Of course, I don't ask my parents to do that (replace "this season's fashion must haves" with "today's important news stories" and it's pretty much the same, however. Mo-fo's.) as I have the internet for my main source of information. That sounds like a contradiction in terms. If anything, the internet often brings forth more questions than answers (such as, "aren't facebook friends just like imaginary friends i.e. people not even you see properly?"). However, news-wise I always rely on the good ol' Beeb for updates.I was having a look around it today and realised I was actually looking for something to be angry about, like seeking out and talking to a hippy who believes regressing to the Stone Age is progress (they're out there and they live in Witham. I'm not kidding you, this is a town whose Green Party wants people to use public transport but won't allow more commuter car parking to be built at the station because...it'll encourage people to drive. That they're going to the train station so as not to drive to London or Chelmsford is apparently a moot point).
Back to my point (I'd say to be concise, but it's because my legs ache): as my last rant demonstrates, I love to get angry. I was surfing the BBC news website to find things to react to. Let's face it, there's a lot of stuff out there: the horror that is Zimbabwe; Gordon Brown telling poor people not to be poor (an actual piece of advice my sister believes in - "if you don't want to be poor, stop fucking complaining and earn some money then." Ah, New Labour: thou hast cast a plague on both my houses...); the US and Israel wanting to bomb the crap out of Iran; Big Brother still being in existence...and so on.
What surprised me was not that I was looking for trouble. This is not a revelation - who doesn't love getting annoyed about something? Complaining is the great British pastime, but the greatest British pastime is complaining and then doing nothing constructive about it. We all need a release and getting righteously indignant about something, anything, is the way most of us do it, be it moaning about the latest rubbish sport result to bitching about the friend who just happens not to be there at the time (yeah, I'm talking about you). Being judgemental is in our blood, but maybe that's the jaded lapsed Catholic in me talking. Accepting others, now that takes work.
However, I once heard a saying and it's very true: opinions are like arseholes - everybody's got one. The problem is, I noticed I have been missing this for a few days now (an opinion, not an arse, thank you. I am well aware of that part of my anatomy having landed on it whilst rapidly descending the stairs a few days ago). I have found that if you remove yourself from the outside world, you suddenly don't think about it. Your universe becomes the four walls around you and whatever funny email forward you get sent. I forgot all about the horrendous attacks that happened in Zimbabwe that, at least a week ago, had so incensed me. I had forgotten all about the fact this country seems to be heading toward economic implosion on a Death Star level (almost - do you know how good other people's misery is for house-buying prices?). I had even forgotten that people we now refer to as "characters" were still humiliating themselves in the BB house for the bread and circus crowd.
I like to think I'm not heartless (the only true part of that sentence is "I like to think") and I'd like to think that my behaviour is common. We can only invest emotionally in so much at a time: family, friends, partner, work. I'm almost suspicious of those who cry hysterically over minor events, such as the deaths of beached dolphins - surely there's something better these people could be doing like, I don't know, not turning a depressing event into a Biblical tragedy (Hark, tis the 4 dolphins of the Apocalypse and their blowholes are the trumpets sent to level Jericho's walls!). I like dolphins, by the way, but I'll say the same thing I told my Mum when she made us go to Princess Diana's funeral: "Yes, it's very sad, but how much am I meant to cry over someone I didn't know?"
I suppose my real point is that disconnecting ourselves isn't the worst attitude to take - it's often the only option we have and we have a way of using it. My Dad suggested setting up a fake charity where you show upsetting adverts on television comprised of various, completely unrelated images (a kitten stuck in a well, a boy crying over spilled sweeties, a grown man weeping against a photocopier) and then asking people to send money to "end the suffering". The idea would be that the suffering in question would be that of the distressed, erstwhile viewer who wishes to make the nonexistent cause go away using the least demanding means - chuck some money at it. It's not a terrible thing to do. People need that money. But we only think about them for as long as it takes us to read out our debit card number. Then they quickly drift to the back of our minds behind the phone bills and costs of nights out.
So I stand here, wondering whether I only care as much as society dictates I should. Isn't it terrible, we're heading towards a recession and oh my I can't believe he used that racist term and how much cheaper are baked beans in Asda's compared to Sainsburys? (answer: lots).
Should we dedicate our lives to the well-being of others, though? Didn't work out so well for Gandhi, did it? Being able to fill your own salt shakers isn't payment enough for assassination, frankly. I think the sensible answer is "are you mad?" We walk a fine line. I knew someone who tried to save everyone he met. He was a good man, but it wore him down and pretty much killed him, in the end. You can't take on the world and expect to come out of it ok. That's what heroes do; we're just human beings trying not to fall over the edge.
I'm not going to say "the answer is to do more about stuff!" because that's hardly original. A blog isn't going to change galaxies (hey, might as well think big). I'm not going to say "the answer is to only care about what matters to you!" because then that really cuts you off from the human race. We're all so connected and yet so alienated from each other as it is. I guess my main rambling argument is this - do you ever ask yourself why you care? Not whether you should or shouldn't, but why? I have absolutely no idea why. But I do - only when I've got the spare time, though.
5 comments:
Dear Ms Fake,
You read the news and you care? You have a head start on me.
With love and ass cushions,
Bravetart
PS I mostly care about things that effect me. Often that is the happiness/security of my friends. It makes people think I'm terribly fluffy but really it just makes me smile when people I care about are smiling. That's why I can read and watch the most terrible, horrific things and not really flinch, but if it was happening to someone I know I would probably be more distressed than if it were happening to me. But I hope it doesn't happen to me, whatever it is.
PPS I think you care more than you let on
Why are you not an anthropologist? I feel like my head just got blown off. It's like you know all the answers. Are you a God? Is that you, Neo, in female form?
I will now try to make a comment on the subject at hand instead of hinting at alternative university studies and speculating on your possible divinity.
So, why do we care? Good question. Maybe in today's times we invest far too much in matters of the heart, when really we should be investing in survival. Look at the Appalachian Indians for God's sake -- they left the old and the dead behind. Did they care? Yes, probably, but not more than they cared about their very existence.
Watching the Matrix II last night, I noticed, however, a contradiction to this approach; The Matrix II teaches us that, indeed, survival is even more possible with the aid of love.
"You are different to your predecessors," explains the Architect to Neo, as he stands there in the room full of televisions. "You seem to have an extra something... Could it be... Love?"
And off Neo goes, in what the Architect has already told him is a vain attempt to save his beloved Trinity, but the power of love overcomes adversity and Trinity lives to fight another day.
My point? While love might be the catalyst for the caring, survival and care are two very different things and are not necessarily related.
Realityman, I love the fact you used The Matrix as a means of explaining your point. I'm going to meet that challenge and use Goldilocks and the Three Bears to outline my next opinions.
To you and Katey:
I had a discussion with Dad about this last night. He brought up Heidegger's argument that caring is a demonstration that we are alive. If you can't be bothered about anything else, you are not alive, you are merely existing.
Sidenote: it's great to have a father who can read through Heidegger's 500 page "Being and Time" and summarise it as "I am, therefore I care".
I'm more interested in why we care about certain things, not that we do. Is it motivated by selfish reasoning (i.e. it makes us feels connected or better about ourselves, or because we feel we are obliged to moral standards to show sympathy?) or is it just a side effect of being alive, something we adjust the boundaries of as the situation requires?
By the way, wouldn't it be great if love turned out to be just a proportion of caring which should be spread out equally to all and not just concentrated on one human being? Rationing love... I like it :-)
i suppose some things just get to us more than other things do. For example, i worry more about olod people because everyone else in this country spends more time worrying about animals. That sounds stupid but you know what i mean. I forget my original point. But if we didn't care we'd be a total cunt, and while i agree it is necessary to be that way sometimes i think it's about finding a balance between hippie and cunt.
Betwixt hippie and bastard indeed falls most of humanity.
When it comes down to it, the duty of caring is something that comes with being a part of society - you can't properly live within it without having to care about some aspect of it.
Post a Comment