A635.1.3.RB_MaceRoyce
It seems to me that 21st Century Enlightenment is a re-assessment of 20th century ideals and insights combined with the analyzing of humanity from new perspectives. These insights and perspectives are based on historical analysis (lessons learned) combined with the realization of developing changes in areas such as globalization, technology, science, and other global concerns that continue to develop. Enlightenment is a continual process that must not be forgotten for doing so would stunt the growth of humans as a species. For example, while women in the 20th century could not vote, small groups refused to accept this injustice and initiated, fought for, and implemented major change. Today, woman can most certainly vote, but the idea that they could not at one time is a complete afterthought by most of those living today; taken for granted by the majority in today's societies.
In order to live differently, we must not only think differently, but we must act upon the thought. Inaction will not allow any of these thoughts to come to fruition. While I believe Taylor (2010) is correct in saying that we must think differently as a means to live differently, he leaves out the critical process of acting differently. For example, plenty of people think differently, but not everyone readily lives differently with regards to how they think. That is where action comes into play. For example, I may think that it is wrong to racially discriminate, but unless I act against racial injustice and "live differently" according to my thoughts, I am not doing anything for the betterment of mankind or society.
"To resist our tendencies to make right or true that which is merely familiar and wrong or false that which is only strange" is a fancy way of telling us to never accept the status quo or cliche. We must rise above the tendency to think that just because an issue or norm has been a certain way for a long time or socially & universally accepted by the masses, that it is somehow 100% justifiable. We must use our gift as critical thinkers to assess a wide range of policy, procedure, and possible groupthink in order to improve the world around us. To support this, I will use the personal example of an experience encountered in fifth grade. While the OJ Simpson verdict was being announced on the radio, the young minds in my class openly cheered when the final verdict was announced. Even at the tender age of eleven years old, I took the less familiar and less popular opinion of the verdict. I was literally the only kid in my class who did not believe in OJ Simpson's innocence. I made the unpopular, less comfortable, and socially less accepted decision to believe in his guilt. I fought the tendency to make right or true what was familiar based on my social environment.
Moving on, I do agree with Taylor on spending less time eschewing elements of pop culture that degrade people. We should instead find ways to help others starting with our own self-improvement, volunteerism, and generally seeking our own enlightenment. There are always going to be differing opinions on what shape or direction enlightenment should take, but enlightenment must start somewhere... Even in the smallest of groups. This is the foundation for change and in my opinion readily evidenced by our forefathers and the Declaration of Independence.
Lastly, by atomizing people from collaborative environments, we reduce the possibility of groups to make positive change. Specifically, atomization inhibits the ability to give organizations the agents necessary for needed change. This exercise has taught me that we must parallel organizational development and necessary change with enlightenment ideals. We must collaborate in small groups to proactively seek positive change, improve processes, and make the organizations, communities, and world we live in a better place than when we or those who came before us first experienced it.
References
Taylor, M. (2010, August 19). RSA ANIMATE: 21st Century Enlightenment. Retrieved from
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AC7ANGMy0yo
In order to live differently, we must not only think differently, but we must act upon the thought. Inaction will not allow any of these thoughts to come to fruition. While I believe Taylor (2010) is correct in saying that we must think differently as a means to live differently, he leaves out the critical process of acting differently. For example, plenty of people think differently, but not everyone readily lives differently with regards to how they think. That is where action comes into play. For example, I may think that it is wrong to racially discriminate, but unless I act against racial injustice and "live differently" according to my thoughts, I am not doing anything for the betterment of mankind or society.
"To resist our tendencies to make right or true that which is merely familiar and wrong or false that which is only strange" is a fancy way of telling us to never accept the status quo or cliche. We must rise above the tendency to think that just because an issue or norm has been a certain way for a long time or socially & universally accepted by the masses, that it is somehow 100% justifiable. We must use our gift as critical thinkers to assess a wide range of policy, procedure, and possible groupthink in order to improve the world around us. To support this, I will use the personal example of an experience encountered in fifth grade. While the OJ Simpson verdict was being announced on the radio, the young minds in my class openly cheered when the final verdict was announced. Even at the tender age of eleven years old, I took the less familiar and less popular opinion of the verdict. I was literally the only kid in my class who did not believe in OJ Simpson's innocence. I made the unpopular, less comfortable, and socially less accepted decision to believe in his guilt. I fought the tendency to make right or true what was familiar based on my social environment.
Moving on, I do agree with Taylor on spending less time eschewing elements of pop culture that degrade people. We should instead find ways to help others starting with our own self-improvement, volunteerism, and generally seeking our own enlightenment. There are always going to be differing opinions on what shape or direction enlightenment should take, but enlightenment must start somewhere... Even in the smallest of groups. This is the foundation for change and in my opinion readily evidenced by our forefathers and the Declaration of Independence.
Lastly, by atomizing people from collaborative environments, we reduce the possibility of groups to make positive change. Specifically, atomization inhibits the ability to give organizations the agents necessary for needed change. This exercise has taught me that we must parallel organizational development and necessary change with enlightenment ideals. We must collaborate in small groups to proactively seek positive change, improve processes, and make the organizations, communities, and world we live in a better place than when we or those who came before us first experienced it.
References
Taylor, M. (2010, August 19). RSA ANIMATE: 21st Century Enlightenment. Retrieved from
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AC7ANGMy0yo
Comments
Post a Comment