Explorations & Reflections

A piece I wrote earlier this year on the beginning of my journey into Systems Practice - unfortunately, I was unable to continue with the project to its end, but nevertheless, I did learn a great deal and hope you do too if you choose to read this.

An essay from college - November 2012, Class: Psychoanalysis & Anthropology

I can’t find the finished essay, but hopefully this provides enough food for thought.

        “In analyzing human beings, whether analyzing individual behavior, culture, or any other aspect, there are two domains of operation to take into consideration. There is an inner world; that of one’s thoughts, feelings, urges, etc. And there is an outer world in which one moves, receives information[1], satisfies biological needs, and actively fills one’s role as a social animal on this planet. These two worlds, as far as I know, are not without the other in the process of human development. The inside affects the outside, and vice versa creating a complex individualized experience unlike any other that ever was or ever will be. Despite the inevitable gap between the life experiences of people, humans maintain relationships and have created systems of communication, which relate one to others through rules and regulations, common affinities[2], and means for survival[3]. As the human population has increased and dispersed into different regions all over the world, we have seen the development of cultures[4]. Among (and even within) different cultures we find variation in human behavior. This spectra of behavior we observe around the world, I believe, is a marvelous insight to the way a human being works, be it biologically or psychologically, individually or within a group. So, how can we use this knowledge to create a more holistic practice in studying human beings and their culture?

In Gananath Obeyesekere’s ethnography, Medusa’s Hair, he explores the communication of an individual’s inner states to the public through personal symbols, and the consequences of doing so within the Sri Lankan culture. Though Obeyesekere uses the extreme cases of ecstatic priests to illustrate his point I believe that his combination of anthropological and psychoanalytic practices are significant for analyzing humans and cultures. In this paper I wish to identify some key ideas in Obeyesekere’s book and then expand on their implications for studying cultures with the support of literature from Nancy Chodorow and Douglas Hollan. I also want to reanalyze some case materials, which Obeyesekere presents in his book, to add substance to my argument.

Here I would like to introduce some ideas of Obeyesekere’s that are relevant to my discussion of studying individuals and culture. The two main ideas, which Obeyesekere identifies as the communicatory mechanisms used between the inner world to the outer world, are objectification and subjectification. He illustrates the difference between the two mechanisms beautifully in the latter part of his book. According to Obeyesekere, objectification is “the process by which personal meanings and deep motivations are canalized into public culture” (Obeyesekere, 136). Where as subjectification is the process by which “cultural ideas are used to produce, and thereafter justify, innovative acts, meanings, or images that help express the personal needs and fantasies of individuals” (137). Therefore, objectification expresses, or projects, internal states in a culturally recognizable way, and subjectification expresses internal states in an innovative more personal way, that is still familiar to the culture because it uses parts of the existing cultural idiom to construct the outcome. Sometimes, and individual will subjectify an internal state in a way that resonates with a larger group within the culture, which alters the behavior, transforming the idiosyncratic subjectification into an object of the culture, or, an objectification.  Both objectification, and subjectification are expressed through symbols such as, but not limited to, hairstyle, clothing, and activities. One more term I want to include is personal symbol, which is a symbol “related to the life of the individual and the larger institutional context in which they are imbedded” (Obeyesekere, 13) and “act as the vehicles for intrapsychic processes” into the public (Obeyesekere, 136). Therefore personal symbols, according to Obeyesekere act on the level of the culture and the individual simultaneously. An example of such a symbol is the matted locks of the ecstatic priests, which Obeyesekere focuses on for the first half of his book, and leads to the next part of my discussion.

Obeyesekere presents case studies on the lives of ecstatic priests, most of whom have matted locks. These matted locks he believes act as an objectified personal symbol in that the process to acquiring the locks is a very deep, personal experience having much to do with the life trajectory of the individual, and yet the locks are also recognized by the culture as priestly objects communicating some sort of religious privilege to the community.  

So, how do we account for the integration of individuals into a preexisting larger group or culture despite individuation processes and constant change[5]? How do people communicate their individual experience in a way that resonates with others? And knowing the complexities of human behavior, what obligations do we have in studying individuals and their cultures?

 [1] Sensory information, and worldly information.

[2] Religious ideals, nationalistic ideals, or moralistic ideals. This can also include hobbies, activities, etc.

[3] It is far more likely for one to survive when in cooperation with others. Also cooperation between individuals is necessary for reproduction.

[4] Although this process is much more complex, this is sufficient enough for the point I am trying to make.

I, along with a few dear friends & collaborators, am starting a course in Systems Practice: An Approach to Move From Impossible to Impact.

This is an exciting step in my journey to becoming a Systems Strategist + Practitioner. I am at present in active transformation; immersing myself in various learning experiences such as, but not limited to: 

MIT uLab’s edX course Awareness-Based Systems Change with u.lab - How to Sense and Actualize the Future

Upgrade Democracy Unconference

Reading Cesar Hidalgo’s ‘Why Information Grows’, and Benjamin Bratton’s ‘The Stack: On Software and Sovereignty’

(Photo from MIT’s u.lab course mentioned above)

Two immediate realizations in my early learnings: 

“The success of an intervention depends on the interior condition of the intervener.” - Bill O’Brien

1. In order to effectively work on the deep systemic challenges that call me, I must work on myself as well. Systems work is holistic & integrative, it is important to remember that I, you, we, are nodes in the systems we seek to improve.

“There is a pleasure in the pathless woods” - Lord Byron

2. There are no answers to our future, and to navigate complex terrains of ambiguity is something to become accustomed to (for now). The ability to set intention and release the outcome is a powerful practice for growth.  

Closing

I am grateful to be on this path that feels so deeply connected to my purpose here, & akin to what six-year-old me wondered about most. I look forward to asking many questions and both being & thinking in new ways. I have already experienced multiple events of Synchronicity, and am open & ready to embrace what comes next.

These are my brief thoughts & reflections for now, there will be more to come as I continue on this journey.