Some serendipitous reading and listening this week. I am
reading Virginia Woolf’s A Room of One’s
Own for uni. That is coupled with getting my head around the walking
contradiction that is Jordan Peterson. I also stumbled across the article in
the link below. The link between the first two is the most immediately clear.
Between Woolf and the article is fairly obvious if you are familiar with Woolf’s
own meandering through the opening chapter of the book. All three tie together
in a way not immediately apparent, but in way that fits with the place my head
is in and the purpose of this little blog. The ABC’s Radio National offered
some added flavour to my thinking.
I have been struggling with my thoughts on Peterson since I
first starting hearing and reading about him. On the one hand, he offers much
food for thought on the way our modern society is structured and how we arrived
at this place. On the other, he comes to some rather odd conclusions based on
some fairly dodgy, academically speaking, grounds. I giggled (in a bookstore)
to myself when I opened his book to a random page and read that we should be
open to new thoughts and ideas as the world has changed and we must change with
it. Considering his fame-making stand on pronouns alone, it seems that his mind
is heading in two directions at once. I wish to explore his ideas further at
some stage, so will leave that there.
A Room of One’s Own
could very simply, with an updated setting, be written now and apply equally to
a number of disadvantaged groups. The weight of historical disadvantage is a
real thing. Woolf is writing in a time when, finally, women are beginning to be
treated as equals. In this time, she explores why there is no female
Shakespeare, why the Jane Austens and Brontes are historically few and far
between. Why, in her own time, there were still so, comparative to men, few
female authors. Her own situation, living on a fairly generous inheritance, is
an uncommon thing for the women of her time.
This “power of privilege” is highlighted by Woolf’s
situation and its current iteration explored on The Roundtable. That inherited wealth leads to privilege is hard to
argue against. If an individual gets a head start not available to all, by
nature they are automatically in front. This is not to say that this needs to
be stopped. My personal issue with this is that it seems to be offensive,
normally to those with the head start, to even acknowledge the fact. The issue
we have as a society, is that the head start is growing exponentially. Look to
the growing inequality in most western countries to see this at work.
So, to the tenuous link to the desire paths article and an
attempt to avoid the metaphor issue. I probably can’t do the second. There is
something wonderful about this article. That human nature seeks the path of
least resistance is hardly a remarkable new finding. It leads into the other
idea I heard discussed, this time Ben Okri on The Book Show, that we, as humans seek simplicity. While these
together explain the sad nature of national and international politics, they
also offer hope for the future. They explain why politicians who disregard nuance
poll incredibly well, “here is the problem (simple), here is how we deal with
it (direct)”. It explains Trump, Peterson, Brexit and many other things.
I am hopeful though. Simple answers can be a good thing.
People are struggling; let’s help them. If a law is wrong; fix it. Similarly
the direct path can cut through the rubbish, the bureaucracy of our existence. Maybe
I am overly optimistic. It seems quite possible as it is generally my nature. I
agree with Peterson when he talks about humans having, or developing, the
solutions to human problems. That fixing things locally, the clean room, can be
a launching pad to fix the big issues. While human nature is destructive in many
ways, the ability to develop our own creative path forward cannot be
overstated.
I will finish with a wonderful gift from Woolf. These lines:
Alas, laid
on the grass how small, how insignificant this
thought of mine looked; the sort of fish that a good fisherman puts back into
the water so that it may grow fatter and be one day worth cooking and eating.
I am hoping that some of my ideas, that I am placing,
sometimes throwing, into this stream might be the same.
No comments:
Post a Comment