The frightening future

It is increasingly evident that we live in a world of transition. The international arrangements, the power structures and the generally accepted norms of conduct between communities and nations is eroding, perhaps even collapsing. 

This enervation – lack of vitality, is gradual in some areas and quite dramatic in others. Nonetheless, it is a notable and persistent feature of the recent global landscape and creates an atmosphere of uncertainty, doubt and instability.

For many years, we have witnessed and experienced complexity of the evolving world: unprecedented scientific and technological development, previously unheard of prosperity, mind-boggling advances in the means of communication and in this 21st century, where scientific and technological advancement has pervaded the human race, where we expect knowledge, intelligence and wisdom will take precedence in bringing about peace, unity and happiness to all mankind.  

Incitement to racism, communalism and religious hatred will be a thing of the past; which no longer exists and is being replaced by new thinking that transcends all petty adherences to races and religions.

But unfortunately, new centres of deviant importance have arisen. Lodged between the old and the new are fresh zones of indetermination – significant in both their strength and disruptive capacity. Bitter conflicts – ethnic, natural calamities, pandemics, hunger, malnourishment, denial of education, violation of human rights and a host of other innumerable human rights violations. 

Together with other dramatic issues like terrorism, ethnic cleansing, genocides and refugees – moved forcibly from their home environments into new and foreign environments with all handicaps, deterrents, disabilities and disadvantages.

We can see stone-age mentality supersedes scientific and technological advancement and this scientific knowledge combined with stone-age mentality is indeed an extremely dangerous combination.

Makers of public policy fear endless confusion; the paladins, guardians and defenders of world order see their ramparts unable to withstand the stresses of obsolescence and degeneration.  The simple fact is that, occasionally, circumstances change and the carapace of accommodation, unable to contain these changes, cracks and falls apart. Those who live through it are confused and frightened – and are often unable to accept or recognise that it has happened before.

Until now, in terms of power, wealth, fame, knowledge, technology and education, humanity has been divided between individuals, nations and organisations that have possession and those that do not. There have also been distinctions between the givers and the receivers, the helpers and the helped.

It is not only these physical erosions and inadequate reactions that have caused the disarray, secular beliefs – communism, socialism, democracy, capitalism and globalisation – have also failed to fulfil expectations – they are neither flourishing nor showing much revivalist vitality. 

Religions, too, have been tainted by the extremism that has infiltrated into and distorted their message, and by their inability to resist these depredations – plundering, pillaging and marauding, have gone out of control, beyond comprehension.  

It is said that “a lie can travel halfway around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes.”

It clearly indicated that religiously motivated violence will pose a major threat to global peace. Rather than overt bigotry, most online hate looks a lot like fear. It’s not expressed in racial slurs or calls for confrontation, but rather in unfounded allegations have become more effective at provoking real-world violence than stereotypical hate speech.

The public at large is facing the complex question of how to respond to inflammatory and prejudiced narratives that are stoking racial fears and subsequent hostility.

The ambiguity of what constitutes hate speech is providing ample cover for modern extremists to infuse cultural anxieties into popular networks that presents the clearest danger: Priming people’s racial paranoia can also be extremely powerful at spurring hostility. 

The late communication scholar George Gerbner found that, contrary to popular belief, heavy exposure to media violence did not make people more violent. Rather, it made them more fearful of others doing violence to them, which often leads to corrosive distrust and cultural resentment. That’s precisely what today’s racists are tapping into, and what social networks must learn to spot.

In this context the media plays the leading part – much of the controversy over press coverage of hate and intense antipathy against ethnic minorities brings us to the question as to who is in control of dissemination of the news – authorities or media. What we see is reminiscent of the symbiotic relationship of cooperation and conflict between state and media. 

Mass media, cultural arms of modern establishments, private and public, can internalise permissible dissent and marginalise others, gaining credibility and power in the process. They can tolerate and contain even create a challenge as long as they call the shots, select the context, and project their point of view.

Live coverage of hate propaganda, extensive publicity of unrest and protest, in other words anything that lets rabble-rousers speak for themselves, unleashes mayhem and terror in peaceful societies. When that happens the state security forces threaten to crack down or actually steps in to restore control and settle political scores, often larger than what the provocation warrants.

News of civil disturbance shares with coverage of unwanted activity has the tendency to cultivate a pervasive sense of fear and danger, and of the consequent acceptability of harsh measures to combat it.

The symbolic functions and political uses serve as projective devices that isolate acts and people from meaningful contexts and set them up to be stigmatised and victimised.

Stigma is a mark of disgrace that evokes disgraceful behaviour. Classifying some people criminals permits dealing with them otherwise considered criminal. Proclaiming some people enemies makes it legitimate to attack and kill them. Calling some people crazy or insane makes it possible to suspend rules of rationality and decency towards them. Labelling a person or group terrorist seems to justify terrorising them.

Humankind may have had more bloodthirsty eras but none as filled with images of violence as in this present 21st century.  There is no escape from the massive infusion of mayhem into the homes and cultural life of people.

Mass-produced violence as an integral part of the common cultural environment becomes an element of socialisation and an issue of social policy, as well as of psychological disposition.  

Audience appeal and broadcaster greed are said to play a part in the prevalence of violence on television. But neither these nor other historic rationalisations can fully explain, let alone justify, drenching every home with graphic scenes of expertly choreographed brutality.

Why would mainstream media, the cultural arms of established society, undermine their own security for dubious and paltry benefits? Why would they persist in inviting charges of inciting to crime? It is beyond the comprehension and understanding of anybody.

We witness on a daily basis that television cultivates exaggerated beliefs about the prevalence of violence and heightens feelings of insecurity and mistrust among most groups of heavy viewers, and especially among women and minorities.

We ought to be careful in our frustration of what television is doing to us that we do not take an axe to the tail of the tiger and think we have accomplished something; but it is the other end of the tiger that is ultimately going to get us.

The cultivation of mistrust and paranoia in everyday life robs civilisation of its civility. Hospitality and kindness to strangers seem quaint, strange, if not irresponsible anachronisms. The floodgates are opening for unrestrained penetration of media violence in the name of democracy that is more likely to contribute to the resurgence of neo-fascism. 

The media, the world over, are in a kind of symbiotic relationship with governments. They are continually attempting to manipulate and exploit the free media for their own ends. It also means that responsible media professionals and the public need to be constantly on their guard against attempts to manipulate them. Governments view the mass media in a free society in entirely cynical and opportunistic terms, propagating the belief in the worst of human nature and motives.

The challenge, then, for good people, policymakers and statesmen of our era is to devise and blueprint an architecture that will bring forth new sensibilities, mental responsiveness and awareness and the  awakening of consciousness on the part of each individual member of the human race. 

Today, it is imperative that every human being bears the responsibility of building peace and harmony in his or her heart. We all have this common mission that we must fulfil. World peace will be achieved when every member of humanity becomes aware of this common mission—when we all join together for our common purpose.

“One who, while himself seeking happiness, oppresses with violence other beings who also desire happiness, will not attain happiness in his next existence” – Dhammapada 131.