Open Thinkering

Menu

Month: June 2021

How we spend our days is, of course, how we spend our lives

Fiery sunset

My experience of the pandemic is so bound up with my experience of therapy that I assumed my experience was relatively unique and therefore not particularly worth sharing. However, a tweet that I stumbled across last week made me rethink that assumption:

A younger Doug might have been fired up by this to think about the literal and metaphorical mountains I could conquer. However, if there’s one thing that therapy and the pandemic has taught me, it’s to reflect on what I actually do and who I actually am, rather than conjure castles in the sky.


Yesterday, an article that was going to end up as link fodder for Thought Shrapnel got me thinking about this a bit further. What if this is actually a pivotal moment in time? What if we’ve collectively poked a hole in reality, looked through, and now have to decide whether we want to ‘stick’ or ‘twist’? What would that mean for me individually, for the society I live in, for us as a species?

In a much-shared article for The Atlantic entitled I’m Not Scared to Reenter Society. I’m Just Not Sure I Want To, Tim Kreider explains eloquently what many of us have experienced over the last few months:

“For the last year,” a friend recently wrote to me, “a lot of us have been enjoying unaccustomed courtesy and understanding from the world.” When people asked how you were doing, no one expected you to say “Fine.” Instead, they asked, “How are you holding up?” and you’d answer, “Well, you know.” (That “you know” encompassed a lot that was left unspoken: deteriorating mental health, physical atrophy, creeping alcoholism, unraveling marriages, touch starvation, suicidal ideation, collapse-of-democracy anxiety, Hadean boredom and loneliness, solitary rages and despair.) You could admit that you’d accomplished nothing today, this week, all year. Having gotten through another day was a perfectly respectable achievement. I considered it a pass-fail year, and anything you had to do to get through it—indulging inappropriate crushes, strictly temporary addictions, really bad TV—was an acceptable cost of psychological survival. Being “unable to deal” was a legitimate excuse for failing to answer emails, missing deadlines, or declining invitations. Everyone recognized that the situation was simply too much to be borne without occasionally going to pieces. This has, in fact, always been the case; we were just finally allowed to admit it.

The world has felt like a kinder place over the last year, partly because people have let their guard down knowing that we’re all in the same boat. For me personally, that’s made it easier for me to slowly take off the ‘mask’, which my therapist explained I tend to use as a protective mechanism. The pandemic has silver linings, it would appear.

There’s another paragraph in Kreider’s article that I also want to share because it captures something important that I haven’t seen or heard people discuss. We marinate in the juices of a society that tells us hustling is the way to ‘make it’ in life and that this is something to be encouraged or emulated. But… is it?

When I was younger, I had more incentive to thwart my own sloth and return to the productive world; I had ambitions yet to achieve. But I’ve since achieved a lot of those ambitions, and in the past year, they have all evaporated, as if they’d never happened. I know from experience that I can, with great effort and discipline, claw my way back to a baseline. Let’s say I do—I get off the couch, turn off the TV, start writing again, apply for teaching jobs, get another book contract. What Couch Guy wants to know is: What’s my reward for all of that? What’s the big payoff? Will it be as good as lying on the couch watching TV?

I’m not sure if I’m supposed to say this out loud, but at forty, I’ve achieved most of what I set out to achieve in life. I have little desire for riches or fame. I’ve got a wonderful wife and two lovely children. We’re financially stable, live in a nice place, and are in reasonably good health. I have a terminal degree that allows me to change my honorific. I’ve travelled to lots of amazing places.

As I keep telling my children, the amount of money, power, and prestige that society bestows upon people is only tenuously related (at best) to the importance of the thing they spend their time doing. I’m pretty sure I’ve told them the story of the fisherman and the businessman several times at this point. None of this is to besmirch ambition, but rather to encourage them to steer a healthy path between hedonism and delayed gratification.

To quote Kreider again:

More and more people have noticed that some of the basic American axioms—that hard work is a virtue, productivity is an end in itself—are horseshit. I’m remembering those science-fiction stories in which someone accidentally sees behind the facade of their blissful false reality to the grim dystopia they actually inhabit.

I’m not sure these are ‘American’ axioms so much as a Protestant work ethic that permeates western culture. Either way, the shiny false consciousness encouraged by our advertising-fuelled culture turns out to be paper-thin when you expose it to any kind of scrutiny.

“How we spend our days is, of course, how we spend our lives” wrote Annie Dillard. Like many people, I spend my lives moving between various screens for work, rest, or play. The pandemic has exposed as a lie the story I tell myself that I’d be reading academic philosophy if other things didn’t get in the way. I’ve had plenty of time to do that recently, and instead I play video games and write introspective blog posts.

Is that a bad thing? Perhaps I’m just dormant?

¯\_ (ツ)_/¯


Photo taken by me in Iceland in December 2019, just before the pandemic.

The lie of ‘sovereign individuality’

Five years ago I was working in London a couple of days every week. As many people know, London is like a different country to the rest of the UK, so I wasn’t surprised to observe different working practices, dress codes, and advertising.

This one had me scratching my head a bit:

Billboard advert: "Legal name fraud. The Truth. It's illegal to use a legal name."  Photo via the BBC.

So I looked it up and found that it has to do with ‘sovereign individuality’ and had elements of a classic conspiracy theory. The BBC explains it in more detail here:

When your parents registered your birth on the certificate, it insists, they unknowingly gave the Crown Corporation ownership of your name. “Simply thus, all legal names are owned by the Crown, and therefore using a legal name without their written permission is fraud.”

Does this interpretation of the law have any validity? “Absolutely not. Absolutely none at all,” says barrister, law blogger and lecturer Carl Gardner. “It’s a kind of brew of pseudo-legal ideas. It’s the equivalent of thinking Harry Potter is science.”

It’s back in the news this week after a former professional footballer used the bonkers theory to try and defend himself when found in breach of COVID-19 regulations.

There’s another BBC News article about others who have tried something similar during the pandemic here:

Sinead Quinn owns a hair salon in Oakenshaw near Bradford. She attempted to open the shop during lockdown, putting a sign in the window declaring that Article 61 of Magna Carta allowed her to opt out of the law and that she “does not consent”.

She now owes nearly £20,000 in fines and costs after repeatedly trying to defy coronavirus laws.

Ms Quinn is one of a small number of business owners who have tried to use an obsolete clause in the 800-year-old charter of rights to insist on their freedom to reopen.

Such attempts are part of a larger “pseudolaw” movement – the use of non-existent or outdated legal arguments to defend a case – which goes back decades.

In addition to Article 61, this includes bizarre sounding and legally invalid concepts like “freeman on the land”, “sovereign citizens” and “legal name fraud”.

They’re all based on invalid legal arguments – and on several occasions they’ve resulted in fines and other legal trouble for the people who attempt to use them.

Some might characterise such attempts as a wilful defiance of the law. But according to Ellie Cumbo, head of public law at the Law Society, such cases often arise from ignorance of the legal system, which is then made worse by poor advice found online.

I find all of this fascinating from a digital literacies point of view. People have in their hands immensely powerful computers with fast connections to a vast trove of data. Unfortunately, not everyone has the maturity to use them appropriately. Whether through malice, ignorance, or ‘fun’ there are plenty of people who are willing to come up with, and spread theories to deceive others. The legal name fraud conspiracy theory taps into something deep-seated within some people (and I’d include myself in that group) that the state interferes too much in our lives.

However, as I’ve grown up, I’ve realised that “no man is an island” and that, like or not, we have responsibilities to others. Going to live by oneself as a hermit isn’t really a viable option. What the legal name fraud conspiracy conspiracy theorists are doing is feeding an immature understanding of the world by using pseudo-legal language. I think the teenage version of me might have been taken in, perhaps. For someone as interested in history as I am, it’s an enticing prospect to be able to find a legal loophole via a document that’s over 800 years old.

Ultimately, as ever, if something looks odd, too good to be true, or both, then it usually is. If I were back teaching History, I think I’d use this as Exhibit A as to why both historical knowledge (Article 61 was repealed a year after Magna Carta was signed) and critical thinking are so important. It would also be a good example when trying to teach people about the importance of web literacy.

css.php