minds. in ray and anderson's words, "as you act on your conscience you will be transformed" (304). and as you are transformed, i'll add, so is culture.

6. HOW DO I START?

2008-04-05T20:25:00.009-07:00

you start by stopping -- by stopping automatic action. as mentioned earlier, humans are not things. we are not mindless nor are we mechanistic. we are, however, creatures of habit.

right now it seems we have more bad habits than good ones. we work too much, and we veg too much. we shop too much, and we waste too much. but excess, quite fortunately, has an easy antidote: pay attention!

paying attention to what we do and how it makes us feel is often called the practice of "mindfulness." as psychologist erika rosenberg explains, "mindfulness can be viewed as an ongoing process of expanding one’s awareness to include stimuli that might otherwise be filtered out or not attended to, of becoming aware of the kinds of biases to which one’s mind might typically be vulnerable, and of maintaining a nonjudgmental stance toward what arises in one’s own mind (kasser 108). doctor jon kabat-zinn's definition is much more direct: "the art of conscious living" (6). this art's roots lie in the ancient contemplative traditions of the east. such traditions use meditation as a means to "encourage the awareness that everything that may arise in one's mind -- be it a thought, an emotion, or a sensation -- eventually dissipates" (kasser 108). in other words, nothing is permanent. everything changes. does this sound familiar? if only from this blog?

eastern ideas and practices obviously have found their way to the west. because thousands of years of practice and much psychological research support the efficacy of meditation, it's silly not to suggest it. at the same time, however, it's silly to believe that our nation is receptive to the idea of fully stopping -- of plopping down on a pillow for 30, 20, or even a measly 10 minutes. though meditation, especially secular forms, does seem to be gaining popularity among americans, i know they struggle with it. i know because i'm one of them. from meditating a fair amount, i've learned that this practice does wonders. it allows me to see through my thoughts -- to realize how many of them are emotions-gone-wild; or reactions to other reactions, not reality; or pesky products of social-conditioning. seeing this creates a mental space -- an openness in which i can step back from my habitual behavior and actually chose my behavior, actually live my life. still, however, social conditioning tends to take its toll. i oftentimes resist meditation because i am an american and sitting in silence with one's self is utterly un-american. i, like you, prefer to do and do and do!

when you and i do, however, we're often in a state of mindlessness. as kabat-zinn explains, "we may never quite be where we actually are, never quite touch the fullness of our possibilities. instead, we lock ourselves into a personal fiction that we already know who we are, that we know where we are and where we are going, that we know what is happening -- all the while remaining enshrouded in thoughts, fantasies, and impulses, mostly about the past and about the future" (xv). very rarely do we consciously focus on the present moment. as journalist carrie mclaren puts it, "it's the human tendency to operate on autopilot, whether by stereotyping; performing mechanically, by rote; or simply not paying attention. although exceedingly common, few people... realize the extent to which they live mindlessly" (mclaren).

this realization alone, however, is half the work. indeed, the practice of mindfulness most basically entails 1) recognizing that our focus is not on the present moment, and 2) returning to the present moment. we can do this while on a meditation pillow -- and/or we can do this while doing anything. according to kabat-zinn, "mindfulness means being awake. it means knowing what you are doing... you can easily observe the mind's habit of escaping from the present moment for yourself. just try to keep your attention focused on any object for even a short period of time. you will find that to cultivate mindfulness, you may have to remember over and over again to be awake and aware. we do this by reminding ourselves to look, to feel, to be. it's that simple... checking in from moment to moment, sustaining awareness across a stretch of timeless moments, being here, now" (17). it's that simple. but it's not easy. yet we can't make it too hard. whew, maybe we could use some wisdom from the ancient eastern traditions...

as buddhist nun and author pema chodron explains, ""when we talk about mindfulness and awareness, we're not talking about something stern, a discipline that we impose on ourselves so that we can clean up our act. it's more that we practice some sense of loving kindness towards all the details of our lives... our life's work is to wake up, to open, be curious and develop some sense of sympathy for everything that comes along" (94). this sympathetic curiosity resembles a sense of wonder -- a child-like (but not childish) exploration of experience. as mclaren notes, "little kids don’t have to be taught mindfulness; they’re naturally that way, ever in-the-moment and able to amuse themselves by playing with cardboard boxes."

adults, of course, can't really be kids. age brings responsibilities. still, however, nothing takes away the opportunity -- the opportunity to look at life and, like a young learner, repeatedly ask: "why?" with mindfulness, we can notice ourselves stressing in the slow grocery check-out line. then, rather than releasing this stress out onto those around us, as is habit, we can inquire into it; we can ask, "why am i so stressed, so anxious to get home? is a delayed frozen dinner and superficial sitcom worth this negative feeling?" recognizing and questioning our behavior, according to psychologist ellen langer, is beneficial because there is always something to learn in a moment -- "always something new to notice" ( mindfulness 74). if we don't first notice our stress, however, we miss the opportunity to question it.

mindfulness enables a quest of questions. encouraging this quest, langer states, "from a mindful perspective, uncertainty creates the freedom to discover meaning... the theory of mindfulness insists that uncertainty and the experience of personal control are inseparable... how can we know if we do not ask? why should we ask if we are certain we know? all answers come out of questions. if we pay attention to our questions, we increase the power of mindful learning" (learning 130,9). i, even as an all-too-hasty-american, can attest to this power. by catching and cradling myself in present moments, for example, i have wondered:

why am i spending my afternoon online? am i doing anything useful? would i be more productive at the library?...
what is this feeling of emptiness i am experiencing today? is it dissatisfaction? is it chronic?...
am i restless? am i bored? why? how do i usually avoid boredom? is it ever by shopping?...

according to psychologist erika rosenberg, "most consumer behavior is automatic. in general, people do not realize how much they consume or how they have come to rely on consumption as a means of recreation or temporary fulfillment, because they examine neither their actions nor the underlying needs that are temporarily satiated by buying things" (kasser 110). we unconsciously infuse shopping with purpose when all we're really looking for is purpose. as david wann explains, "when we ask ourselves if we're meeting our real needs with a given product, we start to understand that it's not the stuff we want but the values the stuff is trying to satisfy. we buy a sporty car to attract a partner so we won't feel lonely. we eat a quart of ice cream in one sitting cause we're bored and the real hunger is for something worthwhile to be doing" (250). once we realize the immaterial nature of this void, we stop trying to stuff it with things. as rosenberg explains, "if people are more attentive to their own experiences, to input from their environment, and to how they respond to that input, then they would be able to choose more carefully what to buy and when to buy it. this means understanding one’s true needs" (116).

our true needs are also our true wants. we don't really want a 60-hour work week, piles of products, and waste out the wazoo. we've only thought this because we've been taught this. mindfulness, however, helps us to learn that "getting the most out of life" has little to do with "getting" anything. life maximization, it turns out, best occurs through moderation. moderation, or ridding ourselves of excess, characterizes the lifestyle commonly called "voluntary simplicity." because of mainstream american culture, many skeptics initially misconstrue simplification as deprivation. author linda breen pierce, however, makes clear that "the term simple living truly is a misnomer. more descriptive terms might include 'mindful living' or 'intentional living,'... my best shot at a definition of simple living would go something like this: simple living or voluntary simplicity are lifelong processes in which we turn loose of the quest for more wealth, status, and power in favor of an authentic life of inner peace and fulfillment" (pierce 25). lasting fulfillment, according to many reports, comes from meaningful and enjoyable activities such as religious practice, conversation, family and community gatherings, theater, music, dance, literature, sports, poetry, artistic and creative pursuits, education, and appreciation of nature (roszak 75). these activities, which cost very little for the individual and the environment, are more valuable than the fanciest purchase from the fanciest shop. as author alan durning states, "lowering consumption need not deprive people of goods and services that really matter... for those who choose to live simply, the goal is not ascetic self-denial but a sort of unadorned grace" (roszak 75). writing of this "grace" in terms of "simple prosperity," david wann asserts, "i'm not talking about 'back to the basics' but rather 'forward to greater inspiration and satisfaction' by mindfully meeting needs more fully" (160).

mindfulness and moderation work together to enable maximization. they do so by fostering deliberation, or well-intentioned living. one must consciously intend all intentions. they don't arise on their own, even when they involve something as basic as day-to-day behavior. as psychologists kirk brown and richard ryan explain, "consciousness, when brought to bear on present realities, can introduce an element of self-direction in what would otherwise be non-consciously regulated, controlled behavior" (115). in other words, mindfulness teaches us to claim control of our own lives. otherwise, exterior influences most certainly will. at any given time, for example, an individual may become aware of numerous influences vying for his/her compliance. mindfulness, however, strengthens one's ability to make autonomous choices that best satisfy personal needs and desires (brown 118).

you know yourself best, but you know yourself much better with mindfulness. you know what you really want, both from immediate choices and longer-term goals (brown 118). such awareness is quite arguably the lone enabler of self-direction, of deliberate living. its benefits, however, are multi-fold. recent research has shown that both mindfulness and moderation are linked to high levels of subjective well-being and healthy lifestyle choices (brown 118). in this sense, deliberation is really a form of liberation -- it frees us from the obstructive excess of a materialist culture so that we can continually see and be ourselves. such vitality, quite sadly, is hard to achieve otherwise. as brown and ryan state, "in a world where commercial, political, economic, and other messages seeking to capture attention, allegiance, and wallets have become ubiquitous, mindful reflection on the ways in which we wish to expend the limited resource of life energy that all of us are given seems more important than ever" (119). in our american culture, it's especially important. through mindfulness and moderation, we must go against mainstream's flow -- must work against our socially-conditioned bad habits. stopping automatic behavior isn't easy, but starting to try is -- just begin to pay attention to your daily existence! by doing so you'll find a different sort of flow -- a flow that brings us towards the place we really want to be: more life!

7. HOW DO I GO WITH THE FLOW?

2008-04-05T20:25:00.007-07:00

the notion of "flow" was first proposed by the prolific psychologist mihaly csikszentmihalyi. in his article "materialism and the evolution of consciousness," csikszentmihalyi opts to cover a "broad conceptual framework" before addressing more specific topics, including flow. this framework, he claims, is a "theory of life" based on three simple, self-evident axioms:

1. what we call life is a sequence of events in consciousness – that is, experiences (thoughts, emotions, sensations, etc.) that take place over the life-span.

2. in order to appear in consciousness, experiences require the allocation of psychic energy, that is attention. psychic energy, however, is limited by the information-processing capacity of the brain.

3. therefore, the quality and content of a person’s life depend on what he or she has paid attention to over time. (kasser 92)

damn. why didn't we realize this before? well, we were busy -- busy paying attention to numerous things aside from a theory of life. were such things worth our attention? let's find out...

the most worthwhile experience, according to csikszentmihalyi, is flow. this experience entails, "being completely involved in an activity for its own sake. the ego falls away. time flies. every action, movement, and thought follows inevitably from the previous one, like playing jazz. your whole being is involved, and you're using your skills to the utmost" (geirland). athletes call it "being in the zone"; religious mystics call it being in "ecstasy"; artists call it being in aesthetic "rapture"; and the average person calls it good ol' "enjoyment" ("finding," peterson 67).

flow can occur in all sorts of experiences, at work or play, but usually involves specific components:

-- we have clear goals.

-- we have immediate feedback.

-- challenge is balanced by our skills.

-- there are no distractions.

-- our action and awareness are merged.

-- we lose our self-consciousness.

-- normal time disappears.

-- the process has its own meaning (csikszentmihalyi creativity 111-113)

not all of these conditions are necessary for a flow experience. psychologists have learned that flow is very likely to occur when, quite basically, there is an optimal balance between skill and challenge (peterson 67). while almost any activity can thus produce flow, csikszentmihalyi maintains that people most often report it during their favorite activities -- gardening, listening to music, bowling, cooking a good meal (33). reading, exercising, and playing sports and games are especially popular flow activities (finding).

only a minority of us, however, currently experience flow regularly. if you ask a sample of typical americans, "do you ever get involved in something so deeply that nothing else seems to matter and you lose track of time?" roughly one in five will say that this happens to them as much as several times a day, whereas about 15 percent will say that this never happens to them ("finding"). even those who do experience flow, however, are not especially proactive about fostering it. for example, csikszentmihalyi found that american teenagers experience flow about 13 percent of the time that they spend watching tv, 34 percent of the time they do hobbies, and 44 percent of the time they are involved in sports and games. yet these same teenagers spend at least four times more of their free hours watching tv than doing hobbies or sports. similar ratios were found for adults ("finding").

the point here, however, is that we need to make flow happen -- we need to find it, and then find it over and over again. as csikszentmihalyi explains, "when a person cannot build a self based on flow, he or she tries to build a self with the help of material goals and material experiences. these include competitive striving for wealth and power and seeking pleasure in its various forms, such as passive leisure and consumer behavior" (kasser 101). such materialist strivings are associated with lower levels of life satisfaction and self-esteem (102). plus, passive leisure and consumer behavior are hardly pleasurable; csikszentmihalyi claims that people very rarely report flow in disengaging activities -- even if they're commonly considered "relaxing" ("finding"). still, however, we continue to settle -- continue to convince ourselves that video games, idle gossip, and sprees after sprees keep us happy enough ("finding").

but happy enough? what happened to more than enough? what happened to excess? "just enough" isn't an american typicality. why don't we want, like everything else, an abundance of quality experiences -- of life at its finest?

according to csikszentmihalyi, people commonly report that flow experiences demand too much ("finding"). a basketball game requires making social arrangements. playing the piano takes practice. reading a book entails focused attention. all flow-producing activities require an initial investment of effort before they become enjoyable. if a person is too tired, anxious, or simply unwilling to overcome that initial obstacle, he or she opts to settle for something that, although less enjoyable, is more accessible ("finding"). so americans reason that flow takes too much work?! i'm confused. aren't we addicted to work?!

yes, but not this kind -- not the kind that enables us to reap real rewards. we prefer to expend our energies elsewhere -- namely, on draining jobs and unfulfilling pastimes. such preferences simply don't make sense. thus csikszentmihalyi advises that "we must then transfer some psychic energy each day from tasks that we don't like doing, or from passive leisure, into something we never did before, or something we enjoy doing but don't do often enough because it seems too much trouble... this sounds simple, but many people have no idea which components of their lives they actually enjoy" ("finding"). i've already mentioned this problem numerous times. now, however, i want to expound upon the solution: mindfulness, moderation, and flow. mindfulness gives us an awareness of what we like and don't like. moderation gives us freedom to do more of what we like. and flow, lastly but essentially, is the best way of doing what we like.

not all forms of leisure are created equal. some diminish our quality of life, and others enhance it. csikszentmihalyi claims that too many americans opt for the latter. in his words, "many people will say that this advice is useless to them, because they already have so many demands on their time that they absolutely cannot afford to do anything new or interesting. but more often than not, time stress is an excuse for not taking control of one's life... how many of our demands could be reduced if we put some energy into prioritizing, organizing, and streamlining the routines that now fritter away our attention? one must learn to husband time carefully, in order to enjoy life in the here and now" ("finding").

life, as explained by csikszentmihalyi, is a simple matter of two finite yet incredibly valuable resources: time and attention. likewise, the quality of life is a simple matter of going with the flow -- our own flow. this flow has little, if anything, to do with mainstream culture. instead, it involves the joys that we, as unique people with unique tastes, actively choose to foster. in this sense, then, the key to more life is as individual as we are.

8. IS THIS ABOUT ME AND WE?

2008-04-05T20:25:00.005-07:00

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.

9. HOW DO WE TALK THE TALK?

2008-04-05T20:25:00.003-07:00

all great cultures have had a vital informal public life (oldenburg xi). this life thrived in "third places" where people could gather, put aside the concerns of work and home, and enjoy good company and conversation (oldenburg). ancient rome had bath houses. renaissance italy had piazzas. most of europe has gardens, pubs, cafes. and america has malls. young people, according to sociologist ray oldenburg, spend more time in shopping malls than they do in any place beyond home and school; especially in suburbia, there is "no other place for them to go" (280). this is an issue. another issue is that america's few existing gathering spots lack the characteristic "third place" space. this space, quite basically, is open. thus the resolution is equally basic: let's open some space!

open space, in this sense, is more psychological than physical. it's a way of thinking and talking that expands peoples' sense -- and consequent realization -- of possibility. as writer and activist ann weiser explains, "there's a role for open space meetings because whatever the world is changing into has never been here before, and the only wisdom we have about how to be in it is fuzzy, unclear, and uncertain. what is clearest in us is likely to be the old forms, the old wisdom, with defined outlines and familiar words. so we need a style for coming together that lets us honor and listen to what is new in each of us. we need to give each other time to find what is new and unclear and uncertain, and slowly put it into words, words that will sound strange at first as we forge new understandings."

indeed, many people are already forging new understandings via collaborative conversations. multiple national and international organizations, for example, host commonplace gatherings with the specific purpose of progressive dialog. better yet, these organizations also teach people how to incorporate such dialog into their daily lives -- into their most mundane yet momentous interactions. these organizations, to name a few, include the world cafe, let's talk america, socrates cafe, and pioneers of change. as juanita brown, co-founder of the world cafe, asserts, "it is still my deepest belief that it is through conversations around questions that matter that powerful capacities for evolving caring community, collaborative learning, and committed action are engaged -- at work, in communities, and at home" (2). conversations that cause change, most basically, are those that create open space -- in whichever place!

positive change, according to futurist and conversation facilitator robert theobald, must be pervasive yet convenient; in his words, "society needs to develop communication patterns which demand as little time and effort from people as possible... most profound personal change takes place in fact-to-face encounters" (theobald). currently such encounters, theobald continues, are by default "designed for the exchange of information and data rather than rethinking fundamental assumptions." we see others and automatically ask "how are you? what'd you do last weekend? where'd you get that shirt?" but automatic conversation, just like all automatic behavior, is preventable by a simple practice: mindfulness! only by opening to the experience of conversation -- by actively paying attention to our selves and others as we listen and talk -- can we do so effectively. this opening of ourselves, in effect, opens space; it frees the room necessary for more dynamic, meaningful -- and truly progressive -- interaction.

certain conditions are much more conducive to conversation than others. such conditions are not difficult, though they are necessary. according to theobald, "the central requirement for open space activities is a willingness to listen to those with whom we disagree" (theobald). as he explains, "the only intolerable behavior today is intolerance. we are all familiar with the 'cliche debate' where each side advances its view without being willing to give an inch. we need to look at the strengths of the other side's position and the weaknesses of our own so that we can discover the new perceptions in which we can move beyond today's sterile arguments. to do this, we must enable people to think 'heretical' thoughts in safe (open) spaces" (weiser). tolerance, in this sense, is far from passive; it actually encourages dissidence.

encouraging dissidence does not entail arguing for argument's sake. instead it involves increasing the diversity and density of connections among perspectives (brown). the world cafe does this especially well. it intentionally invites people from different backgrounds; splits such people into small groups of 3-5; and instructs these groups to repeatedly re-organize (brown). when groups switch, each person briefly recaps what he/she has discussed in previous conversations and then an additional dialog begins from there. as host emmett miller explains, "usually in a group we get into our roles. we polarize or focus on our little corner of the whole topic or question. but in a cafe conversation, when you move to the next table, even if you come with your own 'position,' you can't get stuck there because you're asked to bring your whole table's key ideas about the question to the next conversation" (brown 111). the world cafe, in other words, helps participants to move away from a confining, certain sense of self and into a spaciousness where new ideas can reveal themselves.

the revelation of new ideas among groups is often called collective wisdom. as writer and management consultant margaret wheatley notes, "it is the realm of collective intelligence, of the wisdom we possess as a group that is unavailable to us as individuals. this wisdom emerges as we get more and more connected with each other, as we move from conversation to conversation, carrying the ideas from one conversation to another, looking for patterns, suddenly surprised by an insight we all share. there's a good scientific explanation for this, because this is how all of life works... we humans got confused and lost sight of this remarkable process by which individual actions, when connected, lead to much greater capacity" (brown xii). this capacity, however, is still very accessible -- and not just during world cafes. as scientist and organization leader peter senge explains, "the world cafe is not a technique. it is an invitation into a way of being with one another that is already part of our nature" (brown 218).

we are, for instance, always switching tables -- always moving between small groups of people at work, grocery stores, social gatherings, etc. likewise, we are always asking questions. christopher phillips, the founder of socrates cafe, facilitates numerous public conversations with the intent of, like socrates, revitalizing the human love of questions. at a tea room in san francisco, he and about fifty voluntary gatherers once discussed the question "why question?" in recounting this experience, phillips recalls one of his own remarks: "i don't really think there's much difference in having a dialogue in public, like socrates cafe, and the inner dialogue that we have with ourselves much of the time... i bet you ask yourself questions all the time... i bet you don't realize how often you question who you are, who you want to be, and try to come up with a number of 'answers'" (30). good conversation, in this sense, is simply thinking with others. and why think? why question? because questions, without a doubt, open us to more knowledge, wisdom, and, well, questions.

finite answers, on the other hand, can impose limits -- impede conversation. recognizing this, one regular socrates cafe-goer once asked, "doesn't it seem like if we did nothing else the entire evening but ask one question after another, we might reveal more about who we are than if we tried to answer any one of them?" (28). indeed, the questions are the answer -- if they are questions worth asking. according to theobald, "our society is still coming up with super-sophisticated answers to super-obsolete questions: the task today is to discover the new questions" (theobald). likewise writer suzi gablik points out, "the question is no longer how did we get here and why? but where can we possibly go, and how?" (ray 236). new questions enable new possibilities, and new possibilities enable new culture. indeed, the first place we can go, gablik continues, "is toward sustaining a new culture" -- a culture of questioning (ray 236).

in a culture of questioning, no one explicitly chooses the new questions. instead, they simply arise naturally. as senge notes, a conversation that "fails to center on questions that have real heart and meaning becomes a mechanical process of people talking and moving and reporting back. it fails to generate energy and excitement for the same reason that most organizations fail to generate energy -- the questions simply do not compel their commitment and imagination" (brown 219). having said that, senge points out the such failure rarely happens during open, free, cafe-style conversations. "why?" he continues. "could it be that, when left on their own in a conducive environment, people naturally gravitate toward questions that matter? that they naturally do not waste their time on things that are unimportant? perhaps authentic conversation often fails to occur in organizations because we believe we lack the permission to focus on what truly matters to us, or because we are actually kept from doing so?" (brown 219). good conversation, it seems, fails to occur in life at large because we don't open the space -- the space in which we, together, can ask question after question, consider possibility after possibility.

anyone can create open space anywhere. or, better yet, everyone can create it everywhere! soccer moms can do so on the sidelines; students can do so during study breaks; working professionals can do so at the water cooler; etc. we, as a diverse yet dynamic people, must begin exploring the utter un-answer -- must begin engaging in life in order to find more life. according to biologist humberto maturana, ""history follows the path of our desires" (brown 219). the purpose of a culture of questioning, then, is to "let loose the true desires of the larger whole" (brown 220).

america's desire, most basically, is revitalization. to get more life we must ask for more life; we must ask each other, over and over, with an ever-open openness. this is talking the talk. thus, like poet rainer maria rilke, "i would like to beg you... to have patience with everything unresolved in your heart and to try to love the questions themselves as if they were locked rooms or books written in a very foreign language. don't search for the answers, which could not be given to you now, because you would not be able to live them. and the point is to live everything. live the questions now. perhaps then, someday far in the future, you will gradually, without even noticing it, live your way into the answer" (rilke).

10. HOW DO WE WALK THE TALK?

2008-04-05T20:25:00.001-07:00

rilke makes clear that talking is walking. conversation is a form of action, a creation of change. it's a process -- a process that, for many, may seem more like a paralyzing paradox.

the average american, for instance, probably skeptically asks: can one really make progress by doing less? i've mentioned rushing less, working less, buying less -- and now questioning and talking more?! in a society bent on getting things done -- or really just "getting things" -- doing less isn't an appealing option. doing differently, however, is a necessity.

indeed, the real american paradox is one multiple scientists have dubbed "the progress paradox" (peterson 84). this contemporary phenomenon refers to the finding that while our country’s objective goods have increased over past decades, our levels of subjective happiness have diminished (peterson 84). according to psychologist christopher peterson, "we expect that the larger culture should know something about the conditions for the good life… [but] consider the widespread belief in the contemporary united states that 'all you need are looks and a whole lot of money' in order to be happy… relevant research shows rather clearly that this is a wrongheaded formula for most of us as we pursue the good life" (peterson 12).

indeed, larger culture advocates the goods life -- not the good life. but a smaller subculture, we ought to recall, advocates the creation of one's own life. the 50 million cultural creatives do not quell under mainstream america; instead, they question norms and quest for newness. as sociologist paul ray and psychologist sherry anderson explain, "what is left is a conciousness that once felt secure, had categories to fit things into, and knew who it was. and what replaces this sureness is not knowing. and openness. and something unspeakably, and sometimes almost unbearably new" (ray 44). until recently, it was indeed unspoken. cultural creatives didn't know how many of them existed -- how many americans had begun walking without even talking!

now, however, they are doing both -- they are being and discussing culture change. it's a continual, ongoing process. as ray and anderson explain, "cultural creatives have to constantly invent and reinvent the basic supports for the way they want to live" (186). like other social movements, they lack precedent. they do, however, have plenty persistence. as many have noted, "“you have to enjoy the people and the process, and you need the maturity to work in a longer time frame” (ray 203). indeed, the longer you work, the more people you gain.

as activist daniel taylor maintains, "forget big plans. development is not a product, not a target, not some happy future state – it doesn’t consist of a set of 'millennium goals' to be ticked off as they’re reached. instead, it’s a process, measured not in budgets but in energy" (mckibben 211). "change," according to taylor, "happens because of how we invest our human energy... it began at the beginning of time, and it’s going to go to the end of the future. your job is to go with the flow” (mckibben 211,12). here taylor sounds remarkably like psychologist mihaly csikszentmihalyi.

yet he also resonates the ideas of architect, philosopher, and social advocate christopher alexander. referring to alexander, juanita brown states, "he suggests that life-enhancing improvements actually co-evolve not from grand plans or edicts from a central authority but from small acts or collaboration based on a repetition of life-affirming patterns -- like the fundamental pattern of engaging in conversations that matter -- at every level of scale" (brown 208). thus, brown concludes, "perhaps it is as simple as that... exercising our ability to respond to the call of our times to foster more authentic and courageous conversations in whatever sphere of influence we have been given....knowing that others are doing the same" (208).

indeed, talking is doing -- in fact, it's doing a lot. as veteran conversationalist anne dosher asserts, "every societal change process i knew of started with an informal conversation in which men and women - young or old - were witnessed and 'heard into speech,' sharing their dreams and hopes for making a difference around something they cared about. in being truly seen and heard, people were transformed and discovered their mutual commitment to act. that small group then went on to invite other groups into the conversation and the change became more and more real" (brown 213). if good, conversation is not only an action in itself; it's also a catalyst for more action! as brown notes of the world cafe, "we're discovering that when people care about the questions they are working on and when their conversations are truly alive, participants naturally want to organize themselves to do whatever has to be done, discovering who cares about what and who will take accountability for next steps" (38).

who will take accountability for next steps? who will join the cultural creatives in walking the talk -- in being the change? indeed, the most important effect of conversation, according to ann weis, is this one: "that we let each other be more than we have already been. that's how newness emerges, in us, and in the world" (weiser). likewise, writer and activist zaid hassan emphasizes that "to be is to act and to act is to be. there can be no polarization and no split between being and acting. we cannot pretend that by simply ‘being’ we are not acting, in most cases our ‘being’ serves to prop up the dominant system" ("subverting"). if we don't find our own flow, for example, the current of mainstream culture is guaranteed to catch us. it'll carry us into more and more mindlessness, materialism, and resource waste.

today's generation, at the very least, knows we don't want that. we're living in a time of transition -- a time of especially great uncertainty. writing of social change in "such a scheme," activist bill mckibben notes, "it barely matters where people begin, and in a certain sense it doesn’t matter what they accomplish at any given time... what’s crucial is the process, the momentum" (211). change is already everywhere. the first question, thus, is a matter of when. as hassan asserts, "no one will come along with a fully formed alternative to industrial society, not in our time anyways." no one will give americans the answer. this, however, gives us the freedom to listen to ourselves -- to recognize and act from our collective discontent. as hassan continues, "how long will we ignore the fact that there is a chill in the air? how long will we wait to act on our deepest instincts?" ("subverting") how long, in other words, will it take for young americans to claim culture change -- to assert their want, need, and will for more life? we're already considering it; already discussing it; and we're already, in subtle yet significant ways, being it. still, however, let's be it MORE -- as the new americans, let's think, talk, and BE MORE CHANGE.

11. WHAT IS THIS BLOG. RECONSIDERED.

2008-04-05T20:24:00.007-07:00

this blog is a beginning. as i wrote the previous posts, especially those regarding possible solutions, i realized how small of grasp i have on such solutions -- or, seen in a different way, perhaps how big the possibilities really are! the movement for more life is a cause to which i wish to commit myself, my future. PLEASE GIVE ME FEEDBACK.

here i suggest mindfulness, moderation, flow, and conversation as effective methods of personal and culture betterment. while i primarily support such claims with literary research, i can offer a ton-load of personal testimony. this, however, actually makes me doubt the applicability of my argument. paying attention, thinking, and talking make me feel very vital. they, in short, are my flow activities -- they change me and they help me change the world. research seems to suggest they can do the same for others, but i am not convinced. PLEASE GIVE ME FEEDBACK.

i want to hear your thoughts. i want to know what you want to get and give in life -- and if you know how to do so. indeed, my idea of culture change could be boiled down to a most basic belief in the need to support each other's individuality. we all have different strengths, talents, and perspectives -- but do we live them? fully, fervently live them? to do this, in my opinion, requires critical and creative conversation. you may or may not think so; whichever the case, i urge you to say so! PLEASE GIVE ME FEEDBACK.

also, i encourage you to give each other feedback. comment on each other's comments! become an additional author of this blog! THE CULTURE CHANGE CAFE IS EVER-OPEN EVERMORE...

** feel free to email me with questions/concerns/conversation of any sort!!! lschauwecker [at] gmail [dot] com

SECTION BY SECTION SUMMARY

2008-04-05T20:24:00.005-07:00

1. what is this blog?

this blog is my attempt to think through culture change. it's also a door into discussion, and it's open -- open to many minds and much change! only our collaborative mental motion can provide the momentum that pushes the movement, changes the culture.

2. what is contemporary american life?

work a lot. play a little. shop a lot. enjoy a little. in short, contemporary american life is little life. instead it's a whole lot of excess. we want too much, buy too much, and waste too much -- and aren't satisfied enough! this phenomenon, commonly called the progress paradox, seems to especially affect young people. our generation is wealthier, has more modern conveniences, and is better educated than those of the past but we lack basic human requirements: stable close relationships, a sense of community, a feeling of safety, a simple path to adulthood and the workplace (twenge 136).

3. what is contemporary american life? reconsidered.

the vision of innovation, which our country was founded on, is still here -- it's just well-hidden. it resides within a subtle yet growing subculture dubbed "cultural creatives." since the 1960s, 26 percent of american adults – 50 million people – have made a comprehensive shift in their worldview, values, and way of life ( ray 4). though such millions currently lack a strong group identity, they continue to catalyze several kinds of cultural change, thus improving both their own lives and larger society. they're creating such change by, quite basically, leading ordinary lives in extraordinary ways. because they care about life they pay attention to it; and because they pay attention to it they question it over and over. there are slightly fewer cultural creatives age 18 to 24 simply because young adults are still summing up what their values are. our generation is looking for a different way of life but we need more guidance.

4. then what's the problem?

though many americans want change, they don't talk about it. as one everyday american notes, "we’re allowed to talk about the wrong things in our culture. we’re silent about the things that matter the deepest to us. we’re public about our hairdos, clothing, cars, and that stuff. i think it ought to be reversed” (ray 56). likewise, futurist robert nelson points out, "we have no theory to guide us. whether it’s in economics or health care or education, confusion is growing. it's not yet visible enough in most places to be a clear signal, but one of the ways i read it is in the general cynicism of society. i think most of us know about this turmoil, and we’re afraid to talk about it. in a sense, we’ve got a funny kind of open secret, where we all know that we’ve got some very hard moral, intellectual, spiritual homework to do together, but nobody wants to say so” (ray 56). only by saying so, however, can culture really change

furthermore, we're timid about considering and pursuing what we really want -- in fact, we hardly know what that is. while we value the individual, we ironically neglect to give it real, critical attention. instead, we allow contemporary culture to convince us that as long as we follow its rules, we're great and life is grand. for many, it's safest to subscribe to society's idea of material success. arguably, however, this is running the real risk -- the risk of dehumanizing our very selves to a point of thingness.

to avoid such dehumanization, we need to talk the talk -- need to assert, "what do you really want out of life? let's think and talk about it. let's figure this out together. i'll help you to help yourself -- to see that positive change is always possible." i've never heard such words; that's the problem. part of the solution, however, is that i just said them myself.

5. what's the solution?

put simply, america needs a collective shift in consciousness. put otherwise, however, it needs you, me, and everyone we know to change our minds -- to really change our minds. this is hard but so worth it. doing so entails first acknowledging personal, cultural, and even global uncertainties. as futurist john naisbitt states, "we are living in the time of the parenthesis, the time between eras... a great and yeasty time, filled with opportunity.” but it is so, he adds, only on two critical conditions: if “we can make uncertainty our friend” and “if we can only get a clear sense, a clear conception, a clear vision of the road ahead" (ray 235). at first this claim seems a contradiction. ray and anderson, however, clarify that "when the road before you leads through a dark wood, the entry point for the future is uncertainty itself. the sign on the threshold reads 'this way is unknown'" (236). to fully cross this threshold, we must find the right forum and format for discussing questions, implementing innovation. more immediately, however, we must act on our individual and collective consciousness.

6. how do i start?

you start acting on your consciousness by stopping -- by stopping automatic action. as mentioned earlier, humans are not things. we are not mindless nor are we mechanistic. we are, however, creatures of habit. right now it seems we have more bad habits than good ones. we work too much, and we veg too much. we shop too much, and we waste too much. but excess, quite fortunately, has an easy antidote: pay attention!

paying attention to what we do and how it makes us feel often is called the practice of "mindfulness." very rarely do we consciously focus on the present moment. as journalist carrie mclaren puts it, "it's the human tendency to operate on autopilot, whether by stereotyping; performing mechanically, by rote; or simply not paying attention. although exceedingly common, few people... realize the extent to which they live mindlessly" (mclaren). this realization alone, however, is half the work. indeed, the practice of mindfulness most basically entails 1) recognizing that our focus is not on the present moment, and 2) returning to the present moment.

by paying attention to present moments, we realize that our true wants are also our true needs. we don't really want a 60-hour work week, piles of products, and waste out the wazoo. we've only thought this because we've been taught this. mindfulness, however, helps us to learn that "getting the most out of life" has little to do with "getting" anything. life maximization, it turns out, best occurs through moderation. together, mindfulness and moderation enable deliberation, or well-intentioned living. as psychologists kirk brown and richard ryan explain, "consciousness, when brought to bear on present realities, can introduce an element of self-direction in what would otherwise be non-consciously regulated, controlled behavior" (115). such practices, in other words, enable us to direct ourselves away from mainstream culture's detrimental flow and, instead, to find our own flow -- a flow that brings us towards more and more life.

7. how do i go with the flow?

the notion of "flow" was first proposed by the prolific psychologist mihaly csikszentmihalyi. this experience entails, "being completely involved in an activity for its own sake. the ego falls away. time flies. every action, movement, and thought follows inevitably from the previous one, like playing jazz. your whole being is involved, and you're using your skills to the utmost" (geirland).

flow can occur in all sorts of experiences, at work or play, but usually involves specific components:

-- we have clear goals.

-- we have immediate feedback.

-- challenge is balanced by our skills.

-- there are no distractions.

-- our action and awareness are merged.

-- we lose our self-consciousness.

-- normal time disappears.

-- the process has its own meaning (csikszentmihalyi creativity 111-113)

only a minority of us, however, currently experience flow regularly. the point here, however, is that we need to make flow happen -- we need to find it, and then find it over and over again. as csikszentmihalyi explains, "when a person cannot build a self based on flow, he or she tries to build a self with the help of material goals and material experiences. these include competitive striving for wealth and power and seeking pleasure in its various forms, such as passive leisure and consumer behavior" (kasser 101). such materialist strivings are associated with lower levels of life satisfaction and self-esteem (102). plus, passive leisure and consumer behavior are hardly pleasurable; csikszentmihalyi claims that people very rarely report flow in disengaging activities -- even if they're commonly considered "relaxing" ("finding"). still, however, we continue to settle -- continue to convince ourselves that video games, idle gossip, and sprees after sprees keep us happy enough ("finding").

but happy enough? what happened to more than enough? what happened to excess? "just enough" isn't an american typicality. why don't we want, like everything else, an abundance of quality experiences -- of life at its finest? because finding flow requires effort -- an effort we fail to exert because we don't realize how essential it really is.

8. is this about me and we?

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.

getting outside oneself actually 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 better share our experiences, however, we need a language that catalyzes culture change -- a way of communicating that doesn't just relay information, but also wisdom.

we all have wisdom, and we all have words. for either to really 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").

so yes, this is about me and we. 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.

9. how do we talk the talk?

all great cultures have had a vital informal public life (oldenburg xi). this life thrived in "third places" where people could gather, put aside the concerns of work and home, and enjoy good company and conversation (oldenburg). such third places -- including cafes, gardens, pubs, piazzas, etc. -- beheld a certain type of space: open space.

open space, in this sense, is more psychological than physical. it's a way of thinking and talking that expands peoples' sense -- and consequent realization -- of possibility. as writer and activist ann weiser explains, "there's a role for open space meetings because whatever the world is changing into has never been here before, and the only wisdom we have about how to be in it is fuzzy, unclear, and uncertain. what is clearest in us is likely to be the old forms, the old wisdom, with defined outlines and familiar words. so we need a style for coming together that lets us honor and listen to what is new in each of us. we need to give each other time to find what is new and unclear and uncertain, and slowly put it into words, words that will sound strange at first as we forge new understandings."

indeed, many people are already forging new understandings via collaborative conversations. multiple national and international organizations, for example, host commonplace gatherings with the specific purpose of progressive dialog. better yet, these organizations also teach people how to incorporate such dialog into their daily lives -- into their most mundane yet momentous interactions. as juanita brown, co-founder of the world cafe, asserts, "it is still my deepest belief that it is through conversations around questions that matter that powerful capacities for evolving caring community, collaborative learning, and committed action are engaged -- at work, in communities, and at home" (2). conversations that cause change, most basically, are those that create open space -- in whichever place!

such conversations often catalyze new revelations commonly called "collective wisdom." as writer and management consultant margaret wheatley notes, "it is the realm of collective intelligence, of the wisdom we possess as a group that is unavailable to us as individuals. this wisdom emerges as we get more and more connected with each other, as we move from conversation to conversation, carrying the ideas from one conversation to another, looking for patterns, suddenly surprised by an insight we all share. there's a good scientific explanation for this, because this is how all of life works... we humans got confused and lost sight of this remarkable process by which individual actions, when connected, lead to much greater capacity" (brown xii).

conversation is a part of our human nature -- and so is questioning. according to theobald, "our society is still coming up with super-sophisticated answers to super-obsolete questions: the task today is to discover the new questions" (theobald). likewise writer suzi gablik points out, "the question is no longer how did we get here and why? but where can we possibly go, and how?" (ray 236). new questions enable new possibilities, and new possibilities enable new culture. indeed, the first place we can go, gablik continues, "is toward sustaining a new culture" -- a culture of questioning (ray 236).

to get more life, thus, we must ask for more life; we must ask each other, over and over, with an ever-open openness. this is talking the talk.

10. how do we walk the talk?

talking is walking. conversation is a form of action, a creation of change. as veteran conversationalist anne dosher asserts, "every societal change process i knew of started with an informal conversation in which men and women - young or old - were witnessed and 'heard into speech,' sharing their dreams and hopes for making a difference around something they cared about. in being truly seen and heard, people were transformed and discovered their mutual commitment to act. that small group then went on to invite other groups into the conversation and the change became more and more real" (brown 213). if good, conversation is not only an action in itself; it's also a catalyst for more action! as brown notes of the world cafe, "we're discovering that when people care about the questions they are working on and when their conversations are truly alive, participants naturally want to organize themselves to do whatever has to be done, discovering who cares about what and who will take accountability for next steps" (38).

who will take accountability for next steps? who will join the cultural creatives in walking the talk -- in being the change? indeed, the most important effect of conversation, according to ann weis, is this one: "that we let each other be more than we have already been. that's how newness emerges, in us, and in the world" (weiser). likewise, writer and activist zaid hassan emphasizes that "to be is to act and to act is to be. there can be no polarization and no split between being and acting. we cannot pretend that by simply ‘being’ we are not acting, in most cases our ‘being’ serves to prop up the dominant system" ("subverting"). if we don't find our own flow, for example, the current of mainstream culture is guaranteed to catch us. it'll carry us into more and more mindlessness, materialism, and resource waste.

today's generation, at the very least, knows we don't want that. we're living in a time of transition -- a time of especially great uncertainty. writing of social change in "such a scheme," activist bill mckibben notes, "it barely matters where people begin, and in a certain sense it doesn’t matter what they accomplish at any given time... what’s crucial is the process, the momentum" (211). change is already everywhere. the first question, thus, is a matter of when. when will young americans claim culture change -- assert their want, need, and will for more life? we're already considering it; already discussing it; and we're already, in subtle yet significant ways, being it. still, however, let's be it MORE -- as the new americans, let's think, talk, and BE MORE CHANGE.