Home

Jul 10

2017

1 Responses

Comments

Helen Whitten

Posted In

Tags

I don’t think I am the only one who has been discomforted by the handling and reporting of the Grenfell Tower fire.  Until we receive the outcomes of the criminal and judicial investigations into the fire we cannot know or understand all the facts that led to this tragedy.  Despite this there are many who are making assumptions about who is to blame and what caused the fire, as well as critics of the management of the fire.  It is undoubtedly a tragedy and there were certainly many things that need detailed review to ensure that such a fire does not happen again and that there is adequate emergency support after such an event.  But surely we need to be suspicious of verdicts by assumption?

There has been extensive coverage of the anger that this fire has generated.  It has become a political football, hijacked for political gain.   John McDonnell has accused Conservative Councillors of ‘social cleansing’ and of being ‘murderers’.  Within seconds this was reapplied to accuse Theresa May and her Government of being murderers.  Conservative MPs have also been threatened.   But murder is a serious accusation and would have required someone taking a match and deliberately setting fire to the building. To turn grief and anger into a march of hatred seems to me both cynical and unhelpful, particularly while the detailed police and judicial investigation is in process.

We have a system in this country that demands that we are treated as innocent until proven guilty.  Let’s not reverse that to allow trial by the mob, politicians, media interview, or social media.  We should not believe something that has yet to be verified.   It may be that there has been negligence or, indeed, criminal or corporate negligence, but the police and a judge are the ones to decide this verdict, based on facts and evidence.

The difficulty has been that facts about the fire have been hard to come by and will take months to reveal, including the number and identity of those lost.   There are thousands of tons of rubble to sift through, in a fragile building.  It is dangerous work and, as with the Didcot Power Station explosion in February 2016, can take many weeks of careful investigation.  The last body was not taken out of Didcot until seven months later.  It was very painful for the families but there was no conspiracy, as has been hinted at but not proven, in the Grenfell Tower fire.

The commentary about the fire has concerned me.   Reports have focused on blame, on assumptions of guilt, on conspiracies and on the negative consequences and bad management of the fire to the extent that I suspect I am not alone in imagining that absolutely nothing had been put in place to support the surviving residents of the block.

For example I only recently discovered  that the Westway West London Sports Centre had been set up as a help centre for the Grenfell Tower survivors, with desks available to service questions about lost driving licences, finance, passports and other concerns.  Also that a key social worker was allocated to every family and finance made available.  That a Government website was published on 15 June,  the day after the fire, see https://www.gov.uk/guidance/grenfell-tower-fire-june-2017-support-for-people-affected.  Despite regularly reading The Times, Guardian, Observer, Sunday Times, occasionally the Telegraph as well as following television, radio and on-line media reports, I had not read about these support centres.  Had you?  I had got the impression that next-to-nothing was being done.  Of course whatever is put in place will never fill the terrible void of losing family, friends, home and possessions and in that context realistically nothing can ever be enough to assuage such grief.

Assumptions have also been made in criticising the appointment of the judge to oversee the investigation into the fire.  There is, as I understand it, a due process by the Lord Chancellor’s office to suggest a judge to oversee an enquiry and a Prime Minister signs off the appointment.    I don’t know Sir Martin Moore-Bick and am not standing up for the appointment as I am not qualified to do so, but equally I don’t feel it is right to judge a lawyer on the fact that he is white, middle class and male.  This surely is prejudice.  Most judges, barristers and lawyers have not lived the lives of those they represent but they represent them in the law nonetheless.  A judgement is made on facts and evidence but that does not necessarily mean those involved lack empathy or compassion.  In this instance, where emotions are so high, having a technical thinker to investigate the engineering decisions leading to the fire had the potential to calm the situation.   But press reports immediately suggested that he would be unable to deliver justice, despite being well respected by those who know him.   In the midst of these allegations it will now, I suspect, be near impossible to gain the trust of residents and survivors.

So where do we go to find a balanced perspective to check the accusations that are being shared by politicians, in the press, and on social media?  After all, there are many buildings, in Europe as well as the UK, under Labour-led councils  and NHS Trusts , that have also been fitted with the same cladding.  Are we hearing accusations to those council leaders of deliberate cost-cutting to put poor people’s lives at risk?  I haven’t, have you?

This tragedy appears to be an indictment of building regulations and property management but again this is an assumption and we need to await a detailed technical report on the fire.  I am not convinced that it was a conspiracy (by any of the councils) against the poor.  I have lived in two private blocks in the same Borough run by private management companies.  In each case there have been issues where smoke alarms were not fitted, where fire extinguishers were not inspected and where fire exits were difficult to access.  This despite endless letters and emails from us private, and reasonably well-off, residents.  We are treated with the same disregard.

The construction and management of property does appear to require a massive overhaul.  They need to be more aware of their responsibilities to the residents who will inhabit the blocks they build and manage.  Their actions can make the difference between life and death.  Theirs are the decisions around fireproofing as they must advise councillors of building regulations and this advice will go into the mix of how a Council will choose to spend taxpayers money, which they have a responsibility to spend wisely.

I cannot, personally, understand how a tower block can pass building regulations without adequate fire safety measures being put in place.  It is also beyond me to understand how architects, builders, governments of all colours and councils have been allowed to build tower blocks with only one staircase.  As in the case of other tragedies – such as the Space Shuttle Challenger – it has made me wonder whether people feel unable to speak up against the groupthink of their seniors?

In the meantime emotions are being whipped up and I worry that this is driven more by a political agenda than by kindness to those involved.   We have to remember that there is an energy of the mob and that it isn’t always correct – look at the followers of Hitler, Stalin or Chairman Mao.  Emotions are infectious.  Too easy to lose one’s head in a crowd.

And so, until the criminal and judicial reports are complete, we are left with assumptions not facts.  And I am left with the question of where to find the truth of a situation as each source of news has a conscious or unconscious bias.  If we only read one paper or listen to one news programme we will not get the whole story.  It was only when I talked to someone living close to the West London Centre that I discovered the good work being done there.  I didn’t read about it.

Share

Jun 22

2017

3 Responses

Comments

Helen Whitten

Posted In

Tags

“I might disagree with your opinion but I am willing to give my life for your right to express it.” Voltaire

Much has been written in recent weeks about how communities have come together in the face of terrorist attacks and tragedy.  Young and old, black and white, Muslim and Christian, rich and poor, have shared practical support, financial contributions and empathy.   Where all too often politics, religion and media headlines can divide us, our humanity can bind us.

At the same time there have been the voices of division, inciting one group against another and this is dangerous as it so often leads to violence and alienation.

Throughout history certain sections have endeavoured to tell other groups that theirs is the ‘right’ way, the right ideology, the right belief system.  It is a form of one-upmanship that seems to be Darwinian.  You see it in every culture or tribe and you see it in the animal kingdom.  It leads to a sense of self-righteousness and places the other group in an apparent lower-status, apparently not ‘enlightened’ enough to realize the value of the ideology or belief.

The UK lacks leadership that unites us.  Both the media and politicians are tending to catch on to emotional headlines and, instead of calming the situation with reason and authority, they ramp up the drama.

But division helps none of us and can even lead to civil or religious war.  There is talk of a clash of civilisations, a clash between rich and poor, a clash between young and old, between one class and another, between one religion and another.  Personally I am more for evolution than for revolution.  The former creates reform over time, the latter generally involves violence, suffering, poverty, incarceration and murder.  We want to avoid that at all costs.   It would, in my opinion, be more helpful to highlight what unites us rather than what divides us.

So what can we do about this?  Surely we can focus our minds on our commonalities rather than our differences.   Our daily experience is partly up to government but mainly up to us as individuals.  Whether we behave respectfully to ourselves, others , the community, the institutions of government, and the environment is within our own control.  It is where we can, each one of us, make a difference.  If we lead our own lives well then society flourishes.  If we drop litter or abuse others we disrupt society.  If we harbour prejudice and judgement we divide one another on ideological grounds.  As Voltaire said “Prejudices are what fools use for reason” .

Having run a business called Positiveworks I guess it is not surprising that I feel it works better to focus on what we can do with the situation we have been given rather than disempowering ourselves by feeling hard-done-by and divided.  Encouraging a victim mentality seldom helps to motivate someone to action that will improve their lot.  And interestingly by suggesting another person is a victim makes their rescuer feel better about themselves – they are one-up and can be therefore be bountiful.  When we place another in the role of victim we have to challenge ourselves about the payoff we are receiving from our charity or patronage.  We need to ensure that we are truly motivating the other person to feel that they can improve their lot and not, consciously or unconsciously, keeping them stuck in it.

Politicians and the media are speaking of generational division.  Yes, the young have challenges today, certainly, but equally these challenges need to be seen in perspective.   My grandparents and parents experienced two world wars, economic depression and bombs.  In other parts of the world the young are being threatened by Boko Haram, sold as slaves by ISIS.  We watched the movie Woman in Gold the other night, telling the story of how the Nazis stole Gustav Klimt’s painting from a Jewish family during World War II.  The film depicted the familiar terrifying scenes of families being rounded up and treated inhumanely.  I thought how lucky (so far) my generation and the generations younger than I have been not to know war, communism, or occupation or dictatorship.  I lived in London during the IRA bombings.  Today’s young are threatened by Islamic terrorism.  We have to get on with life, pull together and have a vision and strategy for a better future.

Things don’t always get better.  It is, I believe, unhelpful to set expectations that they do.   It didn’t get better for my parents who married in 1939 and were thrown into 6 years of war.  It didn’t get better for those in Europe.  It didn’t get better for those who experienced the Wall Street Crash.  You get my drift.  We need to encourage resilience in the young and not allow them to imagine that the situation they face is any worse.

My generation of Baby Boomers have been fortunate in some ways but it would be erroneous to say that it has all been plain sailing.  There is a suggestion that we have deliberately kicked others off the ladder but I haven’t been aware of this in the groups I have grown up with.  In fact, as the V&A exhibition Revolution described, our generation have been active in equality movements, CND, Anti-Apartheid, organic foods and environmental projects.

Inevitably, as with any generation, there have been those who have acted for good and those who haven’t.   But I don’t believe we have sought to incapacitate the young as seems to be suggested by some.  After all, we have our own children, grandchildren, nieces and nephews so why would we wish to sabotage their lives?  Indeed the bank of Mum and Dad are now major donors helping young people.    I don’t believe most of us want to saddle the young with huge debts or force them to pay for our old age in any way that is unreasonable.  I personally am perfectly willing not to receive a winter fuel allowance and to pay for some of my care if it allows for those more needy than myself to be given more generous allowances.

So it surely doesn’t help to make young people feel victims of some conspiracy or to insinuate that the situation they face today is without hope.  Expectations shape emotions.  Emotions shape behaviours.  Let’s give young people the respect, belief and trust that they are capable, that they are not necessarily facing anything that is any more insurmountable than their grandparents or ancestors faced, and let them get on with it.  Let’s trust that they have the resilience to manage the challenges they face and do not need to be constantly reminded of how hard-done-by they feel.  Let’s put their situation in perspective and not incite division between them and the older generations of their parents and grandparents.  I don’t believe it is helpful to anyone.  Every generation have had their own challenges and the majority of people within that generation manage to overcome them.  Let’s assume that the majority of today’s young are just as capable.

As people have short memories and history is not always taught then it may help to remember that we Boomers have lived through the Cold War, the Cuban Missile Crisis, high inflation, interest rates of 17%, the winter of discontent, the AIDs crisis and the IRA, the hole in the ozone layer and doctors and many others who, before the 35 hour week, regularly worked over 90 hours a week.  Most of those I know of my generation have worked incredibly hard.

There is also divisive rhetoric around the ‘rich’ insinuating that the wealthy are all greedy tax evading monsters that were somehow born with a spoon in their mouths.  I spent a short time yesterday afternoon reading the Sunday Times Rich List and was impressed by how many of these people had made their money since the year 2000.  They were not all bankers or hedge fund managers, as seems to be the assumption.  There were businessmen and women who had started a cash-and-carry or an internet company.  There were those brought up in hardship – in Barnardo’s homes, as refugees and immigrants.  Those who had a good idea and worked incredibly hard and with determination to make a success of that idea such as J K Rowling.   Many of these are giving back through philanthropy.  We need to be very careful not to make generalised assumptions about the rich.   We need to encourage wealth-creation and aspiration.  The UK is full of enterprising and entrepreneurial individuals who can create products and services that can be benefit to us all.  Give them hope.

So it must be about each of us, as individuals, playing our part to maintain and create a cohesive society in the midst of uncertainty and change.  I was shocked recently when I went into our small GP surgery in Hampshire last week and saw a notice recording that 51 people had not attended appointments during the month of May.  When I commented on this I was told that this was a fairly average statistic.  When you consider how this is multiplied around the UK both in GP surgeries and hospitals it becomes clear that while people talk emotionally about ‘our NHS’ they are, at the same time, abusing it.  A terrible waste of money, time and resources .

We need to respect and value the institutions we are fortunate enough to have in this country – that means being responsible for one’s part in the relationship, not taking these services for granted, not assuming that government have to pick up all the pieces.  If we have rights we have responsibilities and we need to encourage all members of our communities to contribute.  As JF Kennedy said ask not what your country can do for you—ask what you can do for your country.”

We can transform the rhetoric of hate, division and hopelessness.  We can talk of optimism, of opportunities, of what we can do rather than what we can’t.  Our politicians are unlikely to be able to resolve all our problems, so surely it is time to consider what we can personally do to protect and support the privileges that our parents’ and grandparents’ generations have fought for.  Let’s remember that how we think and what we talk about changes lives and the lives of future generations.  Positive works!

 

 

Share

The Need for Reason in a Soundbite World

 I was standing next to an elderly lady at the newspaper counter yesterday and she commented “we probably can’t believe a word of what we read but I still buy a paper every day”.   How do we make sense of what we read in a newspaper, hear or watch on the media or search on the internet in this post-truth era?  Information is expressed in 140 characters.  Continuous global news, with sensationalist headlines, is repeated every half-hour with little detail provided.  The manner in which information is shared in the twenty-first century leads to people making snap judgements on events and situations.   Views are shaped by a fast emotional response to information, not an analytical one.  It is difficult to judge fact from fiction and this can be stressful as there is a sense that there is no firm ground on which to build truth or opinion.

My intention in this essay is to demonstrate that the generations living in today’s world of the global internet, and especially young people who have known little else, need to learn more about the inner workings of their brain so as to apply both intellect and reason, as well as intuitive emotion, when making judgements and decisions on what they are reading or seeing.  This would include developing self-knowledge, identifying bias and prejudices, becoming aware of the impact of peer pressure and learning how to distinguish false news from fact.  In essence, to learn the skills of rational thinking.  This will not necessarily help them make a perfect decision but it may enable them to make a more informed one.

Thinking is difficult, so most people judge” Voltaire

We have learnt a great deal about the mind through psychology and neuroscience in the past thirty years.  This knowledge can enable us to be discerning when analysing information.  Daniel Kahneman in his book Thinking, fast and slow  [1] describes how the brain works on two systems.  System 1 is fast intuitive thinking where people often jump to conclusions emotionally before they know the facts.  This can lead to erroneous solutions or premises.  System 2 is slow deliberate thinking where we take time to summon evidence and analyse the information before coming to a conclusion.

The pace of life has accelerated in many ways.  In my own business of professional training we used to run five-day residential leadership courses for executives.  Nowadays one is expected to transmit the same information in a morning.  On the internet people tend to be in fast-thinking mode as they submit or respond to data online.    The brain is programmed to latch on to new information as it may alert us either to opportunity of sustenance for survival, which excites the brain, or alternatively to a threat.  The brain becomes aroused and the autonomic system provides the physiology required in order to respond appropriately either to potential or to risk.  This survival process works well in times of physical challenge but is unhelpful when reflective thinking is required, such as to analyse information and reach the detail beneath what one is reading.  It can be helpful to understand this process as it is being activated every time a new email or tweet pings into our inbox.

The brain adapts to the situations it experiences frequently.  Young people are being exposed at an early age to video games so their brains become shaped to expect fast interaction.  Computer interface could be influencing the worldwide increase in cases of Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder as the brain becomes acclimatized to speed of information and finds it difficult to concentrate when information needs to be processed more slowly.    The neuroscientist Susan Greenfield [2] argues that video games and the speed of data retrieval on the internet can lead to addictive behaviours similar to gambling, by activating the reward system of dopamine which is stimulated by results, and inhibiting the frontal cortex that is considered to be responsible for planning complex cognitive behaviour, moderating social behaviour, and decision-making.  The top ten video games are violent ones.  There is evidence that this creates the danger that the brain is likely to respond more aggressively after watching or playing such games.  Screen-based interaction only applies two senses, sound and vision.  Our brains become less adapted to the holistic chemistry of human communication through eye contact, conversation, body language, pheromones.  We see characters on screen as icons rather than emotional beings.  This may be a factor in a measured decrease in empathy in college students over the decade from 2000-2010. [3]  The icon on screen does not have an emotional history, we don’t know about their relationships or feelings: they are just a moving image, so we are less likely to care about them.

We are witnessing the malevolent result of this lack of empathy through the experience of students in school, where two-thirds of teenage girls report that they have been sexually harassed at school by boys. [4] This is affecting their self-esteem, wellbeing and academic performance.   The viewing of online porn, which large numbers of young boys now watch regularly, can have an intimidating effect on both boys and girls. [5]  Cyber-bullying, sexting and revenge porn add to these problems and both genders are viewing material that suggests that relationships mean little but body-image and sexual gratification mean much.  How do the young make sense of this world of image and illusion?

“Doubt is not a pleasant condition, but certainty is absurd” Voltaire

There is a trend to revert to previous idealised times.  Opinion polls suggest that people imagine there was a time when the world was more certain.  Change seems to be both unpopular and also unexpected.  We see this mirrored in the Brexit and Trump votes where people could be heard to say “we want our country back” .  The implication is that things should not change, despite the fact that both the UK and US have always been in a state of flux.  That is the nature of life.    We cannot roll back the tide of history but we can challenge expectations to check that they are realistic.   We need also to ensure that people have the skills to manage the life they are facing.

Expectations shape our experience and how we respond to events and information.  They impact both emotion and behaviour.  For example if we think our boss will give us a £200 bonus and we receive a £250 bonus we shall be happy and probably act more loyally to him or her.  If, on the other hand, we are expecting a £200 bonus but only receive £150 then we shall be disappointed and may consider looking for a new job.

Checking whether expectations are rational and realistic enables us to stop and question whether we are making ourselves unhappy by imagining that life should be other than it is.  There is a sense today, reinforced by media comment, that the world is a far worse place than it ever was, that any suffering must be wrong and that when anything does go wrong someone must be blamed – often the government.  There is an uproar when accidents happen, when people lose their jobs or when there is an apparent injustice, followed by a demand that someone pays – again, often the government.  But these expectations may well be unrealistic.  There is no law of the universe stating that life will be fair nor to say that we should not suffer.  Life can be unfair and it is doubtful that whatever a government tries to put in place to address a problem, their policies will be perfect or infallible.  We live in an imperfect world and the people who govern us are human and therefore of necessity fallible.  The expectation that all should go smoothly is unrealistic and upsets us.  We need to be able to react to endeavour to improve situations when they arise and yet have the resilience to recognise that life has always provided challenges, and always will.

A blame culture leads people to look outward for answers rather than look inward to ask “what can I do about this?”  Such an attitude disempowers so it is not surprising that there is an overall consensus among young people of a sense of powerlessness.  A student from Sheffield University, reported that news leaves her feeling uninspired about the prospects of not only the country but also her own personal future.  But are students accurate in feeling so helpless to shape their own future?  The Millennials have been described as the “snowflake” generation and some would argue that life has never been better or more full of potential.

News and information has to be investigated carefully to balance up the narrative and check whether it is true or false.  We have to check whether false hopes and entitlements have been dangled before us.  Also whether things truly are as bad as the media suggests, when in fact millions of people have been taken out of poverty in the last decade, world hunger reached its lowest point in 25 years, global malaria deaths have declined by 60%, life expectancy in Africa has increased by 9.4 years since 2000, the proportion of older US adults with dementia, including Alzheimer’s, declined by 11.6% in 2000 to 8.8% in 2012, 93% of children around the world learned to read and write, which is the highest proportion in human history, and despite IS we are safer on a daily basis than at any other time in history. [6]

“Prejudices are what fools use for reason” Voltaire

The internet gathers people into homogenous antagonistic groups of prejudice where one presents itself as pure right-minded thinkers while dismissing another group as corrupt, power-hungry or evil.  This can apply in many areas of life but examples are bankers, Brexiteers, Trump followers, the so-called wealthy elite.  It becomes tribal, resulting in a form of group hysteria against certain parties as we have seen mustered against Caroline Criado-Perez in her project to have Jane Austen depicted on bank notes, and Gina Miller in her court fight regarding Brexit [7].  Both have been threatened online with rape and murder.

Abuse is played out every day on the internet as people take positions on subjects about which they often know very little.  It is the equivalent of hurling stones; not dissimilar to the market square of previous centuries where people gathered to throw rotten tomatoes at some unfortunate person in the stocks.  However, as we saw with the Arab Spring and Brexit, the group has not necessarily given sufficient thought to the detail, nor identified an outcome.  There is a focus on the negatives of what they don’t want rather than a planned vision of what they do want.  This can lead them on the road to nowhere.

The network groups that form online can provide a place where people feel included.  Belonging is a basic human need and networks bring together individuals who support one another.  The danger here is that the group simply reinforces confirmation bias.  It is a cosy feeling to read views that support your own and often people choose to expose themselves only to information with which they agree.    Network groups can also normalise anti-social behaviours such as paedophile groups, porn or jihadis because it is so easy to find like-minded others online.  This enables them to collaborate below the radar, in ways that jeopardise our safety.

“I might disagree with your opinion but I am willing to give my life for your right to express it” Voltaire

Headlines shout about judges being “the enemies” of the country, tweets trend on issues from greedy bankers to Brexit, Trump and the elite.  We are reading and listening to opinions about situations and yet seldom know the source of that comment.  Who are the journalists, tweeters and bloggers?  What do we know about them?  Are they people to respect or not?  What is their political bias or prejudice?  Through whose lens are we being judged?  What are their values?  Are they speaking with ethical intention?  Just because someone is a celebrity does not necessarily mean that they are informed on a particular topic.

It is easy to pontificate about a subject without researching the detail but it can also be ignorant.  To judge others spontaneously without knowing the full story is unprincipled.  The skills of critical thinking enable us to question more deeply what we are reading or hearing.  Fast thinking easily leads to what I would describe as group un-thinking or group hysteria.  Slow thinking leads to individual opinion but requires time and reflection.

Emotive words are used to divide.  Instead of discussing and exchanging facts and opinions people are reverting to personal abuse such as “racist, bigot, Little Englander, Remoaner”.   Negative news is used by the media to sell papers and also by governments and charities in order to emphasize a problem and gain funds or support.  It can give the impression of a brutal world where jobs are scarce, despite the fact that unemployment figures are low.  There are headlines about “greedy bankers” despite the fact that the 2008 crisis was a result of mistaken policies of politicians, lax regulation, individuals borrowing more than they could manage, sub-prime debt, as well as the bankers.   There is complexity beneath the headline. [8]

Teaching and applying the principles of simple logic is particularly relevant in the internet-age.  For example the logic behind “some bankers are greedy therefore all bankers are greedy” is erroneous and makes no more sense than saying “Philip Green is wealthy and behaves badly towards his employees so all those who are wealthy must therefore behave badly “.  This is faulty thinking.  There is some truth but we must distinguish between a fuzzy generalisation versus the specifics of a situation.

Currently there is anti-elitist rhetoric but the narrative seldom defines what is meant by an elite other than an apparent hatred of experts.  This could sabotage the success of the next generation in that all countries require an elite to drive forward economic stability and knowledge.  It requires rigour and research to differentiate those who have become elite due to corruption or ‘celebrity status’ in comparison to those who have achieved a position through knowledge.  ‘Elite’ is defined as “a select group that is superior in terms of ability or qualities to the rest of a group or society.” [9] An example is an elite of Britain’s armed forces.

One wouldn’t question the concept of elitism when wishing to see an expert consultant in the NHS, nor a lawyer, chemist or engineer.  Those who study and work hard within an area inevitably become elite, as experts within their own field.  We need these minds and have been addressing for many decades now the difference between inherited versus meritocratic elitism.  There is more to be done but we cannot afford to turn the young against the concept of an elite by connecting, with emotionally-charged headlines, wealth with greed rather than effort.  People need to be encouraged to stop and think more carefully what is meant by a term before making a judgement as to whether something is good or bad, or maybe a mixture of both.

No country can afford to turn people off the concept of wealth-generation.  Wealth in itself isn’t an evil.  It can lead to employment and philanthropy.  Bill Gates has spent much effort in reducing malaria deaths, Warren Buffet made a Philanthropy Pledge in 2006 in which he pledged to give away his Berkshire Hathaway stock to philanthropic projects and he has brought together many wealthy individuals who are pledging to give away some fifty percent of their wealth to good causes.  The Sackler Foundation gives large sums to the arts and many of the major financial industries and entrepreneurs sponsor cultural exhibitions.  Starting a business and building it up takes guts and risk and can benefit many, both those employed and those who supply or purchase goods or services.  The tendency in the media and online to repudiate those who are wealthy is ignorant.   The key is surely ethics – encouraging people to build their life and work on wise values and good intention.

What is needed is perspective.  Rabble-rousing tweets and headlines skew the facts that some wealthy people are greedy and others generous, that some bankers are unethical and others honest, that some politicians can be trusted and others can’t, that some economists can predict the future and others can’t.  We can’t necessarily reach a wise judgement unless we explore the complex detail that exists within these contexts.

“No problem can withstand the assault of sustained thinking” Voltaire

Surveys suggest [10] that young people are feeling gloomier about the future than at any point in the past eight years.  One in four youngsters between the ages of 16 and 25 report that they do not feel in control of their lives.  Low levels of self-confidence are leading to 45% feeling stressed about body image and 37% stressed about how to cope at work and school.  The numbers of students seeking counselling for exam stress [11] is rising and more than a third of teenage girls in England suffer depression [12].  Are their anxieties realistic or have they been shaped by the negative headlines that bombard them on the media and lead to disappointment?  If the population is so stressed how come Euro 2016 and Pokemon Go were the most Googled questions in the UK in 2016?  This doesn’t suggest deep concern about the political or economic realities people are facing.

But are the young receiving sufficient balanced information for them to appreciate how life has improved in the last fifty years?  Are they being prepared to manage the world they will face?  They are growing up in an era of idealistic and relentlessly positive news on the one hand where there is celebrity and where, on Facebook or Instagram, people only post their good news.  On the other hand there is doom and gloom spread by the press and politicians.  There is little middle way.  They are besieged by images of stars and models.  Social media results in the young comparing themselves to these figures but they are generally trying to measure up to a false or unachievable photograph, where the model’s image has been edited to unrealistic proportions.

All is certainly not what it appears.  Young people, when asked, state that they want to be famous.  But famous for what?  In previous generations when students were asked what they wanted to be they would reply “a lawyer, teacher, doctor”.  Fame in itself may not be a rational goal.  Many celebrities end up in The Priory or in addiction.  Yet the young don’t seem to make the association that fame and wealth are not necessarily going to bring them happiness.  Celebrities suffer anxiety as much if not more than anyone else.  They grieve when they lose a child or parent, and struggle over very public divorces.  Many people are famous but possibly not for the skills one really admires or wishes to emulate – for example Hitler or Jack-the-Ripper.

To be meaningful, fame needs to be based on values, so we need to support children to ground themselves on the personal values that help them live life well and make good decisions.  These don’t have to hinge on some religious premise or book.  Simple principles such as treating others as you would wish to be treated yourself, seeking to do good rather than evil, not to hurt others, can all guide more collaborative rather than divisive behaviour online.

Are we giving this generation of “network young”, as they have been termed, the moral leadership that underpins constructive behaviour?   Are we helping them analyse and make wise decisions?  They aren’t seeing it from their political leaders who seem to be able to tell lies or knife a colleague in the back then shrug it off when found out.  The term “post-truth” can give children the impression that it is ok to tell lies in today’s world.  But of course it isn’t.  Moral leadership comes from all those involved in raising children – parents, extended family, friends, teachers, community, government and beyond.

Parents and teachers alike seem nervous of offending or upsetting children but is this providing them with the resilience skills that young people need to manage the world of soundbites?  If our universities are anything to go by, we appear to be producing students who demand ‘safe space’ rather than debate, and who appear unwilling to tolerate contradictory opinions.  [13]This doesn’t bode well for our future as this type of thinking can lead to fundamentalism, fascism and even dictatorship. [

It is important that we provide a realistic picture of what it takes to manage life and work.  We need to help students identify what success means to them.  Employers report that young people are unemployable as they don’t have the work ethic or social teamworking skills to succeed.  We read of young boys believing it is not ‘cool’ to succeed at school.  If they watch The Apprentice [14] they could gain the impression that being ruthless will get them to the top of business with little effort.

But overnight success is extremely rare.  Most CEOs, entrepreneurs, writers, painters, pop-stars or actors have put in many hours of practice and grit to gain success.  It takes determination, failures and hard work.  If students feel it will come easily they will be disappointed.  We need to enable the next generations to develop the emotional and practical ability to manage the complexity of a flexible global workforce.  Specific examples of hard-won success can inspire them as they set out on their careers in an uncertain and challenging world.  It is particularly useful to provide case studies of those who have come from poor or difficult backgrounds, have worked hard and made a good life for themselves.  It is also important to enable young people to see that the greatest success of all is happiness on a daily basis, which often starts with self-acceptance and loving relationships in the home.

“It is said that the present is pregnant with the future” Voltaire

If young people are indeed so anxious as surveys demonstrate then we need to act swiftly to empower them to feel that they can influence their own lives and manage the challenges they are likely to face in this competitive global environment.  This includes managing their own emotional as well as mental state online and in the real world.

Accessing the ability to think calmly and rationally about what they are hearing or reading requires that they have the tools to move themselves out of a stressful state.  The mind cannot think rationally when hyper-aroused, as the emotional brain hijacks reason.  The practice of mindfulness can be beneficial  as a first step.  This is the practice of training the brain to pay attention on purpose in the present moment so as to be able to focus the mind.  It can direct the mind and body to relax so as to enable the person to think coolly and objectively about a situation.

Once the mind is calm the individual is in a position to question their anxiety or disturbance:

  • Am I taking things too personally?
  • How does failing this (exam or project) make me a complete failure?
  • How important will this problem be in six months?
  • What’s the worst that could happen?
  • Is my belief helping me achieve my goals?
  • How else might I think about this situation?
  • How could thinking differently about the situation or information impact the outcome?
  • If someone has written something unkind or nasty about me does it make it a fact? Do I respect the person?  Does it matter?  Are there others who say kind things?
  • What skills do I have to manage myself and my future?

This process leads the mind inward.  Instead of being influenced by what is on the outside, whether it be on the net, radio, television or gossip, we are encouraged to draw on our own resources, connect with our own values and make judgements and decisions based on what we choose rather than being led by the voices of the media or the mob.

To  manage life in today’s world we can support young people in developing self-acceptance, giving them the understanding that they have rights and needs that are equal – not greater nor lesser – than those with whom they interact.  Self-knowledge and self-reflection are key to this learning and self-development.  Basic principles include:

  • Accepting that you are human and that humans are fallible
  • Recognising that making one mistake does not mean that you are stupid
  • Recognising that everyone needs to be sensitive to their impact on others
  • Taking responsibility for yourself and understanding that you won’t be loved or approved of by everyone. Nor will others
  • Focus on strengths, learn and adapt to put your weaknesses in context and build on achievements
  • Seeking excellence and not perfection

Providing models to analyse personal responses to situations gives individuals the understanding that they may not have a choice regarding the situations they face but do have a choice as to how they respond to the situation.  They can learn the interaction between thoughts, expectations and how they shape their emotions.  That if they think a situation “must” go a particular way they will inevitably be disappointed if it doesn’t.  That if they blame another person in thinking “they ought” to have understood how their behaviour hurt me and “should” have treated me with more consideration, then it is important to question themselves as to whether they informed the other person of their preferences.  Also to question whether they themselves have behaved similarly, resulting in them hurting others in the way they have been hurt.  The underlying thought, belief or expectation of self, others and life situations shapes the emotional response.  The emotional response shapes the behaviour that follows – for example if a boy feels they have not been treated with the respect they were expecting they may hit the person whom they perceive treated them badly.

The role of hormones in shaping behaviour is also useful information for young people.  Testosterone has been associated with violence, autistic-spectrum, and risk-taking.  It rises when listening to loud music, watching one’s team win or watching porn.  When elevated there is more likelihood of an outcome of behaviour that the person may well regret after the event, whether it be a sexual assault, car crash or gang violence.  The understanding of the mind-emotion-behavioural process is essential information for any human being and the earlier we can teach it the better.

“Think for yourselves and let others enjoy the privilege of doing so, too” Voltaire

To make sense of complex information requires good questioning techniques.  Socratic models of challenging beliefs and situations can influence a student to question what they are reading and look beneath the headlines.  They can become familiar with how their mind works when operating on System 1 fast-thinking and choose to switch to System 2 slow-thinking methods to analyse the facts so as to make evaluative judgements as to what they personally believe about a situation.  For example they can be trained to question the phrase “all the evidence shows” which is often used by those in the scientific, academic, medical or economic world but ignores contradictory evidence.  This was witnessed during the 2008 financial crash where neither Treasury officials nor economists all foresaw the crisis and where several economists held directly opposing views as to its provenance and impact.

The divisive black-and-white statements frequently used by politicians, trolls and the media disguise the complex grey areas underneath.  Students can learn to notice generalisations such as always, never, no-one, everyone and investigate the specifics, to discover whether statements are accurate.  They may discover that phrases such as “everyone says this is a great movie” actually relates to one person who happened to comment on the movie to a friend.

Good questions enable us to check whether our brain is working on fast processing.  For example:

  • What is the evidence behind what I am reading?
  • Who is writing and what might their agenda be?
  • What are their sources? Do I respect them?
  • Is my belief about this information logical?
  • Might I be exaggerating the importance of this problem?
  • Who says so?
  • Am I concentrating on the negatives and ignoring the positives?

But thinking is time-consuming and requires effort so many numb out instead.  This includes watching video-games, surfing the net or spending hours on Instagram talking to friends.  We feel we have no time but the key is to notice where we are focusing our attention when there is so much attractive diversion available.

“Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities” Voltaire

The start of 2017 has seen many examples where people are responding quickly and spontaneously to sensational headlines rather than stopping to question whether the information is accurate.  President-Elect Trump has been tweeting that the FBI were wrong in their assessment that Putin and the Russians have been manipulating the American election results before he had even met with FBI representatives to hear the details of their report.

In Germany there have been warnings from politicians about the increase in fake news after the ultra-conservative Breitbart party website spread false information that a church had been set on fire on New Year’s Eve by a group of 1000 men shouting Allahu Akbar.  In fact a firework set a small area of netting on fire but Breitbart had used exaggerations and factual errors to create an image of Islamist aggression.

There have been reports of hackers in Eastern Europe, Russia and India being paid to spread false news, including hackers being paid to ‘like’ tweets or share stories that support the sponsor’s agenda.

We all need to make sense of this as the alternative is that there is a mob hysteria on an issue that could lead to civil war or vigilantism.  The need is always to question the sources and intentions of what we are reading.

 “Opinion has caused more trouble on this little earth than plagues or earthquakes” Voltaire

No-one could have predicted how the internet and continuous global news would shape our lives and our minds.  We all need to feel empowered to manage the challenges of a fast-changing method of receiving information.  We need to understand our own minds and its biases in order to be alert to the mistakes it might lead us into.  The ability to connect with the rest of the world is both exciting and overwhelming.  It encourages us to make quick judgements on issues rather than research and investigate the complex facts of a case.  There has never been a more important time to learn how our brain processes information and creates reality.  We can train ourselves to think more rationally and critically in an era that Charles Handy once described as The Age of Unreason.  [15]  We can also harness the internet to build collaborative groups that benefit the world.

Fast and slow thinking responses can be related to Aristotle’s theory of acting through voluntary and involuntary action, whereby a young child might act involuntarily whereas a wise and rational adult will make a decision through deliberation, as a result of significant reason and thought.  Aristotle continues by differentiating an “incontinent” person, who acts spontaneously and emotionally, with the “continent” person, who acts through objective decision, not appetite.

In an era of false news and misinformation we would all benefit from seeking to become the continent individual who observes, reflects, analyses and bases their judgement on evidence, self-knowledge and personal values.  These skills can be taught.

 

5280 words

Written January 2017, Longlisted for the Notting Hill Essay Prize

 

References:

1.Daniel Kahneman:  Thinking, Fast and Slow (Allen Lane)

2.www.susangreenfield.com

3.https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/born-love/201005/shocker-empathy-dropped-40-in-college-students-2000

4.Girl Guide Survey: https://www.girlguiding.org.uk/social-action-advocacy-and-campaigns/research/girls-attitudes-survey/

  1. https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/sex-lies-trauma/201107/effects-porn-adolescent-boys
  2. https://medium.com/future-crunch/99-reasons-why-2016-has-been-a-great-year-for-humanity-8420debc2823#.94r75drkw; Stephen Pinker: The Better Angels of Our Nature (Allen Lane); Johan Norberg: Progress (One World); Never Forget that we Live in the Best of Times (Philip Collins, The Times, 23.12.16)
  3. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caroline_Criado-Perez https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gina_Miller
  4. http://businesslibrary.uflib.ufl.edu/financialcrisesbooks
  5. https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/elite
  6. Survey, Princes Trust Youth Index 2016
  7. BBC News, 30.9.15
  8. The Guardian, 22.8.16
  9. What’s Happened to The University: Frank Furedi (Routledge)
  10. BBC series The Apprentice
  11. 15.Charles Handy: The Age of Unreason (Random House)
Share

Jun 06

2017

3 Responses

Comments

Helen Whitten

Posted In

Tags

The lead-up to the election has been an extraordinary and distressing period.  The tragic and terrible terrorist attacks have left us feeling numb, sad, confused and inevitably somewhat fearful for ourselves and our loved ones.  There is no obvious quick fix for the challenges we face.  It’s not obvious what we need to do about terrorism, BREXIT, defence, the NHS and education.   Yet our politicians pretend they have the solutions when they don’t.

And the scepticism that Jeremy Corbyn would never win the election is also being turned on its head.  The unthinkable is becoming possible as other parties have led appalling campaigns.  A far left Marxist and his even more far left Deputy John McDonnell and Diane Abbott could be in charge of this country from this Friday.  Personally I think this would be a disaster.  I sit in the centre of politics and it is his anti-business stance that concerns me most.  Where does that leave aspiration?  The UK is one of the most entrepreneurial countries in the world and consists mainly of small and medium-sized businesses founded and run by enterprising and hard-working people who have often grafted for 60 – 80 hours a week, seven days a week, to get their business going.

There are major organisations, for whom he has it in, who employ large numbers of people but he wants to tax and regulate these until the pips squeak – and that will be likely to have the consequence of more unemployment and less tax revenue as businesses can and do, in this day and age, relocate to other more business-friendly lands.

On top of the upheaval and uncertainty of BREXIT – and Corbyn was remarkable for his absence in the Remain campaign and has held anti-EU sentiments that are unlikely to be beneficial to us in the negotiations – this anti-business approach could bring our country to economic ruin.  Look at Venezuela.  Or Cuba – yes they had good health and education but the people were dirt poor, and repressed.  And financial ruin hits the poorest the hardest.

Corbyn supporters see him as the answer to our problems but I am not so convinced that his heart is in the right place, or that what he promises is affordable.   They call him our Obama. But he is no Obama.    It is trendy and hip to be pro-Jeremy – just look at the comedians, the TV audiences for debates, the celebrities.  Social media streams are pro-Corbyn and few dare stick their head above the parapet if they feel differently.  Those who utter criticism are regarded as unenlightened.

I know many of you disagree with me but I see him as a populist, our version of Donald Trump, albeit a very different character.  He is an angry rebel – standing against situations for most of his life rather than for anything specific.  What he does stand for, such as pacifism, his support of the underdog such as the IRA or Hamas, he later finds some way to wriggle out of in interviews so as not to sound too extreme.  But I believe he is extreme.  He is an ideologue who wants revolution and revolutions seldom end well and always incur much suffering and repression.

Inevitably the young will be enamoured with such idealistic rhetoric.  I would have been if I had been younger.  I flirted with communism in my teens in the 60s until I realized the terrible things that occurred in its name, the slaughter, the repression.  Of course they will vote for him as he has effectively bribed them with the promise of no tuition fees.  Why wouldn’t they?  But whilst it is right that the young should be idealistic we also need to recognise that they have not yet had the experience of working, paying taxes, raising families and the inherent challenges of adult life.

But where to put that cross?  The other parties are not offering us anything nearly as attractive.  Of course not.  They can’t.  They don’t live in an idealistic wonderland.  Perhaps you are old enough to remember the nationalised industries.  I certainly am – the dreadful British Rail, the strikes of the 1970s where rubbish piled up on the pavements, we had electricity for only a few hours a day, bodies were not buried.  Why do we imagine that the Government will be better at running industry when they have demonstrated through successive governments that they have been unable to run the NHS or education in any coherent or efficient way?  Again, Corbyn is selling us a dream and of course people like dreams.

But we live in the real world.  We have to pay for what a government promises.  And if we go deeper into debt we have to pay more interest – billions of pounds of it a year that could be going elsewhere.  Yes, austerity has been too harsh but we also have to be the grown-ups that we are as a voting community and recognise that money doesn’t grow on trees.  We also need to recognise that it is a good thing to encourage people to work if they possibly can as this gives them pride and self-control.

I have voted Labour in the past but dislike the divisive rhetoric of the party.  Words such as ‘the rich’ and ‘posh’.  We need to encourage business development and wealth creation as these employ others and pay a huge percentage of the tax that our country needs for infrastructure.  As do corporations.  The ‘greedy bankers’ consist of a small percentage of people.  The majority of staff working in organisations are decent ordinary people.  You get rotten apples in every profession – we have seen cases of rotten doctors recently, we get rotten lawyers, rotten teachers, politicians, union leaders, etc.  I am not an economist but I can see that one can’t allow banks to fail because each and every person who has money held in those banks, individuals and businesses, would have lost their money.  There is still work to do on the culture and values of big business and I believe all the parties are addressing this.  Things are changing and people in business are not all bad.  In the meantime the coalition government and Conservative government who have been in power since the economic crash of 2008 have had to deal with the problem of “there’s no money left”.

Somehow we don’t hear the same criticism of ‘the rich’ for those who have made money singing a pop song or kicking a football.  The anger and hatred is directed at business and this is dangerous because a country thrives or starves on the success of trade.  My rather cynical mind thinks that a Corbyn approach is to pack full the public sector and keep people on generous benefits because these are his voting community and he has less control of them if they are working in the private sector.    If he gets in I hope I shall be proved wrong but right now I am concerned for the economic viability of his policies.

I don’t have solutions. I think the Conservatives have made and continue to make major mistakes.  I question how on earth the second referendum promised by the LibDems will work.  Do they intend that many hundreds of people spend time and huge amounts of money discussing and negotiating an exit deal and then give the British public the right to reverse the whole thing?  How would that work with the Europeans?   Would they be happy that they had just spent two years of uncertainty that was effectively in the hands of the British people to negate?  And how can any of them state that they will stay in the single market or custom zone until they start negotiating, especially when the EU will not flex one inch on the free movement of people?

But I do worry that a Corbyn government would ruin businesses and lead far more people into poverty.  It will make the UK far less attractive a place for international businesses to operate – on top of the uncertainty they are already experiencing through BREXIT.  Trade is what keeps the peace, not idealism.  Trade has power in itself to build relationships, to employ diverse peoples and to keep the wheels of life going for the average person even through war and pestilence.  Look at how mobile phone companies keep people talking despite wars, air traffic controllers and airlines maintain flights over and into war zones.

We have tax avoidance in the cash economy, such as in construction, and in the big businesses and this needs to be addressed.  Business can be a force for the good, not evil.  The average working person is just trying to make a living, not fleece others.  Without it there will be no taxes to pay to help those people who need help – who are sick, disabled, or have fallen on hard times and need help and support to pick them up again.   We need a Prime Minister who sees how to provide support for the needy in an efficient and pragmatic way.  Anyone promising snake oil remedies must be questioned, their motives and solutions analysed to see if they are indeed workable.

Personally I believe the Coalition worked well for the country and I would like to see more cross-party projects on defence, the NHS and social care, on education.  Collaboration surely provides a forum for listening to other perspectives and for rational debate.  It has the potential to put the interests of the people and the nation above party politics.   But the parties are claiming they will not work in coalition, so we have to make our own decisions who to vote for and this is difficult.

All politicians are human and therefore flawed and fallible.  Think of Trump and how that was also a really hard choice of two people, neither of whom were popular, but I personally would have felt the US and the world to be a safer place with a pragmatic Clinton rather than the salesman Trump.  Recent elections in France, the Netherlands and Austria have provided difficult choices for their electorate too.

Vote.  Do vote.  Don’t let the challenge stop you going to the ballot box.  If you meet anyone who has lived under a repressive or authoritarian regime you will know how precious a gift a vote is.  But please don’t fall for the line that all business is bad.  It isn’t true and such propositions are bad for our country.

Share

May 10

2017

1 Responses

Comments

Helen Whitten

Posted In

Tags

books-left

“A reader lives a thousand lives.  Someone who doesn’t read only lives one.” George R.R. Martin

I was saddened to hear in a radio discussion last week that approximately 40% of prisoners are functionally illiterate.  I was shocked that this reflects an educational system that must have been incapable, over many different governments and decades, to enable pupils to leave school able to read.  If one takes the message of the quotation above, this leaves each of those individuals with only one life rather than with the possibility of living many different lives.  It leaves them stuck, often in a background with few advantages, without the ability to perceive the options available to them to start a different way of living.  We are letting them down.

Prisoners who can’t read are unlikely to get a job.  If they don’t find work it is 90% more likely that they will re-offend, which is likely to cause harm to those against whom he or she re-offends, represents a personal loss of freedom, and is a huge cost to the taxpayer.   Reading is a key that opens up opportunity.

So this got me thinking about reading and whose responsibility it is to raise the level of literacy.  Of course reading is taught in school and is the business of government and the Department of Education but it also needs to be encouraged in the home.  It is the responsibility of all those raising a child – teachers, parents, grandparents, aunts and uncles – to encourage and help that child to master this essential life skill.

It isn’t always easy to motivate a child to read but in my experience the earlier one makes it a part of daily life the more easily it becomes a habit.  I have always been a bookworm, as was my mother.  From an early age I have lost myself in magical worlds, adventures, and ideas.  I feel I have lived in different countries, taking on the lives of the characters I was reading about, whether in Russia, Africa, Peru or on another planet.  Each new chapter opened my mind to new ways of life and perceptions beyond those I had been taught at school.

It is easy for any of us to get out of the reading habit.  When I was busy with small children I didn’t find the time to read as frequently, although I was re-reading my childhood books to my sons and now read to my grandchildren.  I am also thrilled to see my six-year-old granddaughter wolfing her way through book after book since she learnt to read.

I am delighted to have more time now, as a grandmother, to return to reading.  This has made me reflect on the fact that so many of the books we read, both classics and contemporary, that influence our minds and our lives, are read before we have even begun to live life ourselves.  I look at the books on my shelf, which I feel tell the story of my identity, and realize that I read many of these as a teenager, at a time when I knew nothing of the many experiences of which the authors were writing.  And yet their ideas broadened my mind and helped me develop knowledge and understanding that I may not have achieved without them.

For me the Russian writers have been, I think, my greatest influence, writing as they did in the context of a historic or political setting and yet bringing events down to individual human experience of love, family relationships and friendships.  Sadly I can’t express myself as well as a Tolstoy or Pasternak!

At school we are generally given a reading list and I was interested to see that Andrew Halls, the Head teacher at King’s College School, Wimbledon,  has recently developed a specific reading list for his pupils that he believes can develop empathy in the boys, beyond what they experience in their digital games such as Minecraft or ninja turtles.  He has chosen books he considers to have complex characters who are leading believable lives.  “From their interactions and choices,” he said “children can learn to understand and interpret people’s motives and feelings”. Agree with his choices or not, I suspect that we can all relate to having read something that made us cry or made us angry, even though we knew the character was fictional.  This affinity we feel for a character expands our insight into other people’s lives and can develop not only empathy but also compassion and can help form the values we embrace as we grow up.

I hope that this simple but essential skill of reading continues to be taken seriously in schools and institutions.  We are better informed of the kind of difficulties children have in learning to read, such as dyslexia – in my schooldays children were just regarded as dim which was a terrible restriction to the opportunities available to them.  Thankfully today dyslexia is better understood although even now I am aware that it can be difficult to get a child tested early enough to catch them before they lose confidence or interest.  I am glad that Richard Branson has recently been promoting the fact that he has been thoroughly successful despite his dyslexia.

So, as I choose now, as we move house, which books must stay by my side, I am also selecting which books I shall read again now that I am mature and have lived more of life.  I share with you a poem, Anthology,  I wrote about the poems and books that have influenced my life.  Perhaps this will stimulate your own reflection on which books you wish to keep by your side, possibly to read again.

Who’s that knocking?
The poets.  And I, the listener,
open the door of my memory
to the sense of a book in my small hand,
the delight of being ill, off school,
a mild ailment, tucking myself in, under the cover.
I recollect the yellowing paper, a dry touch to my finger,
the smell of the pages sucking me in,
allowing me to lose myself,
spin scenes from the words.
Who’s that knocking?
It started with Walter de la Mare.

What’s that buzzing in my ears?
Jack Clemo’s Christ in the Clay-Pit
that opened my eyes to the sacred.
The fading inscription from my parents
in The Golden Treasury that sits on my shelf,
a gift on my confirmation, aged fourteen.
The thumbed pages that flap open
to Byron, Lawrence, Wordsworth, Yeats.
Happy those early days when I read
but had not experienced the touch of a lover,
the pain of a parting with silence and tears.
I scour the pages now and ask, where was Blake?

Who’s that knocking on the window,
pushing it open to consider the night,
to look at the stars, look at the skies?
Pascal, whose Pensées let in the light
to previously shuttered views of perception.
My father’s gift,  three shillings and sixpence.
Pascal’s universe  “an infinite sphere,
the centre of which is everywhere,
the circumference nowhere”
blowing my mind,
forcing me to reflect on infinity, on man with or without God.
About suffering he was not wrong.

Who’s that pricking at my conscience?
The dusty  blue book some fifty years old
still read, Pasternak, hammering always
the need for the heart of the matter,
the quest for a way, fame not a pretty sight,
success not your aim.
He the one who set my pen rolling
to emulate his words, his life,
with my teenage poetry,
still shapes my words and views,
whispers in my ear not to be an empty name
to defend my position, to be alive, myself.

Who’s that crying?
I saw my infant son die a few weeks after he was born,
Charles Lamb’s cradle-coffin verse of doom perverse beside me.
I shattered the cosiness of family life with divorce,
yet the stars have not dealt me the worst they could do.
I have travelled among unknown men,
visited fifty countries or more, through heat and dust,
through ice and Arctic Circle; Yevtushenko’s Russia,
Leopardi’s Italy, Goethe’s Germany,
and walked with Gibran in the Lebanon,
sat with Mary Oliver enjoying the sharpness of the morning
in New England.  Seen that poets must loiter in green lanes.

Who’s that knocking on the door?
The chattering of the beat poets
howling their way through the entrance in the garden wall,
while I hide beside the hollyhocks
with the Romantics at my side.
I re-read my early poems in their schoolgirl script,
interspersed with Vernon Scannell’s notes in the margin,
laugh and cry with Copus and Cope,
leave Motion untouched in the bookcase,
switch off McGough on a Sunday afternoon,
and wonder which poet will next direct my hand,
enflame my heart.

Share

May 02

2017

2 Responses

Comments

Helen Whitten

Posted In

Tags

Well, the gloves are off and we’re in the Brexit ring with no referee.  I am heartened to hear more calls now for an objective non-European mediator in these talks.   Meanwhile I have been pondering on the themes of disillusion and delusion.  I suspect there is disillusionment on all sides right now as we read of what is described as an “inauspicious beginning” to the Brexit talks.  At the same time we have probably all, both Brexiteers and Remainers alike, been deluded in some ways during the Referendum campaign:  Remainers taking the outcome for granted by only focusing on the negatives of Project Fear rather than articulating the benefits of remaining a member of the EU; Brexiteers potentially being deluded that the process would not be as disruptive as it is likely to be.

This morning I read a passage from Slavoj Zizik’s Living in the End Times (2010).  Zizik talks of how liberal democracies have, in the name of tolerance, been persistently blind to the truth that lies before their eyes.  He suggests that the more such a group has invested in the current order the more willing they are to uphold the lies.  It is only the dispossessed who can tell things exactly as they are, since they have nothing to lose.

This made me consider how leaders in the UK, Europe and US have been deluding themselves over many decades as to the sentiments existing within the populations they were governing.   Throughout these areas those who voiced a concern about the way their country was being run were patronisingly dismissed as ignorant or unenlightened.  But, as we are seeing with the events in the UK, US,  and much of Europe, when those in power high-handedly ignore legitimate concerns, the voices rise up ever more fiercely, as we are seeing in the French election.

Right now it is Theresa May who is in the negotiating ring.  She is bearing the brunt of this populist movement and its outcome in our country and I don’t envy her one bit.  Like her or not, support her or not, she didn’t vote for Brexit but stepped forward and is tasked with the responsibility of endeavouring to make the best deal she can for the UK.   Whatever our political colours – and I am not a party-political-animal – it is in all our interests that these talks are successful for us and for our allies.  It isn’t a time for sniping, it is a time when we need our leaders to be wise and act in the best interests of the world and those they govern.

Of course May and her team have made mistakes as they enter talks.  It is easy for Corbyn (who is presenting himself as the hero of Remainers despite being near invisible during the Referendum campaign) and Farron, on the sidelines, to point fingers and say what they would do differently.  But I am not convinced that they would be any more effective negotiators themselves.  And the leaders of all the parties, together with the leaders of the EU, have played their part in getting us to this point by deluding themselves that those they governed were more content than they were with the status quo.  It would be good to see some humility being expressed with how wrongly they read this but I am not hearing it.

Juncker may say that May is deluded but quite frankly, as Emmanuel Macron is pointing out, those in Brussels have been deluding themselves for years in refusing to see the need for reform.  In conversations on the subject, I have not heard any great enthusiasm for returning to an unreformed EU, even from those who voted Remain.  It isn’t just the UK that has been disillusioned – there are plenty in France, Hungary, Poland and other EU countries who also see the need for reform, as Macron is now demanding, should he be elected President of France on 7 May.  But, having failed to influence change in the years leading up to 2016, it was the UK who verbalised and acted on the disillusionment that many others were also feeling.

I for one am disillusioned that the leaders who brought their countries together in this alliance did not have the foresight to create a formal exit strategy that defined a just process of withdrawal.  In business any contract bringing companies together in collaboration, mergers and partnerships includes a structured process of exit for those involved, just as the courts provide a fair strategy for exit from a marriage.  Why has no one put this in place over these many years, I wonder?  It seems incredibly irresponsible as any country wanting to exit (and while it happens to be the UK, it could have been any one of the countries) is basically held to ransom by the power and might of the union of so-called partners they are leaving behind.  Would Juncker’s barbed remarks be so easily tolerated if he were describing the exit of a poorer country such as Bulgaria?  How might Brussels respond should Frexit occur?  Would they accept more responsibility for having created the situation, or would they continue to treat disillusioned countries as if they are the naughty child at the back of the class?

We shall surely seek a trade deal with the EU but I find the threats about how long this could take quite bewildering.  Who benefits from delay other than the well-paid bureaucrats and lawyers tasked with these talks?  Brussels almost boast of  the Trade Treaty with Canada having taken twenty years, but surely this actually demonstrates an abject failure if a trade deal with a country like Canada takes this length of time to conclude?  I accept that it is complex – but twenty years?  This certainly hasn’t been a benefit for the tax payers of the countries involved who are paying the legal bills.

I have no great confidence in any of the negotiators involved in the Brexit talks, whether from the UK or the EU but some form of an alliance between our countries is of great value to us all – for trade, security, research, science, defence and friendship.  The current posturing we are witnessing on both sides is certainly disillusioning and I hope that the tone will change to one of enlightened collaboration as talks progress.

My fear is that we are on the brink of a change that will benefit few but that those on all sides are too stuck and stubborn to flex sufficiently to resolve these complicated problems.   Despite the unity shown between the remaining 27 countries at the Brexit meeting to agree principles on Saturday, Brussels nonetheless still faces the prospect of the challenge of disillusion from France and the Eastern European bloc.  If they don’t take a good honest look at themselves and respond, we could still witness the break-up of the EU and they would not be able to lay the blame for this at the feet of the UK alone.  Brussels would have to take responsibility for their own tardy reaction and intransigence.  I hope that doesn’t happen.  I hope that wisdom will prevail to make the changes necessary to  maintain peace and cooperation in Europe.

There’s plenty to criticise about Mrs May’s approach but I wouldn’t wish to be her, standing as she does, totally outnumbered in the ring.  It will no doubt be the steepest learning curve of her life and I hope that she listens to many perspectives and keeps an open mind to the possibilities and opportunities that profit all as the weeks go by.   This brings to mind this quote from Theodore Roosevelt:

“It is not the critic who counts; not the man who points out where the strong man stumbled or where the doer of deeds could have done better.  The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena whose face is marred, with dust, and sweat and blood…who, at best he knows the triumph of high achievement; who, at the worst, if he fails, at least fails while daring greatly; so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who knew neither victory nor defeat.”   [Excerpt from the speech “Citizenship In A Republic” delivered at the Sorbonne, in Paris, France on 23 April, 1910]

And of course I should mention, for the politically-correct requirements of our era, that although Roosevelt uses the word ‘man’ I see this quote as encompassing all of humankind …

Share