The strange sad thing about human social interactions is this: despite being the ``social animals'' that we claim to be, the concept of being ``social'' itself is suspect. For instance, most of the interactions that we have with most people tend to be of the shallow sort, also known as the ``hi-bye'' type of social interaction. Not that this is wrong, but I find that this is rather counterintuitive to what one would normally associate with the semantics of being ``social''.
To a large degree, the increased use of technology in both communications and transportation can be considered the real reasons why this phenomenon is happening. Long ago, few would travel farther than their immediate surroundings, since the relatively egalitarian society (and lack of the ability to travel!) meant that most of what a person would require to live on is available there. Fast forward a few hundred years, and we find ourselves in the current situation, where people are flying all over the world conducting business and recreation, where unless one is from a really backwater country, there is a substantial number of goods that are available are from other parts of the world, imported through the extensive transportation network that took a few hundred years to build up and maintain.
But what has all these got to do with why people are less socially intimate with each other? Well, the answer is rather straightforward---there's just too many people to meet, too many places to go and too many things to work on to be able to invest the time (and other opportunity costs!) necessary to establish a more intimate social relationship other than the ``hi-bye'' variety. Gone were the days when neighbours would actually visit each other just to talk about all things great and small, gone are the days where people actually knew who were living around them. Each household is an isloated one, and runs independently on how the world actually works. Extended families are no longer as close to each other, and in many cases, people are turning to professional help for their needs, as opposed to the tradition of seeking one's relatives for help first.
Is this a bad thing then? Like many arguments, the answer to this one is highly subjective. On the one hand, being exposed to the world and thus meeting other people/cultures is a great way of improving one's role as a global citizen. On the other hand, that people only know each other superficially means that the support network in times of catastrophe can be flaky at best, since one would be unlikely to risk one's life and limb in order to help someone whom they do not know ``close enough''.
But for now, enough of the rather pretentious air that I seem to be evoking by talking about the world at large. Let's talk about me. I don't really like the whole superficial socialisation business; to me, it is a symbol of devaluation of what it means to be human. Suddenly people are not seen for who they are, but by just what they can do. Ever heard of that ``super-star'' person who gets away with almost anything just because he/she is really good at what he/she does, even though he/she is a complete and utterly terrible person who tyrannises the people they work with? I've seen these kinds of people before, and I guess that their behaviour is partially influenced by the fact that the world works on very superficial social situations. Of course I can argue in the other direction---how many people are out there in decision-making positions who are really incompetent by are they simply because they make themselves look as though the people know them really well?
Social interactions as a whole then is rather complicated to define and practise, particularly under this rapid globalisation context where people just don't hang around long enough for others to truly learn more about them. The phrase ``life in the fast lane'' comes to mind each time I think about how people are just putting on a show for everyone else to see, simply because they don't really know how best to carry themselves in front of others. Sadly, this ``show business'' is also used heavily among people who are supposed to be intimate with each other, like couples. That could possibly be the reason why divorce rates are so high in many developed countries; people get into a ``serious'' relationship based on the charade they see, and when time wears on and the charade disintegrates, all that is left is the bareness of an immature soul that only knows how to make people like them and not know how to be themselves.
Many have called me tactless, and of course I agree with them. That is not the complete truth, however, since my ``tactlessness'' does not appear where it ``counts'' socially, i.e. when I am truly expected to put on a show for others (like in a business setting for example). I am candid when I am with people whom I think that I can trust, and being candid means that I do not bar the expression of my feelings and thoughts to these people. And all these explains why I have decided to stay out of #cslounge from now on. Don't get me wrong, it is a nice place to talk about things of all sorts and to listen to various perspectives of people. But then there's this problem of being a clique---they are from #cslounge and are thus ``better'' than those of us who are not on that place. A look through the logs will show this to be the case in general throughout the history of the place. I am there, but I am not there, which is a rather strong distinction that I think I must say. Not that I don't like the people on #cslounge, but that at this point, they don't need me, and I don't need them either. Might as well stay away since there is nothing of importance being lost. I mean, in a year, they would not remember me, we would be doing divergent activities, and life still goes on differently for all of us. And I never really felt the need to conform to their philosophy and will; there are other more interesting things that I can do (and I should!).
Alright, enough talk on the nature of human social interaction. I'm getting sick of writing about this topic already. Till next time.
No comments:
Post a Comment