How fear and fearlessness move, an endlessly dynamic duo, and particularly complex in the sociopolitical and cultural spheres of reality. The recent news of the choices that politicians have made (and, ones that are heavily supported by their constituents)--have led Canada to more or less follow the American way--into a growing culture of fear.
Here is just a beginning of the thread on this topic (below), by NDP Leader Thomas Mulcair. FYI, it was not long ago in the famous speech by Justin Trudeau (Leader of the Liberal party), Trudeau was castigating the Conservative party leadership (Harper et al.) for their choosing to follow fear in their political policies. Now, as Mulcair points out, Conservatives and Liberals are (apparently) going the way of fear, at least, in this C-51 issue. Here is an extract of Mulcair's recent letter:
"It's done! Conservative and Liberal MPs joined forces to pass Bill C-51, the so called anti-Terrorism Act.
While we tried everything to make the government backtrack, and to convince the Liberals to do the right thing, in the end Mr. Trudeau and his MPs chose fear over defending our way of life."
------------
As a researcher, fearologist, it intrigues me as to what exactly is meant when we say someone "chose fear over defending our way of life." It is a veritable Fear Wars, each accusing the other of fear-based politics--neither, really giving us a clear definition of the meaning of these terms. But, whatever the case, fear is now a political football in Canada, something I witnessed in the USA since 2001 (post-9/11). A lot more nuance and discussion among Canadians would do well to look at this closer, and then, give our political leaders feedback on the kinds of choices they make in this regard to motivation and outcomes--that is, construction of a fear-based reality and priority in public policy and law.
Comments
Brian is bringing forth a complicated conversation, where he draws us to consider not mere surface content and structures of the everyday, but to bring in theoretical (and perhaps real) "archetypal forces" into our understanding of the dynamics and motivational components/webs of that which shapes consciousness and shapes societies equivalently in complex ecologies. I would add to his nuance, using Wilber's (1995) deliberation in Sex, Ecology and Spirituality, that indeed a good case can be made that love (Eros/Agape) and fear (Phobos/Thanatos) cannot be under-estimated if we are to really get a handle on applications across the developmental spectrum. An "integral curriculum" as Brian calls for has long been on my agenda too, as with Wilber and many integralists. Indeed exciting, needed, and yet very challenging to find ways that will get people interested in such complicated conversations, study, research, and eventual outcomes transferrable across diverse learning media/platforms.
Having adopted a reading lens over the last few years that's perhaps best described as being postmodern-integral-contemplative; a wealth of well-written, recently published content (see, Integral Voices on Sex, Gender, and Sexuality) appears for me, to signal an emergent convergence of archetypal forces. Thus, love (Eros/Agape), fear, and reason (Logos) all appear to be interacting in various ways across a spectrum of developmental stages, in a metamorphic reshaping of contemporary consciousness.
Consequently, the co-creative opportunities to empower global civil societies and their respective populations has almost certainly, never been greater . . . nor the necessity for a well designed, revolutionary, integral curriculum. And yet, to say these prospects pose exciting new challenges would be, well . . .