Is Cancel Culture Canceling Free Speech?

September 21 2020

Since December of last year, the famous author of the Harry Potter series, J. K. Rowling, has been sharing her thoughts on transgender issues on Twitter, which brought her a lot of backlash due to the controversial nature of her tweets. One example is a tweet she made in early June of this year, which sparked a wave of criticism of her views and many people calling to “cancel” her.

According to the Merriam-Webster dictionary, to cancel someone (usually a celebrity or other well-known figure) means to stop giving support to that person. The act of canceling could entail boycotting an actor’s movies or no longer reading or promoting a writer’s works. The reason for cancellation can vary, but it usually is due to the person in question having expressed an objectionable opinion, or having conducted themselves in a way that is unacceptable so that continuing to patronize that person’s work leaves a bitter taste.”

Lisa Nakamura, a professor at the University of Michigan, who studies the intersection of digital media and race, gender, and sexuality, says about cancel culture,” it is a cultural boycott. It is an agreement not to amplify, signal boost, give money to. People talk about the attention economy- when you deprive someone of your attention, you’re depriving them of a livelihood.”

When did the term originate?

The hashtag #cancelled originated in Black Twitter back in 2015 where it was used to call out several problematic people or products.

One of the early uses of the term was in an episode of a 2016 web series called “Joanne the Scammer,” in which a character struggles to use an espresso machine, then she says,” You know what? That’s over. It’s canceled. We don’t need coffee when we have sparkling water.” It was basically just a joke when it was used in that show. The writer of that episode, Jason Richards, said in an interview with journalist Jonah Engel Bromwich,” I think the humor of it comes from how inhumane it is. To cancel a human is just a funny way of putting it. Joanne is someone who scams people, and the word canceled seems of that world, of reservations being canceled and credit cards being canceled.”

He also said,” It speaks to a lifestyle of commodity, consumerism, and capitalism, of transactions being canceled. It’s a very transactional word.”

In his piece on cancel culture in the New York Times, Jonah Engel Bromwich interviewed Professor Lisa Nakamura who said that cancel culture came from a desire for control. “People have limited power over what is presented to them on social media platforms, which are notorious for being poorly regulated. When YouTube refused to defenestrate Logan Paul after he posted a deeply insensitive video in December, she said, individuals were compelled to take matters into their own hands, doing the work of deplatforming him instead of waiting on deliverance from YouTube.” He wrote.

“Socially irredeemable things are said on platforms all the time. Cancellation creates a culture of accountability which is not centralized and is haphazard, but needed to come into being,” Professor Nakamura said.

How can someone be canceled?

The act of canceling revolves around the idea of boycotting someone who had inappropriate or controversial behavior, whether it was in the past or in the present.

Callouts are a form of cancellation that describes the act of throwing someone out from social and professional circles, either online, in real life, or both. Most canceling is done online and that is by sharing hashtags and bringing people’s attention to the behavior of the person to be canceled and calling them to boycott their work.

Canceling is not only restricted to using hashtags and calling people out online but it can have some serious consequences on the work and lives of the people who get canceled. After the wide criticism the British author J.K. Rowling received these past months, employees at her publisher refused to work on her upcoming book.

Who can be canceled?

A lot of the time, people who usually get canceled are celebrities or public figures who have a certain influence on people and who might have had a problematic or controversial behavior in the past.

In 2018, comedian and actor Kevin Hart was called out for a homophobic tweet he had made 10 years before. After he had announced the news of being chosen to host the 87th edition of the Oscars on his Twitter profile, many people shared 10-year-old tweets of his and jokes he had made that were homophobic. The academy then gave him an ultimatum to either publicly apologize for the tweets or withdraw from hosting the Oscars. He said on his Twitter profile that he had already addressed the matter several times before and had apologized before. He then stepped down from hosting the Oscars and presented another apology in which he said,” I have made the choice to step down from hosting this year’s Oscar’s….this is because I do not want to be a distraction on a night that should be celebrated by so many amazing talented artists. I sincerely apologize to the LGBTQ community for my insensitive words from my past.”

In June of this year, the New York Times published an opinion piece by American Republican Senator Tom Cotton where he called the military to give an “overwhelming show of force” in order to regain order in the US during the protests over the killing of George Floyd.

The piece received great criticism for “promoting hate” and putting Black journalists in danger.

James Bennet, the editorial page editor who published the article, tweeted in response to the public criticism:

“Times Opinion owes it to our readers to show them counter-arguments, particularly those made by people in a position to set policy. We understand that many readers find Senator Cotton’s argument painful, even dangerous. We believe that is one reason it requires public scrutiny and debate.”

James Bennet ended up resigning.

Is Cancel Culture Canceling Free Speech?

In early July of this year, around 150 international authors, academics, and commentators signed an open letter in Harper’s magazine to denounce ‘the intolerance of opposing views’. Among the figures involved were American political activist and linguist, Noam Chomsky, author J.K. Rowling, novelist Salman Rushdie, Canadian author Malcolm Gladwell, and Algerian writer Kamel Daoud.

The signatories showed their support for current social and racial justice movements but they argued that “this needed reckoning has also intensified a new set of moral attitudes and political commitments that tend to weaken our norms of open debate and toleration of differences in favor of ideological conformity. As we applaud the first development, we also raise our voices against the second.”

The signing of the letter came in the wake of the spread of cancel culture and online shaming. People have been getting canceled and facing serious consequences, sometimes for merely speaking their views, which the majority may not agree with. “Editors are fired for running controversial pieces; books are withdrawn for alleged inauthenticity; journalists are barred from writing on certain topics; professors are investigated for quoting works of literature in class; a researcher is fired for circulating a peer-reviewed academic study, and the heads of organizations are ousted for what are sometimes just clumsy mistakes.”

Many would agree that not all speech can be tolerated. There are types of speech that bring more harm, hate, and division like racial slurs than they bring any good. This type of speech should be called out and socially unaccepted. Yet calling to silence other types of speech because they are perceived as morally wrong or are not popular may put open debate under attack, as the open letter argues,” The way to defeat bad ideas is by exposure, argument, and persuasion, not by trying to silence or wish them away. We refuse any false choice between justice and freedom, which cannot exist without each other. As writers, we need a culture that leaves us room for experimentation, risk-taking, and even mistakes.”

Author: Meriem Saoud.

Sources:

The New York Times: https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/28/style/is-it-canceled.html

Harper’s Magazine: https://harpers.org/a-letter-on-justice-and-open-debate/

The Conversation: https://theconversation.com/is-cancel-culture-silencing-open-debate-there-are-risks-to-shutting-down-opinions-we-disagree-with-142377

Billboard: https://www.billboard.com/articles/events/oscars/8492982/kevin-hart-oscar-hosting-controversy-timeline

Merriam Webster online dictionary.

Copycat Suicide: Does Talking About Suicide Increases its Rates?

September 19 2020

papageno effect, suicide, werther effect

In 1774, Johann Wolfgang von Goethe wrote The Sorrows of Young Werther, a loosely autobiographical epistolary novel that generated an overnight fascination. Once unknown, Goethe had now become hugely famous and the novel started a copycat culture called The Werther Fever, a fanatical behaviour where young European men dressed in Werther’s signature clothing as described in the novel, and a perfume called Eau De Werther was produced.

But the effects of this phenomenon were not limited to harmless behaviours. This novel had also led to the first known examples of copycat suicides. The story, revolving around unrequited love, ends with the protagonist taking his own life after realizing there is no other way to escape that love triangle except for death. Soon after its publication, young men started to mimic Werther’s suicide by dressing up in the same clothes, and using similar pistols. Many times, the book was even found at the scene. This resulted in the book being banned from several places, and the appearance of The Werther Effect to label copycat suicides.

Coined by David Phillips, The Werther Effect means a triggering increase in suicide rates, generally carried out in the same manner as the reported suicide. After conducting several studies, Phillips concluded that: “Hearing about a suicide seems to make those who are vulnerable feel they have permission to do it.” He also found that publicized suicides increased the suicide rate for the next month by about 2 percent on average. And that of a famous person even worse; the rate rose by 12% after Marilyn Monroe’s death.

Media and Suicide.

The media is found guilty of copycat suicides in most situations. The extreme publicity and glorified portrayal of suicide on television more often than not lead to increases in suicide rates, especially within groups of the same age in the reported cases. After the graphic depiction of the protagonist’s suicide in the Netflix show 13 Reasons Why, experts warned of a surge in copycat suicides, that unfortunately had later come true. After the show aired in March, a study conducted in April of the same year showed that there was an increase of 29% in suicide rates in America alone. The story of this family is one example.

That link, however, is correlational. Although the show is associated with the sudden spike in rates, it does not prove cause and effect. That is where health experts draw the line between shying away from conversations about suicide (in fear that they cause the Werther Effect) and initiating them in a responsible manner that brings awareness to mental health instead.

The Papageno Effect.

This is where the Papageno Effect comes into play. It is named after a character in Mozart’s opera The Magic Flute, who was contemplating death while in despair until three characters appear and convince him that there are other solutions to his problem. Papageno being advised not to take his own life, parallels the different reaction media could have on vulnerable individuals when discussing suicide.

When reports about suicide are carried out responsibly, the results are positive. Talking about suicide in ways that normalize seeking help, and encouraging mental health conversations generate the Papageno effect of a reality where individuals are not afraid to speak, and reach out for the support they need, without being looked down from society.

Author: Nour Nachoua Nait Ali.

Why We Need More Female Decision Makers

July 30 2020

politics, women

Women are often dynamic ambassadors of change. Their full and active participation in decision making equal to men is essential to ensure greater responsiveness to citizens’ needs and to build and sustain democracies over the world. Yet women still have far to go towards equal representation in positions of power and leadership, whether in corporate boardrooms or presidential cabinets.

Throughout history, women leaders have been extremely rare, but progress has certainly been achieved. Today, we have more women legislators than ever before. The proportion across the globe increased from 13 percent in 2000 to 25 percent in 2020. Some regions have experienced greater gains, such as Africa, where the number of women legislators increased from 11 to 24 percent. The Arab states also have witnessed a significant increase, from 3 to 17 percent. The share of women parliamentary speakers has also doubled over the past 25 years. Women are now serving as parliamentary speakers across all regions of the world with the exception of the Pacific.

Still, the equal presence of women, their leadership and perspective in parliaments are underrepresented in political offices almost everywhere across the globe. On average, women only make up 23% of national parliamentarians according to global data on national parliament.

Despite these gains, women still rarely hold leadership roles. Progress towards achieving gender balance across the globe is slow and uneven. By the dawn of 2020, women were leading just 20 of 193 nations and occupying a quarter of parliamentary seats globally. Women share an equal majority or more in only four parliaments around the world: Rwanda, Cuba, Bolivia, and the United Arab Emirates. Global female representation is still below 30 percent – the benchmark identified as the crucial level of representation to achieve a “critical mass” of female legislators to enable a significant impact, rather than a symbolic few. Discriminatory laws and practices hold women back, as do limits on education, income and time away from caregiving. While women have made inroads in many areas, at the current pace of change, we won’t see gender parity in governments, parliaments or peace tables until the next century.

That women occupy only a quarter of parliamentary seats across the world is a stark reminder of the pervasive and persisting nature of gender inequality. It is also indicative of the power dynamics within societies. Still, some may ask why do we need more women involved in all aspects of the political process? Simply, it matters because women’s representation is necessary to ensure that democracy functions as effectively as possible!

Women are not a minority; they are half of the world’s population. For political institutions to be democratically legitimate and responsive to all citizens, they must be inclusive of the plurality of groups that exist within the population. This requires a greater representation of women in national parliaments and broader diversity. Once in leadership roles, women can make a difference that benefits whole societies. The Inter-Parliamentary Union has found that women politicians give more attention to social welfare and legal protections, and improve trust.

Since 1995, the world has made great strides towards achieving gender equality. For example, over the last 10 years, 131 countries have passed 274 legal reforms in support of gender equality. These include laws towards eliminating violence against women, childcare, and universal healthcare. Research indicates that these achievements have coincided with an increasing number of female legislators around the world. One of the reasons for this is because women legislate differently compared to men. Even when women appear to be in limited numbers within the legislature, and economic and political dynamics make the task more difficult for women, findings suggest that women still legislate differently by placing a greater priority on women’s and children’s rights.

Survey evidence shows that public childcare is a higher priority for women than for men (Wippermann 2016) and that female labor supply is highly responsive to the availability of childcare (Gathmann and Sass 2018). Margot Wallstrom, a former Swedish foreign minister, citing examples from Norway, Germany and New Zealand of women with low-key, inclusive and evidence-based leadership said: “Women lead often in a very different style from men”

Wallstrom also noted that public health is a traditional “home turf” concern for many women leaders. Grant Miller, an expert in health economics at Stanford University, found that as states, one by one, granted the vote to women in the late 19th and early 20th centuries, those states then also invested more in sanitation and public health saving some 20,000 children’s lives a year.

So, to conclude, why do women in politics matter? First and foremost, it is a matter of equity and human rights – both of which are cornerstones of a democratic society. Second, a broad representation of women in parliaments has an enormous impact on what issues are raised and how policies are shaped. Third, it creates room to reform and revise discriminatory laws against girls and women.

Author: Rania Boublal.

How Much Should You Get Paid?

July 24 2020

The economy of a society is built upon the exchange of goods and services among the populace. No one person could ever be self-sufficient without being at a massive disadvantage due to economies of scale and benefits of specialization. Therefore, goods and services must be exchanged for a monetary equivalent. The question encountered at this point is what standard defines a fair monetary equivalent? How do we quantify what a person’s work is worth?

This issue has been debated by economists and philosophers such as Adam Smith and Jean Jacques Rousseau for centuries ever since the enlightenment. Many ideas have emerged in hopes of identifying a standard that justifies quantifying the product of human labor. Most of these fall within two overarching perspectives that will be discussed ahead.

The Labour Theory of Value:

The first theory that attempts to explain the value of human labour is known as The Labour Theory of value. This theory postulates an objective inherent value to the result of work emerging from the resources and effort spent creating that product or service. This concept seems very intuitive to us as it appeals to our moral sense of justice. But practically it is very difficult to quantify human effort. Is it the physical suffering the worker endures in the process of working? Or is it the time spent working that should be rewarded? Or both? If so, then what about occupations that do not require physical effort directly but instead strain the worker’s mental health causing them stress? And if this is the standard for how work should be rewarded then what about the different levels of endurance people have and their own personal skills?

It is evident that such theory, although idealistic, is not very practical. The alternative theory, however, tackles this issue from a different perspective: that of the consumer of the service or product rather than the workers themselves.

The Subjective Theory of Value:

This theory is known as The Subjective theory of value. It states that the product of human endeavors, be it physical or otherwise, has no inherent value. Its monetary equivalent, therefore, is a result of supply and demand. According to this view a loaf of bread would be worth millions if people are willing to pay that price, but it would be worth nothing if they refuse to buy it regardless of how much effort was put into making it. This seems unfair from the worker’s perspective but from the consumer’s perspective it seems fair to pay a price that matches the benefits received from the product rather than the effort spent making it. This theory also assumes that efforts and needs are reflected in the value of a product indirectly by affecting supply and demand.

Practically, both of these perspectives have their flaws and merits. The Labour theory of value is somehow more just and egalitarian but it would also impair innovation and demotivate efficiency. If work is rewarded by mere suffering, then it would be advantageous to simply prolong and amplify it. Another significant issue is, again, not being able to quantify effort. While the Subjective theory of value, gives the choice to the consumer to quantify the value of a product according to their own needs. But a pure free market could lead to abusing people’s needs for quick profit as it had already occurred in the healthcare sector in the United States.

It is simple to notice how the earlier view is broadly supported by socialists while the latter is supported by capitalists. But the divide is far from ideal as both systems in practice recognize both perspectives depending on the occupation. We will discuss the free market perspective as it has been the dominant world ideology since the collapse of the USSR. In a free market, the laws of supply and demand reign supreme but one major exception is the government. Government jobs such as education, healthcare, security, and so on fill many essential needs of the public. However, they are not quantifiable by supply and demand at least not without some severe inequalities. So now we get back full circle: How do we quantify the value of work in these professions?

The Algerian Dilemmna.

Here in Algeria, this issue had kept cropping up for decades. It has led to a proliferation of private education and healthcare jobs as a result of governmental employees escaping the fact that their wages are at the mercy of politicians and public sympathy. We need to find a way to value their work properly?

As a people we agree that many governmental occupations should pay more but a system based upon simple subjective popular opinion is unsustainable. We either need to find a mechanism to quantify their effort, if such a mechanism is even possible, and risk creating a system that promotes inefficiency. We could also surrender many of those sectors to the free market and give up on our nation’s long standing socialist policies and risk extreme inequality that would ripple across our entire society. Or we could find an objective market force that would indirectly govern their wages without directly giving up complete control to the free market.

This purpose behind this article is not to find a solution to this issue but to acknowledge its existence in the first place. It is easy to demand increased wages over and over again as a futile attempt to keep up with an ever rising cost of living. But it is not a sustainable strategy and will always keep the massive governmental institutions at the edge of a blade, only emerging to demand their rights when the blade cuts deep enough. A public sector that has neither an incentive to become more efficient nor any means to ensure a proper living for its workers would keep dragging down the economy of the entire country down with it. This might not be the most cheerful of conclusions but this is a conversation we need to have if we are to move ahead.

Author: Wail Rimouche.

Analysing the Trolley Problem

July 19 2020

Two weeks ago, I stumbled upon a Facebook post that posed a hypothetical scenario where all solutions entailed one sort of unethical act, or another. Prior to the post, I had only vaguely known about the Trolley Problem; I thought of it as a mere unsolvable riddle. But upon researching the origin of the dilemma, I learned that it had largely interesting implications.

The Trolley Problem is an ethical dilemma, first presented by philosopher Phillipa Foot in her paper entitled “The Problem of Abortion and the Doctrine of the Double Effect”, published in 1967 and later developed by Judith Jardis Thomson.

The situation is like so: A runaway trolley is headed down the tracks at a high speed. Ahead, there are five people tied and cannot move, and the trolley is headed straight for them. You are an onlooker next to a lever that, if pulled, will make the trolley switch to a different track. On this secondary track, however, there is one person.

There are two options: either do nothing and allow the trolley to continue ahead, thus killing five people. Or, pull the lever, and divert the trolley to the second track which would result in the death of that one person, but will ultimately mean the safety of the first five.

The Trolley Problem, therefore, forms a moral paradox. It investigates the consequences of an action, and allows us to consider whether its moral value is determined solely by its outcome. The dilemma, since it was first put forward, received different views.

The Three Different Views.

From a classic utilitarian point of view, the lever must be pulled. Morally speaking, according to them, the action that would save the biggest number of lives is the better option. Therefore, sacrificing one life in order to save five is not only permissible but also obligatory.

Another viewpoint could be that human lives are incommensurable. On what grounds could someone decide that the one person on the second track should be sacrificed in order to save the rest? What makes their life less valued than that of the five others in the heat of the moment?

A different opinion would be that the onlooker’s decision to pull the lever is a participation in a moral wrongdoing, because otherwise, no one was going to be blamed for the accident.

There is no moral agreement for which is the moral option. Staying put or steering the trolley both lead to deaths, whether it is that of five people or one. So how can you exactly decide, on the spot, whose life is worth saving more?

The ‘Fat Man’ dilemma.

Judith Jarvis Thomson developed a variation of the dilemma. It is called the ‘Fat Man’ dilemma. Instead of the lever, though, there is a fat man within arm’s reach to you. You are certain his weight could stop the trolley from barreling down if pushed onto the tracks.

Globally, the two dilemmas seem alike. Both scenarios have identical consequences: the survival of five people at the expense of one person’s death. When asked, however, most chose to pull the lever in the first example, but almost no one chose to shove the fat man onto the tracks in the second. Everyone felt discomfort at the thought of deliberately pushing a man to his death.

This is why Foot argued that there is a moral difference between killing a person, and letting someone die. It is called The Double Effect. According to her, it is permissible to cause harm (as a double effect) if the action entails a greater good. In return, it is not permissible to directly cause harm even if the end-result is the greater good. This is why pulling the lever is considered acceptable because it indirectly causes harm, while shoving the man onto the tracks is more of an active action. It is also a matter of intention — the bystander does not intend to personally harm the person on the second track when pulling the lever, but in the second variation, they intend his death to save the rest.

The Trolley Problem has sparked many arguments. Thomson for example, had a different perspective. Going off on the basis that everyone had equal rights, choosing to sacrifice one person to save five is still wrong. But while the solutions differ, thought-experiments like The Trolley Problem are not supposed to have a consensus. They are posed to analyze our moral intuitions by contemplating the multiple justifications of the answers.

Author: Nour Nachoua Nait Ali.

The Trend of Hating Popular Things

Are Female Leaders Better at Managing the Coronavirus Crisis?

July 16 2020

covid-19, Leadership, women

The most recent statistics on the spread of COVID19 have revealed that countries with the lowest numbers of cases, deaths, and the best responses to the virus are Germany, Taiwan, New Zealand, Iceland, Finland, Norway, and Denmark. What all of these countries have in common is that they are under the leadership of women!

When it comes to why so many countries led by women appear to be beating the virus, the authors agree on several common themes. According to Anne W. Rimoin, an epidemiologist at U.C.L.A: “New Zealand, Denmark, Finland, Germany, Iceland, Norway have done so well perhaps due to the leadership and management styles attributed to their female leaders.”

From her point of view, Forbes writer Stephanie Denning suggested: “the leaders who have demonstrated to be the most decisive — and calm — have also been women”.”Leaders like Ardern and Frederiksen have shown that strength in a time of crisis can come from acknowledging that you are not the expert in this arena and then listening to those who are,” the Forbes article states.

Plenty of countries with male leaders have also done well. But few with female leaders have done badly! Virtually every country that has experienced coronavirus mortality at a rate of more than 150 per million inhabitants is male-led.

Germany.

In Germany, the Chancellor of Germany, Angela Merkel has been hailed for direct but uncharacteristically personal public interventions, warning that up to 70% of people would contract the virus: “It’s serious,” she said, “take it seriously.” Thanks to extensive testing from the outset, plenty of intensive care beds, and the chancellor’s periodic forthright reminders, Germany has so far recorded fewer than 5,000 deaths, a far lower figure than most EU countries.

New Zealand.

Among the first and the fastest responses was from New Zealand’s premier, Jacinda Ardern. Choosing to “go hard and go early,” Ardern implemented a strict lockdown of 14 days, two weeks later, when fewer than 150 people had been infected and none had died. Her insistence on saving lives and her kindness-first approach urging New Zealanders to make sacrifices for the greater good has won her many fans and helped in uniting the country. Today, public trust in Ardern’s government is greater than 80%.

Taiwan.

These women stepped up to show the world how to manage a messy patch for our human family. One of them is Tsai Ing-wen in Taiwan! In all, she adopted 124 controls and contained measures in weeks, making a full lockdown unnecessary. Taiwan reported just six deaths and is now dispatching millions of face masks to the US and Europe. Tsai’s warm, authoritative style has won her plaudits, even from political opponents. Tsai managed what CNN has called “among the world’s best” responses, keeping the epidemic under control!

Iceland.

Meanwhile, Iceland, under the leadership of Prime Minister Katrín Jakobsdóttir, has offered free testing to all citizens, not only those with symptoms, and has recorded 1,800 cases and 10 deaths. In proportion to its population, the country has already screened five times as many people as South Korea has, and instituted a thorough tracking system that means they haven’t had to lock down or shut schools.

Finland.

From her side, Finland’s prime minister, Sanna Marin, who last year became the world’s youngest head of government also moved decisively to impose a strict lockdown, including a ban on all non-essential travel in and out of the Helsinki region. It took a millennial leader to spearhead using social media influencers as key agents in battling the coronavirus crisis. Recognizing that not everyone reads the press, they are inviting influencers of any age to spread fact-based information on managing the pandemic.

This has helped her country contain the spread of the virus to just 4,000 cases and 140 deaths, a per-million toll 10 times lower than that of neighboring Sweden.

Norway.

Also, Erna Solberg, Norway’s Prime Minister, had the innovative idea of using television to talk directly to her country’s children. Solberg held a dedicated press conference where no adults were allowed. She responded to kids’ questions from across the country, taking time to explain why it was OK to feel scared.

Not all women who have excelled in the corona crisis are national leaders!

In June 2020, four women political leaders and healthcare gathered to push for more affordable testing as an essential step to make an end to this pandemic by energizing an online gathering of over 200 ministers and healthcare professionals from over 20 countries. Inspired by women leaders’ exceptional performances in managing the crisis in countries from New Zealand and Taiwan to Finland and Germany, they want to replicate these women’s skills at truth-telling, decisiveness, love, and savvy use of technology – especially widespread testing. The meeting was organized as a partnership by multiple players: the G20 Health and Development Partnership, Women Political Leaders (WPL), and the Foundation for Innovative New Diagnostics (FIND), a co-convenor of the ACT-A Diagnostics Partnership.

Likewise, these famous female leaders: “Jeong Eun-kyeong”, the unflappable head of South Korea’s center for disease control, has become a national icon after overseeing a “test, trace, contain” strategy that has made the country the world’s coronavirus role-model, with daily infections in single digits and a death toll of less than 250. Jeong, a former rural doctor dubbed “the world’s best virus hunter”, has delivered no-nonsense daily press conferences, including demonstrating the ideal way to cough.

Whatever conclusions we may draw from these leaders’ performances during the pandemic, what we need, in a time of national and international crisis, is something special from the people we choose to lead us. Whether men or women we need them to be responsible.

Once again, we admit that the burden of care has fallen on women, and they have done it unquestionably, with originality and obviousness, without ego or delay. We will never forget how these female leaders have risen to the challenges with dignity and care and succeeded.

Author: Rania Boublal.

Authenticity, Can We Have An Authentic Life?

July 12 2020

aurthenticity, nietzsche, philosophy

‘’Be yourself’’ or’’ be authentic’’ seems to be common advice and a very encouraged rule in modern life, but what do we mean by ” be yourself”, and is it realistic?

Personal authenticity is a human construct. It is generally defined as being true to yourself without pretense. Following your own standards and living up to your truth. The quest for authenticity is a quest for autonomy. To be the architect of one’s own life without succumbing to cultural conditioning and external factors like social rejection. An inauthentic life, according to the general notion, seems to cause inner conflicts and prevents us from reaching a state of harmony. In this article, I will show the different standpoints regarding authenticity by different philosophers and thinkers who explored this concept.

Who Are we? And How Do We Become Who We Truly Are?

Authenticity is a reflection of the ”self” or the identity, and a lot of thinkers attempted to understand the human mind, with its potentialities and its tendencies. People are generally afraid of delving deep into their minds, for it reveals complex depths they can not be ready to face. So we will start by trying to understand this ”Self” based on Nietzsche’s definition.

Nietzsche was the first to conceive the psyche as constituted of multiple layers and that it is impossible to understand it all. So how can we know ourselves?

If the psyche is a vast limitless territory, is it possible to be ourselves and be ”authentic” while we do not have access to these sides of us? The ability of the human mind to understand cognitive processes or to examine great amounts of information is limited, further leading to an incomplete understanding or an erroneous representation of what is observed or experienced.

Human knowledge always remains incomplete, yet without full awareness, no complete authenticity is attainable, so at any given moment, authenticity can be only partial.

Can We Create Ourselves?

Some philosophers claim that we are absolutely free to create ourselves, but is that possible?

As humans, we can not be fashioned in any way we please. Each one of us has a deep nature that sets limits on who to become. Deep down, there is something unteachable, of a spiritual nature that can not be acquired or transformed.

Nietzsche describes humans as chaos. In contrast to other philosophers who claim that the mind is a unitary device, Nietzsche says that the mind is a multiplicity, an accumulation of intertwined psychological entities. These entities are influenced by life’s experiences and memories, by social conditioning and the traits inherited by our ancestors. According to him, even historical factors influence who we are through the traditions of past cultures that live on within us from the deeper layer of our psyche.

He says that our freedom to create ourselves is limited because of the already existing drives that we can not control. The most general picture of our essence is an association of drives with constant rivalry and particular alliances with each other. He described the human mind as a city in which numerous sub-personalities try to coexist together, so the task according to Nietzsche is to harmonize these opposing drives and impulses and provide coordination. As Nietzche says” to make ourselves, to shape a from various elements, that is the task! The task of a sculptor! Of a productive human being! ”

Authenticity In Different Philosophies

Now that we have introduced the ‘’self’’ we shall explore authenticity from different angles according to some philosophers.

1/ For Jean Jack Rousseau, authenticity is diminished by the need for esteem that is fulfilled by external sources. He argues that personal authenticity comes from within and does not require the approval of others.

2/The existentialist philosopher Martin Heidegger said that authenticity is choosing the nature of one’s existence and identity. He also linked authenticity to an awareness of mortality, since only by keeping in mind one’s inevitable death can one lead a truly authentic life. He said that authenticity and inauthenticity are not exclusive or separate, but they have a complex relationship: They are complementary and interdependent, and we can not disregard external influences because they are natural.

3/Jean-Paul Sartre argued that there is no unchanging essence to the self, but we have a free will that gives us complete freedom to determine our lives from the choices available. According to Sartre, the human being first comes into existence and then continually defines oneself, rather than coming into being with an already given nature. So for Sartre, authenticity requires taking full responsibility for our life, choices, and actions. Therefore the anxiety or ‘angst’ which results from our realization of our own inescapable freedom is an integral part of authentic living. However, it should be emphasized that the individual’s freedom is constrained by nature and society, as well as by their own limitations.

What Are The Limitations Of Full Authenticity?

Some argue that authenticity is impossible to achieve as an ongoing state of being since any real authenticity is hard to maintain indefinitely. Our identity is multidimensional and dynamic, So they will coexist in one individual multiple identities depending on the roles the individual holds in society, including personal, occupational, cultural, ethnic, national, political, and religious identities. The dynamics of identity can be complex and unpredictable.

According to Jung, who was immensely influenced by Nietzche, We have many archetypes in our unconscious that have totally different desires, beliefs, and priorities as if there are other people residing in our psyche. So how can we settle on one definite character? These factors make it hard to identify one stable identity or one ”self.”

Authenticity is supposed to be a reflection of our identity, which can not be measured or defined. Complete authenticity is unattainable. Our feelings, opinions, and habits are always evolving. Personal authenticity involves principles and ideals which are continually reevaluated through self-examination and social interaction, so who is to judge if someone else is being authentic or not?

There are a lot of situations in which we have to compromise our opinions because of priorities. For example, you can not declare your offensive opinions to your boss or you will risk losing your job, so here you are being inauthentic according to the modern standards of authenticity. However, true authenticity isn’t about expressing one’s inner self with its full range of shifting emotions in all situations. Setting priorities and unbiased self-awareness in the present moment are of great importance.

Another factor that can limit our authenticity is our personal filters that prevent objective awareness. Achieving personal authenticity is complicated by the presence of illusions and biases, including self-deception, wishful thinking, and the tendency to behave differently while under observation in social gatherings.

Other factors include one’s prior programming, the fear of rejection and failure, and the social pressure to conform (and thus live inauthentically). In the latter cases, individuals typically try to show their best faces and express what is expected of them so that they will be perceived in a good light. In many situations, the need for collaboration with others may demand some adaptation, that is, some inauthentic compromise. Being under constant observation inhibits authenticity. Thus, politicians, for instance, cannot be authentic, since they always have to appear confident and nearly flawless.

Another limitation is related to the language used, which is open to misinterpretation, and words and language are inadequate for expressing the full spectrum of one’s thoughts and feelings. In addition, words and sentences are often ambiguous, having more than one possible meaning. A completely clear language with a direct and evident correspondence between thoughts and words does not exist. Sometimes individuals do not even understand themselves, so it definitely sets limits to authenticity.

What Can We Conclude?

So we can define authenticity as an individualistic and continuous mission that differs from one to another and does not follow a defined set of rules since it is always contextual. The question that we can ask here is: is authenticity possible, or even desirable? The question is possibly misleading as it implies an absolute yes or no answer, and does not give space to any possibility of ‘partial authenticity’. This leads us toward an interpretation of the concept of authenticity as an absolute, which is unrealistic.

These philosophical views on personal authenticity vary, but there is a common theme of personal authenticity as a dynamic process of endless becoming in a changing society and world, rather than a fixed state of being. We can conclude that authenticity and inauthenticity should not be considered as mutually exclusive states, but rather as mutually dependent concepts. Due to the imperfection of humans, absolute authenticity is not attainable. Partial and realistic authenticity isn’t about expressing one’s inner self with its full range of shifting emotions in all situations. Setting priorities and unbiased self-awareness in the present moment are of great importance.

Author: Hibat Errahmane Hadjadj.

Soruces:

Nietzche:

Ecce Homo

The Free Will

Beyond Good And Will

The Gay Science

The Dawn Of Day

Dr Ben G. Yacobi

‘’Philosophy Now’ 2012’

Do Lobsters Mate for Life like Phoebe Made Us Believe?

July 2 2020

lobsters, mating

“Come on, you guys. It’s a known fact that lobsters fall in love and mate for life. You know what, you can actually see old lobster couples walkin’ around their tank, ya know, holding claws!”

“Friends” fans have lived under the impression that lobsters pair for life, thanks to a famous comment from Phoebe Buffay in season two. Unfortunately, and according to science, a he-lobster doesn’t mate only with one she-lobster for his whole life! If you want to know a new feature about a new animal, keep on reading this article!

While plenty of animals practice long-term monogamy, lobsters are not among them. “Lobsters, by nature, are not monogamous and do not pair for life,” Curt Brown, Ready Seafood’s in-house marine biologist, said. Instead of cohabiting for life, a dominant male lobster cohabits with a bunch of females lobsters. Can you believe it! He mates with each female one at a time, that lasts a week or two.

In order to mate, the female lobster must first shed her hard shell. This makes her especially vulnerable to predation. Thusly, the female must move in with the male so he can protect her while she is more exposed. However, lobster males do not always want to share their man caves with a lady. The female must resort to seduction to coax her way into the male’s sanctum. The female goes to the entrance of the male’s shelter and wafts urine into his home. The urine contains pheromones that act as a drug to seduce the male and get him to let her into his home, he becomes after that less aggressive.

Once allowed into the male’s den, the female sheds her shell. The pair will mate for up to two weeks until the female’s shell hardens. Once her shell is completely re-formed, she moves out of the male’s home and moves on with her life; carrying fertilized eggs. In case she is not happy, because the male did not provide enough sperm to fully fertilize all of her eggs, she leaves before her new shell finishes forming to find and mate with another male or maybe males until she collects enough sperm. But even then her eggs might not be fertilized, because the female decides when conditions are just right. She may store live sperm in her body for two years before using them to fertilize her eggs.

After she moves out, there is a new female lined up and ready to seduce the dominant male. We call this type of mating “serial monogamy”.

In the end, if one of you readers call their partner a lobster because they are so much in love and want their lovers for a lifetime, we truly advise you not to do that anymore.

algerian-black-pearl

Copycat Suicide: Does Talking About Suicide Increases its Rates?

Media and Suicide.

The Papageno Effect.

Author: Nour Nachoua Nait Ali.

Why We Need More Female Decision Makers

Author: Rania Boublal.

Analysing the Trolley Problem

The Three Different Views.

The ‘Fat Man’ dilemma.

Author: Nour Nachoua Nait Ali.

Read Also:

Are Female Leaders Better at Managing the Coronavirus Crisis?

Germany.

New Zealand.

Taiwan.

Iceland.

Finland.

Norway.

Not all women who have excelled in the corona crisis are national leaders!

Authenticity, Can We Have An Authentic Life?

Who Are we? And How Do We Become Who We Truly Are?

Can We Create Ourselves?

Authenticity In Different Philosophies

What Are The Limitations Of Full Authenticity?

What Can We Conclude?

Author: Hibat Errahmane Hadjadj.

Do Lobsters Mate for Life like Phoebe Made Us Believe?

“Come on, you guys. It’s a known fact that lobsters fall in love and mate for life. You know what, you can actually see old lobster couples walkin’ around their tank, ya know, holding claws!”

Author: Dr. Rania Boublal