The Age of Extremes?

There is a book that I have, but have never read, called "The Age of Extremes: The Short Twentieth Century, 1914-1991". It is a history book, written by author Eric Hobsbawm, that I picked up while attending college at Rutgers University, but I never had time to read it, but I do remember thinking it was rather presumptuous on the part of the author to assume that this era that was allegedly more extreme than any other was already a part of the past. He associated this extremism with the breakout of World War I in 1914, through to World War II, then through the Cold War, into the conclusion, following the collapse of the Soviet Union, and the breakout of war in Iraq (the first Gulf War, that is).

What makes me approach with this book trepidation was not any lack of legitimacy towards what he was arguing. Indeed, the era he is talking about and arguing as more extreme than any era that had come before it was, in fact, more extreme. There were more bloody wars fought during that time, the stakes rose in just about every facet of life. I did not (yet) read the book, but I certainly do not have to read it to have a basic understanding that, at the very least, the time period he specified has some legitimacy – with one glaring weakness in it: the assumption that this era of extremes is over. Because it implies that the world following 1991 has become more sane, more peaceful, and less extreme. Sorry, but I don't see it. In fact, 1991 now seems relatively quaint and peaceful, when compared with the world we now know. A world where we have to take off our shoes before boarding planes at the airport. A world where we seem to have endless scenarios of doomsday that become the flavor of the moment for a while, until they pass, and we go on about our lives like nothing strange has happened. A world that faces so many problems, we do not even know what to do or how to even begin to address them. A world that many, many people seem to assume, and with some measure of justification, is failing. That humanity itself has failed.

The thing is, what Mr. Hobsbowm seems to be arguing was likely on a political history level, but the problem has become much more complicated and involved than that. It permeates almost everything, and touches most of our lives on some level or other, as I will argue in a moment. I do not have the length of a book with which to argue it (at least, not yet). However, I think the more extreme behavior that is reflected in the politics of the modern era is an offspring of a more extreme behavior outside of the field of politics. Let me explain what I mean.

It seems that we have reached a point in our society where extremes are seen in a positive light, rather than it being something regarded with alarm and trepidation, traditionally.

Yet, we have "extreme sports" that seem to be gaining in popularity both in viewership and in participation, some of which are already being compared to the Romans gathering at the Coliseum in order to watch Christians and other heathens of the time thrown to the lions, or fighting other gladiators in grueling death matches. We might not be there yet, but we are getting closer, with more "extreme" fighting leagues and sports. We even had a very short lived "Extreme Football League", although it never really gained in popularity too much.  Late night infomercials advertise "extreme workouts" promising incredible and shocking results in just days! We can turn on our television and watch some "extreme makeover" reality shows. Yes, these days, when we see commercials that use words like "total insanity", it is interpreted as a good thing, as something marketable and to be pursued, something that "only serious" people about whatever product is being pushed will get. In other words, the more extreme things are, the better and more marketable.

This has permeated to the entertainment industry, as well. The more "extreme" the video graphics are depicting seemingly realistic looking violence, the more popular the video game. The more realistic looking scenes of violence, the bigger the explosions, the more "extreme" and shocking the movie, and the more likely it will be to see it featuring prominently in box office ticket sales. We have more "extreme" entertainment, with shock jocks and outrageous personalities in the entertainment industry (and let us be clear on the point that it is an "industry", rather than art, these days – it is a business like everything else).

Quite naturally, this extends to the fields of religion and politics, as well. We hear and see "extremist" political commentators and religious leaders of mega-churches (another extreme), that seem to enjoy tremendous publicity and enjoy the benefits of a lot of air time on the radio and television, sometimes even in book stores, pushing their views any way that they know how, and pocketing the profits all the way, of course.

We also have "extremist politicians", often elected and wearing their pious, often "extremist" interpretations of religion, and advocating a more "extreme", which is to say, unyielding, version of their political vision of "total" immersion into their religion for their country, and  contradictorily advocating some kind of a total war effort (another extreme) against "terrorist extremists" here and abroad. While that last label may be regarded as a negative, the very fact that it is seen as such an extreme seems to push us to an extremity in response to it, if you follow the logic. Hence, our response becomes extreme, unless you find the war strategy labeled "shock and awe" as moderate and appropriate. Think about what it might feel like if we were the weaker ones that had angered a militant superpower that then utilized their own "shock and awe" against us. Do you think we would want to bear witness to such "shock and awe", or perhaps be as impressed with news reports from that superpower nation showing this strategy in such glowing terms? Do you think we would just shrug our shoulders and dismiss it as a cost of war when they would talk about "accidental" bombings of non-military targets, or alarming levels of civilian deaths, if it were us being targeted, if it were family and friends of ours that numbered among the casualties?

Yet, it is seemingly a badge of honor for our politicians to gravitate towards a purer" ideological ground, which is to say, more "extreme". Ironically, as I was writing this, I heard an interview with Presidential hopeful Newt Gingrich was mentioning how he thought that most Republicans were hoping to avoid a "moderate" like Romney, in order to promote more pure, conservative values. So, according to him, we need someone more "extreme" than Romney, and he is not alone in feeling that way.

Given all of this, it really should not come as any sort of a shock that our collective behavior has grown more extreme as well. We take our cues from everything that we are bombarded with everyday, and it is reflected in our behavior, in the way that we look at each other, talk to each other, treat each other. At a time when life seems to be getting more difficult and stressful in every conceivable way in our real, everyday lives, when the population growth is creating unbelievable pressures and levels of overcrowding on unparalleled levels, and our roadways are congested with thick traffic and gridlock like never before, when the price of everything, including homes and cars and clothes and food and utilities and bills and debts, perhaps it really is only to be expected, after all. Turn on the news, and this excess is reflected there, because all you will hear is bad news. Violence and killings in the cities like never before, regularly reaching record numbers. Inexplicable acts of violence are being reported on like never before. Our schools are locked down tight more often than not these days with at least one security guard, in order to minimize the possibility of school shootings that feature regularly during the course of our school years these days. We see and hear reports of children being kidnapped and tortured and murdered, sometimes by their parents or other loved ones. We see horrific accidents, and enormous levels of ineptitude and alack of consideration or professionalism being responsible for epic horrors that cause death and suffering to many, and perhaps environmental disasters, to boot. That ship off the coast of Italy, where the Captain evidently pulled himself away from featuring in photographs by tourists in his charge, was among the first to flee from the scene of the disaster that he largely created to get to safety over the weekend. It reminded me, quite a bit, actually, of the Captain who was drunk and responsible for the Exxon Valdez disaster, way back in 1989, which was the largest oil spill in recorded history until the Gulf Oil Spill, another human made disaster.

We have grown so used to such bad news, such horrible news being fed to us every day, just every single day, that we have collectively, largely become immune to it. Nothing shocks us, these days. Kidnapping and disappearance of a child in Maine? It surely reminds you of others, right? Casey Anthony, perhaps, who is featured prominently, making a video that surfaces for a while, and she inadvertently becomes the media darling with such a video release, much like Osama Bin Laden not all that long ago, with each new video release. The child model in Texas who mysteriously disappeared, and the strange father who seemed quite suspicious in the eyes of the media, and thus, as a result, of the country. We get wrapped up in these stories, and we ignore everything else around us. That includes the more subtle violence of the everyday, in the unpleasantness that marks the way that we treat other people, and in which we ourselves are treated.

Is it any wonder that this world seems to be "going to hell in a hand basket", as the saying goes? When we are all told, here in America, that we need to believe in the "American Dream" of getting rich, of owning car (or two, or three, or four), and having a nice parkway to park it (or them) in a beautiful house (or two, or three, or four),  Everyone is told this from the first, and so everyone seems to feel entitled to exactly that future. Nobody does the math, and so there is a lack of understanding that there simply is not a workable future where everyone gets that kind of a lifestyle, that not everyone can get that dream job that is so well paying. That permanent happiness based on wealth is essentially an empty promise. Those who do have the money, having grown up believing in that dream of grabbing what wealth you could and feeling entitled to it, have gotten so aggressive with grabbing every little bit of wealth that they can, even when it seems unfair and excessive.

There is an absence of a spirit of fairness, and that is why the Middle Class is disappearing. In an extreme society, there is little room for anyone in the middle, so why should our social classes be any different. The extremities are winning out, and it is to the detriment of our society, and of our "western civilization" as a whole, choking off the decent standard of living of the majority, in order that the most elite few can have a little bit more. When they win this "right", then the rest of us have a little bit less, because again, there are only finite amounts of wealth and resources available. In a shrinking world, with less open spaces and less resources, and more competition for these because there are more people than ever before, is it any wonder that those who have the power to grab what they can are doing exactly that? People are perhaps beginning to wake up to that now, but it is only a beginning, really.

So, we have grown cynical. I read an article about a year ago, for the 50^th anniversary of the Inauguration of John F. Kennedy, which questioned how well that speech would go over now, in this era of extreme cynicism. I remember growing up and hearing about how inspiring that speech was, and how it seemed to truly represented a new era being usher in. These days? It would sound like just another politician giving a high-minded speech, while hoping to cover up what transgressions they will likely be caught with during their term in office. When a politician makes a speech like that these days, we hardly pay attention, because we are not a united society by any means these days. In an age of extremes like the one we live in and take part in every day, how can we possibly overcome our extreme differences, after all?

The anger in reactions to the way we treat each other grows more extreme as well. Things just seem more unpleasant on an everyday basis, and there is a sour taste left in our mouths, both individually and collectively. There is a sense that something has gone terribly wrong, and again, not to repeat the point to death, but is it any wonder that in this age of extremes, we keep dreaming about the most extreme conclusion possible to this world that we have created? We have the end of the Mayan calendar coming up, and people are expecting a fiery apocalypse to come. That, after last year's May doomsday that never happened, followed by a "correction" form the prominent church leader who had originally forecast it, adjusting his doomsday calendar so that it would now take place in October, when it also did not happen, and everything passed as normal. Some church members had sold their life savings to promote the event, hoping perhaps to save as many people as possible. It is hard not to wonder what they are thinking about their actions now. It was much like the Y2K disaster that never happened. When we pass the December 21^st date without major incident, are we going to have some authorities claiming a "new date", because it was apparently read wrong? Are we then going to have another event date to look forward to, and another countdown, and another letdown for those expecting a fiery end to the world, an apocalypse?

Think back to when the United States in particular seemed to work best, when it was seemingly a happy place with a tremendous amount of promise and potential, yet was also already the envy of the world. That would be the "golden era" of the 1950's and early 1960's, according to most people who lived through it. What was different then, and what can we learn from it and hopefully apply now to make this a more livable world?

Well, it seemed a much friendlier place back then from the outside (again, I was not actually there at the time), but there was a reason for that, because it was not as extreme an era. Did extremes exist? You bet. It was the time of Jim Crow segregation. There was the threat of a nuclear holocaust hovering over us all of the time. There was the Cold War, which on occasion, flared up into relatively hot wars, like in Korea and Vietnam.

Yet, it seemed a much saner era than we live in now. Perhaps it seemed crazy at the time as well, I do not know. However, I doubt that they were as rude, even obnoxious, towards one another. I also doubt that they had this fixation with the end of the world, like we do now. Certainly there were not as many distractions as there are now, which I think goes a long way towards making this world, making our world, a ruder and more isolated place. A place where people simply cannot get along. Because they never learned how.

Bill Bryson makes the argument that when we had a downtown community in our towns, before the era of shopping malls and superstores and well before the internet, people would see each other every single day. They might not always agree, or even like one another. But you saw each other everyday so there was an understanding that, yes, neighbors do exist, they are real people, and we should make an effort to get along. That is something we have lost with the ability to fixate on only what we want in our world. Today, that is increasingly the case – we can isolate ourselves in our own little world, and never dare venture out of it, and never invite people from the outside in, if we choose not to. Perhaps that explains why we have lost so many of our apparent social skills, collectively and individually.

I went to Strand bookstore in the city this past summer, and while there, I stopped by the Washington Square Park nearby. As always, it was crowded with people. But a few of them caught my eye in particular. They were wearing the turtle signs, like protestors, almost. Only, the thing written on these were for something else entirely. They read:

FREE HUGS

I watched a bit, and saw someone come up to a woman with that sign, and ask if there was some kind of a message or anything, and she just shrugged and said no, that they were only offering huge. Nothing more, nothing less. It was just to be understood as a random act of kindness.

Now, I am not advocating for anyone to go out with such signs and stand in a street corner or a park like that, giving people free hugs. But then again, I am certainly not arguing against it, if the spirit moves you to do so.

What I will posit, however, is that we perhaps at least make an attempt to take a step back from the world that we have created for ourselves, and understand perhaps how we may be contributing to this world being a colder, unfriendly place, hard as it might be because we are all, collectively and individually, out of practice with it. To understand, and not merely theoretically, but in actuality, that others exist outside of our little worlds and our daily exchanges, and moreover, to understand and appreciate that they have every right to exist and to pursue their own course towards happiness, so long as it does not hurt anybody. To recognize their humanity, and to treat them accordingly, perhaps even keeping the Golden Rule in mind, religious or not. By affirming the humanity of others, we can actually affirm our own humanity, which is the greatest loss that I think we have suffered in this present age, collectively and individually.