Because of many technological improvements, our generation is experiencing a very unique, unavoidable global awareness, which enables us to easily share and build upon new or original ideas for establishing, improving, or maintaining peaceful coexistence. Many of these concepts are often accepted as feasible, come to us in a success story or two, and we will always be able to find someone or something to consult or learn more from.
Including my own, many people’s desire and willingness to improve their well-being has increased because of this.
What’s surprising, however, is that in spite of this growing tendency, peace building is still not necessarily showing larger figures of success.
So why is it that even though we’re committed, aware of the issues and have well thought of choices, we’re still unable to get them somehow implemented by for example gather around them the attention they deserve?
The farthest I’m getting is posting and reposting memes and status updates about them. I am serious about them, but people seem to misinterpret them as sort of philosophical values or aims, rather than goals.
Perhaps it’s because many suggestions for improving our affairs involve making changes that require us to step out of our comfort zones. And this is difficult for most people because the form and nature of that change is, at least to some degree, completely unexplored. This, coupled with more or less strong antagonism for the idea and high chances of creating problems where there weren’t any before, is what will make most of them reconsider, even when said comfort zone isn’t that comfortable at all.
But then, I don’t think it’s the lack of effort, popularity and understanding towards the issues that is holding us back. We often put a lot of time and resources into it, we’re more connected than ever before, and the need for reflection is obvious to all of us regardless of who or where we are.
Our collective will (freedom, security, well-being etc.) as well as our efforts in trying to achieve them are very similar, but I think that our impacts are nonetheless very small, because our efforts towards them are disconnected from each other.
Think of them as sensations or raw sensory experiences happening in your brain. By themselves, they’re uncoordinated, and incapable of correctly formulating even a single thought. One of them might say “green” and the other “brown” and another “rough.” But when we add them together we will be able to give rise to a thought or a conceptual judgment: “A tree!”
Those who managed to unify and lead people to great achievements like Martin Luther King, Nelson Mandela, Mother Teresa, Mahatma Gandhi and Emmeline Pankhurst had not much in common with each other except for having a visible goal and that they didn’t hesitate to share their life stories with us.
The true and heartfelt experiences in their lives, often involving wanting, longing for things not worth their struggle, were deep and relatable, and were able to unify people around them. The experiences and struggles they shared were able to penetrate the human consciousness in a peaceful and effective way, and provided a framework that motivated and united all those who listened.
Stories, no matter how sad or happy, when mastered to be formulated in that way, can gather and mobilize the masses. If it’s special enough for people to relate, even the governments of Islamic State, Anarcho-Syndicalists or fascists, most of people in the Earth can be expected to offer their support.
As a side note: If any (achieved) success is meant to remain or expand, the movement has to guard itself from falling into the same kind of succession struggle almost all movements have found themselves into. It is evident that the quality (aka charisma) that enabled the storyteller to impress and influence is as much of a weakness as it is a strength.
If you have a single charismatic leader, someone who unites and galvanizes the movement, what happens when that leader is killed, or dies naturally? Then you often have a succession struggle, or the movement splinters, or dies out for lack of that charisma. In my opinion, it is better to have a cadre of leaders, working together in cooperation, so that there is less danger of the movement being killed by “cutting off its head.”
Including my own, many people’s desire and willingness to improve their well-being has increased because of this.
What’s surprising, however, is that in spite of this growing tendency, peace building is still not necessarily showing larger figures of success.
So why is it that even though we’re committed, aware of the issues and have well thought of choices, we’re still unable to get them somehow implemented by for example gather around them the attention they deserve?
The farthest I’m getting is posting and reposting memes and status updates about them. I am serious about them, but people seem to misinterpret them as sort of philosophical values or aims, rather than goals.
Perhaps it’s because many suggestions for improving our affairs involve making changes that require us to step out of our comfort zones. And this is difficult for most people because the form and nature of that change is, at least to some degree, completely unexplored. This, coupled with more or less strong antagonism for the idea and high chances of creating problems where there weren’t any before, is what will make most of them reconsider, even when said comfort zone isn’t that comfortable at all.
But then, I don’t think it’s the lack of effort, popularity and understanding towards the issues that is holding us back. We often put a lot of time and resources into it, we’re more connected than ever before, and the need for reflection is obvious to all of us regardless of who or where we are.
Our collective will (freedom, security, well-being etc.) as well as our efforts in trying to achieve them are very similar, but I think that our impacts are nonetheless very small, because our efforts towards them are disconnected from each other.
Think of them as sensations or raw sensory experiences happening in your brain. By themselves, they’re uncoordinated, and incapable of correctly formulating even a single thought. One of them might say “green” and the other “brown” and another “rough.” But when we add them together we will be able to give rise to a thought or a conceptual judgment: “A tree!”
Those who managed to unify and lead people to great achievements like Martin Luther King, Nelson Mandela, Mother Teresa, Mahatma Gandhi and Emmeline Pankhurst had not much in common with each other except for having a visible goal and that they didn’t hesitate to share their life stories with us.
The true and heartfelt experiences in their lives, often involving wanting, longing for things not worth their struggle, were deep and relatable, and were able to unify people around them. The experiences and struggles they shared were able to penetrate the human consciousness in a peaceful and effective way, and provided a framework that motivated and united all those who listened.
Stories, no matter how sad or happy, when mastered to be formulated in that way, can gather and mobilize the masses. If it’s special enough for people to relate, even the governments of Islamic State, Anarcho-Syndicalists or fascists, most of people in the Earth can be expected to offer their support.
As a side note: If any (achieved) success is meant to remain or expand, the movement has to guard itself from falling into the same kind of succession struggle almost all movements have found themselves into. It is evident that the quality (aka charisma) that enabled the storyteller to impress and influence is as much of a weakness as it is a strength.
If you have a single charismatic leader, someone who unites and galvanizes the movement, what happens when that leader is killed, or dies naturally? Then you often have a succession struggle, or the movement splinters, or dies out for lack of that charisma. In my opinion, it is better to have a cadre of leaders, working together in cooperation, so that there is less danger of the movement being killed by “cutting off its head.”
