Getting to know you

A little break from ethics today, in favour of some blurb about unsung talent.

It occurs to me that I often hear of people saying they are shy until they get to know people. It's the kind of thing you see a lot on dating sites. I know that because I have looked at dating sites and even say something similar on the one I use **cough** - I say use, I think I haven't been very successful yet as I still haven't stuck my mug on my profile and probably won't do until I've solved more of my self-esteem issues. Which is funny, because my friends say I look like Brad Pitt, but good looking, you know. Ahem. Anyhoo, I digress...

If these people are shy then I imagine they may have some difficulties being engaging and witty in a spontaneous way in public. (Hence the dating sites?) On the basis that expression normally finds its own way, they might also, therefore, be people more inclined to express themselves by crafting their words more carefully, by writing or some other literary pursuit (or something else entirely for that matter), where they can say what they want to say whilst focused and relaxed. Steering clear of the actual reasons for people feeling like this for a moment, it occurred to me that these people are a vast untapped resource of potentially brilliant ideas.

Blogs, for example, have probably unearthed a plethora of this stuff, which otherwise would have gone to waste. I don't know if there are any statistics yet on the number of great things to come out of blogs, but along with the assorted navel-contemplating and drudgery that floats blogging boats, there must be the odd gem surely?

So, this moves me on to the fact that like many other people I have always felt in my element writing things down, as a means of explaining ideas or communicating whatever it might be I want to get across. I make no claim to being any good at it - it has always been a useful way to express things for me though, all the way from simple stories to essays at school, through the massively angst-ridden poetry stage so beloved of teenagers, onwards to journalistic aspirations, through to my own particular brand of navel-contemplating and dallying now.

Undoubtedly the web is providing many and varied resources for people like this (for use alongside all the other people who do have 'the gift of the gab') - and this is all good I think. The web is a great way to get these ideas released into the wild.

This brings me round to stage two of the problem - translating communication skills into things that are helpful in the day-to-day. Specifically, let's consider whatever we do for a living. I am constantly amazed at the number of really intelligent people I find doing dead-end jobs. They will tell you straight-out they are doing a dead-end job and then continue doing absolutely diddley-squat about it. Why is that? I reckon it is less general apathy, it is more related to self-esteem. Some of these people could be doing a much better job running the country than many of the career-politicians we have.

That's the problem though, isn't it? They aren't running the country because they can't always 'do-the-do' on the spot. In a world of ever-increasing immediacy, we see the evidence everyday that you can take all those years of hard work at school/college/university and to a greater degree you might as well not have bothered, if you think a satisfying career in your dream field is what awaits you at the end of it - because often regardless of your capacity to do the job, someone with the right patter will out-gun you at interview. What we need is more and better ways to engage these people and use their skills, without penalising them for taking a few minutes longer to come up with something. Because what they do come up with might be really special. We need ways to encourage these people to have their say in situations that matter.

As you might have guessed, my own career path flags quite a lot of these issues, which whilst not attesting to the intelligence, I do find myself now, at the age of 32, looking at my catalogue of jobs to date and asking myself questions like: 'How did I end up doing that job?', or thinking 'I am so massively wasted here' or more and more frequently it seems, asking, 'Why is that complete and utter buffoon getting paid double what I am? In fact, how did they get the job in the first place?'...

The thing is, I don't think training is necessarily the answer. I'm all for encouraging people to come out of their shells a bit, however I don't want to start a slippery slope towards people making the leap from increased self-esteem, straight into massive over self-confidence. People seem to plaster that one over their cracks all the time. I actually really like it when people are quiet and unassuming - and are reasonably aware of what they can and can't do. Dang it, I reckon the training might work. We factor things like 'social nicety observation' and assertiveness training straight into the National Curriculum. For all I know it's already there - I think there is something called 'Life Studies' which sounds like it's in the right area, although taking a quick squizz of the interweb I think it probably doesn't go far enough.

Okay, pair up this approach with better general thinking on how we gauge people for the things we want them to do - interview techniques and the like - and we might be onto something.

Ethics and the world...

Right, I have always been a bit of an idealist at heart and I feel I have, for the greater part, succeeded in applying this idealism to my experiences in everyday life - adapting and making concessions when necessary, yet sticking to my metaphorical guns when I believe it's the 'right' thing to do.

Whilst I have tried to be understanding of the wide range of things going on around me and feel I can empathise and see things from the perspective of others when required, I have a bloody great big problem with things and people I think are acting unethically. It takes all sorts, blah, blah, blah, yet it never ceases to amaze me how diverse a range of rules for moral conduct people can come up with, from the puritanical and over-bearing to those who wouldn't know what decent moral conduct was if it bit them on the arse. From the 'good for all', to the 'me and mine'. The public-spirited, to the 'I'm alright Jack'.

Agreed, a degree of diversity and good lively debate is a very good thing - 'what a dull place it would be' and so on and so forth. One of the reasons ethics and morals are interesting is for that very reason - we like to discuss what is 'right' and what is not. We have even made entertainment out of moral dilemmas - apart from the assorted TV shows over time, the board game Scruples is often very enlightening, after all. Sit open-mouthed and horrified as it is revealed to you the person you've known and regarded highly for many years wouldn't think twice before throwing their litter out of a car window or kicking a cat into next week because it shat in their garden. Whilst it is easy to say that people who make their living swindling pensioners out of their savings for unnecessary and poorly-executed building work are the scum of the earth, it isn't always that clear is it?

What I'm interested in is how the overall level of what is considered good moral conduct changes for better or worse over time and whether or not we can do anything about it if things are deemed to be slipping? Are such changes the result of gradual change or of a complete paradigm oodga-ma-flip?
Not being as widely travelled or as versed in different cultures as I'd like to be, it is difficult for me to form an opinion of what happens in societies around the world, however it seems to me that what the media and technology has done to date - where it has done it - is to help further this idea of 'global citizenship' and the work of what organisations we do have, such as the UN, in maintaining some common rights for people all around the world. Whether they are currently getting to enjoy them or not is a different matter, but we need these things agreed upon, right?

The 'present' is our 'doing' time - we hopefully learn from our past to do better now and create a better future. Don't we? Now is often a hand-to-mouth situation for many people - not a lot of planning for the future necessarily in the day-to-day. Planning towards the next growing season, perhaps, rather than planning the next foreign holiday. So the longer term plans, the bigger plans, that's either the domain of those with the money to have the time to make those plans, or the delegated responsibility to deal with that planning for us - elected officials etc. Money equals power, doesn't it? That is the world we currently live in. Many democracies, the UK included, still have a problem to some degree or another because of corruption, or whatever nice name somebody thinks up for it.

So, are the genuinely dangerous people in the world the ones with money? Truth there, yet possibly a little unfair. The ones with the power? Perhaps yes, although of course, where fortunate enough to do so, we elected them. So, I think we come down to the fact that it is okay for people to have money, or power, or both - as long as they use those things responsibly. Many of the humanitarian crises and hardships around the world could have been, or could be, prevented or bypassed with a little less apathy and greed, a little more compassion and generosity.

What my idealistic head cannot wrap itself around is why, where we have improved human rights and conditions in a country like the UK, can we not use that money and power more responsibly on the global stage? Is it simply a catch-22 that when the going is good, we don't have to worry about cause or effect or what is going on elsewhere - and when the going gets tough these 'other' things are far too easily sidelined in favour of sorting out the immediate problem? Is that apathy or just healthy self-interest?

With the world disappearing up its commercialised, capitalistic bottom, and being bombarded with the daily deluge of work, buy, consume, die, I think in many ways we are losing the point of life. In many ways we are being told as much how to live, how not to bother thinking for ourselves as we have ever been in our history. And at the point when technology has seemingly handed so much to so many, isn't it ironic that in the countries where we have had that privilege for longest, we can increasingly do nothing better with it than pander to the same old immediate human urges as ever (no technology required - I remember the days when we didn't have books/radio/TV/internet* delete as required)?

Right, so, note to self - do unto others as you would have them do unto you. This is apparently referred to as the 'golden rule', cited in roughly that form in writings concerned with behaviour and ethics about as far back as we can go. Going back a few years myself, I remember when I first learned of the idea of 'humanism' and grew up thinking it is basically religion without the blatantly or potentially discriminatory bits. I think 'do unto others' is probably about as good a humanitarian maxim as you can get. So why do we still seem to have so much difficulty sticking by it? I guess the truth is that most of us have factored this into our thinking and manage it just fine for at least the majority of the time. There is always room for improvement though and those falling short of the mark, be they individuals, corporations or assorted regimes and governments, must be held accountable.

This is where things can get truly complicated as we are, obviously - in the UK and other developed nations, for example - solidly involved in much of that which must be held accountable. This is where we need to start owning our representation again rather than letting governments just get on with the potentially boring or less tasteful stuff we are ignorant about because a) ooh... we probably wouldn't understand it, b) we are a bit apathetic about stuff like that anyway and c) Trisha's on the telly and I've missed the first couple of minutes already.

Next time, I think we'll move on to a bit about setting a global example and start naming names. That should be fun...!

Look and feel...

Incidentally, this site looks like poo at the moment and I haven't yet made the time to shape it up very much. I am working on a logo 'cause I like that sort of thing and improvements to the layout and some spanky graphics and stuff are on the way.

The site is now on my own space and comments (so I can manage them better) and trackbacks are now being handled by HaloScan (when they happen, of course, I am nothing if not optimistic and well-prepared).

I have managed to add a favicon which you might be able to see in your browser title bar, in the form of an inverted UK RAF roundel which I thought looked kind of subversive, yet purposeful. Hmm... All good, until I realised that actually makes it a French Air Force roundel. Ho, hum, we shall be nothing if not cosmopolitan and I'm sure they won't mind sharing it for a bit.

I have also started trying to link to some of the stuff I reference - which for definitions and the like will normally be Wikipedia unless something else is more appropriate.

Let's get down to it then...

I have been thinking, a little, of this idea of something to belong to. Something that will be useful and productive. I am currently of the opinion the increasingly rather secular way of life that exists in the UK is not necessarily such a bad thing in principle, however the fact there seems to be nothing in its place means society seems to increasingly find its common ground, its connections and community, through the media.

Now, there are lots of good and bad things about the internet, however it can definitely be a force for the 'common people' (those common people with access to computers and connection at least - I realise we have left quite a few global citizens out of the equation here). However, TV and radio and the press, although increasingly more interactive, are not really yet in the same league, are they? We get to see what those guiding them want us to see - and the fact that the chief concern in the vast majority of these media is financial success, means we are often faced with a wide choice of utter crap that panders to very basic human desires. It's easy to mark these things out as modern concoctions, however underlying things like celebrity, for example, are nothing new of course - even people becoming famous for doing what many may consider quite unworthy things like sleeping around or being a criminal are not new at all.

Every stage in every society has found its own way to keep some kind of rolling from one type of status quo into the next right? Either that or something more spectacular has happened, like an uprising or a discovery, making what I imagine sociologists might refer to as a 'paradigm shift' - what comes afterwards is affected in some rather fundamental way by this new state or knowledge. To digress a little (I'll come back, I promise!) I like the fact the current definition of a 'paradigm shift' in Wikipedia states that whilst the term was apparently coined for scientific purposes by the philosopher Thomas Kuhn in 1962, the term has increasingly been applied to more and more things, most recent of which, perhaps, is its adoption as a marketing buzzword - to the point that at least one observer now urges a kind of flag-raising caution whenever the term is discovered or heard.

Is this the difference now then - that so many things like marketing-speak, minor celebritydom and watching other people's misfortune or stupidity on TV are simply becoming more socially pervasive? Have the majority had our minds taken over by corporate and political manouevring?

Undoubtedly many things have become a 'science' now haven't they? We supposedly know much more about the mechanics of why we 'tick' as humans, so it is easier to manipulate us. And commercially things are more accountable than they have ever been. Quite obviously there are good points to businesses being accountable - however, when people went to work twenty years ago, for example, whereas they might have then had a 'works outing', or such, to 'keep the staff happy', we would now much more likely have a 'team-building' day, with it's associated detailed objectives and business justification to 'increase specific skills and motivation within targeted parameters'.

So is that good or bad? Have we evolved these details for the betterment of all, or merely over-complicated things in a quest to justify ourselves, our jobs, our existence - to keep from going under and to make sense of a world that - although promising much - never seems to be quite as within our control (for the majority) as the hype suggests, even in supposedly 'highly-developed' countries?

This is all good discussion material, I feel, and will take much further pondering, however to give some kind of shape to whatever we are recruiting for, or creating, I think it would also be helpful to establish some initial core values. I say 'initial' because setting them in stone would be foolhardy and inflexible-looking. We will have some 'core values in progress', some 'working core values'.

Hmmm... I lulled myself into my own kind of marketing verbalese there. Have to keep an eye on that. I must admit to being rather easily led on occasion, even by myself. Everybody has some kind of natural aptitude for a position within a group, apparently, and I just know I'm not a leader. Never have been. Well I say that, I suppose I just mean I've never rated my leadership skills, so perhaps it's just a self-esteem thing? I am, confirmed by sometimes hilarious experience (I can laugh now! Ha-ha!), a person of extremes when placed under pressure - which has always made me think that just 'leading' might be a bit dull, or, perhaps worse, just increase my outward aura of being a bit of a lunatic. There is no doubt at all that when I have been in position as leader in the past things have either gone spectacularly well, or really, umm... just haven't.

Those are stories for another day, though, so for now I'm off to have a think. Feel free to join in when ready...

Introduction

First things first then. My name is Phil - the Recruiting Officer.

I am here to recruit you into something special - I hope. I don't quite know what it is yet, however after a bit of rummaging around in my head and yours perhaps we can come up with something.

So why 'Recruiting Officer'? Well, lots of reasons really...

Firstly, it's nice to 'belong' isn't it? Broadly speaking we are all citizens of this planet and, to force the comparison, recruited in so far as we did not have a lot of say in the matter. We live in a remarkably diverse and fascinating place and it has struck me that whilst that is something to celebrate, it is also often rather difficult to take it all in - life, the universe, indeed everything. In human history this common cause seems to have led to exciting developments like 'civilisation', the development of the arts, science and religion. Not that all of that has been an easy ride of course and I expect just as many of humanity's notable achievements have been made through the pressures of conflict in one form or another as through simple, peaceful desire. So, here is something to belong to if you need a top-up in the belonging area - something that might 'do it' for you.

Next up, let's deal with some of the more military connotations. If we are starting an army here then I hope it's a very peaceful one that does lots of good deeds - whatever they may be. Your recruiting officer is a pacifist who only occasionally wants to kill people (and he's working on that). So, no weapons for the foreseeable future.

There is another angle to the military thing. My family has - and in ways still does have - connections to the 'forces' and I can count at least one true recruiting officer in the mix - shillings and all. In the UK now, in a time of relative peace compared to years not so long past, I am one of the first generations of my family to really have the choice to have nothing to do with this. I have always found this to be a driving force - the fact that once conflict has passed we should really use the opportunity to make sure we do not need it again. I am sure this area will form the basis of many future posts.

Further, by means of virtually seamless link, I can mention the play 'The Recruiting Officer', by George Farquhar - the prologue to which you may have perhaps just read in the first post. It is a Restoration comedy that is rather incisive in its observations of human nature, whilst also summing up some of my further interests both in the arts and in having a bloody good laugh whenever possible.

Much of the above sounds rather grandiose, perhaps. However, I can undoubtedly temper any overly-wild ambitions with some solid facts about my own achievements to date. Some posts will, very much sooner rather than later I expect, discusss some of the more petty aspects of my life - and I shall work through them here to give you the chance to comment on whether they are actually important or not - and therefore if any further action is required.

RO

Prologue

In ancient times, when Helen's fatal charms
Roused the contending universe to arms,
The Grecian council happily deputes
The sly Ulysses forth - to raise recruits.
The artful captain found, without delay,
Where great Achilles, a deserter, lay.
Him Fate had warned to shun the Trojan blows;
Him Greece required - against their Trojan foes.
All the recruiting arts were needful here
To raise this great, this tim'rous volunteer.
Ulysses well could talk - he stirs, he warms
The warlike youth. He listens to the charms
Of plunder, fine laced coats, and glitt'ring arms.
Ulysses caught the young aspiring boy,
And listened him who wrought the fate of Troy.
Thus by recruiting was bold Hector slain;
Recruiting thus fair Helen did regain.
If for one Helen such prodigious things
Were acted, that they even listed kings;
If for one Helen's artful, vicious charms,
Half the transported world was found in arms;
What for so many Helens may we dare,
Whose minds, as well as faces, are so fair?
If, by one Helen's eyes, old Greece could find
Its Homer fired to write - even Homer blind,
The Britons sure beyond compare may write,
That view so many Helens every night.

Prologue to The Recruiting Officer, by George Farquhar