 Here is one quote from my book Media Is Us that I really like: "In order to know the universe we all share, it is essential to acknowledge that we live in overlapping but distinct worlds. Accepting that none of us can fully access the objective reality and respecting each other’s versions of it brings us one step closer to understanding what this reality actually is" (p. 45).
0 Comments
"Looking at modern technologies - which seem to evolve every day - it is easy to think that the way we communicate now is fundamentally different from how our ancestors used to communicate hundreds of years ago. Indeed, many things are different, but it would be wrong to assume that in the 21st century we interact, learn, and get entertained like nobody did before..." Click to see the post on Goodreads.   One day, between the flowers and the sky,
I met the most amazing butterfly. It sat in my hand, waiting to be caught, And all I knew was that it caught my heart. This butterfly became my precious friend, Our happiness, I felt, would never end. First, I carried my friend around. Her feet were still unsteady on the ground. I fed her and I slowly watched her grow. I taught her things that she did not yet know. My friend became as strong and tall as me. She could explore all things that she could be. My work was done, and now it was my turn To take the love she offered in return. She fed me patiently as I was growing small. She taught me things that I could not recall. My feet were now unsteady on the ground. She smiled to me and carried me around. It was so warm and cozy in her hand. Our happiness, I felt, would never end. One day, between the flowers and the sky, It was my turn to be a butterfly. Click here to read the story of the poem and watch a video.  Do you know that media existed already in Ancient Egypt?
This is not some kind of pseudoscientific hypothesis claiming that pharaohs received knowledge from extraterrestrial beings. When we say “media”, we usually imagine screens, algorithms, and printed pages. But why limit ourselves to modern technology?.. Read more on Goodreads!  *This is a new entry of my project about power!
SPOILER ALERT: This page contains spoilers about the plot and characters of Disney's Encanto. Disney's Encanto (2021) provides a great opportunity to discuss nuances of individual power (micropower). More specifically, Encanto can be used to illustrate possible misperceptions of power related to intentions behind our actions. In Encanto, we are introduced to a colorful cast of characters. The Family Madrigal song tells us about their "gifts" or "powers": The mood of Mirabel's aunt Pepa affects the weather. Uncle Bruno could see the future (and then he disappeared). Mirabel's mother Julieta is able to heal people with meals she cooks. Cousin Dolores has exceptional hearing. Cousin Camilio can shapeshift and take the form of any person. Mirabel's sister Isabela is an incarnation of perfection, and her sister Louisa is so strong she can lift a house. Later in the movie, Mirabel's cousin Antonio begins to understand the language of animals. Despite the wording of the introductory song, as the movie progresses, we discover that not all of these "gifts" are actually forms of power. What matters is whether a particular character is able to use their magical abilities intentionally or not. Intentionality can be defined as "the fact of being deliberate or purposive." The key aspects of intentionality are choice and self-awareness: an intentional action is the one that a person decides to do. I believe that individual power (micropower) is impossible without intentionality. In other words, using our individual power means making choices and being aware of this fact. If the combination of choice and self-awareness is not present, we cannot describe actions as a manifestation of power or request full accountability for these actions. It turns out that not all of the characters of Encanto can use their gifts intentionally. Julieta, Camilio, Antonio, and Louisa appear to be in control of their abilities and can make a choice to use them when necessary. Julieta can decide when to cook a meal and for whom. Camilio shapeshifts for fun or to entertain people. Antonio listens to animals in order to learn what they know, or to hear what they have to say. Louisa uses her physical strength to lift things that need to be moved or fixed. Isabela's case is slightly different. In the beginning of the film, we learn that she is perfect in every way. Her perfection manifests through movements, appearance, and the fact that she can grow beautiful flowers literally out of nothing. As the movie progresses, Isabela discovers that she does not have to be perfect and to create perfection around her. She learns to grow all sorts of plants in order to express how she is feeling in the moment. Isabela's power is about creativity, and it displays all the characteristics of intentionality. This is not the case for Pepa, Bruno, and Dolores. These characters do not use their "gifts" on purpose. Effects of these magical "abilities" just happen to them, often creating problems. Pepa's mood affects the weather. When she is happy, the sun is shining. When she is anxious, sad, or angry, a personal little cloud spewing rain, snow or even thunder appears over her head. Pepa clearly does not choose to have this additional nuisance. In the case of uncle Bruno, unpleasant visions of the future appear to haunt him, which has made this character an outcast and somewhat mentally unstable. Similarly, Dolores cannot turn her super-hearing on or off at will. She just has to hear everything around her, whether she wants it or not. In my opinion, giving to Pepa, Bruno, and Dolores such "gifts" was an oversight that created irreparable plot holes. Their so-called "powers" are curses rather than blessings. This is especially evident in the case of Dolores. Since she cannot choose what to hear and what not to, her life must be a constant hell of sensory overload. Some commentators pointed out the awkwardness of having super-hearing in a house with two married couples. On top of that, towards the end of the movie we find out (in passing) that Dolores knew all along about the long-lost uncle Bruno living inside the house walls. Under the circumstances, Dolores appears strangely calm and indifferent. This obvious inconsistency led to the creation of fan theories arguing that she is a real villain of the story: she wanted to destroy the house in order to stop her sensory suffering. Indeed, these theories seem plausible, but most probably because the film creators did not think the details through. Why is it so important to talk about intentionality when we are discussing the nature of power? As I point out throughout this hypertext book, power is an often-misunderstood aspect of the human condition. Misunderstanding of power means misunderstanding oneself and others. In particular, the misperception comes when we see power as something monolithic, almost like a thing that one either has or does not. In contrast, I argue that power exists at the intersection of each person's individual characteristics, circumstances, actions, and connections with others. Because this intersection is ever-changing and hard to grasp, the line between power vs. powerlessness is blurry and hard to define. Encanto's example demonstrates how we can mistakenly consider something to be a person's power if we do not take into consideration this person's self-aware choices. Why is thinking about intentionality so important as we are trying to understand power? If we do not consider the intentionality, we might think that a certain person has control over something, when in fact she doesn't. This can become a problem, because when we think that somebody has control over something, it is easy to blame them when things go wrong. When we think that something is within another person's power while it actually isn't, blaming them is unhelpful and unproductive. On the other hand, when we notice intentionality in our actions and actions of others, this allows us to hold ourselves or others accountable for choices we make - and to learn how to make different choices. Taking into consideration intentionality, we can see why machines and algorithms do not have power, even though people can be impacted by their workings. Note that machine is defined as "an apparatus using or applying mechanical power and having several parts, each with a definite function and together performing a particular task" - but this is not the same as social power that characterises people and their relationships, so we cannot hold machines or algorithms accountable for the impact they have. However, we can certainly discuss the accountability of their creators, or invite them to make different choices. Animals also do not have power in the sense that people do. Animal's behaviour is mostly guided by instincts; no matter how intelligent they are, they do not make the same kind of self-aware choices that characterise human actions. This is why, when we hear about trials involving animals, we raise our eyebrows. Such trials do not make sense in the context of what we know about animal behavior today. We cannot hold animals accountable for their actions in the same way as do with humans. However, people cannot be held accountable for all of their actions simply by the virtue of being human. First, we are an animal species and we are often guided by instincts and emotions beyond our full understanding or control. Second, our actions are to a great extent shaped by our circumstances. I do believe that individuals have at least a certain amount of free will, otherwise intentionality would not be possible to begin with. However, it can be legitimately difficult to determine where power ends and powerlessness begins. Intentionality is the clue that helps us see whether power is involved and whether we can request some accountability. Influence itself is not a sufficient criterion. For example, mental illness clearly is not a power of the person who has it. Actions of a person that has mental illness can have an impact on others, but we cannot hold this person fully accountable for their actions because choice and awareness are often lacking. Nobody decides to have mental illness, so actions of a mentally ill person are not entirely free, even if it appears that this person is making choices. Intentionality characterizes individual power (micropower), which, according to my theory, has two main forms: ability and influence. Let's consider power as ability first. Intentionally using our physical abilities is fundamental for being human, or, more specifically, for being a living human being. A person whose body fulfills basic physical functions without choice and awareness is as good as dead; this person does not have the true ability to act. The confusing part is that an ability can be a function of our body when used unintentionally, but become a form of power when intentionality is involved. Here is how we can describe this differentiation in the case of seeing: On the most basic level, bodily function exists without intentionality. If somebody forces my eyes to be open, I will see, even if I don’t want to see. This is not a form of power (seeing what I do not want to see happens to me, I do not make a choice to see). Intentional use of this same ability makes it a form of power: I can choose what to look at. Understanding how the ability works allows me to hone my skills. For example, I can train myself to notice certain things while ignoring others (develop attention to certain details). Here is another example: We do not talk about the "power of breathing" when we discuss the bodily process that is indispensable for being alive. However, we can talk about purposefully practicing different ways to breathe: for example, slowing down or focusing on our breathing as part of a meditation. In this case, it makes sense to talk about the power of breathing, as we choose to breathe in a certain way. Learning to routinely breathe in a certain way is also a form of power, even if sometimes, as a result of this learning, we may breathe this way without thinking about it. By the same token, other physical abilities can become a form of power when used intentionally. For example, speaking becomes a form of power when I choose to speak to some people and to say certain things; walking becomes a form of power when I choose to walk in a certain direction in order to achieve specific goals. These and other physical abilities become power when I consider them as skills that require deeper understanding and improvement. (Notice how this difference is expressed through language in the case of some abilities, for example when we compare seeing to looking, or hearing to listening). What about individual power as influence? According to my interpretation, power as influence has always something to do with limited resources, which are related to having, doing, and being. Let's review these three aspects. 1) Having: There is only one apple on the table. If we both want it, but I get it, I have the power in this scenario. 2) Doing: If I want to do A and you want to do B, by making sure that we do B you assert your power in this situation. 3) Being: In each little corner of the universe, things can exist only in one specific way (imagining other ways requires bringing in the concept of multiple universes). If I shape the way things are, even if this seems as mundane as choosing to put a table in one room of my house as opposed to another room, I exercise my power. As I already mentioned above, we can think of situations where influence does not equal power, for example, mental illness. Another example would be acting under the influence of strong emotions that one cannot control. In all other cases, when we make self-aware choices, we appear to be using our power, and we should be held accountable for our actions. However, the scholarship into complexities of free will suggests that the issue of accountability should be approached with caution. Although we can say that, in most cases, our influence comes with some degree of choice and awareness, our freedom to choose and awareness about our choices are not absolute. As I previously mentioned, we do not fully control our circumstances or are aware of how they shape our decisions. The other day, I was looking at my footstep in the snow. If me leaving this footprint is a form of power, this would be power as influence. More specifically, it is the form of influence that I classify as being. Crystal of snow can be piled up in one certain way at a time, so if I step on them, I determine how they are. But is my footprint in the snow really a manifestation of my power? Same as in the case of power as ability, the differences between influence coming from a bodily function (not power) and influence as a result of awareness and choice (power) are subtle. Walking is, after all, a function of our body on the most basic level, but it becomes a form of power when we decide how to walk and in what direction. Following this logic, leaving a footstep in the snow is not necessarily a manifestation of power, unless I did it intentionally (stepped in a certain place in a certain way for a certain reason). Related to my footprint example, the famous short story by Ray Bradbury A Sound of Thunder (spoilers ahead) offers more food for thought. In this story, adventurous hunters from the year 2055 use services of a time-travelling safari to visit the era of dinosaurs. One of the hunters, Eckels, panics and does what he was not supposed to do: get off of a special levitating path and stumble into a prehistoric forest. He is eventually able to find his way to the time machine. Upon returning to the future, characters discover that, because Eckels stepped on a butterfly while running through the forest, the course of history has been changed. If you think of it, stepping on a butterfly was not even necessary. The fact that Eckels left footprints, and probably broke some plans while running through the forest, should have been enough for him to affect the course of history. In this story, we can see a combination of free choice and circumstances affect character’s decisions. Eckels made the choice to engage in the time-travelling safari. He did not make the choice to jump off the path (he was influenced by emotions) but he did decide to walk toward the time machine. He is accountable for changing the future at least to some extent. A safari guide named Travis, believing that Eckels is fully accountable for what he has done, shoots him in the last line of the story. However, we can question Travis's judgement. After all, there was a degree of powerlessness in Eckels's actions. In addition, Travis himself made a choice to offer this safari as a service, so he should also be held accountable for what has happened to the world as a result of Eckels's blunder. Eckels’s history-changing footprints are much more significant that my own footprint on the snow. But we should remember that sometimes a seemingly insignificant act can have important impact over time, especially in combination with actions of many other people (for example, think of the act of throwing a piece of trash on the ground). I did not make the decision to leave the footprint, but I did make the decision to walk in the snow. Our acts, even the seemingly smaller and insignificant ones, can have a ripple effect that will remain unknown to individuals who took these actions. At the same time, many of these acts involve at least some level of choice and awareness - although this is not the awareness of the ripple effect or the choice to have this effect to begin with. *** To sum it up: I define individual power as a combination of one's abilities and influences; taking intentionality into consideration allows me to specify that individual power (micropower) is a combination of one's abilities and influences used intentionally. Because full awareness of all our actions is impossible, and because our choices are only partially free, individual power always coexists to a certain degree with powerlessness. This complicates (but not eliminates) the need to acknowledge responsibility and hold ourselves and others accountable for our actions. Following the logic of intentionality, I argue that our power ends at the point where we cannot possibly have awareness of the full scope of consequences of our choices.  During the last year of my doctoral program, I spent several weeks in a Rhode Island high school, talking to students who were learning to recognize stereotypes in popular culture. Most of my focus group participants clearly enjoyed classes where they were analyzing magazines and animated films. However, sometimes they said things that left me confused. These young people were worried about stereotypes and at the same time emotionally attached to them. What’s more, they seemed to be unaware of this inconsistency. In my dissertation, I decided to call this phenomenon “half-changed minds”...
Continue reading here!  “I will be the bad guy and you will be the good guy,” I hear my 5-year-old son explaining to his 7-year-old brother. “I will be running away, and you will be trying to get me!” They start chasing each other around the floor, laughing with excitement. Sounds like fun, but I have a nagging concern...
Read the full text here!  Image credit: Pauline Baynes
*This is a new entry of my hypertext book Me, Looking for Meaning. SPOILER ALERT: This page contains spoilers about book series The Chronicles of Narnia. In the last book of the famous fantasy series The Chronicles of Narnia, the reader finds out how the end of Narnia was inadvertently triggered by actions of two unlikely friends. C.S. Lewis starts his seventh volume, titled The Last Battle, by introducing to us a donkey named Puzzle and an ape named Shift. By manipulating the naive Puzzle into wearing a lion's skin they have found together, Shift intends to persuade everybody in Narnia and beyond that Aslan - the lionlike creator of the book's world - has come back and asked Shift to rule Narnia on his behalf. Considering that the series was written to introduce children to the values of true Christianity (according to C.S. Lewis), it is not difficult to see that the author meant Shift to represent corruption of the church, the institution that can pretend to connect people to God while scaring them into submission for the benefit of the clergy. The names chosen by C.S. Lewis speak for themselves. The verb “puzzle" means "cause someone to feel confused because they cannot understand or make sense of something"; the donkey is, indeed, quite confused until the very end of the story, when he realizes what he has done and repents. "Shifty", on the other hand, is a word to describe somebody as "appearing deceitful or evasive", which is exactly how the ape shows himself in this story (he is not spared by the wrath of Aslan when this feline deity finally interferes). By tying the fall of Narnia to the choices made by Shift and Puzzle, C.S. Lewis's story simultaneously reveals and feeds into a popular perception: problems come from actions of those who are stupid and/or mean. If you wonder whether you yourself share this view, this is easy to test. Think of a person whose words/actions have recently angered, saddened, frustrated, or irritated you. It can be your family member, a politician, or somebody you work with. Maybe it is a person who cut you off on the highway earlier today, or a rude sales assistant who could not (or did not want?) to help you resolve a problem last week. You might imagine a bureaucrat who refused to stamp a document you really needed. Or somebody on social media who wrote a rude comment to your post. Whoever comes to mind, make sure that your emotions are real and strong. Now see if any of the following two phrases sums up your feelings about the person in question: "What a jerk!"..."What an idiot!" The second expression is pretty self-explanatory: idiot = stupid. As for "jerk", according to Merriam-Webster, it is "an annoyingly stupid or foolish person" and "an unlikable person, especially one who is cruel, rude, or small-minded". So "jerk" is actually "mean and stupid" conveniently rolled into one. Notice also that when you are deep in such emotional states as anger, frustration, sadness, or fear, you may not be willing to go beyond the mean/stupid explanation of the other person’s actions. Making this effort seems counterproductive (“He/she is just a horrible person! There is nothing else to it.") or even insulting (“Why would I waste my time trying to understand this idiot?!”). When we decide that somebody is just mean or stupid, we close our mind to an opportunity to look for any other reasons. I recall texting a friend sometime after a presidential election (won't tell you which one); in response to my regular “What’s up?”, he shared how frustrated he was that half of the country did not want, in his words, "to turn their brains on." The tendency to blame problems on mean and stupid people can be expressed through many different words. It can disguise itself in sophisticated language of comparisons and metaphors. But don't be fooled. Whenever we refer to somebody's moral failings or intellectual deficiencies, it's the same old "mean and stupid" idea dressed up in a different suit. If you pay close attention to what other people say when they discuss their personal challenges and big social problems, I bet you will notice this idea popping up with some regularity. To be fair, "mean" and "stupid" are not the only labels we use to describe people whose actions we feel strongly about. Other possibilities include "lazy", "sick", "greedy", "biased", "insensitive", "selfish", "just doesn't care", or "just a bad person." What all these words and phrases have in common is that they prevent us from seeing individuals behind them. Despite this variety, "mean" and "stupid" are the most popular labels, in my opinion. The division of people into "good vs. evil" and "clever vs. ignorant" are the most basic tropes in stories we tell ourselves and others about the world. It is important to consider several assumptions hiding behind these labels: 1) Mean people hurt others on purpose and often enjoy the process. 2) Stupid people have inferior intellectual abilities, so they do not understand how they hurt others. 3) Stupid and (especially) mean people are responsible for their failings; therefore, it is acceptable to blame them for their actions. 4) "I [the person making the judgment] can make mistakes, but I am not essentially stupid or bad." The last assumption is a manifestation of the cognitive bias known as fundamental attribution error. As it is summed up here, "we judge others on their personality or fundamental character, but we judge ourselves on a situation. [Example:] Sally is late to class; she's lazy. [I'm] late to class; it was a bad morning." Most people prefer to think about themselves as good and smart, which means that they don't hurt others and they make good judgments most of the time. The fact that you sometimes recognize a mistake you made does not mean that you go through life convinced that you make mistakes on every step. This allows you not to see yourself as fundamentally stupid. By the same token, most people do not like it when somebody calls them "bad person." So, in your own mind you are not essentially mean and stupid (otherwise you would be advised to get a therapist and do some serious work on yourself). Coupled with the belief that only mean and stupid people hurt others, you would most probably argue that you do not hurt others most of the time. Life is more complicated than any labels and binaries. People do not hurt each other because they are mean and stupid (or selfish, or lazy, or greedy). C.S. Lewis most probably did not think about himself as any of these things, yet his well-meaning stories contributed to ideologies of colonialism and racism. In his famous series, dark-skinned people residing to the South of Narnia are presented as inferior to light-skinned and fair-haired northerners, and to the British visitors. The newcomers from England are summoned to Narnia multiple times to save it and sometimes even to rule over it. Last but not least, it is never explained why everybody in the magical world (including animals) speaks English. When we strongly believe that only mean and stupid individuals (which we are not) can hurt others, we very conveniently ignore how we can actually cause pain and discomfort to those around us. It's not uncommon for people to be consumed with their own emotional pain to the point that they miss other people's unmet needs. It's also not uncommon for people to suppress their empathy and knowingly hurt others for a variety of complex reasons (e.g., soldiers who are told to fight the enemy). Even though some of us may be more attuned to feelings and needs of others, or find it more difficult to suppress empathy in themselves, I believe that all of us sometimes lack understanding and sensitivity. Labeling people whose actions we dislike is unfair and unproductive, and it also means ignoring complexities of free will. We blame mean people for their insensitive actions, and we suspect that even stupid people could get smarter if they were more open to learning. But can we really say that individuals can make a conscious choice to understand things the way they do, or that everybody can fully comprehend the impact of their actions? Can we give some people credit for being more empathic than others? It's highly possible that characteristics we so simplistically call "smart", "stupid", "mean" and "kind" are shaped by circumstances outside of people's control.  I like this picture because it is interesting and confusing at the same time: "What is going on here?" Several things seem to be happening at once. They are connected, but how?
I took this picture in the summer of 2019 during a trip to Cambridge, UK. In one of the rooms of King's College Chapel, I found this display explaining architectural features of the building. Somehow, a combination of mirrors and models created this strange and beautiful view, which I decided to capture. My first book finally came out a year after this trip (it had been more than five years in the making). I was happy but not entirely satisfied, since I knew that, to create the linear narrative, I had to leave outside many ideas that seemed important to explore. In fact, I had thought about some of these ideas during my trip to Cambridge, and I even decided that the next book I would write will be about meanings (I distinctly remember that I made this decision as I was inside King's College Chapel). But how would that solve my problem? I knew that to write another coherent book, I would again have to sacrifice many possible directions that my intellectual journey could take. I was interested in so many things at once, and they all seemed to be somehow connected to my main quest - to understand how people can be more connected and less divided. I kept thinking about this dilemma, until one day the following winter, I had a wild idea: I would explore all the topics and ideas simultaneously! That is how my first hypertext project Me, Looking for Meaning began in February 2021. And in November 2021, I launched my second hypertext POWER of meanings // MEANINGS of power on a separate website. Hypertext book is a nonlinear format that requires a digital form and a number of pages/entries connected through links. This format allows me to achieve several goals. I can explore very different ideas and connections between them without worrying (for now) about weaving my investigation into a coherent narrative that unites all these ideas. I can organize thoughts and stories related to my exploration. For this purpose, I create draft entries and use them to keep notes. Once in a while, I choose a draft page and complete it. This way, my creative process is gradual, organic (I write down ideas once I have them, sometimes every day), and open to the reader. When I was writing my print book Media Is Us, nobody could see the evolution of my writing. With hypertexts, readers can see my books in the making. Sometimes I worry that my creative process might appear messy and incomprehensible to visitors of my websites. My commitment to vulnerability allows me to show my raw creative process to strangers, but it's not easy (especially because I am also an editor, and editors are not supposed to be messy with their writing). The picture that I chose to illustrate this page reminds me that complexity can be beautiful, even when it is confusing. I would not be surprised to know that most (if not all) people who land on my websites ask themselves "What is going on here?" I suspect that many may not find a satisfactory answer and leave. But I decided that I will remain true to my creative process; I hope that, if this page has tapped into your curiosity, you will learn something from my intellectual journey.  "A few weeks ago, I was walking down the street when a small accident about thirty feet away drew my attention. At the traffic light, one car slightly but distinctly 'kissed' the bumper of the vehicle in front of it. An unpleasant interaction between two strangers seemed about to begin. The tailgater looked, indeed, agitated. He smacked his wheel and cursed loudly. A woman got out of the other car and made a few steps towards the vehicle behind her. Passing right by the accident, I shivered slightly, imagining what the woman was about to say.
It was not what I expected..." To read the rest, click here! |