Yes psychology is involved, but your reference to a response being ‘unlocked’ is a good observation which should be a catalyst to look more broadly than psychology. To understand the Trump, Brexit, etc phenomina requires a sociological look. Individuals need to be understood in a sociological sense as well as a psychological sense. This type of effect should be expected to be more prominant in times of fundamental change and fast change which we are in today.
I recently saw an academic role I’ve never heard of which may be useful for looking at this sociological, or cultural, angle: sociocutural anthropologist
What do you think?
Another element of this picture is the national (global) neo-liberal takeover of politics. The philosophy of this was (is) that the money will be spent (given) on projects which filter profits up to the elite. Read the rest of this entry »
What discussion has been had elsewhere about the future of sea water incursion along Shelly Bay? Read the rest of this entry »
It could be noted that PM English claims he has reason to say the book’s claims have been discredited but I’ve not heard him say anything to discredit the testimony of the villagers. The story told by the villagers is the core of the discussion. There needs to be continuing telling of the villagers’ story. And why has there not been further verification by other investigative journalists? PM English cannot claim the book’s accusations have been discredited and he probably doesn’t expect anyone to believe that he does. What next?
Where we need to step up here is to recognize that it is not only psychology (of the individual) at play, but also the sociology of existing within a culture. Today that is probably more noticeable than usual as we are experiencing fundamental change and fast change to our way of life to an unprecedented degree. Those kind of things are experienced more at the culture level than the individual. People, rich and poor, are terrified of the changes mooted by climate change; changes that will effect everyone. This does not reflect a change “in the way we think.”
Why do we have two plans now, NatSuper and KiwiSaver? National Super comes out of the general budget, relying on a successful national tax take, and thus establishes itself as an entitlement for all New Zealanders. KiwiSaver is a threat to that concept in that it is funded by variable earnings from investments. The fundamental reality of that is to establish a culture of winners and losers.
Since the winners/losers mentality is so fashionable today, in contrast to the need to think cooperatively in a full planet, we can expect it to be pushed with ideological zeal forcing Nat Super to the edge.