In large parts of the world, there is conflict and polarization. In the West, more people seem to experience an existential crisis. Could the common goal of understanding the UFO phenomenon and its existential implications increase trust between countries and a sense of meaning among people?
Our current world order is travelling a precarious path. There are many variables associated with the current tensions and divisions in the world. In this article, however, my claim is that the most relevant variable to address is the lack of trust within and between societies. This general lack of trust has several explanations, but I believe the main underlying reason is that more people experience a low sense of coherence (coined by medical sociologist Aaron Antonovsky). The first half of this article describes Antonovsky’s concept of a sense of coherence (SOC) and the second half outlines how SOC relates to the UFO issue.
Sense of coherence (SOC) comprises three elements: comprehensibility, manageability, and meaningfulness. Antonovsky defined the three elements as:
… a global orientation that expresses the extent to which one has a pervasive, enduring though dynamic feeling of confidence that (1) the stimuli from one’s internal and external environments in the course of living are structured, predictable, and explicable; (2) the resources are available to one to meet the demands posed by these stimuli; and (3) these demands are challenges, worthy of investment and engagement. (Antonovsky A. Unraveling the mystery of health. How people manage stress and stay well. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1987, p. 19)
So, comprehensibility (1) is the cognitive component of SOC. “The person scoring high on the sense of comprehensibility expects that stimuli they encounter in the future will be predictable, ordered, and explicit” (Lindström, B & Eriksson, M, “Salutogenesis.” J Epidemiol Community Health 2005; 59: 440–442). Manageability (2) is the extent to which a person perceives “that resources are at their disposal that are adequate to meet the demands posed by the stimuli that bombard them” (Lindström & Eriksson, 2005). Resources refers to both inner resources (a person’s cognitive skills, personality traits, etc.) and outer resources (family, friends, kind of welfare state, etc.). Manageability is the behavioural component of SOC.
The most important component of SOC is meaningfulness (3), the emotional, motivational element of SOC. Lindström and Eriksson (2005) summarize it very well:
Meaningfulness refers to the extent to which a person feels that life makes sense emotionally, that problems and demands are worth investing energy in, are worthy of commitment and engagement, seen as challenges rather than burdens. This is the motivational component of the SOC.
Professor Aaron Antonovsky (19 December 1923–7 July 1994).
That kind of disorientation and lack of clarity about one’s own values and society's expectations will almost inevitably lead to a “pandemic” of meaninglessness. “What can I, as an individual, do to make society a better place?” has, for many, become a question hard to even consider. “Where should I begin?” there are so many problems in society and crisis in the world!
One problem with the current world order — or the global economy — is its one-sided emphasis on the individual. I believe the era of individualism (at least in its current form) must be replaced, or complemented, by a stronger sense of community. As individuals, we need to feel that we are part of something greater and realise that a narrow focus on self-interest is inadequate to develop resilience against life’s unpredictable changes and turns (that is, to experience high levels of SOC even in the face of adversity).
Every individual has a responsibility to create the life he or she wants to live, but no one can do it all on their own.
Humans can do the impossible when they come together and unite around a common goal (there are both constructive and destructive examples throughout history).
But a stronger sense of community, a higher level of trust and solidarity within and between groups/societies/cultures, will have the consequence of putting the collectives’ rules and values above the individual (in essence, to restrain self-interest). On the other hand, since human is a deeply social animal and to a high degree formed by living in a group (family, organization, society, and so on), there has never existed, and never will exist, an “absolute” individual freedom or an “absolute” autonomy (perhaps psychopaths come closest to unrestrained egoism). This is, of course, the ancient dilemma about the collective versus the individual, the majority versus the minority, that Plato and Aristotle reflected upon and tried to solve. While neither Plato nor Aristotle favoured democracy (as they understood it), I believe there must be a way to balance individual rights and the common good. However, I am afraid we have reached a point on our current path that will demand great sacrifices of individual preferences (not necessarily individual rights) for a better world for everyone. Not the least for future generations.
Now, what has all the above said to do with the UFO issue potentially uniting the world and/or increase the sense of coherence (SOC) among the world’s population?
For the sake of the discussion, let us presume that the world eventually (my guess is within seven years) will have indisputable evidence that some UFOs are not man-made technology. On a group level, can we predict how the world’s population would react to the announcement that not only are we not alone in the universe but also that “they” (for the lack of a more accurate term) are here? Obviously, it is very hard to predict on even a group level. The reactions within and between different societies and cultures would likely range from euphoria to pure terror. Maybe Luis Elizondo, the former manager of the Pentagon’s secret UFO study “Advanced Aerospace Threat Identification Program” (AATIP), is on to something when he thinks the general reaction will be “somber”? In the interview below by Curt Jaimungal, you can listen to Elizondo clarifying what he means by “somber” (go to the 1 h:28 min. mark).
Now, what has all the above said to do with the UFO issue potentially uniting the world and/or increase the sense of coherence (SOC) among the world’s population?
For the sake of the discussion, let us presume that the world eventually (my guess is within seven years) will have indisputable evidence that some UFOs are not man-made technology. On a group level, can we predict how the world’s population would react to the announcement that not only are we not alone in the universe but also that “they” (for the lack of a more accurate term) are here? Obviously, it is very hard to predict on even a group level. The reactions within and between different societies and cultures would likely range from euphoria to pure terror. Maybe Luis Elizondo, the former manager of the Pentagon’s secret UFO study “Advanced Aerospace Threat Identification Program” (AATIP), is on to something when he thinks the general reaction will be “somber”? In the interview below by Curt Jaimungal, you can listen to Elizondo clarifying what he means by “somber” (go to the 1 h:28 min. mark).
Whatever way the people of the world will react to some UFOs representing something “out of this world” (for the lack of a better term), I believe the reaction has the potential to unite people over irrelevant differences in skin colour, sexual orientation, religion, ideology, and so on. But only on the condition that people are mentally and emotionally prepared for the possibility of earth being visited by “them”. Since December 2017, we have been in a preparation phase for the “big news” about the origin and nature of the UFO phenomenon, and it has escalated this year with the U.S. congressional hearing on the UFO issue. The preparation seems, however, not to reach enough of the world’s population for the UFO issue becoming a major topic around the dinner table at home, at work, etc.
My point is that people need to reflect on and discuss the implications of earth being visited by “others”. It would even be helpful to have the conversation on a hypothetical level. To connect my point to SOC, I believe people (perhaps not the ufo-community) need a gradual raising of their level of comprehensibility, manageability and meaningfulness related to the sociological, economic, scientific, political, and existential implications of the UFO phenomenon being real and that “they” are here (the latter to begin with as a theoretical scenario). That is likely the intention behind the current preparation phase, but, again, it does not seem to work.
Why is a gradual reinforcement of SOC important? Because the alternative is an “ontological shock”, as the late Harvard professor of psychiatry, John Mack, once put it. An ontological shock might decrease SOC with the result of, for instance, higher frequency of anxiety and depression, and, perhaps, an increase in societal tension and polarization. Instead, a gradual strengthening of SOC could facilitate reflection and conversation about what really matters in life, how we want to treat each other, what is a good society, and so on. The awareness of the “others” existence might enhance the awareness of our ridicules values (status, wealth, and power), and narcissism (“humans are the center of the universe”). Will the mirror held up to us, instill an acute sense of having to change our values and behaviour?
We might even think about what it means to be human and whether our similarities are greater than our differences?
To summarize, I believe a gradual strengthening of people’s way to think about, cope with, and create meaning of the UFO issue and its existential implications could facilitate new perspectives on what really matters in life. The resulting reflections and conversations about the implications could increase trust and solidarity within and between groups, societies, and cultures. Instead of asking “what can I do to improve my status and increase my wealth”, we should look around us and ask “what can we, as a collective, do to make it easier for everyone to live a meaningful life?” The latter requires a delicate balance between the collective rules and values (restraining self-interest) and individual rights (increase the well-being of individuals).
Hopefully, the reflections and conversations about the UFO issue and its implications could unite humanity over certain common values and manifest them in behaviour. What those common values should be — or if such convergence is even possible or desirable — goes beyond my current understanding of human “nature” and meta-ethical insight (what constitutes moral judgements?, how can we acquire and justify knowledge about moral concepts?, etc.).
How the gradual reinforcement of SOC (or how to improve the current preparation phase) could be implemented is a question for another article.
Take care!
J. T
No comments:
Post a Comment