On Approval

Years ago, I recall recognizing in decision-making that it was only an inward sense of peace I should want; but I felt so justified in seeking the approval of a particular person that I continued to desire it; and I went on to, of course, regret this. Now, I feel I may at least be beginning to recognize that others’ approval is not only not necessarily always worth seeking, but in some moments, it can actually sometimes be so undesirable as to be a signal one is on the wrong track. (What, I wonder sometimes, if those figures in public affairs today who seem most larger-than-life are not standing on the shoulders of geniuses but, rather, a marketing machine fueled by practically nothing but our own collective insecurities?)

In an arguably corrupt ratings-based media infrastructure that thrives on the slick appearance of quickly attained unanimity, I believe it is just this – the approval of those who are perpetuating it – from which it may be most important to fast today. And while I realize this is a strong statement, I believe it may be correct in the current context.

On Intersections

Given how much attention notions of intersecting forms of vulnerability have, rightly, received in recent years, I believe it is important, today, to discuss how various forms of power intersect, too. As one of the most fundamental premises upon which our government was built is that of continually balanced power, new and transformative forms of influence over our system of governance as designed – namely, the merger of stock market and media forces – deserve attention.

Particularly as more media organizations, which, given the reach and near-monopoly of their communications apparatus, sometimes better resemble countries than companies, seem to have consolidated power even while silencing journalists, I wonder whether their influence should be debated publicly. For all of the attention that foreign interference in American elections has – often, justifiably – received in recent years, many of these high-powered but unregulated entities have yet to be held accountable for their own.

If the central question with which the world has been grappling (and arguably grappling only because open conversations have been stifled) in recent years is whether the world should be operated by a coalition of royalty and unaccountable formerly-journalistic corporations or whether our democratic republic as designed is really viable, I wonder whether a simple dialogue about systems could be helpful in making sure more people feel included and like they have a say.

Such a dialogue need not begin with an outright denial of media corporations’ attempts to usurp potentially dangerous levels of influence over the American form of governance but may sound more like a “not so fast.”