How do you view social inertia. It is rarely thought critically.I do not mean social inertia as defined psychologically. This is just part of what i describe as momentum of the populace. I define the inertia as the collective of people that is your community or society acting some way not necessarily because they have a goal but that is where their sum of emotions has led them. It is a matter that is rarely thought about in terms of right or wrong. I mean in all of human society, the winners get to tell the tale and if the populace is the winner, the tale get twisted and warped around the phenomena that is social inertia.
The Arab spring has objectively brought mostly nothing but war and death all around the world but it is still talked about as this beautiful thing. Why? Because the arab spring is a child of its society and society can do no wrong in its own eyes. I know some might disagree as a fact but the arab spring has caused objectively a bad effect on the world. One might argue that the net effect in the future will be good but when is this good net effect going to happen? How many decades is it going to take to overcome the poverty, war and misery that are occurring now? Is this the only way that was found to bring change to whatever needed it or was this caused by simply mob mentality?
The clashes that have occurred and are still occurring that can be termed as “witch hunts” all across the world, in africa and the western world, in the lay world and political worlds are part of this mob mentality. Blaming people for a problem they did not cause, where the pressures of society cause for lack of a better word, hordes of people to spring up into action creating strife or bring forth accord. These events are not derived from reason or logic, they might have individuals, or entities within them that have logical reasons for what they are doing but the group as a whole is usually a rabble of people devoid of any particular purpose. They might have an end resolution that is agreeable but the beginnings of these things are from dark parts of our primitive brains.
I think that this is what happened in Romania this week. Essentially the prime minister of the country was made to resign due to a club fire. I am not making light the death of the 27 people or the injuries that occurred, but it was not the fault of the prime minister. It just was not. I cannot see it. The reports claim that rampant corruption was the reason for this, but how is this related to the prime minister? Did the owner of the club send a personal bribe to the prime minister? What is this link i am missing that puts the blame of some stupid organizer on the PM?
To be fair, The corruption charges that have been levelled against the PM might be true and there actually might be some truth that the corruption on a local level might have led to the conditions that caused the accident. However, the resignation of the PM will not be the solution to end all corruption. The PM has very little say on a local level, no amount of oversight would change that, he would be doing fuckall trying to improve corruption at such a low level in such a short amount of time considering the scale of corruptness currently in romania as talked about by the EU.
My point is this, The revolts that are going on and will be going on there are a “witch hunt” at their best and violent unthinking mobs at their worst. This is not the best way to get change in the country, This is probably not even a good way to get change in the country. It is just the social inertia has swayed people, and since the throng has an energy, it has to take action, The people who really hates the PM have found themselves leading this horde and have conceived of a way to get rid of the PM, who by the way i view as somebody who was trying to do something about the corruption. This is not a feel good story of revolution and social change, it is a story about the ills of being led by social inertia. Do not let yourself be easily moved by the momentum of the collective.
No comments:
Post a Comment