Refining What 21st Century Progress Should Mean

I’ve recently come back from a trip to India.  As would be expected, they have totally different points of reference when it comes to societal codes. 

On the one hand, living of life that we keep behind closed doors or in back yards, they live out in the open, before anyone’s eyes to see: washing clothes, combing hair, feeding children, napping…   For a Westerner, it’s rare to glimpse what is usually private, intimate… and left me with a rather friendly invitation to focusing on our common humanity and daily lives. 

On the other hand, the sexual and the sensual so ostentatiously flaunted in the West are, in India, more latent and discreet. 

This got me to thinking about the society I would like to build, the one I would like to welcome my children; I got to thinking about what constitutes progress and how it comes about.

Oftentimes, countries that are emerging have the luxury of adopting the technological advances of the first world countries, then improving upon them thanks to a combination of their own vision and the benefit of others’ learning curves.   Instead of following the same slow curve of progress as the initiators, these countries can jump start at the heights where others’ progress has reached.  For example, despite widespread poverty, nearly 74% of India’s population (over 880 million), own mobile phones (http://www.dnaindia.com/analysis/column_why-india-has-more-cell-phones-than-toilets_1655351) and enjoy stunningly low rates for communications compared to many first world countries. 

But does this same “progress curve” rule apply to social and societal advancement?

Looking around some parts of India, I witnessed this:

But what did I discover on the cover of the Indian publication of GQ?

This is practically racier and more extreme than Western standards, which are already in great need of revision.

What I find disturbing is for “progress” and, I suppose, “freedom” to have the face of images that are so deprecating for women.  Should modernity be represented by visuals that suggest a woman’s main value amounts to her surgically enhanced breasts?  Is this what we should be aiming for?  Should we allow a great international media machine to pull countries with much potential and richness to slip into anti-progressive attitudes for women as a sign of advancement compared to traditional attitudes?

Is it progress for one’s body to be a commodity?  Is it progress for the person to be reduced to a sexual object?  I don’t mean to imply that beautiful women can’t represent anything other than sex.  But I do mean to imply that every time we mainstream and focalize on pornography (which used to have a reserved time, place, and function), we sideline the other hard-won aspects of woman-become-subject (vs. the “object” Simone de Beauvoir so aptly identified at the beginning of the 20^th century).  This ostentation also raises the pressure on overly busy women trying to “have it all” to unreasonable standards of Monotheistic Beauty & body in the seduction game, as well as feeds unreasonable expectations in terms of our sexual performance (as opposed to sexual fulfillment)…

The more extreme this ostentation becomes, the harder becomes the backlash of who reject such extremes.  Take, for example, the resurgence of French women choosing to veil themselves.  For some, it is a means to reject this sex-centeredness.  For others, it’s a means of survival in their environment (the creation of the group called “ni putes ni soumises” in 2003 brought attention to the regressive choice for young French women living in the “cités” to dress in bulky sweat suits or veil themselves to avoid being cast as a hoar and become an easy target for slander or even rape / gang rape).  Another example is the adoption of “women’s only” space on public trains and subways in India to help protect women from unwanted staring, fondling, or worse. 

But, in a modernized and/or modernizing world, surely we needn’t resort to veils or segregation to shield ourselves from an unhealthy objectivizing gaze?

Artist Shreyas Karle collecting data for the “closed space fantasy meditation” and studying “camouflage to get around censorship”

I usually balk at these types of innovations because, for me, men should learn to control themselves and change their gaze rather than forcing women to cover themselves.  There is no reason for making the woman simultaneously the victim and the one to pay amends while the actual perpetrators are shielded from any responsibility.

After all, is progress about makeshift protection or about reevaluating the rights and obligations of each empowered member of a society?

But for this, we need to get collectively clearer on exactly what “empowered” entails in a progressive society.  I have already voiced my opinion on this subject, but India’s hesitation between the dynamic progress of human industry and superficial Western codes of sexual liberation has helped me realize other adjacent issues to be addressed and unintended consequences to measure:

·         Where is our frontier for intimacy?  There was an article a year or 2 ago about young women getting piercings in the vicinity of their pubis to reassure themselves there were still some parts of their bodies seen by a select few.  We exhibit more and more of ourselves, enabled by social media to spill out all of our private lives over the world wide web… creating a greater need for exhibitionism and approbation… and in turn leading us to build our sense of self and worth only through the other’s gaze.  Intimacy is a means for reclaiming our own prerogatives and preferences.  But when it is eroded, our defenses and confidence erode as well.  To give a concrete example, check out the youtube “am I pretty?” in which young women, even young girls, ask the internet to rate their beauty.  They are clearly tying up their self concept to others’ gazes while diminuing their intimacy and personal territory. 

·         Where may we safeguard a harbor for desire?  For longing?  Love and lust are increasingly commoditized and beholden to our consumerist expectations of instant gratification whereas the bylaws of more lasting and fulfilling relationships seem to build according to a slower dance.  We should start giving the market of love a little more substance and a little less “eye candy”.  But as long as love is misused as a way of confirming our self-worth and societal acceptance (like in the “am I pretty?” videos) instead of self-discovery and growth, we will be demeaning one of the world’s most important renewable resources and sources of hope and welfare.

·         What is our responsibility for protecting our children and How far can we allow media to go with its soft to hard porn without it creating new social norms that cross a serious (albeit unintended) line of fostering children’s sexual exploitation (cf. The See Hear Speak Campaign)? 

These are the kinds of questions no one wants to consider for fear of taking away liberties.  But the other day, when I was walking in the street in a Parisian suburb with a dress whose skirt flowed just above the knee, I felt quite uncomfortable and isolated as young men made suggestive remarks and the other women nearby were veiled.   Could it be that if we toned down ever so slightly our race to sex-centeredness, we could preserve our right to dress lightly in full confidence?  It’s time for us to establish our own conditions on these questions before we find ourselves all locked-in a bind, far from the real liberty and progress we’re seeking to preserve.

Let me know what you think.

Talk to you next week for another bite from the apple,

Eve

21st Century Demographics: We Must Re-Empower Our Seniors!

Recently in the New York Times, David Brooks wrote a think piece called “The Fertility Implosion” talking about the demographic pyramid’s inversion in most parts of the world (including the Middle East and China but not yet including India).   It’s a rapidly aging world, he says, and the US may gain in worldwide competitiveness thanks to its relatively slower pace of demographic inversion.

He quotes Nicholas Eberstadt of the American Enterprise Institute who tempers that demography isn’t destiny and that you can have fast economic development with low fertility or high fertility (ex South Korea, Taiwan)… but Brooks note that, generally speaking, “rapidly aging population and the lack of young people entering the workforce could lead to long-term decline.” 

Living in Europe, the demographic inversion, in which the demographic pyramid reverses, leaving many more seniors compared to youths (or, in terms of workforce, mainly more retirees vs. number of young people eligible to work), is a reality of which we’ve been aware for some time and cause for great debate.   For a couple of years now, we have been debating a “decent” retirement age while keeping the social system sustainable (enough workers paying into the system to cover the retirement fund and health system among other civil structures (infrastructure, education, etc.).

Part of what is difficult for those of us following the debate is that each party shows often contradictory findings as to the realities of the economics of it all.  Canadian research institutes, for example, have published a number studies that disprove the side-effects of Philip Longman’s predicted “grey tsunami” showing that this is not what will cost the most in healthcare… but as a layperson, it’s always a bit complicated weeding out whose analysis is the closest to reality or the most trustworthy. 

That’s why I’d like to take on an entirely different angle. 

Let me quote it again: “rapidly aging population and the lack of young people entering the workforce could lead to long-term decline.” 

We are totally forgetting the valuable resource that our “seniors” represent.  In the workforce as well as in society.

Our old-fashioned ideas about seniors is exhausting and wasting a real asset for progress.

1.  First of all, we’re exhausting our seniors.  I have spoken often with aging professionals and retirees in a number of countries and different nationalities.  Many companies decide that once an employee has reached a certain age, he or she is no longer dynamic enough to help keep the company competitive.  They do what they can to dismiss them and hire on younger workers. 

Once someone in their 50s is looking for a job, they’re considered too old and often are unable to find a job (this is even more true for women who continue to be particularly strained by the social requirement to be young and beautiful).  In France, many negotiate an “anticipated retirement” which buys them out of the workforce but which, oftentimes, entails a lower pension.  Furthermore, there is a growing rate of retired women who are finding themselves in poverty, receiving, on average, 42% less than men at retirement. 

Once they’ve gone through this type of second-guessing and lack of consideration, it’s no wonder that they are exhausted and dream of retirement and the liberty and respect it evokes.

2.  Further, we’re wasting the valuable resources they represent and can contribute

In the past, a group’s “elders” were guides to wisdom and balance.  Our democratic societies have since overturned what was at times a rigid hierarchy and norms, empowering the voice of youth and the possibility and fresh perspective it can represent.  This has been a key step to progress, with young people often propelling movements (cf. social movements of the 1960s) to counterbalance the sometimes conservative reflexes attributed to the later life cycles (cf. Erik Erikson’s Psychosocial Theory of Human Development).

Nonetheless, we seem now to have arrived at a point in which we perpetually reinvent the wheel due to lack of transmission.   Lack of sharing and handing down / passing on knowledge gained by experience and reflection.  Seniors’ knowledge and expertise are invaluable to companies’ performance, as are their perspective and relativism acquired by years of experience.  Yet seniors seem to lose their place to younger, less experienced talents who don’t cost as much (lower pay for longer hours all in the name of future success) and who are stereotyped as more dynamic.    It’s amazing that companies and society don’t calculate how much time experience can save a project and how much money perspective can bring to ventures. 

Beyond transmission, there’s also the established fact that seniors represent a growing consumer group, pushing companies to create and develop new offers for this target… they are therefore a concrete motor in terms of economic growth and stimulation (cf. recently published study by Ernst & Young, “La Révolution des Services”)… plus, their insight would be a decisive advantage in developing these types of offers.

On a societal level, shutting out elders can have further unintended consequences.  It can make them more conservative as they try to hold onto their former acquisitions against fears of the unknown… an unknown that is exacerbated by this same lack of transmission and exchange.   They then feel disenfranchised and are likely to resist change because of it. 

Instead, we should bring seniors into the debate, not as defenders of the past but as co-makers of the future.  Collective progress (and/or company performance) gains when there’s debate and when ideas are challenged and confronted… and when all actors / stakeholders are implicated so as to help them endorse the new direction.  Making our future a cross-generational goal can bring our elders into the debate, benefit from their know-how and perspective, and thus solidify and optimize our common responses & solutions for the issues facing our world.  

How can we make it happen?

We must change what work means at their age, redefining their specific role and legitimacy.

I have spoken with many individuals of 60+ years.  According to their stories, they are tired:  they don’t want to deal with so much stress anymore or work so many long hours day in and day out.  They tell me they can feel themselves not working as well as they used to, that they are no longer quite so efficient.  As conscientious professionals, they’re uncomfortable about not performing as well as in their “peek years”.  Above all, they want to avoid feeling devalued.

Meanwhile, many who have retired showcase the luxury of having free time, noting its positive impact on creativity and quality of life.  Oftentimes they are also desirous of playing a more active role beyond their intimate circle, making them a dynamic part of society.  They’d like to be taken for being as young as they still feel.

Others, who are retired… but continue some professional activity on a part-time basis, let me know that they feel better than ever; that they have worthy goals to meet without the exhaustion they could no longer bear due to the physical realities of their age.

For me, these insights point to some initial policy making:  we must allow our seniors to contribute to society while also improving their income by giving them paid, part-time roles across all professions and levels.  Too tired as a policeman to continue on the beat?  Pay him or her to help train new police recruits on a part-time basis.  Too tired as a teacher to deal with disciplinarian problems or too many students per class?  Pay him or her to give after-school help, freeing up time for the fulltime, overwrought teacher while also bringing an additional support system to help to the students (“it takes a village”).  Too tired as an executive to travel so much?  Pay him or her to coach, council, or transmit learning and best-practices to rising talents.  Etc. 

This would not be mandatory; no one would be required to do it, it would simply be an option allowing the volunteers to make more money (in addition to their pensions), share their talent, enrich the project, etc.… in short, work in a way that is pertinent for them and their situation.   In this way, our seniors would be very much part of a society’s well-being, progress, and performance.  They would no longer be a sign of “decline” but, on the contrary, a recognized force contributing to growth and quality of life.

But the crux of the matter is:  we are getting held up by our cult of youth.

This is a subject I’ll soon tackle in subsequent blogs (this post is already long enough!) but suffice it to say here that our “Performance Society” and our “Marketing of Me” is pushing us to always pursue “youth” no matter our age:

Madonna soon to be 54 years old

It seems to me rather counterproductive to pursue youth via paralysis, nostalgia, and refusal to mature… but, above all, it seems damaging to our society to strip the benefits of age and maturity of their value.

One final point regarding this alleged “fertility implosion”: where there’s smoke there’s often a flame.  If it is true that we need to be watchful over extremely low fertility rates (which is not what I have heard otherwise but…), then, beyond re-empowering seniors / age to make our new demography an asset, our other task is to do what’s necessary to make it easier to conciliate having a family and a career for both men and women!

I’d love to hear your comments.  Otherwise, catch you all next week for another bite from the apple!

Talk to you then,

Eve

Make Love to Make Youth?

As I'm preparing my piece about the quantum elements of love, I got to thinking about an article I read in Direct Matin last fall by Mélina Gazsi called “Faire souvent l’amour, c’est vivre plus longtemps” which I would translate as “Making love often lengthens life expectancy”. 

To give you the gist of the article, French cardiologist and nutritionist Frédéric Saldmann explains, “Having sex 12 times per month can lengthen life by 10 years,” in part because, “it slows many illnesses such as prostate cancer in men and breast cancer in women, as well as cardio-vascular illnesses.”  Sex also helps burn calories, exercise the heart, oxygenate the bloodstream, reduce stress, insomnia, and migraines, etc.   The information is corroborated by other specialists and partly based on the study led by English neuro-psychologist David Weeks in 2007. 

Well, it’s good news to know officially that having sex is physically and mentally beneficial, even if it isn’t much news since sexual liberation in the 70s. 

But the article got me thinking about other aspects coloring our idea of sexual activity and norms these days.

1.  Sex vs. Fulfilling Sex.  In recent years, many PhD’s in various fields and countries have been making a point about Western society’s current sexual mores:  they are increasingly modeled on pop culture representations in which girls grow up on boy-conditioned sexual pleasure.  Meaning:  most girls (and by extension young women) are seeking and learning to do what will please the boy or man they’re with rather than cultivating her own preference in terms of sexual pleasure and fulfillment  (Check out The Lolita Effect by G. Durham or G. Marier's work on hypersexuality) 
This boy-conditioned sexual pleasure is, in turn, not so much his own, but is increasingly sculpted by porn movies which, often part of their sexual initiation, put in play sexual acts effectuated by actors and actresses who are not undergoing pleasure but rather dramatizing and caricaturizing certain fantasies.  There’s a great Ted Talk from Cindy Gallop called “Make Love, Not Porn” and who points out the great confusion that has been created  (Cindy Gallop: Make love, not porn (Adult content) - YouTube, website, http://makelovenotporn.com/) but I’ve also heard the concern expressed in such books as Ariel Levy’s Raunch Culture or movies such as Sofia Coppola’s Lost in Translation with Bill Murray and Scarlett Johansson in which there are some great scenes following porn actors on the set. 

Boy-conditioned sexual pleasure is also sculpted by music videos.  Of course men’s hip-hop and rap videos are particularly guilty, in which a vast majority depict scantily-clad beauties shaking their booty around fully-clad, oftentimes homely, men who deliberately mix sex and violence themes.   But there are plenty more examples to be found, including the same themes that have been voluntarily taken on by women.   Rihanna sings, “sticks and stones may break my bones but chains and whips excite me.  I like it, come on!” and has the final image of her video a kind of cartoonish picture of her beat up.  Another, more innocent example, would be Shakira, a beautiful talented woman and singer, can’t avoid pretending to be caged and naked because she’s in heat.  And there are many, many more. 

2.  sex, another performance trap?  This is our private life, people!  Must we really quantify such an intimate pastime?  Ha!  Maybe there isn’t a god who will judge you for your good and bad behavior but you may be rewarded… depending on how often you have sex!  So buy more Viagra if you’re too exhausted or stressed to deliver.  Start another diet and get your breasts enlarged if you want a better choice of man in your bed.  But just a “quicky” won’t cut it – it’s like exercising, you need to keep it going before you start burning calories…  what?  You’re too tired and busy?  Nonsense!  Dynamic go-getters don’t need sleep, they just need a recharge…

What a farce!

What I find troubling is certainly not sex or sensuality.  But I can’t help but wonder:  is pleasure pleasurable when it’s borrowed?  Forced?  Required?  used as medication and/or therapy to avoid growing old?  When we’re simply trying to reproduce someone else’s pleasure?  Can play-acting durably procure the advantages of real living? 

Or, is anyone paying attention to actually doing what they want to do rather than giving into the societal spiral like exhibitionism à la Girls Gone Wild?  Is that empowering?  Or is it normalizing women’s total availability for boy’s or men’s wet-dreams?

The point is that many don’t even know what constitutes their personal pleasure.  How can we help both boys and girls, men and women discover their own sense of sensuality and intimacy independent of societal diktats?  Is role playing and performance and domination the clearest path to self-discovery, knowledge, joy?  Without even mentioning love, does it seem probable that such games and performativity, which require a certain amount of control to carry through pretending allow for the space of vulnerability and exchange that make sex delicious?

And if it isn’t exquisite, does it still lengthen life any more than other sports?