Not going back though, does not imply that we must go
forward. Indeed, our westernised penchant for going forward (aka progress)
may be one of the major concepts that have got us into this mess.
The idea that we must continually progress is rooted
in the manner in which we think of time. Time, in the westernised worldview, is
linear and moves from the past, conceptualised as behind us, to the future,
conceptualised as in front of us, ahead of us.
Progress as a physical and metaphysical goal was
deemed by many Enlightenment thinkers as desirable and almost inevitable. The
view of many Enlightenment thinkers (such as Descartes, Hobbes, Locke, and
Kant) was that human history tended towards freedom, equality, and greater
well-being. Human progress is not only possible, it is inevitable according to
this view.
It was a compelling idea and, in an age when the Dark
Ages were still at the forefront of people’s memory, it was also a welcome
and refreshing idea. Progress became one of the idée du jour of
Enlightenment thinkers and permeated the minds of the general populace. So much
did it pervade our minds that today it is considered the natural course of
things. To question the idea of progress is tantamount to sacrilege.
Progress came to be
synonymous with better, greater, improved, advanced, and superior. The current
generation were better-off than the previous one. But then came the unsettling thought
that the future was a better place to be than the present. With this
realisation came the figure of speech that whipped post-war generations into a
consumerist society – keeping up with the Jones’es.
Progress became coupled
with improvement; progress meant improvement; improvement meant progress. Things
must improve. Things must get better. The future is to be striven for at all costs.
And one of the costs of all this striving was inadequate consideration of the
consequences of new technology and infrastructure. In the post-war consumerism
boom the word NEW! was one of the most oft used words of advertisers.
No consideration was given to the social, individual,
and environmental consequences.
If we are paying attention to the state of the world
then the environmental consequences of progress are all too apparent. We can
see the consequences. They are not good.
What may not be so easy to see are the consequences of
progress on our mental and psychological health. When we believe that the
future is better than now then we can easily become dissatisfied with, and
disappointed in, the present moment.
The ability to place our faith in improvement and
betterment in a future time was explored in depth by Alvin Toffler and Adelaide
Farrell (often unacknowledged) in 1970 in their book Future Shock.1
In that book they outlined how the pace of change and our expectation of a
better future was having an impact upon our psychological health. Toffler and
Farrell described this as an ‘abrupt collision with the future.’ Since then,
the pace of change has increased exponentially. Also, our expectations of the
future solving the problems of today and resulting in a better world have also
gained traction.
But it doesn’t happen.
Thinking that we are better off than were our
ancestors leads us to want to avoid going back to the past. Thinking that the
future will bring about improvement leads us to want to progress to that
time as quickly as possible.
In this state of aversion for the past and attachment
to the future, our present moment becomes homeless. We don’t reside there; yet
it is in the present moment that our hearts and souls wish to dwell. The
present is where we are most settled, it is where we become free of anxiety,
depression, tension, and stress.
We may not be able to go back, but, for the sake of
our health, we can stop striving to get ahead.
If we could do that, we might just find that the past
was not so onerous as we think. We might even find that there are some things
that we could go back to. We might even enjoy them. We might even improve our
mental and psychological health.
Note:
1. Toffler, Alvin
(and Farrell, Adelaide), Future Shock, Bantam, New York, 1970
No comments:
Post a Comment
This blogsite is dedicated to positive dialoque and a respectful learning environment. Therefore, I retain the right to remove comments that are: profane, personal attacks, hateful, spam, offensive, irrelevant (off-topic) or detract in other ways from these principles.