The predetermination of statuses between people is a very convoluted concept that isn’t necessarily natural in humans. This concept, however, is something that can be very easily ingrained. The organization of the human mind, on a very basic level, is one that depends upon the existence of preconceived governors of relation. When we first learn to say “Mama”, we have to slowly form a governing thought associating “The person feeding me right now” and “Mama”. Otherwise, the word “Mama” would inherently be meaningless. This assignment of meaning is a very useful tool in organizing and comprehending the physical world. As we grow in age and our minds increase in complexity, we often maintain this very primal method of organization.
The fault in this method is that the existence of complex thoughts and other concepts usually doesn’t abide by a simple rule—we are frequently required to make up multiple governing concepts to bind the rules we keep learning into crystallized thoughts that are easily accessible. However, once crystallized, these rules and associations are terribly difficult to alter. This can be seen in that, for instance, memorizing the idea that 3x9=27 is much easier than understanding the concepts governing that occurrence.
This predisposition to learn by simple association is the reason why almost everyone would have to argue at length in face of moral dilemmas. Kohlberg’s scenario of “Heinz Stealing the Drug” brings into conflict two moral crystallizations: 1) that I ought never to steal and 2) that I ought to always help that which I love. The lack of fluidity in ideas results often in inaction, since we are unable to come to terms with ourselves without crystallizing “Why we think this is ok”.
When we apply this concept of the mind being governed by inflexible rules in our view of human history, it is easy to begin to see a pattern. The human takes between one to two years to begin grasping language. The consequent teenager takes between four to nine years into his/her teenage years to begin questioning existence and to experience an identity crisis. The question of existence is frequently brought up with amazing results in history throughout different cultures (Nietzsche, Xenophanes, Mencius, Sartre, Zeno, Zhuangzi, and so on).
The question of status in existence, however, is often brushed to the side and accepted as it is. Some people are simply “made to be subservient”. The Chinese have a saying to Ren Ming—or to simply take life. Ideas that differ from the status quo are usually hard to take in, but in hindsight, we often puzzle over how it wasn’t immediately accepted as it “should have been”. Of course our Solar System is Heliocentric. It is silly to even acknowledge otherwise. Of course slavery is wrong. It is evil to even consider the alternative. But these ideas we deem so obvious are ideas that were radical to people because of the rigidity of ideas and the governing rules that were mentioned previously.
Consider slavery. Slavery is an idea that enters the world with the conception of civilization, dating as far back as 18th century BC, to the Babylonian Empire. The struggle to rid this idea of subservience in America really only took root in the mid-19th century. Though still not completely rid of human trafficking, America has successfully made slavery illegal after some 150 years of debate, a war, and approximately 600,000 lives (I rounded down).
Even older than the notion of subservience is the inequality of gender, which took root in the Neolithic Revolution of 10,000 B.C. as gender roles were first defined: men worked the fields and women kept the house. Since then we have made leaps and bounds in the equalization of gender roles as compared to where we have been. However, the efforts still seems to be insufficient on a global scale. Many women still remain oppressed under the patriarchal paradigm. Could it be that this idea is so deeply ingrained within our cultures that it simply cannot be rid within this lifetime?
In tackling these issues, we tend to condescend those who wish to influence change as naïve and overtly idealistic. At least, those who wished to change the status quo about slavery were looked down upon by their contemporaries as radical and somewhat off their rockers. I suppose feminists of this day and age are also not taken seriously many times simply because of the magnitude of the problem that they are trying to fix. “Rome was not built in a day,” we’d say, and move on.
We tend to forget that Roman Legionnaires can build a fortified town in 5-6 hours. Maybe Rome was not built in a day, but that is not their excuse to let it go to ruins, it is simply a monument to their persistence in building Rome. We now look up to the people who moved this country closer towards racial equality because of their dedication.
Time is the greatest bringer of change, and without sufficient time, little can be done. Or so we would claim to support our procrastination in doing everything. Saying that there isn’t enough time to do something is the lamest excuse to not do something. “Oh, there’s so little time to do my homework! Guess I’ll just have to watch TV!” or “Darn I’ll never make a difference in the little time I have! Guess I’ll just have to be a total loser!” And even worse, “Oh I have so much time, I guess I can screw around doing nothing until I have ‘too little time’, at which point I will continue screwing around!”
Efficacy is a matter of dedication and aptitude at the task on hand; “time requirement” is the great crutch upon which dreams are lost and ideals fade into nothingness. Taking action now in spite of the supposed impossibility of what you are to accomplish is, to say the least, admirable. The human mind is a mind of habit, and there seems to be little we can do to change it, at least within our lifetimes. That is little excuse to give up the attempt, and in the limitations of time, try all the more harder to change whatever you can.
