We have been looking at a lot of books all that say more or less the same thing. We are part of a system that is very stable and which is built on some very strong and effective myths. We got here through an evolutionary process of sorts based on a legacy going back to Descartes and even further. The system is all inclusive and it includes apparent conflicts that are, on the surface, real disagreements, yet when looked at in the context of the system these conflicts also are systemic and actually help stabilize the system. The two most graphic examples are the conflict between reductionist science and religion which is a collusion of great proportions when we do the causal analysis that led to the Cartesian duality is stems from and the apparent conflicts between the two parties in this country as they work together to stabilize a plutocracy and cover it with an illusion of democratic process. Many will scoff at this even as others tell me I am not only correct but actually understating. Under this all has to be an explanation. Why are we here? how do we look at ourselves and the way what we do contributes to the many problems rather than a solution and yet work hard to repeat those acts? The place to look for a metaphor that is helpful, I submit, is in the notion of addiction and the denial on the part of of the addict. Read on below and I will explain.
A quick "Google" of addiction and denial will show us that it is a very popular topic from this perspective. Her is some of what the Wikipedia site has to offer:
Denial (also called abnegation) is a defense mechanism postulated by Sigmund Freud, in which a person is faced with a fact that is too uncomfortable to accept and rejects it instead, insisting that it is not true despite what may be overwhelming evidence. The subject may use:
simple denial: deny the reality of the unpleasant fact altogether
minimisation: admit the fact but deny its seriousness (a combination of denial and rationalization)
projection: admit both the fact and seriousness but deny responsibility.
The concept of denial is particularly important to the study of addiction. The theory of denial was first researched seriously by Anna Freud. She classified denial as a mechanism of the immature mind, because it conflicts with the ability to learn from and cope with reality. Where denial occurs in mature minds, it is most often associated with death, dying and rape. More recent research has significantly expanded the scope and utility of the concept. Elisabeth Kübler-Ross used denial as the first of five stages in the psychology of a dying patient, and the idea has been extended to include the reactions of survivors to news of a death. Thus, when parents are informed of the death of a child, their first reaction is often of the form, "No! You must have the wrong house, you can't mean our child!"
Without inviting a critique of the Freuds I offer this as a sketch of what we are looking at.
I have seen others talk about our society in the broader way I am suggesting. We have had some obvious examples with issues like smoking, climate change, and others. We also have had a lot of cognitive science from George Lakoff and others. I will try to summarize what this all boils down to and am aware that5 it is an oversimplification of some deep concepts about how our minds actually work.
First of all, one of the things the programs that fight substance addiction recognize is the social component of this. They also recognize the need to get the addict to a point where they admit their problem and stop denying it. In our socio-political addiction we are not near that point on any scale that has widespread significance even though some of us are beginning to understand.
Just what is this addiction I am speaking about? The bottom line is that we have been living beyond our means for a long time and we deny that we are in one or more of the above ways. We consume resources, we use other's space for our waste and poison, and we deplete the food growing capacity of the soil. We engage in recycling programs and support various measures aimed at "doing something about it" without ever stepping back to admit that the problems, in general, get worse. The Fact that they interact and accelerate their individual effects through those interactions is also largely ignored. Oh yes we have "experts" who write and study. Yet the system grinds on. The political theater plays on. The illusion of change covers over the real lack of change and its opposite: further stabilization of the system.
Any one ready to join me and step forward and say: "Yes the way I am living is not sustainable. It is robbing future generations of a chance for a life anywhere near as comfortable as mine. That's a first step. Will anyone take it?