1: The Cycle of Socialization
Figure 1.1: Buddhist Wheel of Samsara
Figure 1.2: 20th Century philosopher Alan Watts describes the Buddhist Wheel of Samsara
Why do people repeat objectively destructive patterns? As if in some repetitive loop, why it would appear as if “the mass of men lead lives of quiet desperation?[4]” Again and again we will fall back into old habits, seeking comfort in the things we know. Though as it seems, little do we know that comfort does not assure happiness, fulfillment, or any measure of self-actualization. The only thing it assures is that you will look to past events for something that makes you feel safe; insofar that you can make assumptions and predictions about what is to come. But feeling safe is not synonymous with being safe, nor are our assumptions cannon: and in this way comfort -like safety - has no future.
Comfort is after all finite. And where is it that we find much our suffering? In the games we play with finite objects - possessions, status, relationships, all of which do not last. But why do we play games? Is it to get to the end, or is it to keep playing? If we try and control the other player(s) to get to the end of the game the quickest, we may win the game but at the expense of every other players enjoyment of the game. Now the game is over and no one cares who has won or lost.
The same question can be asked of a dance. What happens at the end of a dance wherein you can smell the pheromones and the perfume of your lover and you’re pressed against one another, lost in the music, giving yourselves to each other in euphoric embrace? How do you feel when the song ends and the DJ breaks the trance returning your subjective experience to what is, despite your mind and body still being swept up in what once was? So then do you dance to get to the end of the dance?
Perhaps if we use just one more example: a book. Have you ever picked up a story that felt like it was written just for you? And when those little thoughts of interference pop up in your head and say no one thinks that way… they are stymied when you connect with the author insofar that you see yourself in the story and are able to fill in the missing gaps through your connections.
Took the words right out of my mouth.
Think about the way you feel the next time you say that, when it comes out as if you didn’t have a choice in the matter.
And then what happens when you get to the end of that story that has you enchanted in its grips? What does that do to you? What if the author hasn’t published anything else? What if the author is dead? What does that do for you? And then it’s like you’re being spoken to by the dead, isn’t it?
So you don’t read to get to the end of the story just as you don’t dance to get to the end of the dance. And isn’t it the case that when you are caught up in the dance or in a good story that reality tends to shift in a way that you are both the doer and the observer? After all, it is your legs that are moving to the music, your eyes and your brain interpreting the words in the story. But at the same time, you become the observer, both caught up in the vibration of the dance and the imagination of the story. And in that way, you both do it as it does you. And you have to give yourself to the thing in order to be carried up in it, don’t you? But the moment you attempt to capture or exert control over it, the spell is broken, and you are alone again: in full command of every plan, you ever successfully wrecked. Because down deep, you knew the dance was going to end. And no one ever wants it to, right? It only becomes a problem upon our refusal to submit and to yield to its ending.
And so many of these patterns -when boiled down - amount to clinging to things that are finite. And we create these patterns based on what has worked in the short term to exert our will over others. But each time we do so, for every problem that is solved, its methods create new challenges for which we must also control. And in this way, it is our interaction with impermanence that determines whether life is a dance or a grudge match. Our suffering finds its comfort in the fool’s game of that back and forth.
There are so many distractions in this life that would pull you away from engaging in the present moment. So many little devices and gadgets and events and conference calls: they all serve to gobble up our only non-fungible resource: our time. When we commit to the things that cannot and do not reciprocate the value we place on them, we are caught with our pants down when the house really does fall down. Cell phones like most technology for example, promises on the idea of more leisure time yet the Average American spends 7 hours [citation needed] in front of a screen every day. What is missed during that time?
Civilizations across history have all existed with some form of technology and some form of social order. Every gadget was new once. Everything that was created that proclaimed that it would improve the life of its possessor, make things easier. But as Alan Watts said, technology makes a wonderful servant but a terrible master.
Even now, I am typing on a laptop keyboard. It is a beautiful fall day and the morning sun is peeking above the oak and pine trees on the eastern portion of my property. The birds are running an information superhighway above my head. The train tracks down the road are shaken by the roar of a freight coming through. And I am moved by its power. And if I sit still long enough and quiet my own inner chatter, I can see the ants moving at my feet, and their seemingly mechanistic goings-on seem not so dissimilar from those of our own… at least when they are everyone else's or from a few thousand feet. But yet I am drawn back to this piece of technology which compells the eyes to focus on LED 4K COLOR, not the ever so delicate perturbations of the rustling blades of grass.
So then should I stop typing? Should I instead pull out a pad of paper and pen? Is that too techy? What about a quill and feather? Bark paper? Does this read as ridiculous as it sounds in my head? I guess I should just throw my arms up and sit in the nature like I am supposed to then? Now that sounds just as ridiculous as the first proposition. This is all so confusing and - more than anything - it's subjective to the individual. No two people carry identical ego-driven morals; because the ego is curated through conditioning to protect YOU, not me, not Jim, or Betty-Sue or Bobby-Brown for that matter. From MY perspective.
How about this instead? Does this technology make me more human or less human? Because then it depends, right? And that makes our engagement with technology more of an accord, an arrangement, a contract. Contracts spell out the terms of the agreement and prevent one party from being taken for the proverbial ride. And they remind us of our participation in the agreement and our fidelity therein. The technology companies certainly have their Terms of Agreement. That doesn’t condemn cat videos, but it does recognize them for what they are: distracting. What distracts us from our humanity? How are these distractions reinforced?
The field of Social Work refers to this as The Cycle of Socialization [Figure 2.1]. This is the architecture for which societies maintain control over their people. It is the reality police as author Stephen Harrod Buhner has said, the morality police by others. It makes up our language and therefore influences the thoughts that arise in us.
Figure 2.1
The Cycle of Socialization begins at birth. Sex is predetermined based on the characteristics of the genitalia, and then hospital personnel adorn the infant in either blue or pink. This cycle is often perpetuated in the home where well-meant parents prescribe certain gender-stereotype clothing, toys, connotations, and gender-specific expectations for the declared gender, all whilst proscribing anything seen as antithetical to said stereotypes.
Even when parents attempt to remove gender stereotypes from the home, outside stimuli influences children to conform to gender norms. In the example of a parent who attempted to raise her child in an androgynous manner, Adams et al. (2018) noted that when her son attended school, he began conforming to certain gender norms, despite the school taking what some may consider controversial measures to eradicate gender-conformity, such as sexless bathrooms (p. 356).
The Cycle of Socialization is perpetuated in adult life as well. An example that I was completely unaware of is that the Marines require women to wear makeup. This came as a great shock to me, and clearly to many of the women that enlist in the Marines, who are also required to take classes on applying makeup and civility (Adams et al., 2018, p. 357). Similar roles in the workforce are often ascribed gender-conforming names that marginalize the subordinate group, in the example of "executive secretary" and "administrative assistant" (Adams et al., 2018, p 357)